 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> So don't call it marriage. Call it a Civil union, even, and let
>> organized religion deal with marriage however they wish.
>>
> Doesn't work. The fracking nuts "still" insist that its marriage, and
> that some special "rights" are being taken from them,
Yeah, there's not much you can do about the nutjobs except wait for them
to die off :(
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Marriage has nothing to do with that. Virtually all joint bank
>> accounts are held with "right of survivorship," meaning when one owner
>> dies the remaining funds are the property of the surviving owners.
>
> Unless, you know, it was only opened by one person. Then where does it go?
In Community Property states, it goes to the spouse.
I strongly disagree with CP, however, and in fact live in a state that
doesn't recognize it.
>> In accounts held without right of survivorship, the deceased's share
>> passes to their estate,
>
> And who gets the estate if there isn't a will?
I'd have to consult an estate lawyer on that one.
>> If you'd like my honest opinion, I would say the stepmother.
>
> Why? If the government has no recognition of marriage, why would the
> government let the stepmother have custody of the child?
Not for the filial relationship, but because of the living arrangements
prior to the death of the father. The stepmother lived with the child
as a caregiver, so she should be allowed to continue that role.
>> If the husband left no will, then that's an oversight on his part.
>> It's not the Government's place to protect us from our own stupidity.
>
> That doesn't answer the question. You're trying to deny that the
> question won't come up.
No, the question already comes up. I'm trying to say that either
"solution" won't really solve anything.
>> As I've said, however, designating a default heir should be a simple,
>> easy matter, which would cover anything not specified in a will.
>
> We have that. We call it "marriage". See? :-)
So if I want my brother's son to be my heir, I have to marry him? :o
> That's not a default. A default means "what if I don't do that?"
If someone is thoughtless enough to not do anything at all, then let it
all go to the State. It can even go into a welfare fund or something.
> If you're religiously married, and your spouse doesn't have a will, and
> you die, do you get any of his money, or does it all go to the children
> immediately?
If you die, I don't think you should get ANY of the money ;)
>> The fact that "marriage" is a loaded word, with a lot of history,
>> assumptions and ideas that go with it. Assumptions and ideas that
>> make people get itchy for a fight, like is happening now with laws &
>> amendments covering gay marriage.
>
> That fight has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with
> gay. You're falling for the propaganda.
Sorry, maybe I should specify: it's the religious nuts who get itchy for
a fight. They're already offended that other people can have different
opinions, and just looking for an excuse.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, and what's more, it is ostensibly the Government's place to protect
> us from the stupidity of others, no? So in this instance, the government
> would be protecting the rightful heirs from the stupidity of the
> deceased. They're certainly not protecting the deceased from his/her own
> stupidity: The deceased is, by definition, no longer a party to the
> affairs in question.
How do you know its stupidity? Maybe he didn't leave a will because he
didn't want his family getting any of his money.
Of course, that brings up the question of whether or not you should be
able to decide what happens to your property after you die.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> We are, by electing people who are capable rather than just those who
> "wow" us.
The thing about Democracy is, it ensures that a people is governed no
better than they deserve.
(Mark Twain? Oscar Wilde? I don't remember)
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Marriage has nothing to do with that. Virtually all joint bank
>>> accounts are held with "right of survivorship," meaning when one
>>> owner dies the remaining funds are the property of the surviving owners.
>>
>> Unless, you know, it was only opened by one person. Then where does it
>> go?
>
> In Community Property states, it goes to the spouse.
Right. That's my point. If the government completely stops recognizing
marriage, who is the spouse, and how does he or she get the money from the bank?
>>> In accounts held without right of survivorship, the deceased's share
>>> passes to their estate,
>>
>> And who gets the estate if there isn't a will?
>
> I'd have to consult an estate lawyer on that one.
These weren't intended to be "who gets it now" questions. These were
intended to be "who gets it if the government completely fails to
acknowledge marriage in any legal capacity?"
>>> As I've said, however, designating a default heir should be a simple,
>>> easy matter, which would cover anything not specified in a will.
>>
>> We have that. We call it "marriage". See? :-)
>
> So if I want my brother's son to be my heir, I have to marry him? :o
No, you simply have to write a will.
>> That's not a default. A default means "what if I don't do that?"
>
> If someone is thoughtless enough to not do anything at all, then let it
> all go to the State. It can even go into a welfare fund or something.
Sure. And kick the spouse out onto the street. Very compassionate. Maybe she
can get some of that welfare fund when you sell of the deceased's house and
don't give any to the spouse.
> Sorry, maybe I should specify: it's the religious nuts who get itchy for
> a fight. They're already offended that other people can have different
> opinions, and just looking for an excuse.
Right. Which is why it's not a question of marriage at all.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> That complaint started it... the response of the Lord was basically,
> "Since you asked, you're getting the whole deal..."
Ooooookaaaaaaay!
> A prohibition on tobacco like that was pretty much unprecedented,
> however, and it surprised the majority of people.
>
>>>> To masturbate? To be homosexual?
>>> Yes, those behaviors are prohibited.
>>
>> Well, since that's the specific bit we're talking about, and it sounds
>> like the church is giving specific instructions about what to do about
>> that, I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me.
>
> Well, you happened to touch on one of the few subject where the Church
> gets really specific.
Well, except that the Mormons came into the conversation here because of
Prop 8 in CA.
> You seemed to be taking my statement about
> generality and saying, "That can't be right because of this instance!"
> when that instance is one of the few exceptions.
I didn't say "that can't be right." I just pointed out the most blatent
counter-example. If that's really a rarity, and I have no reason to doubt
your word on that, then I've learned something. :-)
> Not particularly. My own understanding of the issues led me to believe
> that I should vote for bills like that. While I couldn't (as a member
> of the Church) approve of homosexual behavior, I also couldn't approve
> of discrimination against homosexuals.
I'll assume you meant "vote against" if we're talking about the CA
initiatives, since gays already had the right to marry until the religious
fanatics decided to enforce their questionable morality on those not of
their faith. But I applaud your free thinking. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yeah, yeah, yeah.. At this point its frakking habit, and... those are
> hard to break.
Agreed. I'm just trying to help. If you actually know the difference and
apply it where it counts (like, say, writing documents at work to be
distributed to customers or bosses or something), that's cool. It just
wasn't clear to me you understood the difference.
> Same, to some extent, with the long sentences.
I do the same thing, altho not to such an extent. I often have to go back,
find the breaks between sentences, and stick in full stops and capitals. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:39:09 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, and what's more, it is ostensibly the Government's place to
>> protect us from the stupidity of others, no? So in this instance, the
>> government would be protecting the rightful heirs from the stupidity of
>> the deceased. They're certainly not protecting the deceased from
>> his/her own stupidity: The deceased is, by definition, no longer a
>> party to the affairs in question.
>
> How do you know its stupidity? Maybe he didn't leave a will because he
> didn't want his family getting any of his money.
Then that is something that should be stated as an *explicit* wish so
there's no doubt about it.
> Of course, that brings up the question of whether or not you should be
> able to decide what happens to your property after you die.
True enough.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:40:06 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> We are, by electing people who are capable rather than just those who
>> "wow" us.
>
> The thing about Democracy is, it ensures that a people is governed no
> better than they deserve.
>
> (Mark Twain? Oscar Wilde? I don't remember)
Yeah, I like that quote, and also don't recall who it was....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:23:40 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The church is pretty active in local politics and lawmaking. I've been
>> here in Utah for about 15 years now and the influence is very apparent.
>> Maybe it's not so obvious from the inside looking out, but from the
>> outside looking in, it's really obvious.
>
> Well, I never lived in Utah, so it could be that the areas I've lived in
> were ones where the LDS Church simply didn't have enough influence to do
> things like that.
>
> From what I've seen of members who come from Utah, I don't think I
> would like living there, anyway.
It is kinda unusual here, yeah, there's little doubt about that. I've
lived in Minnesota and Florida as well, and the influence of the dominant
religion is very very apparent.
>> Let's ask the women in the church who are in leadership roles what they
>> think, shall we?
>>
>> Oh, wait, there aren't any. It's asserted that leadership in the
>> church is for males only.
>
> Well, you can't blame them for being consistent. Extension of the
> Priesthood to women would require divine revelation. If and when it
> comes, then it will be accepted. Until God says so, however, the LDS
> Church is going to keep doing things the same way, unapologetically.
See, and I just find it far, far too convenient that the revelations on
blacks in the priesthood came right at the end of the civil rights
movement. That doesn't sound like divine revelation to me, that sounds
like "we'd better do this or we'll fall afoul of the new laws".
> The persecutions that members suffered during the early 19th century
> have created an inherited culture of martyrdom, you might say. Members
> are constantly regaled with stories of individuals who stood by their
> beliefs, despite threats (or acts of) extreme violence.
That's true of most religions - ones that are perceived well and ones
that aren't.
> Can you blame them, after all that, for sticking with what they believe,
> whether or not it's popular?
Depends on the belief. I can't respect those who continue to stand by
this idea of intelligent design as a scientific approach to explaining
the world given the massive amount of evidence that it's simply not the
case - any more than I can respect those who still believe the world is
flat and the moon landings were faked.
>>>> It's also highly ironic that the Church's historic "marriage" is
>>>> polygamistic (still practiced by some sects,
>>> Still practiced by excommunicated members. There are no "sects" of
>>> the LDS Church practicing polygamy... whenever anyone is discovered
>>> practicing it, they are excommunicated immediately.
>>
>> I stand corrected, but that also ignores the history of the Church and
>> what was "traditional" from the church's point of view. How many wives
>> did Joseph Smith have again?
>
> The stance on polygamy is quite clear. It was practiced because God
> allowed it to be. It was halted because God commanded it to be. There's
> nothing else to it.
Well, there again, it's awfully convenient that God decided it was no
longer allowed to be practiced when the laws of man made it illegal in
the state of Utah. That also doesn't sound like divine revelation, but
more of an "oh crap, we're going to run afoul of the laws of the land
unless we change".
But also this whole notion of "traditional marriage" being defended - I
guess that depends on whose tradition you're following as well, given
that it was the tradition of the early LDS church (and other groups like
the FLDS even today) that it is/was polygamistic in nature. So while
some groups are screaming that "traditional marriage must be defended at
all costs", they're talking about their traditions which may go back
hundreds or thousands of years, but for those in the LDS Church, it's
more like a hundred years or so (the practice ended in the late 19th
century, right?)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
