What does same-sex marriage have to do with religion?

[JerryL]

Yeah, I would love to abolish marriage. Unfortunately, it is here, and it has it's benefits. I just don't see the logic behind denying that same legal status to a couple based on their sexual orientation.

My problem is trying to make logical claims about an illogical system. What is the purpose of marraige (from a governmental standpoint)? If we don't know that, how can we possibly choose who to offer it to?

If you want to use the "next of kin" option, go ahead. That is not an excuse to deny marriage to anyone.

I want to remove marraige. I suppose you could say I deny it, the same as I deny "best friends" on a governmental level.

No one is suggesting that insurance be controlled by the governement. It would be much more efficient to be gender-blind in legal marriages than to blame insurance companies for not recognizing a union that the government doesn't even recognize.

Insurance companies don't care. It's about employers. They will do what they feel like regardless of gay marriage.

Interestingly, at most employers, I could get medical coverege for a boyfriend, but not a girlfriend.

No one is suggesting that insurance be controlled by the governement. It would be much more efficient to be gender-blind in legal marriages than to blame insurance companies for not recognizing a union that the government doesn't even recognize.

I agree it's a different topic' but it's hard for me to argue the merits of teh effect of marriage on a system I oppose whole-cloth.

And we can go on and on... "how about this instead..." But the fact remains that it would be simplest and most effective to just allow them to marry. What's the worst that could happen? Would it really be that bad?

The worst is continued marriage. I think that's a shame. We need to get rid of marraige.

 

[Fascist Christ]

My problem is trying to make logical claims about an illogical system. What is the purpose of marraige (from a governmental standpoint)? If we don't know that, how can we possibly choose who to offer it to?

That's a good point, I just can't think of anything that could be rightfully deprived to anyone based on their sexuality. I mean, if the governement was to hand out waffles to everyone but gays, I would still be screaming discrimination, even though I cannot understand the idea of handing out waffles to people. And in the case of "civil unions," it would be like giving waffles to everyone but denying syrup to the gays, and their waffle would not be considered a waffle in other states due to the lack of syrup.

The worst is continued marriage. I think that's a shame. We need to get rid of marraige.

I think we are in agreement here.

 

[JerryL]

That's a good point, I just can't think of anything that could be rightfully deprived to anyone based on their sexuality. I mean, if the governement was to hand out waffles to everyone but gays, I would still be screaming discrimination

Depends on the purpose.

Assume for a moment, that the sole purpose of legal marrage was to create an envyronment condusive to the rearing of kids concieved by the members of the marriage during the course of the marriage.

This would obviously exclude gays, and old people, and any non-interfertile couple. I would not consider it descriminitory any more than I consider not offering welfare to the rich or veteren's benifits to non-vetrens. Of course, the fact that we let old people marry proves that this is not the reason we have marriage.

Personally, I agree that (if we must have marraige as it stands), then there's no reason not to extend it to gay couples or polyagomous groups.

 

[michel]

Personally, I agree that (if we must have marriage as it stands), then there's no reason not to extend it to gay couples or polyagomous groups.

Great! We agree.:bounce

 

[Merlin]

My religion believes in the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Denying some people the same rights other have because of their race, color, gender, disability or sexual orientation is not treating them with them dignity and implies their lives, goals and dreams are less worthy than others. This is why the Unitarian Universalist Association supports same sex marriage and the strive for equality for all.

Well said. I believe the UK government is creating a ceremony and contract which allows gay people to receive from each other the same tax and inheritance and other legal rights that come with a legal marriage. In other words, all other government departments recognise this contract in the same way that they recognise a marriage contract.

So if we are not absolutely hung up on the word marriage, they are able to be 'married' for all intents and purposes, and have all the same rights and privileges as married people, but respect the sensitivities of those people who do not want the word marriage (in their words) tainted.

It is necessary to remember that in granting 'human rights' to one group (gay people) you may well be attacking the human rights of others for whom marriage is a very important and historically well-established religious ceremony.

 

[Pah]

...It is necessary to remember that in granting 'human rights' to one group (gay people) you may well be attacking the human rights of others for whom marriage is a very important and historically well-established religious ceremony.

Heterosexuals using that argument are in fact not being attacked in any way, shape, or form. Nothing changes in reality for them - not lessening of freedom of religion, not a decrease in marriage benefit or religious status, no loss of government benefit. The perceived attack is fictional. So what is being attacked? Pride? Privilege? Is this sufficient to deny others their rights? To me it sounds like an unchristian, unamerican attitude in the way principles of Christ and country are being ignored.

 

[michel]

It is necessary to remember that in granting 'human rights' to one group (gay people) you may well be attacking the human rights of others for whom marriage is a very important and historically well-established religious ceremony.

Please, explain how you may well be attacking the human rights of others for whom marriage is a very important and historically well-established religious ceremony ?, by granting the same to homosexuals....................

I am a married heterosexual (as is my wife) , and I would not feel that my human rights would be under attack.

 

[Merlin]

Please, explain how you may well be attacking the human rights of others for whom marriage is a very important and historically well-established religious ceremony ?, by granting the same to homosexuals....................

I am a married heterosexual (as is my wife) , and I would not feel that my human rights would be under attack.

First of all, I do not care if homosexuals and lesbians want to marry each other. That is fine by me.

The point I'm making is that there are many people who have a passionate belief that marriage is an institution ordained by God and supported by their particular denomination and religion. These people have the right to consider that homosexual and lesbian unions being called marriage is an affront to what they consider a proper family unit blessed by God and their Scriptures.

I was therefore suggesting that these people's human rights (to believe in a holy institution of marriage) is being violated if you are allowed to change the meaning of marriage.

Therefore I quite like the UK government response. Give homosexuals and lesbians all the rights of being married, give them their own ceremony and civil contract, just don't call it 'marriage'. They are then not disadvantaged at all. They can even call themselves married. But people (I suspect the majority) who really do not want this ancient holy institution sullied by making it unite people that the Scriptures never intended.

Then everyone can have what they want. And nobody disadvantaged. And nobody has to be distraught.

 

[gnomon]

What does marriage have to do with religion? After all, it predates all known forms of worship currently in practice today. Doesn't it?

 

[JerryL]

The point I'm making is that there are many people who have a passionate belief that marriage is an institution ordained by God and supported by their particular denomination and religion. These people have the right to consider that homosexual and lesbian unions being called marriage is an affront to what they consider a proper family unit blessed by God and their Scriptures.

Could the not also consider a marriage by any religion other than their own to similarly be an affront?

 

[Fascist Christ]

I was therefore suggesting that these people's human rights (to believe in a holy institution of marriage) is being violated if you are allowed to change the meaning of marriage.

It is not a human right to claim a monopoly on a word. Or would you suggest that we enforce limits on the usage of the word "God" simply because it violates some religions' belief that it must not be spoken? Should witches around the world band together to sue the makers of the sequel to the "Blair Witch Project" since it "taints" the image of their holy book?

If the word "marriage" is tied so strongly to a religion, it must be removed from the law. Call them "civil unions" if you like. But, having both is not equality, it's segregation. If it has "all of the benefits of marriage" then just call it marriage. The whole debate over semantics is rediculous.

 

[Fluffy]

Surely if a religion condemns gay marriage then it becomes a religious issue? To say that it is not is to suggest that there is some rational or empirical reason for protesting about it which is just silly.

A better question would be what does marriage, same-sex or otherwise, have to do with government.

 

[Sunstone]

What does marriage have to do with religion? After all, it predates all known forms of worship currently in practice today. Doesn't it?

Good point! It is even arguable that marriage, in its basic form of a pair bonded couple, predates not only all current religions, but also our species itself. That is, it was evolved in some ancestor to our species and inherited by us. That at least is the thinking of some evolutionary biologists.

 

[Merlin]

It is not a human right to claim a monopoly on a word. Or would you suggest that we enforce limits on the usage of the word "God" simply because it violates some religions' belief that it must not be spoken? Should witches around the world band together to sue the makers of the sequel to the "Blair Witch Project" since it "taints" the image of their holy book?

It is not just a word. It is the name of a holy sacrament. There are other secular words which are protected. You cannot call yourself a lawyer unless you are. You can call yourself a bank unless you meet certain criteria. So it is not alone in the word being more than a word but the name of an institution. It is this institution that people feel so strongly about.

If the word "marriage" is tied so strongly to a religion, it must be removed from the law. Call them "civil unions" if you like. But, having both is not equality, it's segregation. If it has "all of the benefits of marriage" then just call it marriage. The whole debate over semantics is rediculous.

It is separated in England. You could have only a church service, and it would not be legally binding. You can have a civil ceremony, without a church service, and it is legally binding. So they are not linked.

This is the whole point I was making. To have a religious ceremony, is normal to respect the rules of the religion. To have a civil ceremony is everybody's right.

 

[Pah]

It is not just a word. It is the name of a holy sacrament. There are other secular words which are protected. You cannot call yourself a lawyer unless you are. You can call yourself a bank unless you meet certain criteria. So it is not alone in the word being more than a word but the name of an institution. It is this institution that people feel so strongly about.


It is separated in England. You could have only a church service, and it would not be legally binding. You can have a civil ceremony, without a church service, and it is legally binding. So they are not linked.

This is the whole point I was making. To have a religious ceremony, is normal to respect the rules of the religion. To have a civil ceremony is everybody's right.

And in that, you have marriage. The fact that it is a sacrement today (it wasn't always a sacrement in the Christian Church), has absolutely no bearing on secular law. Keep holy whatever you think is holy but stop forcing your holiness where it doesn't apply.

 

[Merlin]

And in that, you have marriage. The fact that it is a sacrement today (it wasn't always a sacrement in the Christian Church), has absolutely no bearing on secular law. Keep holy whatever you think is holy but stop forcing your holiness where it doesn't apply.

I was just suggesting we applied common courtesy. If about 70% of the population would prefer to keep marriage as it is, then it must be possible to accommodate those. Not discriminating against minorities, does not give people the right to discriminate against majorities.

 

[turk179]

I was therefore suggesting that these people's human rights (to believe in a holy institution of marriage) is being violated if you are allowed to change the meaning of marriage.

Even if it was the same "these people's" that changed the meaning of marriage to be exclusive to the holy word of G*d in the first place?

Therefore I quite like the UK government response. Give homosexuals and lesbians all the rights of being married, give them their own ceremony and civil contract, just don't call it 'marriage'. They are then not disadvantaged at all. They can even call themselves married. But people (I suspect the majority) who really do not want this ancient holy institution sullied by making it unite people that the Scriptures never intended.

This ancient holy institution that you refer to outdates the scriptures that changed the meaning of marriage.

 

[michel]

Good point! It is even arguable that marriage, in its basic form of a pair bonded couple, predates not only all current religions, but also our species itself. That is, it was evolved in some ancestor to our species and inherited by us. That at least is the thinking of some evolutionary biologists.

evolution ???????? Heresy!!!:biglaugh:

 

[turk179]

I was just suggesting we applied common courtesy. If about 70% of the population would prefer to keep marriage as it is, then it must be possible to accommodate those. Not discriminating against minorities, does not give people the right to discriminate against majorities.

Stoping the majorities from discriminating against others is not discrimination against them. What you are suggesting is that ending discrimination is discrimination.

 

[JerryL]

Stoping the majorities from discriminating against others is not discrimination against them. What you are suggesting is that ending discrimination is discrimination.

You beat me to the response

I'm sure a great deal of the population was offended at blacks, then women getting the vote; getting to own land, going to the same schools, getting to sit at the front of the bus, and not just the back.

Heck, I find a whole slew of things offensive that I firmly believe in the right to have.