If you allow homosexuals marriage then...

[McBell]

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.

i disagree.
We are talking about hte same thing.
The only true difference is that you want to make marriage to be so much more than the legal contract that it is.

And although I personally have no problems with all the additions to marriage that you add, I do have problems with those who want to make everyone also have all the additions.

 

[McBell]

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?

Let me answer by asking another question:
Once inter-racial marriage was legally allowed did/do churches that disagree with them have to marry them anyway?
No they did not.
In fact, i have lost count the number of times I have heard couples complaining that such and such church will not marry them because {insert any number of reasons here}.
From having already been married to not agreeing with one of the coulpes religious views (or lack of), to not having the right colour of skin...

 

[lilithu]

i disagree.
We are talking about hte same thing.
The only true difference is that you want to make marriage to be so much more than the legal contract that it is.

It's not a matter of me wanting to make marriage into more than a legal contract. Marriage IS more than a legal contract to a lot of religious people. It is considered one of the seven holy sacraments of the Catholic church (and I believe the Orthodox church as well), and it's viewed similarly in many religious traditions. However you personally feel about marriage, to not respect that marriage is a sacrament for other people is to not respect their beliefs.

And although I personally have no problems with all the additions to marriage that you add, I do have problems with those who want to make everyone also have all the additions.

Which is why I proposed (and I'm certainly not the first one to do it) making a distinction between marriage and civil unions.

 

[lilithu]

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 see it as solution that best reflects the concerns of everyone involved. If we approach this from the attitude that we must all live in community with each other then the need to change - to make adjustments that take into account someone elses needs and feelings - is not unfair. It's just a fact of life. Those who are opposed to same-sex marriages will need to change too in that they will need to accept that such unions will now have all of the same benefits AND that these unions WILL be called marriages within other religious traditions (such as UU, UCC), just not their own.

So in terms of the legal contract, it would be refered to as a civil union for everyone. In terms of marriage, a same-sex union will not be recognized as marriage by those religions who are against it. But it will be recognized as marriage by those religions who bless it. I fully expect that same-sex couples who get married in their churches with their church's blessing will refer to their union as a marriage. Along with the rest of us who bless such unions. There would be nothing to legally prevent us from doing that as it is within the expression of OUR religious values.

 

[lilithu]

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.

Agreed. :yes:

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.

You may be right. But when I have talked to people about the issue one on one, I get the impression that many would be willing to go along with this if it's laid out for them. There are of course those who are against same-sex unions period, but they truly are in the minority. For others, there's varying degrees of discomfort but a recognition that it's important to be fair. Once someone recognizes the unfairness, and once they recognize that one can make a distinction between the civil and the relgious arenas, from my experience it's a lot easier to convince someone of this last part. It just takes a little prodding of the ol' conscience.

But it's time consuming to be sure. Same-sex marriage is going to be legalized. And I am going to feel a little bad for those who feel their religious values have been affronted. But I also know that they will get over it. When they are forced to they will learn to make a distinction between marriage as a civil contract and marriage as a holy sacrament, just as MaddLlama suggests.

 

[Pardus]

Polygomy, who cares?

Incest, tricky, i don't have any problem with it ethically, but i do believe that the chances of birth defects make it unfavourable, but then again there are people in this world who don't have to be related and their genetic codes mixed cause defects.

I generally think we should avoid genetic defects, it is not good for the child and it is not good for society.

 

[McBell]

It's not a matter of me wanting to make marriage into more than a legal contract. Marriage IS more than a legal contract to a lot of religious people. It is considered one of the seven holy sacraments of the Catholic church (and I believe the Orthodox church as well), and it's viewed similarly in many religious traditions. However you personally feel about marriage, to not respect that marriage is a sacrament for other people is to not respect their beliefs.

Fair enough.
Now would you explain to me why this isn't a two way street?

Which is why I proposed (and I'm certainly not the first one to do it) making a distinction between marriage and civil unions.

Because the whole "equal but different" tactic has never worked in the past.

 

[nutshell]

Because the whole "equal but different" tactic has never worked in the past.

I agree, but the whole "everyone is equal" tactic hasn't exactly been wonderful either.

 

[Pardus]

I agree, but the whole "everyone is equal" tactic hasn't exactly been wonderful either.

It has been tried?

 

[TeePee]

Marriage for gays? Why not- I'm all for equality and why shouldn't gay people be miserable too ( smile- someone here just filed for divorce! )

There is a big distinction between healthy relationships between consenting equals, and abusive relationships with a power imbalance...incest would too often come in the latter category I suspect.

 

[truthofscripture]

Matthew 12:30 Whoever is not on my side is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters