| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/09/2008 03:40:10 PM · #1101 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Personally, I view this as an issue of the term marriage being mis-used. What I think is fueling the opposition is that people feel changes in civil 'marriages' affect their definition of religious marriages. Personally, I think anything done outside of a religion sould be called a civil union. The problem stems from the fact that clergy has being given the right to administer civil unions and officer of the court have been given the right to administer marriage.
In my view, marriage is a religious institution, a sacrement in most cases. A court does not have the authority to grant a marriage. If someone wants to be married, they have to go through a religion.
That being said, if you want the state to recognize that marriage, you must go through the court and file for a civil union. That will grant you all the rights as prescribed by law. And that applies to dual- or same-sex couples.
That is the way it is done in many countries. I was married in Peru. The priest did not have the authority to grant a legal union. All he did, and could do, was administer the sacrament of marriage. Afterwards, my wife and I went to a court and got a civil union. That union is recognized world wide.
End result: The entire issue of same sex marriages is out of the hands of government or legislation. It is an issue each religion must decide for themselves. Some religions may not grant matrimony to inter-faith couples, others won't grant matrimony to same sex couples. That is their perogative. If a religion wants to grant same sex marriages, more power to them. Legally, however, the state should only united people by civil unions. And those can be done between any two people, regardless of sex, race, or religion. And each civil union is as legally abiding as any other.
EDIT: Based on the above, I feel that a constitutional ammendment defining marriage is just as ridiculous as one defining baptism. |
This is the second post all the way back at the beginning of this thread. It makes perfect sense to me. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 03:52:49 PM · #1102 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Trinch:
Personally, I view this as an issue of the term marriage being mis-used. What I think is fueling the opposition is that people feel changes in civil 'marriages' affect their definition of religious marriages. Personally, I think anything done outside of a religion sould be called a civil union. The problem stems from the fact that clergy has being given the right to administer civil unions and officer of the court have been given the right to administer marriage.
In my view, marriage is a religious institution, a sacrement in most cases. A court does not have the authority to grant a marriage. If someone wants to be married, they have to go through a religion.
That being said, if you want the state to recognize that marriage, you must go through the court and file for a civil union. That will grant you all the rights as prescribed by law. And that applies to dual- or same-sex couples.
That is the way it is done in many countries. I was married in Peru. The priest did not have the authority to grant a legal union. All he did, and could do, was administer the sacrament of marriage. Afterwards, my wife and I went to a court and got a civil union. That union is recognized world wide.
End result: The entire issue of same sex marriages is out of the hands of government or legislation. It is an issue each religion must decide for themselves. Some religions may not grant matrimony to inter-faith couples, others won't grant matrimony to same sex couples. That is their perogative. If a religion wants to grant same sex marriages, more power to them. Legally, however, the state should only united people by civil unions. And those can be done between any two people, regardless of sex, race, or religion. And each civil union is as legally abiding as any other.
EDIT: Based on the above, I feel that a constitutional ammendment defining marriage is just as ridiculous as one defining baptism. |
This is the second post all the way back at the beginning of this thread. It makes perfect sense to me. |
I think people are still going to call it "marriage" and not call it "civil union" regardless.
"We're civil unioned" sounds kinda funny. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 04:06:02 PM · #1103 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Let's put aside whether gay sex is sin, right, wrong and whether or not it's chosen behavior or it is inherent. I believe this thread was originally about gay marriage. The underlying problem of gay marriage is that it confers a religious connotation to it. |
This is completely incorrect -- the problem is that the state recognizes a legal contract between two individuals and confers certain special privileges on them, but restricts which people can enter into that contract; that contract carries the legal name of "marriage."
A "church wedding" is not recognized by the state as a "marriage" unless accompanied by a license -- it is that contract which establishes the legal relationship, not any ceremony whether religious or civil. The issue at hand is whether the state is allowed to discriminate as to which two citizens are allowed to enter into this contract. It has nothing to do with determining how any religious group defines, recognizes, or practices its own rites of marriage. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 04:09:13 PM · #1104 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
The underlying problem of gay marriage is that it confers a religious connotation to it. If you don't agree with that then it shouldn't matter what it is called.(marriage, civil union, or same sex couple life commitment union or whatever) |
It may to you, but the institution of marriage pre-dates Christianity, and religious oversight in general. The church only co-opted that role within the past 500 years or so, and even then it's just a ceremony- you still need a state license to be married. Claiming that someone's marriage wasn't valid without a religious ceremony a millennium ago would be like declaring someone's choice of profession invalid without church authority today. Even now, a man and woman married by a justice of the peace probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow among most churchgoing folks. It's only when the topic of same sex marriage comes up that they get all flustered about religious connotation. I know some EXTREMELY devout people who would totally agree with the idea of marriage as strictly a religious institution, and then they get divorced... before a judge. :-/
Message edited by author 2008-07-09 16:11:58. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 04:20:16 PM · #1105 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Let's put aside whether gay sex is sin, right, wrong and whether or not it's chosen behavior or it is inherent. I believe this thread was originally about gay marriage. The underlying problem of gay marriage is that it confers a religious connotation to it. If you don't agree with that then it shouldn't matter what it is called.(marriage, civil union, or same sex couple life commitment union or whatever) If you do agree with it then why would 'most' of you want anything to do with marriage. I haven't heard any gay person come out in favor of any religion or belief in any god. I very well could be wrong but certainly no one is speaking up. Would everyone be happy with all states recognizing civil unions with all of the rights and benefits of what a marriage has. I'll ask this question which I have brought up before. Why does the government need to recognize 'marriages' at all. Why shouldn't it all be civil unions whether homosexual or hetero. Then if you can find a church that will marry you then you can have a marriage in the eyes of the church you got married in and you will have a civil union in the eyes of the government. If marriage does have a religious connotation to it then why should the government be involved in recognizing such entities? |
note: Emphasis added.
If memory serves me, government involvement goes back to some lecherous English King who couldn't get the church to grant him a divorce. He when as far as establishing his own church.
Then there's the fact that governments figured out they could make a few dollars from the arrangement.
What strikes me about your position here relative to the above point is while you offer that marriage is a religious rite, which church offers a rite of divorce? When a marriage needs absolvement, isn't the only recourse the courts?
(Now that I've complicated things, I'll go back to my seat.)
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 04:23:36 PM · #1106 |
Not accusing him of mispelling I am accusing him of changing my name to sound like Koran... but good try.. And the only reason someone would do that was if they thought it was an insult.. So I asked a question on why he was doing so. If it's just a mispelling then I completely understand.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Is there a reason you keep calling me coranmv instead of coronamv? |
Oh, I CANNOT possibly let this go.......
Did YOU actually just bust on someone else for spelling????????????? |
Edited for Typos
Message edited by author 2008-07-09 16:29:05. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 04:26:04 PM · #1107 |
Well we will agree to disagree on many subjects and it is due to the places we have been and where we are headed in life. I still am trying to figure out where you got it that I disliked homosexuals? I actually agreed with you on most of these things. Just not on welfare.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Jeb My mistake I went back and looked and you did not directly call me evil. So I will appologise for that. |
Well, thanks!
I don't think anyone in this whole debate is evil.
I may think that some others are clueless, staid & stodgy, stuck in the past, annoying, hard-headed, or insensitive to the feelings and issues of a large group of perfectly wonderful people, but not evil. |
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 04:38:10 PM · #1108 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Let's put aside whether gay sex is sin, right, wrong and whether or not it's chosen behavior or it is inherent. I believe this thread was originally about gay marriage. The underlying problem of gay marriage is that it confers a religious connotation to it. |
This is completely incorrect -- the problem is that the state recognizes a legal contract between two individuals and confers certain special privileges on them, but restricts which people can enter into that contract; that contract carries the legal name of "marriage."
A "church wedding" is not recognized by the state as a "marriage" unless accompanied by a license -- it is that contract which establishes the legal relationship, not any ceremony whether religious or civil. The issue at hand is whether the state is allowed to discriminate as to which two citizens are allowed to enter into this contract. It has nothing to do with determining how any religious group defines, recognizes, or practices its own rites of marriage. |
So if the state does not have this right, would that include a 30-year-old wanting to marry a 12-year-old? I'm not as interested in your opinion about why that marriage should remain illegal but rather simply that you would agree that it should. Once you draw the line somewhere, then you simply open it up for the public to decide where that line is drawn.
Message edited by author 2008-07-09 16:38:27.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 04:48:43 PM · #1109 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Let's put aside whether gay sex is sin, right, wrong and whether or not it's chosen behavior or it is inherent. I believe this thread was originally about gay marriage. The underlying problem of gay marriage is that it confers a religious connotation to it. |
This is completely incorrect -- the problem is that the state recognizes a legal contract between two individuals and confers certain special privileges on them, but restricts which people can enter into that contract; that contract carries the legal name of "marriage."
A "church wedding" is not recognized by the state as a "marriage" unless accompanied by a license -- it is that contract which establishes the legal relationship, not any ceremony whether religious or civil. The issue at hand is whether the state is allowed to discriminate as to which two citizens are allowed to enter into this contract. It has nothing to do with determining how any religious group defines, recognizes, or practices its own rites of marriage. |
If it were completely incorrect then religious leaders and such wouldn't give a rat's ass about gay marriage. I doubt most people look to ancient history and the precise etymology or whatever of the word to tell them what it means now. It does confer a religious connotation and this infers that it is acceptable behavior from a religious standpoint. This nation was founded on Christian principles by Christian people and that is why 'marriage' is recognized by the government and why our founding documents refer to the 'creator'. . If the government should not have it's hand in religion at all then there should be no recognition of any religiously oriented sacraments ceremonies and such of which marriage is one. What would be wrong if everyone just had civil unions and marriage was not recognized by the government? |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 04:49:20 PM · #1110 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Not accusing him of mispelling I am accusing him of changing my name to sound like Koran... but good try.. And the only reason someone would do that was if they thought it was an insult.. So I asked a question on why he was doing so. If it's just a mispelling then I completely understand. |
No, no, no. He wasn't trying to make it sound like Koran. He was trying to make it sound like Koranmv. "Koranmv" is a HUGE insult in Britian. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 04:51:21 PM · #1111 |
Enlighten me.....
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Not accusing him of mispelling I am accusing him of changing my name to sound like Koran... but good try.. And the only reason someone would do that was if they thought it was an insult.. So I asked a question on why he was doing so. If it's just a mispelling then I completely understand. |
No, no, no. He wasn't trying to make it sound like Koran. He was trying to make it sound like Koranmv. "Koranmv" is a HUGE insult in Britian. |
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 04:58:15 PM · #1112 |
Corona guy - I think he was being humorous. I associate your username with a Mexican beer. :)
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I kinda thought from my history classes way back in the dark ages (before flush toilets) that the good ol US of A was founded on a separation of church and state. Something about freedom of religion? They may be teaching something different nowadays. For all I know, there's yet another "new math" floating about as well. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 04:58:32 PM · #1113 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
--snip
So if the state does not have this right, would that include a 30-year-old wanting to marry a 12-year-old? I'm not as interested in your opinion about why that marriage should remain illegal but rather simply that you would agree that it should. Once you draw the line somewhere, then you simply open it up for the public to decide where that line is drawn. |
It seems that the line was once drawn at one man \ one woman. It is now being re-drawn at one person \ one person.
Why do I not hear a large outcry for one man \ multiple women or one woman \ multiple men? Isn't that a form of discrimination also?
Seems to me that the "debate" is all about where to draw the line in today's world. And oh, by the way, tomorrow it may change.
NOTE:
I am in no way, shape, or form advocating for plural "marriages". It's just a "hmmmm" question. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 05:03:58 PM · #1114 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Enlighten me..... |
I jest ... and you could have so busted me on misspelling Britain! |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 05:15:47 PM · #1115 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Corona guy - I think he was being humorous. I associate your username with a Mexican beer. :)
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I kinda thought from my history classes way back in the dark ages (before flush toilets) that the good ol US of A was founded on a separation of church and state. Something about freedom of religion? They may be teaching something different nowadays. For all I know, there's yet another "new math" floating about as well. |
Freedom of religion yes. I don't think the intention was for people to park their religious principles and ideals at the door when they leave the house and then do everything as if they did not have these principles and ideals. It is freedom of religion but not freedom from religion and the society you live in. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 05:25:52 PM · #1116 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
It is freedom of religion but not freedom from religion and the society you live in. |
That's another debate entirely. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 05:32:45 PM · #1117 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Freedom of religion yes. I don't think the intention was for people to park their religious principles and ideals at the door when they leave the house and then do everything as if they did not have these principles and ideals. It is freedom of religion but not freedom from religion and the society you live in. |
I agree people shouldn't park their religious views at the door when they leave their homes, but rather they should park their religious views at the front door of the courthouse when they enter to judge a trial, at the front door of the public school when enter to teach a class or at the front door of the government building when they enter to function on behalf of the government.
Edited to add: ... and, yes, it's another debated entirely.
Message edited by author 2008-07-09 17:33:23. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 05:42:29 PM · #1118 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
This nation was founded on Christian principles by Christian people and that is why 'marriage' is recognized by the government and why our founding documents refer to the 'creator'. |
Who told you that? Your pastor? Your church-influenced school?
Many American history books and classes will tell you that our nation was founded by Diests, not Christians, and that this is why our founding documents refer to an ambiguous and undefined 'creator' and not 'God' with a capital G. Don't make me dredge up a bunch of Bible-disparaging, Christianity-rebuking quotes made by our founding fathers. They are legion. The written record is undeniably clear... our most beloved founding fathers weren't much closer to today's idea of Christianity than contemporary Jews.
All this information is readily available if you look for yourself instead of, I assume, relying on the statements of non-historians and people with a vested interest in promoting this common misconception. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 05:44:24 PM · #1119 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So if the state does not have this right, would that include a 30-year-old wanting to marry a 12-year-old? I'm not as interested in your opinion about why that marriage should remain illegal but rather simply that you would agree that it should. Once you draw the line somewhere, then you simply open it up for the public to decide where that line is drawn. |
The state does not recognize the right of children under the age of eighteen to enter into any contract, of marriage, or to buy a car, or anything else. The issue here is whether the state has a right to state that "these two consenting citizens" have the right to enter into a contract, but "those two consenting citizens" do not, all things being equal except the gender of the parties involved.
It's pretty clearly established legal doctrine that certain Constitutional rights trump others -- the state's right to make killing illegal trumps any religion's right to continue practicing their tradition of human sacrifice. The state can say that no one has the right to marry a 12-year old without infringing on the rights of consenting adults. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 05:54:17 PM · #1120 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Many American history books and classes will tell you that our nation was founded by Diests, not Christians, and that this is why our founding documents refer to an ambiguous and undefined 'creator' and not 'God' with a capital G. |
Correction: it's probably more correct to say the country was founded by Christians (such as Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry), what one might call Rational Theists (who believed in the existence of a god who is involved with the universe, but were not what we would currently describe as Christian, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson) and Deists (who believed that a god created and started the universe, like a watchmaker, but was uninvolved with the "runnings" of it, such as Thomas Paine). There definitely Christians among the Founding Fathers. |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 06:03:14 PM · #1121 |
I'd also like to note just how easily this discussion has slipped back into the 'slippery slope' argument.
"If gays, why not adults and kids, and why not threes or fours?"
This is simply an attempt to conflate unrelated issues (that many people find distasteful) with gay marriage, to make gay marriage look worse.
If you can't differentiate between my 13 year "marriage in everything but name, respect, and legal protections" relationship to my partner and an adult having sex with a kid, well... why am I even debating you?
I would like to think that reasonable people can tell the difference between "a loving, committed relationship between legally consenting adults" and "sex with children". I'm sorely tempted to whip up a biting remark about the value systems of those who can't. Not that it would help.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 06:07:18 PM · #1122 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So if the state does not have this right, would that include a 30-year-old wanting to marry a 12-year-old? I'm not as interested in your opinion about why that marriage should remain illegal but rather simply that you would agree that it should. Once you draw the line somewhere, then you simply open it up for the public to decide where that line is drawn. |
The state does not recognize the right of children under the age of eighteen to enter into any contract, of marriage, or to buy a car, or anything else. The issue here is whether the state has a right to state that "these two consenting citizens" have the right to enter into a contract, but "those two consenting citizens" do not, all things being equal except the gender of the parties involved.
It's pretty clearly established legal doctrine that certain Constitutional rights trump others -- the state's right to make killing illegal trumps any religion's right to continue practicing their tradition of human sacrifice. The state can say that no one has the right to marry a 12-year old without infringing on the rights of consenting adults. |
Well, if the state doesn't recognize the rights of seventeen-year-olds to do certain things, then it may also not recognize the right of adults to do certain things. If the state wants to determine that two men cannot "marry" each other but rather can have some sort of "civil union", then why can't this be? I do not see a distinction except that you agree with one and do not with the other (and I'm not even sure where you stand on either, but I'll assume you differ on them).
Gay marriage is really not that high on my priority list. I think it's reasonable to ensure some sort of legal rights to couples, but why this insistance to put the term "marriage" on it? OTOH why are we monkeying with constitutions to prevent it? I'm not sure I get either side.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 06:13:51 PM · #1123 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Many American history books and classes will tell you that our nation was founded by Diests, not Christians, and that this is why our founding documents refer to an ambiguous and undefined 'creator' and not 'God' with a capital G. |
Correction: it's probably more correct to say the country was founded by Christians (such as Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry), what one might call Rational Theists (who believed in the existence of a god who is involved with the universe, but were not what we would currently describe as Christian, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson) and Deists (who believed that a god created and started the universe, like a watchmaker, but was uninvolved with the "runnings" of it, such as Thomas Paine). There definitely Christians among the Founding Fathers. |
Ah excellent! I'm always happy to accept a more precise description. :)
I didn't want to get into the nuances of theism (a hands-on god vs. a hands-off god) so I was lumping the rational theists in with the diests, and basing my statement on the preponderance of warm bodies being non-Christian.
...just like the Christians do when they say stuff like "We're a Christian Nation" while ignoring everyone else. I suppose that was a bit intellectually lazy of me as well.
Thank you for the clarification! |
|
|
|
07/09/2008 06:22:50 PM · #1124 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the state wants to determine that two men cannot "marry" each other but rather can have some sort of "civil union", then why can't this be? I do not see a distinction except that you agree with one and do not with the other (and I'm not even sure where you stand on either, but I'll assume you differ on them). |
- Legal precedent has determined that separate is not equal
- Civil unions are not transferrable across state lines like marriage is, by law
- The constitution forbids the establishment (official supoport) of any religion over the others, and therefore no religion (even Christianity) should be able to claim ownership of what is, TODAY, a secular contract granted by the government, by writing this ownership into LAW
- We live in a climate of ongoing, active attempts to not only ban gay marriage, but ANY same-sex relationship that is "marriage-like", so I don't buy the argument that conservatives will accept civil unions any more than they will marriage
There's four right off the top of my head, but I keep up on these things.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2008 06:24:36 PM · #1125 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So if the state does not have this right, would that include a 30-year-old wanting to marry a 12-year-old? I'm not as interested in your opinion about why that marriage should remain illegal but rather simply that you would agree that it should. Once you draw the line somewhere, then you simply open it up for the public to decide where that line is drawn. |
The state does not recognize the right of children under the age of eighteen to enter into any contract, of marriage, or to buy a car, or anything else. The issue here is whether the state has a right to state that "these two consenting citizens" have the right to enter into a contract, but "those two consenting citizens" do not, all things being equal except the gender of the parties involved.
It's pretty clearly established legal doctrine that certain Constitutional rights trump others -- the state's right to make killing illegal trumps any religion's right to continue practicing their tradition of human sacrifice. The state can say that no one has the right to marry a 12-year old without infringing on the rights of consenting adults. |
Well, if the state doesn't recognize the rights of seventeen-year-olds to do certain things, then it may also not recognize the right of adults to do certain things. If the state wants to determine that two men cannot "marry" each other but rather can have some sort of "civil union", then why can't this be? I do not see a distinction except that you agree with one and do not with the other (and I'm not even sure where you stand on either, but I'll assume you differ on them).
Gay marriage is really not that high on my priority list. I think it's reasonable to ensure some sort of legal rights to couples, but why this insistance to put the term "marriage" on it? OTOH why are we monkeying with constitutions to prevent it? I'm not sure I get either side. |
Really, you can't see the logic?
All 17 year olds are prohibited from doing some things which are allowed to adults. This has nothing to do with whether or not the state can prevent minors from doing things adults can do. But they are not allowed to discriminate among members of the same class on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc.
The state says two (and only two) can enter into a specific contract, granting each other certain rights and responsibilities, and gaining certain rights and privileges from the state as a consequence. The issue -- the ONLY issue -- before us nor, is whether the state can discriminate as to which particular two citizens can enter into that contract on the basis of race, religion, or gender; the California Supreme Court has ruled that it may not.
It is strictly a matter of "equal protection under the law" for citizens of the same class, i.e. a pair of competent and consenting adults. Any attempts to extend the issue to sex with minors or other non-consenting fauna, plural marriage, or anything else are purely diversionary and specious arguments. Advocates for those positions with have to speak up for themselves, and then you can argue the merits (or, more likely, the lack thereof) in those proposals. |
|
