I would expect there'd be civil paperwork for all couples as long as the government continues to determine benefits and taxes that way. Now I would be HAPPIEST if the government butted out of even that, and went with a kind of taxation and benefits structure that didn't even require them to do that, and then they would have no involvement in people's private relationships whatsoever. But barring that, I would say let religious institutions define marriage, and have the civil paperwork that all couples of all orientations file, be completely secular and non-religious.
but then that is you wanting to place your ideology and your stamp on how other people choose to express their relationship.. marriage is in itself just an officialism of a union between 2 people, in fact marrying is also a term used in engineering. the church has no wholesale right to marriage it is a noun not a product, people have been getting married since before the institution of christianity was formed. the church doesn't own marriage, it just performs them.
but then that is you wanting to place your ideology and your stamp on how other people choose to express their relationship.. marriage is in itself just an officialism of a union between 2 people, in fact marrying is also a term used in engineering. the church has no wholesale right to marriage it is a noun not a product, people having been getting married since before the institution of christianity was formed. the church doesn't own marriage, it just performs them.
While it is my opinion that marriage is inherently religious, and has been defined by many different religions, my solution where the government had zero say in it would certainly not bar a secular humanist organization (for instance) from doing something they referred to as marriage. If they called it marriage, some religious people such as myself might disagree, but without the government having any more involvement or stake in it, it would simply be a First Amendment-protected debate between private citizens.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
While it is my opinion that marriage is inherently religious, and has been defined by many different religions, my solution where the government had zero say in it would certainly not bar a secular humanist organization (for instance) from doing something. If they called it marriage, some religious people such as myself might disagree, but without the government having any more involvement or stake in it, it would simply be a First Amendment-protected debate between private citizens.
the process of ceremony and religious/spiritual requirement and commitment pertaining to marriage may have been defined by many religions, but marriage by definition is simply a formally recognized relationship between 2 parties. a civil license is still required for a marriage to be recognized by the state, in fact, all the rights that you gain as a married couple are given by the state not by the church, so why should the church have control over that?
I am going to be very clear on this: I have NO respect for it when anybody decides to mistreat someone based on their sexual orientation. OR their religion.
(...)
If anyone ever makes it a hate crime for me to say that my church has a right to decide who it will and will not permit to be married in the church--as in, attempt to say that it must conduct religious ceremonies against their will--then I will protest that vigorously. Similarly to anyone who attempts to label me a bigot or a hater for saying that. I will not permit that to stand.
You have 'NO respect for it when anybody decides to mistreat someone based on their sexual orientation.' Yet you reserve the right for your church to decide not to marry TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE people, right?! I submit to you, that many a TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE person would consider said exclusion PRECISELY 'being mistreated based on on their sexual orientation.'
a civil license is still required for a marriage to be recognized by the state, in fact, all the rights that you gain as a married couple are given by the state not by the church, so why should the church have control over that?
Preferred but unlikely solution: Taxation and benefits would be made so simple (abolishing the IRS would be nice) that there would no longer be any need for a civil license. The most you might need would be a notarized statement that you designate X person to be your beneficiary should you die. No more messing with any licensure and private citizens would be free to believe whatever their religion or non-religion tells them about marriage, without the government intruding in any manner.
Less preferred but more likely solution: The civil license in effect becomes a civil union. For *all* couples, opposite sex, or same sex--the term 'marriage' goes away in government documents. No religious terminology used by the government when you apply for your rights as a couple. Whether the civil union is a marriage or not, becomes a matter of personal beliefs and/or religious convictions, and what ceremonies a church will or will not conduct, is their business.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
You have 'NO respect for it when anybody decides to mistreat someone based on their sexual orientation.' Yet you reserve the right for your church to decide not to marry TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE people, right?! I submit to you, that many a TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE person would consider said exclusion PRECISELY 'being mistreated based on on their sexual orientation.'
the process of ceremony and religious/spiritual requirement and commitment pertaining to marriage may have been defined by many religions, but marriage by definition is simply a formally recognized relationship between 2 parties. a civil license is still required for a marriage to be recognized by the state, in fact, all the rights that you gain as a married couple are given by the state not by the church, so why should the church have control over that?
For that matter, why should it only be 2 parties? Religious beliefs aside, why shouldn't 3 or 4 or 5 willing parties be able to get married? And what if all of the willing parties are TRIBBLE people? Where are their rights?
I'm not personally advocating polygamy, I'm just curious to know your thoughts.
Though it was nice to see the story writers of STO embracing diversity with the various species of the Star Trek universe, I found the two Klingon lesbians in House Pegh to be stretch of Klingon culture. As far as I can recall, female Klingons have never been portrayed to encompass a TRIBBLE lifestyle even though we do see the two Duras sisters with each other throughout the TNG era. That's not to say that it shouldn't be there, but some back story regarding these two would have been nice. Also, placing the concept of TRIBBLE Klingons in a story about Kahless' secret organization and the mission to infiltrate the Iconian base felt a bit out of place. If anything, these two female Klingons should have had a bigger role to give more relevance to their "love" story.
As for the characters, I feel that there really wasn't a need to make one a "butch" TRIBBLE and the other a "lipstick" TRIBBLE. As far as female warriors go (as seen in the TNG episode where Commander Riker stays on Klingon ship), they tend to be Klingon--neither "butch" nor "lipstick". I feel that the "butch" character should have had more dialog and less grunts.
It would be nice if the writers would revisit these two characters so that we can get to know them and the reason for choosing each other as mates, if for no other reason than to see how Klingon culture deals with those individuals who embrace same-sex orientation.
In the future, I would like to see sexual orientations match closer to those species that are more likely to express them such as Humans, Trills, Betazoids, etc.. Also, I would hope that the writers would avoid stereotypical characteristics of people with diverse sexual orientations and bring out characters that players can relate to not just because of sexual orientation but because they are developed characters that bring the story to life.
Though House Pegh was a better way of incorporating characters with same-sex orientation than Jensen lusting have the male dancer in The Undying mission on Nimbus III, future episodes need to have that Star Trek feel to them as not to trivialize the diversity of sexual orientation.
TRIBBLE chiming in here...
I thought they were both butch I was on mumble with a friend and I was like "apparently all klingon lesbians are butch" and he's like "well.. they.." and I was like "you're right, all klingons are butch LOL"
What's funny about it, why I laugh, is that I just don't prescribe to labels. Labels are stupid when it comes to humans. We're all different, we all exist on a spectrum in one way or another, it's all relative. you would consider me a lipstick TRIBBLE, and I would say "no I'm just a girl who likes kissing girls".
Stop being a SJW and just be happy for the diversity. There's lesbians in the game. That's cool, why worry about labels?
♪ I'm going around not in circles but in spirographs.
It's pretty much this hard to keep just one timeline intact. ♪
but then that is you wanting to place your ideology and your stamp on how other people choose to express their relationship.. marriage is in itself just an officialism of a union between 2 people, in fact marrying is also a term used in engineering. the church has no wholesale right to marriage, people having been getting married since before the institution that is christianity was formed. the church doesn't own marriage, it just performs them.
I think we can all agree that the term marriage in engineering isn't what is being discussed. Marriage has been a religious matter in Western Civilization, which most people that play this games homelands have been the driving influence for their societies for over 6,000 years. Christianity was not the original religion, nor was it the original religion to do marriages. Greeks and Romans married at the gods of love and fertility, not the state, before Christianity was even a concept. It's been a key "sacrament" (for lack of a better term to define for non-Christian faiths) that were religion-centric since time was recorded.
In modern times, governments have become involved in marriage/unions because of taxation and legal ownership issues. What is the biggest benefit of marriage in the U.S.? Tax breaks and protection of property (mostly from the government) as well as legal say about the quality of life choices of their spouse when they can't communicate. Personally (even as a married person), I think it is outrageous and discriminatory that a married/united couple get a tax break over individuals. I also think the government shouldn't be able to tax people for "hazzing my stuffs" after I pass-on, I already payed taxes for that stuff. As far as my spouse being able to communicate for me when I am unable to? I should be able to go to any lawyer or notary and get a Designation Of Authority or similar document to cover that. So why should the government be involved in my relationship?
What's funny is that I just don't prescribe to labels. Labels are stupid when it comes to humans. We're all different, we all exist on a spectrum in one way or another. you would consider me a lipstick TRIBBLE, and I would say "no I'm just a girl who likes kissing girls".
Stop being a SJW and just be happy for the diversity. There's lesbians in the game. That's cool, why worry about labels?
Isn't "TRIBBLE" a label? Because you seem to use that quite a bit :P
You have 'NO respect for it when anybody decides to mistreat someone based on their sexual orientation.' Yet you reserve the right for your church to decide not to marry TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE people, right?! I submit to you, that many a TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE person would consider said exclusion PRECISELY 'being mistreated based on on their sexual orientation.'
Some churches do not have same-sex marriage and have the right to do so. However, others DO permit it, and I respect their right to do so. It's similar to how I feel about ordination of women: it is allowed in my church, but not in some others. I would not force the other churches to change, even though I disagree with their stance. If they do change, it must be of their own conscience, not coercion. Should my church come to feel that it is wrong on same-sex marriage, and change its stance, it must happen similarly, from within, without coercion.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
You have 'NO respect for it when anybody decides to mistreat someone based on their sexual orientation.' Yet you reserve the right for your church to decide not to marry TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE people, right?! I submit to you, that many a TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE person would consider said exclusion PRECISELY 'being mistreated based on on their sexual orientation.'
But aren't there religious affiliations that do marry same sex couples? Why not go to them? If I and others fell mistreated by any organization, I can go find one that will treat me the way I want to be treated. People switch religions everyday for lesser reasons than being not approved for marriage in their churches.
I think we can all agree that the term marriage in engineering isn't what is being discussed. Marriage has been a religious matter in Western Civilization, which most people that play this games homelands have been the driving influence for their societies for over 6,000 years. Christianity was not the original religion, nor was it the original religion to do marriages. Greeks and Romans married at the gods of love and fertility, not the state, before Christianity was even a concept. It's been a key "sacrament" (for lack of a better term to define for non-Christian faiths) that were religion-centric since time was recorded.
In modern times, governments have become involved in marriage/unions because of taxation and legal ownership issues. What is the biggest benefit of marriage in the U.S.? Tax breaks and protection of property (mostly from the government) as well as legal say about the quality of life choices of their spouse when they can't communicate. Personally (even as a married person), I think it is outrageous and discriminatory that a married/united couple get a tax break over individuals. I also think the government shouldn't be able to tax people for "hazzing my stuffs" after I pass-on, I already payed taxes for that stuff. As far as my spouse being able to communicate for me when I am unable to? I should be able to go to any lawyer or notary and get a Designation Of Authority or similar document to cover that. So why should the government be involved in my relationship?
Much better said than I could come up with. The government just needs to get out of the marriage business.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Preferred but unlikely solution: Taxation and benefits would be made so simple (abolishing the IRS would be nice) that there would no longer be any need for a civil license. The most you might need would be a notarized statement that you designate X person to be your beneficiary should you die. No more messing with any licensure and private citizens would be free to believe whatever their religion or non-religion tells them about marriage, without the government intruding in any manner.
Less preferred but more likely solution: The civil license in effect becomes a civil union. For *all* couples, opposite sex, or same sex--the term 'marriage' goes away in government documents. No religious terminology used by the government when you apply for your rights as a couple. Whether the civil union is a marriage or not, becomes a matter of personal beliefs and/or religious convictions, and what ceremonies a church will or will not conduct, is their business.
again, the word marriage is a noun, it isn't a religious term. the formalization of a union resulting in a marriage is not about religion, it is about protecting the rights of the individuals and their children, an agreement on the individual responsibilities within the partnership, and a formal notification to the state of said agreement.
I just read up to page 39, and I have to say that this has been a very interesting discussion.
First, the point of this thread was to discuss whether or not TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE Klingons existed in the Star Trek universe since there had been no prior depiction of them, as far as I knew. Since my belief at the beginning of this thread was that Klingon culture was too feudal and patriarchal, TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE Klingons would not likely exist. This existence is in reference to the overall story of Star Trek. Some posters have mentioned that this might or might not be the case. I would like to believe that the Klingon Empire has evolved to that point, but as with any story, this is all dependent on the writers of the universe (and possibly CBS). That being said, I was not expecting that type of relationship--however briefly dealt with--in House Pegh. For me, it was neither bad nor good, but it felt out place because of my knowledge of Klingons from the TV shows and movies.
As I mentioned in previous posts, I would like to see the game show more diverse characters. I do agree that Star Trek is the platform by which diversity is not only shown, but developed. Characters are complex, as are their creators, and should be given their spotlight when it suits the story. Species, whose attributes, characteristics, and temperaments have been defined by the writers of the story, should be respected, and when changes occur, they should be done to make the story enjoyable and satisfying to the audience without compromising what the audience has become accustomed.
I do thank those who have posted informative and positive comments in the thread. Like others have said, it is interesting to know a person from their own words on a topic that has many ideas intersecting.
My father, who ironically introduced me to Star Trek. Most of my family, and myself when I was younger and still locked into the way of thinking induced in me by my being raised in one of the most conservative branches of Christianity in the world, the Jehovah's Witnesses.
My father still believes in demons, and that the world will be directly destroyed by the armies of God within his own lifetime. He believes that dinosaur bones were planted by Satan to mislead humanity about creation, and the same applies to radiocarbon dating and other geological evidence that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. He believes the Bible to be literal fact, front to back, that Genesis depicts the exact origin of the Earth and humankind and that Revelations predicts the end. Of course, he's Republican or at least he would be if his religion allowed him to vote though the Witnesses take the scriptural instruction "Be no part of the world" as meaning they should not engage in politics. He rejects evolution and most science, and is certain that humankind will be conquered and our self-rule overthrown by the aforementioned armies of God and theocratic rule directly by Heaven's throne will be instituted. Naturally, he believes theocracy is the one true right and correct way, he just doesn't believe it is his place to try to get it implemented because God plans to do that himself and has given instruction to humans not to try to help.
I know conservative thinking and I know conservative religion. I was born into one of the most hardline conservative religions on Earth, so intensely conservative that even Catholics and Evangelicals think they're crazy.
Next question?
And so you really believe that your sample is indicative of all Conservatives? I think if you read some of these forums, you will find plenty of Conservatives that disagree with the mindset that you have presented.
But aren't there religious affiliations that do marry same sex couples? Why not go to them? If I and others fell mistreated by any organization, I can go find one that will treat me the way I want to be treated. People switch religions everyday for lesser reasons than being not approved for marriage in their churches.
Even within one religion, Christianity, there is a pretty large variety of stances:
qziqza: If the government did get out of the marriage business as I think they ought to, anyone who wanted to disagree that marriage is a religious sacrament could do so, but the government would no longer be speaking on the matter. People would still be able to register protection of their relationship in the legal senses you describe (hopefully in a less cumbersome manner, but if there were still a civil union license), but the government would no longer have a say in whether you or I are right about what marriage is. I don't think it's their business to be involved in such a debate between private citizens, personally.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
And now we're discussing religion which never ever ends well, so I'm now going to nip this in the butt and close down this discussion.
And no, that does not mean make a new one that means this horse is dead leave it be. We get people are both happy and not happy with a TRIBBLE relationship being included in the story. Got it. Message received. Moving on now.
Yes, I'm that Askray@Batbayer in game. Yes, I still play. No, I don't care. Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker. Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113
Comments
but then that is you wanting to place your ideology and your stamp on how other people choose to express their relationship.. marriage is in itself just an officialism of a union between 2 people, in fact marrying is also a term used in engineering. the church has no wholesale right to marriage it is a noun not a product, people have been getting married since before the institution of christianity was formed. the church doesn't own marriage, it just performs them.
While it is my opinion that marriage is inherently religious, and has been defined by many different religions, my solution where the government had zero say in it would certainly not bar a secular humanist organization (for instance) from doing something they referred to as marriage. If they called it marriage, some religious people such as myself might disagree, but without the government having any more involvement or stake in it, it would simply be a First Amendment-protected debate between private citizens.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
the process of ceremony and religious/spiritual requirement and commitment pertaining to marriage may have been defined by many religions, but marriage by definition is simply a formally recognized relationship between 2 parties. a civil license is still required for a marriage to be recognized by the state, in fact, all the rights that you gain as a married couple are given by the state not by the church, so why should the church have control over that?
You have 'NO respect for it when anybody decides to mistreat someone based on their sexual orientation.' Yet you reserve the right for your church to decide not to marry TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE people, right?! I submit to you, that many a TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE person would consider said exclusion PRECISELY 'being mistreated based on on their sexual orientation.'
Preferred but unlikely solution: Taxation and benefits would be made so simple (abolishing the IRS would be nice) that there would no longer be any need for a civil license. The most you might need would be a notarized statement that you designate X person to be your beneficiary should you die. No more messing with any licensure and private citizens would be free to believe whatever their religion or non-religion tells them about marriage, without the government intruding in any manner.
Less preferred but more likely solution: The civil license in effect becomes a civil union. For *all* couples, opposite sex, or same sex--the term 'marriage' goes away in government documents. No religious terminology used by the government when you apply for your rights as a couple. Whether the civil union is a marriage or not, becomes a matter of personal beliefs and/or religious convictions, and what ceremonies a church will or will not conduct, is their business.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
i was thinking exactly the same thing meimei
For that matter, why should it only be 2 parties? Religious beliefs aside, why shouldn't 3 or 4 or 5 willing parties be able to get married? And what if all of the willing parties are TRIBBLE people? Where are their rights?
I'm not personally advocating polygamy, I'm just curious to know your thoughts.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
TRIBBLE chiming in here...
I thought they were both butch
What's funny about it, why I laugh, is that I just don't prescribe to labels. Labels are stupid when it comes to humans. We're all different, we all exist on a spectrum in one way or another, it's all relative. you would consider me a lipstick TRIBBLE, and I would say "no I'm just a girl who likes kissing girls".
Stop being a SJW and just be happy for the diversity. There's lesbians in the game. That's cool, why worry about labels?
It's pretty much this hard to keep just one timeline intact. ♪
I think we can all agree that the term marriage in engineering isn't what is being discussed. Marriage has been a religious matter in Western Civilization, which most people that play this games homelands have been the driving influence for their societies for over 6,000 years. Christianity was not the original religion, nor was it the original religion to do marriages. Greeks and Romans married at the gods of love and fertility, not the state, before Christianity was even a concept. It's been a key "sacrament" (for lack of a better term to define for non-Christian faiths) that were religion-centric since time was recorded.
In modern times, governments have become involved in marriage/unions because of taxation and legal ownership issues. What is the biggest benefit of marriage in the U.S.? Tax breaks and protection of property (mostly from the government) as well as legal say about the quality of life choices of their spouse when they can't communicate. Personally (even as a married person), I think it is outrageous and discriminatory that a married/united couple get a tax break over individuals. I also think the government shouldn't be able to tax people for "hazzing my stuffs" after I pass-on, I already payed taxes for that stuff. As far as my spouse being able to communicate for me when I am unable to? I should be able to go to any lawyer or notary and get a Designation Of Authority or similar document to cover that. So why should the government be involved in my relationship?
Isn't "TRIBBLE" a label? Because you seem to use that quite a bit :P
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Some churches do not have same-sex marriage and have the right to do so. However, others DO permit it, and I respect their right to do so. It's similar to how I feel about ordination of women: it is allowed in my church, but not in some others. I would not force the other churches to change, even though I disagree with their stance. If they do change, it must be of their own conscience, not coercion. Should my church come to feel that it is wrong on same-sex marriage, and change its stance, it must happen similarly, from within, without coercion.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
But aren't there religious affiliations that do marry same sex couples? Why not go to them? If I and others fell mistreated by any organization, I can go find one that will treat me the way I want to be treated. People switch religions everyday for lesser reasons than being not approved for marriage in their churches.
Much better said than I could come up with. The government just needs to get out of the marriage business.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
again, the word marriage is a noun, it isn't a religious term. the formalization of a union resulting in a marriage is not about religion, it is about protecting the rights of the individuals and their children, an agreement on the individual responsibilities within the partnership, and a formal notification to the state of said agreement.
I just read up to page 39, and I have to say that this has been a very interesting discussion.
First, the point of this thread was to discuss whether or not TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE Klingons existed in the Star Trek universe since there had been no prior depiction of them, as far as I knew. Since my belief at the beginning of this thread was that Klingon culture was too feudal and patriarchal, TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE Klingons would not likely exist. This existence is in reference to the overall story of Star Trek. Some posters have mentioned that this might or might not be the case. I would like to believe that the Klingon Empire has evolved to that point, but as with any story, this is all dependent on the writers of the universe (and possibly CBS). That being said, I was not expecting that type of relationship--however briefly dealt with--in House Pegh. For me, it was neither bad nor good, but it felt out place because of my knowledge of Klingons from the TV shows and movies.
As I mentioned in previous posts, I would like to see the game show more diverse characters. I do agree that Star Trek is the platform by which diversity is not only shown, but developed. Characters are complex, as are their creators, and should be given their spotlight when it suits the story. Species, whose attributes, characteristics, and temperaments have been defined by the writers of the story, should be respected, and when changes occur, they should be done to make the story enjoyable and satisfying to the audience without compromising what the audience has become accustomed.
I do thank those who have posted informative and positive comments in the thread. Like others have said, it is interesting to know a person from their own words on a topic that has many ideas intersecting.
And so you really believe that your sample is indicative of all Conservatives? I think if you read some of these forums, you will find plenty of Conservatives that disagree with the mindset that you have presented.
Even within one religion, Christianity, there is a pretty large variety of stances:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches
qziqza: If the government did get out of the marriage business as I think they ought to, anyone who wanted to disagree that marriage is a religious sacrament could do so, but the government would no longer be speaking on the matter. People would still be able to register protection of their relationship in the legal senses you describe (hopefully in a less cumbersome manner, but if there were still a civil union license), but the government would no longer have a say in whether you or I are right about what marriage is. I don't think it's their business to be involved in such a debate between private citizens, personally.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
And no, that does not mean make a new one that means this horse is dead leave it be. We get people are both happy and not happy with a TRIBBLE relationship being included in the story. Got it. Message received. Moving on now.
Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker.
Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113