If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[McBell]

...do you have to allow any form of marriage between consenting adults (i.e. polygamy, incestuous relationships, etc.)?

I know this is a hot hot topic and I am not trying to rub anyone the wrong way. I seriously want to know.

My perception is the pro-homosexual marriage group gets offended when it is suggested allowing homosexual marriage may lead to polygamy or other kinds of marriage.

In my mind, it seems like a logical progression.

So, I'm just asking for clarification. What do you believe and why? Set me straight or help me understand.

Regards.

The exact same argument was presented against inter-racial marriage.
I know not of any state in the USA where it is now legal, because of inter-racial mariage or otherwise, to marry your dog, which was one of the rediculous things that those against inter-racial marriage claimed would result from allowing inter-racial marriage.

 

[McBell]

I still think it's more than ridiculous for the government to attempt to define marriage and to attempt to legislate relationships.

The government HAS to regulate marriage because marriage is, at its core, a LEGAL contract.

 

[Mathematician]

The slippery slope began when the government first stuck its nose in the matter. The push for homosexual (and polygamous marriage) results from the government picking what type of relationship deserves benefits. Someone wanting to marry an animal or a minor will never be a serious issue, just because both sides recognize that neither have the ability to consent, whether it is legally or naturally.



I think soon we'll see the arguement against marriage being recognized by the State coming into play soon.

 

[McBell]

I think soon we'll see the arguement against marriage being recognized by the State coming into play soon.

I agree.
it will come into play simply because sooner or later the federal government will have to stop avoiding the issue of same sex marriage and then look at it from a LEGAL standpoint.

 

[sojourner]

The government HAS to regulate marriage because marriage is, at its core, a LEGAL contract.

When I got married, it was a covenant between my wife and I, and God. The government wasn't involved in the process. No government official signed the license, no government official voted or put forth a motion. No Government. There were no lawyers involved. No legal contract. In fact, neither contractual nor legal language was once uttered during the ceremony. (In fact, there's really no contract language or "legalese" on the license...)

Why does the government have to regulate marriage, like it was alcohol distribution or firearms? Government regulation is what's causing the whole brouhaha, in the first place. if the government would worry more about upholding the rights of its constituents and less about the personal comfort zones of its "moral right," this problem would largely go away.

 

[cardero]

When I got married, it was a covenant between my wife and I, and God. The government wasn't involved in the process. No government official signed the license, no government official voted or put forth a motion. No Government. There were no lawyers involved. No legal contract. In fact, neither contractual nor legal language was once uttered during the ceremony. (In fact, there's really no contract language or "legalese" on the license...)

Why does the government have to regulate marriage, like it was alcohol distribution or firearms? Government regulation is what's causing the whole brouhaha, in the first place. if the government would worry more about upholding the rights of its constituents and less about the personal comfort zones of its "moral right," this problem would largely go away.

What's the need for a marriage license then?

 

[lilithu]

When I got married, it was a covenant between my wife and I, and God. The government wasn't involved in the process. No government official signed the license, no government official voted or put forth a motion. No Government. There were no lawyers involved. No legal contract. In fact, neither contractual nor legal language was once uttered during the ceremony. (In fact, there's really no contract language or "legalese" on the license...)

Why does the government have to regulate marriage, like it was alcohol distribution or firearms? Government regulation is what's causing the whole brouhaha, in the first place. if the government would worry more about upholding the rights of its constituents and less about the personal comfort zones of its "moral right," this problem would largely go away.

Sojourner, you and Mestemia and Cardero are talking about two seperate things which unfortunately are refered to by the same name. You are talking about the holy sacrament of marriage. They're talking about the legal contract that defines who has rights to property, benefits, custody of childeren, and to make decisions when the other is incapacitated or deceased.

This is why I advocate making a distinction between marriage, as a holy sacrament with the church, and civil union, as a legal contract recognized by society at large.

 

[!Fluffy!]

This is why I advocate making a distinction between marriage, as a holy sacrament with the church, and civil union, as a legal contract recognized by society at large.

Yup. That would just make too much sense for the gov't though wouldn't it.

I think it's the best possible solution and haven't yet heard a reasonable argument against legalizing same sex civil unions.

 

[michel]

Sojourner, you and Mestemia and Cardero are talking about two seperate things which unfortunately are refered to by the same name. You are talking about the holy sacrament of marriage. They're talking about the legal contract that defines who has rights to property, benefits, custody of childeren, and to make decisions when the other is incapacitated or deceased.

This is why I advocate making a distinction between marriage, as a holy sacrament with the church, and civil union, as a legal contract recognized by society at large.

Do you really feel there is a need for 'different words' ? I mean, those who have received the holy sacrament know it, and those in civil unions know it. Why is there a need for distinction ? ...........is it just for 'show' ?

 

[lilithu]

Do you really feel there is a need for 'different words' ? I mean, those who have received the holy sacrament know it, and those in civil unions know it. Why is there a need for distinction ? ...........is it just for 'show' ?

Hi Michel, namaste.

I don't know if we need to use different terms. My guess is that the word marriage will stay in the secular realm and that same sex marriages will be legalized and that people will adapt to that. The world will not end, despite what some who are against marriage equality might think. So I wouldn't argue need.

But I do truly think that would be the best solution for all involved. Words aren't "just for show," especially in the realm of religion; words have meaning to people. As it is now, if we propose that marriage be made legal for all couples there are people who will truly feel that their religious beliefs have been desecrated, because in their beliefs marriage is a holy sacrament AND marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't agree with them but I respect that's what they believe, and I'd rather that the govt avoid infringing on someone else's religious beliefs if at all possible. But otoh, if we say that same sex partners can have civil unions while het-sex partners still get married, there are those who will feel that even tho the legal rights may be the same we are still maintaining a second-class citizenship, where one group has access to something that the other group does not. And I agree with this. For true equality, whatever it is that is accorded to het-sex couples needs to be accorded to same-sex couples as well. "Seperate but equal" does not fly.

So logically, I do think that the best solution would be to make a distinction between the two. That doesn't mean that people can't get married anymore. We won't have lost anything. Everyone who wants to (and has a willing partner) can sign a legal contract of civil union. And then those who have churches/houses of worship who recognize their union as sacred can also have a marriage ceremony. So same-sex couples would not be able to get married in every church/house of worship, because we wouldn't force those religions that opposed it to go against their beliefs, but same-sex couples would certainly be able to get married within UU churches, and UCC churches, and others.

But it's not going to happen since there's no energy around it. People are entrenched on both sides of the issue now, unwilling to see any validity to the viewpoints of the other. I know people on both sides who would favor this solution but we seem to be in the minority.

 

[Green Gaia]

But it's not going to happen since there's no energy around it. People are entrenched on both sides of the issue now, unwilling to see any validity to the viewpoints of the other. I know people on both sides who would favor this solution but we seem to be in the minority.

I would be in favor of such a change as long as it's the same and it's equal. The problem comes in when those in favor of civil unions for same gender couples do not want to extend the word marriage to them, but want to hold onto it for themselves.

But yeah, I think it would be much simpler if we did:
Legal: civil unions for everyone
Religious: marriage (for those who want one)

Of course it's still only to be called marriage in common conversation, but the legal term would civil union and same gender couples would be allowed to have one. I really think that's the only way to be fair to everyone. But my guess is most heterosexuals would be even more advers to giving up the word 'marriage' on their legal document than they would allowing same gender couples marriage. I believe that's why that route has not been pursued.

 

[MaddLlama]

Lilitu, I agree with you, but don't you think it's a little unfair to the rest of us to have to change the word simply because certain religious people and politicians are either too ignorant or uninformed to make the simple and obvious distinction between a religious ritual and a legal contract?

 

[YamiB.]

Lilitu, I agree with you, but don't you think it's a little unfair to the rest of us to have to change the word simply because certain religious people and politicians are either too ignorant or uninformed to make the simple and obvious distinction between a religious ritual and a legal contract?

I have similar thoughts. I do not have much of a problem with doing essentially the same thing that Lilitu said, it would just leave a bad taste in my mouth. I do have a problem though with only labeling same-sex relationships civil unions. I would consider it a stepping stone, but not a victory.

 

[cardero]

But yeah, I think it would be much simpler if we did:
Legal: civil unions for everyone
Religious: marriage (for those who want one)

Just curious but how do you see the authority or the "power invensted within" being divided up? For example, if homosexual marriages ever becomes a widely accepted law will the policy makers issue that religious figures marry homosexual couples or just justices of the peace or mayors or other people in political position? Does a particular religion that might be against homosexual mariages have to marry homosexuals or will some religious organizations be exempt from marrying? Does it matter who eventually performs the ceremony?

 

[YamiB.]

Just curious but how do you see the authority or the "power invensted within" being divided up? For example, if homosexual marriages ever becomes a widely accepted law will the policy makers issue that religious figures marry homosexual couples or just justices of the peace or mayors or other people in political position? Does a particular religion that might be against homosexual mariages have to marry homosexuals or will some religious organizations be exempt from marrying? Does it matter who eventually performs the ceremony?

In the US at least it would be Unconstitutonal to force religious figures to marry same-sex couples if they did not agree with it. This can be seen in how they are allowed to deny interracial or interreligious couples marraige if they choose. It would only be government officals that would be required to preform marriage for same-sex couples.

 

[MaddLlama]

Just curious but how do you see the authority or the "power invensted within" being divided up? For example, if homosexual marriages ever becomes a widely accepted law will the policy makers issue that religious figures marry homosexual couples or just justices of the peace or mayors or other people in political position? Does a particular religion that might be against homosexual mariages have to marry homosexuals or will some religious organizations be exempt from marrying? Does it matter who eventually performs the ceremony?

Absolutely not. There are plenty of religious officals who will perform marriages for gay couples if they could (I was married my a Buddhist minister who was also a lesbian and did gay commitment ceremonies), and if one is not available to a couple, then a justice of the peace can perform the ceremony.
This is about legal benefits, nobody is advocating forany church or religious organization to perform marriages.
The bottom line has always been "Let the church do and think what it wants, we just want the legal paperwork to apply to us!".

 

[cardero]

In the US at least it would be Unconstitutonal to force religious figures to marry same-sex couples if they did not agree with it. This can be seen in how they are allowed to deny interracial or interreligious couples marraige if they choose. It would only be government officals that would be required to preform marriage for same-sex couples.

But ministers who didn't have any problems with same-sex marriages could still perform them couldn't they?

 

[Green Gaia]

Does a particular religion that might be against homosexual mariages have to marry homosexuals or will some religious organizations be exempt from marrying?

No, No, No! A million times NO!! How many times have I answered that question? :banghead3

Churches now decide who they will and won't marry, that won't change when same gender couples are allowed to marry.

Besides which, there are churches now, like mine, that ALREADY do religious ceremonies for same gender couples. That won't change either. The only thing that will change is that a same gender couple will be legally a couple.

 

[Green Gaia]

But ministers who didn't have any problems with same-sex marriages could still perform them couldn't they?

They do now even though it's not legally binding.

 

[MaddLlama]

But ministers who didn't have any problems with same-sex marriages could still perform them couldn't they?

Of course.