Give Marriage Back To Religion

[Storm]

You're trying to seperate religious people from marriage. Everyone deserves the right to be married. As I said earlier I have two aunt/uncle couples who were married before they were religious. I believe one of my fathers brother's and his wife was even married at the court house. So now that they are religious do they have to get re-married to please the church?

No. They'd have to get their contract like everyone else. Whether or not they want or their church requires a new religious ceremony is unrelated to the contract.

You're still saying religion has control over marriage. They don't. The state does. Again what the rev/preacher says at the end: "By the power vested in me by the state of (insert state)..."

No, I'm saying they SHOULD. I'm also saying that the state should be uninvolved.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Obviously, it is. The state has no business granting authority to clergy.


Of course not.

Under my proposal, people could have or forego any ritual they wanted. You want rights, you go down to the couty clerks office and get your DoH. You want ceremony, you make whatever arrangements you want. The two are completely unrelated.


1) You haven't been following the current gay threads, have you?

2) Under my system, they'd get them. ANY consenting adults includes queers.

But one minute you claim they can have any ritual they wanted but than you say religion shouldn't be involved. Doesn't that contradict itself? What if they were very strong Catholics or something and wanted to hold a traditional Catholic wedding?

1) Look at when I joined.

2) Why call them such a degrading name?

 

[NoahideHiker]

My solution to the same sex marriage debate: eliminate government sanction of marriage altogether. There's something deeply troubling to me about our secular government attaching rights to rites.

I propose that we replace legal marriage with a neutral contract. Let's call it a Declaration of Household. Any consenting adults, regardless of gender or familial relation, can enter into a DoH as co-heads of household, the only requirement is that they live together. They file taxes jointly, have presumed power of attorney, survivor's benefits, protection for dependents, everything right and responsibility that goes with the recognition of married couples as a single household.

Marriage is given back to religion. Churches can marry or refuse to marry whomever they please.

Thoughts?

And what about room mates who decide to get hitched to take advantage of shared benefits? How do you "prove" you live together?, allow the government into your house? These are my only concerns.

Other than that I'm 100% supportive of gays getting married.

 

[Spiritman]

In reply to this post, there is no rational reason why marriage should be anything less than a spiritual union between a man and a women. Anybody who believes in a God should logically come to this conclusion in my opinion. My opinion is not, however based on religion alone. To eliminate religion thought from marriage is to tare at the threads of western civilization.It is the tradition of a spiritual union that has held the institution of marriage together in western society and allowed moral guidance for the growth of families.

There are sub-cultures in the American community that tend to gain strength and rationality to unions that do not require a spiritual binding of religion which requires participants to stay together and raise children. Obama and his followers take this position when he ask black men to stay with their children and be responsible parents. The idea of having a spiritual union as well as a civil union needs to be strengthened rather than undermined.
Spiritman)slap:

 

[LittlePinky82]

No. They'd have to get their contract like everyone else. Whether or not they want or their church requires a new religious ceremony is unrelated to the contract.

So how is your plan different than the plan we have now? I don't get the difference. Have you been involved with any weddings with churches? Not asking to be rude but just curious.

No, I'm saying they SHOULD. I'm also saying that the state should be uninvolved.

I just don't see any difference than what we have now. *shrug* The state has to be involved because that's where you get the certification for your relationship. Even with common laws.

 

[LittlePinky82]

And what about room mates who decide to get hitched to take advantage of shared benefits? How do you "prove" you live together?, allow the government into your house? These are my only concerns.

Other than that I'm 100% supportive of gays getting married.

Right. How do you keep people from abusing the system? It's bound to happen.

 

[Storm]

But one minute you claim they can have any ritual they wanted but than you say religion shouldn't be involved. Doesn't that contradict itself? What if they were very strong Catholics or something and wanted to hold a traditional Catholic wedding?

I'm saying that the contract and the ceremonies would be completely unrelated. You can have both, or one without the other. The state confers no rights on marriage, it's a totally private matter.

1) Look at when I joined.

Well, under the current system, I've been arguing strongly for same sex marriage.

2) Why call them such a degrading name?

Not them, us. I'm bi. I don't find it degrading, so I use it, as do others I know.

 

[Storm]

And what about room mates who decide to get hitched to take advantage of shared benefits?

Them, too.

How do you "prove" you live together?, allow the government into your house? These are my only concerns.

Hm. I think we've identified another kink. Shouldn't be too difficult, though.

Other than that I'm 100% supportive of gays getting married.

It isn't marriage. However, your support for equality is much appreciated.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I'm saying that the contract and the ceremonies would be completely unrelated. You can have both, or one without the other. The state confers no rights on marriage, it's a totally private matter.


Well, under the current system, I've been arguing strongly for same sex marriage.


Not them, us. I'm bi. I don't find it degrading, so I use it, as do others I know.

I guess I'm not seeing the difference. Yea I think having same-sex marriage with a Constitutional amendment would be good. Even Cuba has LGBT rights there. Not marriage but they are treated the same as everyone else legally and that's what really counts I think. Oh I see now with the term. I've never liked it and feel iffy using it so I tend not to.

 

[Storm]

In reply to this post, there is no rational reason why marriage should be anything less than a spiritual union between a man and a women. Anybody who believes in a God should logically come to this conclusion in my opinion. My opinion is not, however based on religion alone. To eliminate religion thought from marriage is to tare at the threads of western civilization.It is the tradition of a spiritual union that has held the institution of marriage together in western society and allowed moral guidance for the growth of families.

There are sub-cultures in the American community that tend to gain strength and rationality to unions that do not require a spiritual binding of religion which requires participants to stay together and raise children. Obama and his followers take this position when he ask black men to stay with their children and be responsible parents. The idea of having a spiritual union as well as a civil union needs to be strengthened rather than undermined.
Spiritman)slap:

I honestly can't tell whether you agree with me or not.... :sorry1:

However, I'm not advocating an end to marriage, which I agree with you is a spiritual union. I'm advocating an end to special legal priviledges base on religious ritual.

Yes, it's a break from tradition, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

[Storm]

So how is your plan different than the plan we have now? I don't get the difference. Have you been involved with any weddings with churches? Not asking to be rude but just curious.

For one thing, it's not based on who you're boinking. Just who you live with. Straight friends can set it up, siblings, parents and adult children, anyone.

For another, it's more secular. No rights for rites.

I just don't see any difference than what we have now. *shrug* The state has to be involved because that's where you get the certification for your relationship. Even with common laws.

Did the above clear it up?

 

[NoahideHiker]

Them, too.


Hm. I think we've identified another kink. Shouldn't be too difficult, though.


It isn't marriage. However, your support for equality is much appreciated.

It could end up being a double edged sword. With the main sticking points there would be a lot of need to define what something is or how something would work. It could just open the door for the anti gay marriage fundies (union, hitching, coupling, whateva!) to define it as being between a man and a woman.

I do think other's freedoms need to be protected at the same time like a business' rights to decide whom they wish to cover. Some companies don't offer family insurance. But if something IS offered to the breeders then the same should apply to all.

 

[Storm]

Right. How do you keep people from abusing the system? It's bound to happen.

People abuse the system we've got now. We've got marriages of convenience all over the place. The difference is, in mine, it wouldn't be abuse.

 

[Storm]

It could end up being a double edged sword. With the main sticking points there would be a lot of need to define what something is or how something would work. It could just open the door for the anti gay marriage fundies (union, hitching, coupling, whateva!) to define it as being between a man and a woman.

Actually, that's what I think of as the beauty of it. This isn't marriage. Anti-gays can decide marriage is one-man one-woman all they want, just like Christian denominations refuse to recognize one another's baptisms. It doesn't affect the law at all.

I do think other's freedoms need to be protected at the same time like a business' rights to decide whom they wish to cover. Some companies don't offer family insurance. But if something IS offered to the breeders then the same should apply to all.

And this also protects religious freedoms. No faith would be required to recognize another's marriages, that's totally up to them. But everyone gets equal treatment under the law.

 

[NoahideHiker]

People abuse the system we've got now. We've got marriages of convenience all over the place. The difference is, in mine, it wouldn't be abuse.

It'd be kind of nice to flip the script (sorry, I'm old school) on this too. It'd be nice if the people who shack up without getting married so the single mom doesn't lose her monthly check were forced to get married.

 

[Storm]

It'd be kind of nice to flip the script (sorry, I'm old school) on this too. It'd be nice if the people who shack up without getting married so the single mom doesn't lose her monthly check were forced to get married.

That, too.

 

[LittlePinky82]

For one thing, it's not based on who you're boinking. Just who you live with. Straight friends can set it up, siblings, parents and adult children, anyone.

For another, it's more secular. No rights for rites.


Did the above clear it up?

We already have that though. It's called common law.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I honestly can't tell whether you agree with me or not.... :sorry1:

However, I'm not advocating an end to marriage, which I agree with you is a spiritual union. I'm advocating an end to special legal priviledges base on religious ritual.

Yes, it's a break from tradition, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

But you don't get it. Marriage is a ritual based on legality with the state. If the religious practices didn't have their licenses to perform marriages they wouldn't be legal. You have to get the license before the ritual so you already have it and all that. They don't have special privileges. LGBT community is just asking to be treated the same as straight couples. There are straight couples who don't get married in churches or with any type of religious ritual.

 

[LittlePinky82]

People abuse the system we've got now. We've got marriages of convenience all over the place. The difference is, in mine, it wouldn't be abuse.

Good luck with that. No matter what you try to do people will look and find loopholes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It'd be kind of nice to flip the script (sorry, I'm old school) on this too. It'd be nice if the people who shack up without getting married so the single mom doesn't lose her monthly check were forced to get married.

They've got that in Canada. Live in a "spousal" relationship with someone for two years (or any time at all if the relationship is "of some permanence" and there's a child involved) and you're deemed to be married in common law, with all the rights, privileges, benefits and responsibilities of marriage.