tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30043595.post3433937116388921441..comments2023-10-15T05:32:17.988-05:00Comments on The Deacon's Slant: Marriage - what is it?plsdeaconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18039800243898137584noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30043595.post-33627804265795441502009-05-25T18:36:09.230-05:002009-05-25T18:36:09.230-05:00I think it would be up to each employer to determi...I think it would be up to each employer to determine who is or is not covered by health insurance. The employer could determine (under my scheme) to cover only married persons or only one spouse. Likewise, the employer may say that they will cover multiple partners, but only subsidize that coverage in a very minor way.<br /><br />Of course, I tend to be somewhat of a libertarian when it comes to government mandating what empoloyers can or cannot offer their empolyees.<br /><br />YBIC,<br />Phil Snyderplsdeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18039800243898137584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30043595.post-76123471234396971602009-05-25T18:29:37.052-05:002009-05-25T18:29:37.052-05:00Phil,
Let's say for the sake of argument that "civ...Phil,<br />Let's say for the sake of argument that "civil partnerships" qualify the participants for employer health insurance. Would you as an employer want to hire a man with 20 wives and have all of them on your health policy? What about the kids too?Dale Matsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12975212053636312471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30043595.post-8351557788605475032009-05-20T08:57:25.047-05:002009-05-20T08:57:25.047-05:00Your comment is so full of non-sequitors that I do...Your comment is so full of non-sequitors that I don't know where to begin.<br /><br />But since the original post is about civil marriage, let's start with that. It seems odd to me that only now, after over 200 years of living under the same constitution, we are only now seeing that "Obviously, gay civil marriage is essential under the terms of all of America's founding documents." Let's look at your words. <br />"Obviously" - this is a word used to shut down conversation and dialog. It indicates that if you disagree, you must be lacking in mental abilities.<br />"Essential" - this means that we cannot exist without gay marriage. History has proven you false since Western Civilization has existed for some 2500 years without gay marriage<br /><br />Next, Please be respectful in your tone to anyone on this blog. "The idea that you or your <B>ilk</B> can pronounce on public policy is so silly I won't engage it." This is a very disrespectful tone as it tells me you consider me to be less than human and not an citizen of the United States. Any citizen in the US is allowed to pronounce on public policy. I guess that only allowing those that agree with your position to pronounce on public policy is also "essential under the terms of all of America's founding documents."<br /><br />If you cannot discuss ideas and give evidence, then I will have to put comments into moderation and remove yours.<br /><br />Phil Snyderplsdeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18039800243898137584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30043595.post-14748299952465444332009-05-20T07:56:51.004-05:002009-05-20T07:56:51.004-05:00Deacon,
If the new Prayer Book can italicize the ...Deacon,<br /><br />If the new Prayer Book can italicize the pronouns in the ordination rites, it can and must, a fortiori, italicize the pronouns in the wedding rites.<br /><br />The New Testment is explicitly adamant on the point of male-only ordination. The Episcopal Church has "discerned a more inclusive way" and sets aside the plain prohibition in favor of "justice."<br /><br />By the identical process, males must be allowed to marry males sacramentally. Inclusive ways for the goose are inclusive ways for the gander.<br /><br />The idea that you or your ilk can pronounce on public policy is so silly I won't engage it. Obviously, gay civil marriage is essential under the terms of all of America's founding documents.<br /><br />According to the Book of Common Prayer, it is also essential in theological terms.<br /><br />Gosh, this isn't even algebra, it's just simple addition of one-digit numbers.Man's Mannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30043595.post-2367772901779633592009-05-19T21:59:32.585-05:002009-05-19T21:59:32.585-05:00Hi Jim,
I take your point about correlation and c...Hi Jim,<br /><br />I take your point about correlation and causation between the wealth, happiness, and health of married people and the privileges that married people enjoy in the USA. But it makes sense to believe that marriage is the cause of the personal benefits, not the legal status of marriage. <br /><br />I've been married to my wife for almost 22 years. I can't imagine life without her. She cares for me and I care for her and I always know that there is someone else looking out for me and my best interests and so does my wife. That bond has allowed us to pool resources and not hold back on commitments out of fear of the other person leaving. This safety and attitude help each other become wealthier and healthier and happier. I can say that I am as happy or happier now than I have ever been in my life and I am much happier than I was when I was single.<br /><br />YBIC,<br />Phil Snyderplsdeaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18039800243898137584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30043595.post-80107710865483255802009-05-19T21:18:40.386-05:002009-05-19T21:18:40.386-05:00Hi Phil,
Surprise, I agree with much of your post...Hi Phil,<br /><br />Surprise, I agree with much of your post. I am not sure marriage is under attack as much as it is dying of indifference. <br /> <br />I am not sure I agree with the premise you advance that married people are better off and that therefore society has a basis to privilege marriage. It might equally be that a tradition of privilege has led to the benefits you observe. <br /><br />Given the rise of Islam in America, I think we do need to consider new ways for our law to address multi-party marriages. Either that or we have to take the ABC's view that we will inevitably internalize some aspects of Sharia.<br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.com