Homosexuality & Same-Sex Marriage

[Mike Windu]

Before medical science discovered how the circulatory system functioned, people believed that a vein of blood ran directly from the fourth finger on the left hand to the heart. (This belief allegedly dates to the 3rd century BC in Greece.) Because of the hand-heart connection, people named the putative vein descriptively vena amori, Latin for 'the vein of love'.~wiki

 

Both of our sources are rather dubious.. at any rate they agree that ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians believed in wedding bands used as a connection of the love vein.

 

Egyptians may have made the first wedding bands; that's not what I meant in my post (however ambiguous it was, I apologize), I was linking the Greek ideas behind the rings.

 

Regardless of your "corrections" and my rebuttals about rings, the fact remains that it is not based in religion.

 

We might have to continue this in private after I get my Latin book from school tomorrow.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Mike Windu:

I don't believe that... I think most people view marriage as a serious commitment... I'm certainly viewing it like that.. I don't believe in the idea of divorce, and I don't think my wife will either. We're stuck together for life, basically.

No offence, Mike... But many people who get married believe the same thing. Only a certain number of those people stay married.

 

Unfortunately, love, belief in the strength of the relationship, these things do not a lasting relationship make, necessarily.

 

Originally Posted by Mike Windu:

The rings date back to the Greeks, who found a thin "nerve" leading from the ring finger on the left hand to the heart. The ring is a symbol of this connection. Pretty sure it has nothing to do with religion..

There are many guesses about the origin of the wedding/engagement ring custom, but none are relevant to my argument.

 

There's nothing in your two posts that contradicts my earlier statement: "Marriage may be recognised by the state, but the ceremony of the thing, the rings, the socially accepted standard of one partner changing their surname... it's all derivative of religion in general, and superstitious ritual in general."

 

The important point is in bold, there. And not even you can deny the cultural impact of christianity and judaism on wedding customs in both the US and the UK.

[toms]

I completely agree that religion has had a huge influence on [edit]marriage[/edit]. I also agree that marriage is no more valid than co-habiting or any other form of long term relationship.

 

However I do think that secure long term relationships are a good thing for society in general.

 

Those in secure long term relationships are more likely to be stable, to be employed, to pay taxes, to settle down and own homes... and its pretty conclusive that its better for kids to have more than one guardian to tend to their welfare.

 

I couldn't care less whether those people in long term relationships are gat or straight, married or cohabiting.. or anything ese they want to try... but i do think that there are a number of benefits for everyone if people are in such relationships. However I definately don't think that people should be forced to stay together if they don't want.. or that single mothers are the root of all eveil or anything like that.

 

I guess that is why states have often encoraged marriage.. throguh things like tax breaks etc.. I don't really agree with that.. but i understand why they would do it.

 

While it is arguable that people would (or should) get married merely because of tax breaks, i have heard it argued recently that married couples can actually end up paying more. No idea if that is true. Its certainly true that after the government introduced no-faulth "quickie" divorces the divorce rate shot up... so there were obviously a lot of people staying together just because they couldn't face the hassle of getting divorced.

 

I saw an interesting interview with a guy who spends his time working with troubled inner city london kids a while back that actually challenged afew of my liberal views on the subject. Because when they asked him what the one thing the government could do to cut antisocial behaviour/youth crime was he answered "bring back tax breaks for married couples". He fel that the main strain on a lot of inner city couples was financial.. and that the disapearence of stable relationships was a major factor in the instability of "kids today" ( ).

[Mike Windu]

No offence, Mike... But many people who get married believe the same thing. Only a certain number of those people stay married.

 

So we remove the institution of marriage on the grounds of some idiots who can't keep their act together?

 

In this stance of marriage I fully agree with the Roman Catholic church in that divorce is not an option. At least for myself and my future family.

 

My apologies for not noticing "superstitious ritual in general". Doh. >_<

[StaffSaberist]

I completely agree that religion has had a huge influence on religion.

 

...???

 

I also agree that marriage is no more valid than co-habiting or any other form of long term relationship.

 

Marraige is a ceremony of commitment to your bride/groom. Its meaning varies from person to person. For many people, it means a lot - it's a big step. OTOH, it means little to immigrants who wish to marry, become a citizen and divorce.

 

Now, the question becomes, why is it wrong for gays to marry, if that's all it is? And guess what? Putting personal opinion aside, I really don't give a **** anymore if they do. I'm not going to get involved in a debate over faiths as such debates are impossible. However, I will say this: It's not the marriage I'm opposed to. Run with that as you will.

 

However I do think that secure long term relationships are a good thing for society in general.

 

As any sane person would think. I smile on this point; a shame it's painfully obvious. I don't see how anyone could be opposed to forming long-term relationships, business or personal.

 

However I definately don't think that people should be forced to stay together if they don't want.. or that single mothers are the root of all eveil or anything like that.

 

Good God, no. If straight couples can divorce, so can gays. As for the "single mothers" bit, I have no issues with them, any more than single fathers, or anything like that. As for the quality of their parenting, I would judge them based on quality of parenting, not marital status, just like I wouldn't judge based on black or white skin tone. If they're a lousy parent, I'd recommend someone else. I could care less about married, single or divorced (though my opinion of a single mother would drop if I found out she took advantage of some guy then sued him about it or whatever. But that's a given).

 

I guess that is why states have often encoraged marriage.. throguh things like tax breaks etc.. I don't really agree with that.. but i understand why they would do it.

 

Yeah, like polygamy being easier to track. (Fox reported today about a guy with nearly triple-digit wives. If I find the story on the web I'll let you know) toms, if you don't mind me asking... what issues do you have with states encouraging marriage? It seems a win-win situation to me, but I'm always interested in other opinions. I promise I won't debate you on it.

 

While it is arguable that people would (or should) get married merely because of tax breaks, i have heard it argued recently that married couples can actually end up paying more. No idea if that is true. Its certainly true that after the government introduced no-faulth "quickie" divorces the divorce rate shot up... so there were obviously a lot of people staying together just because they couldn't face the hassle of getting divorced.

 

Maybe, or maybe just a larger load for one person - the breadwinner. OK, I don't know 100% either, but it makes sense that you'd need food to support two, maybe two cars, etc.. But, the whole "one mortgage/rent in total" and the fact that couples usually have a car already from their single days, etc. may outweigh it or lessen the costs. It's really up for grabs.

 

I saw an interesting interview with a guy who spends his time working with troubled inner city london kids a while back that actually challenged afew of my liberal views on the subject. Because when they asked him what the one thing the government could do to cut antisocial behaviour/youth crime was he answered "bring back tax breaks for married couples". He fel that the main strain on a lot of inner city couples was financial.. and that the disapearence of stable relationships was a major factor in the instability of "kids today"

 

IIRC, there were studies that showed evidence to back this up, that couples (or single fathers, surprisingly) were less likely to produce delinquents. Again, I don't have this now, but a few hit-and-misses with Google should reveal it in time. Interesting stuff; amazing how life works.

 

So we remove the institution of marriage on the grounds of some idiots who can't keep their act together?

 

I would agree that those who wish to abolish marriage would have a tough time explaining that to the Supreme Court.

 

In this stance of marriage I fully agree with the Roman Catholic church in that divorce is not an option. At least for myself and my future family.

 

Depends on the circumstances. I agree that divorce on a whim is quite idiotic; however, I don't think even the Roman Catholics would not make an exception for times when it's needed.

[rccar328]

Personally, I believe that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. The way I see it, the (governmentally endorsed) institution of marriage is too entangled in religion for the issue of gay marriage to be settled equitably. If some judge rules that gay marriage should be legal under the equal protection clause, the next thing you know, law suits will be filed against churches that refuse to marry homosexuals...and, under the equal protection clause, those churches will be forced to administer those marriages, which will in turn violate the free exercise clause.

 

Over time, my opinion has changed a bit on this subject. At first I was against gay marriage and civil unions. But, while homosexuality remains something that I disagree with, it's not going away any time soon, and there are too many legal issues surrounding the marriage/civil union debate to just write it off. Here is the conclusion I have come to after much deliberation:

 

I think the government should be hands-off when it comes to marriage. We should just go to a system of civil unions for everyone. That way, religious people can get a civil union under the law, and then be married in the church, while churches are not pressured by the government into performing marriages that violate their theological doctrines...and the governmental benefits that currently are bestowed on married couples can in turn go to any couple with a civil union.

 

As far as getting rid of marriage because of divorce, that has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard (and this isn't the only place I've heard it, or I wouldn't even address it). I can't personally think of any church that endorses divorce, and every devout Christian person I've ever talked to who was divorced (usually before they became a devout Christian) regretted getting a divorce because of the damage it did to their family, particularly to their children. I've thought long and hard about this topic, as I'm getting married next month, and I strongly believe that there should be only two permissible reasons for divorce: adultery (see Matthew 19:3-9) and physical abuse (not backed Biblically that I can find, but it would probably be better if a man who abused his wife never re-married anyway).

[toms]

I think the government should be hands-off when it comes to marriage. We should just go to a system of civil unions for everyone. That way, religious people can get a civil union under the law, and then be married in the church, while churches are not pressured by the government into performing marriages that violate their theological doctrines...and the governmental benefits that currently are bestowed on married couples can in turn go to any couple with a civil union.

 

That is exactly my opinion.. its just that the word "marriage" has come to be religiousized (if that is a word) when it initially WAS just a civil union.

 

IMHO there should be no legal status for religious "marriages". All marriages should be civil, legal deals... and as such should be open to all citizens equally.

 

"religious unions" should simply be an additional matter of personal faith.. and then it would be entirely up to each faith and person to decide whatever terms they wanted on those "religious unions".

 

toms, if you don't mind me asking... what issues do you have with states encouraging marriage? It seems a win-win situation to me, but I'm always interested in other opinions. I promise I won't debate you on it.

Not at all.

 

I think a lot of my "issues" come from growing up in margret thatcher's conservative (read: republican) Britain where basically all the ills of society were blamed on single mothers and any partnership that didn't match the ideal christian view of "1 husband, 1 wife, 2.4 kids".

 

It was seen as a great way to get some coverage fromt he right wing press or cheers at the national conference to stand up and bash single mothers.. to cut their benefits and basically "fine" them for not being happily married! and we won't even mention gay partnerships...

 

-

 

The problem with the state encouraging one form of action is that from the other side it looks like punishing any other form of action.

 

Give tax breaks or extra benefits to married couples and you are basically, in comparison, penalising single mothers, cohabiting couples, gay couples (if they can't marry) etc..

 

If you are a single mother, for example, you are probably already at a major disadvantage... so seeing the married couple next door get benefits that you are in greater need of can hardly be a nice experience. It basically says to her "this is your fault"... when of course in many cases it isn't at all.

 

(same way as if you gave extra benefits to single mothers because they are in greater need then you would have married couples and marriage advocates saying "why are they being rewarded for NOT getting married and why are we being penalised for getting married???)

 

Anyway, thats where i'm coming from... product of my environment and all that..

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Mike Windu:

So we remove the institution of marriage on the grounds of some idiots who can't keep their act together?

Not quite, my argument is closer to the argument for legalization of recreational drugs.

 

People who want to take drugs will, people who don't want to take drugs won't. Likewise people who are destined to stay together will, and people who aren't suited to be together, won't stay together. Since marriage is no longer a binding factor, since it no longer provides any guarantee of stability, it is an irrelevance.

 

And like the criminal industry surrounding the narcotics trade, there is also an entire industry surrounding divorce. A negative industry, one might say. In the process of abolishing marriage, one could determine once and for all that each individual owns only his or her own property, which would make taxation fairer, and would reduce litigation following separation. Both good things, in my view.

 

But divorce isn't the only reason for abolishing marriage, as I stated above. The fact that the state recognises marriage is a social injustice, due to financial advantages for married couples.

 

Marriage is also an outmoded, outdated, superstitious and quasi-religious ritual. It wastes time, money and effort, encourages false hopes and unrealistic expectations and is a social throwback that does nothing to move human society forward. It should be discarded just as top hats, coat tails and starched collars were discarded, just as organized religion should be discarded.

 

Not that I think it WILL be, but it should be.

 

Originally Posted by rccar328:

As far as getting rid of marriage because of divorce, that has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard (and this isn't the only place I've heard it, or I wouldn't even address it). I can't personally think of any church that endorses divorce, and every devout Christian person I've ever talked to ...

No offence, friend... but the fact that your religion doesn't always endorse divorce is not relevant to my argument. Religion is such a subjective and superstitious fancy, that when applied to a logical debate it becomes quite an obtuse and distracting influence. Divorce is a fact of life and many marriages end in divorce. Divorce is one reason, but not the only reason, that marriage has become an irrelevance in modern society. Religious views on the subject don't enter into my reasoning process.

[TK-8252]

Over time, my opinion has changed a bit on this subject. At first I was against gay marriage and civil unions. But, while homosexuality remains something that I disagree with, it's not going away any time soon, and there are too many legal issues surrounding the marriage/civil union debate to just write it off. Here is the conclusion I have come to after much deliberation:

 

I think the government should be hands-off when it comes to marriage. We should just go to a system of civil unions for everyone. That way, religious people can get a civil union under the law, and then be married in the church, while churches are not pressured by the government into performing marriages that violate their theological doctrines...and the governmental benefits that currently are bestowed on married couples can in turn go to any couple with a civil union.

 

Moving to the left eh rccar?

 

I've thought long and hard about this topic, as I'm getting married next month

 

Hey, congrats.

[rccar328]

Moving to the left eh rccar?

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?

 

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that the government should be less involved in the personal lives of citizens, perticularly in areas where the government goes outside of its Constitutional restraints, whether that has to do with restructuring the tax system, abolishing welfare, drastically restructuring and/or abolishing the public school system, etc. And that opinion also extends to marriage.

 

As I said above, marriage is, in large part, a religious institution. And the government cannot extend the 'right to marry' to homosexuals without violating another area of the Constitution - the Free Exercise clause. For me, it's not about gay rights, it's about bringing the government back within its Constitutional bounds.

 

Hey, congrats.

Thanks.

[toms]

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that the government should be less involved in the personal lives of citizens, perticularly in areas where the government goes outside of its Constitutional restraints, whether that has to do with restructuring the tax system, abolishing welfare, drastically restructuring and/or abolishing the public school system, etc. And that opinion also extends to marriage.

 

Going liberterian then?

 

The dichotomy i've never understood about political parties has always been that the left wing/liberal parties are all about freedoms for people and bigger government interference.. but rightwing parties are all about less government and less regulation of companies... but always try and tell you what to do in your personal life. Weird.

 

I still think marriage should be made an entirely GOVERNMENTAL institution... take the religion out of marriage and you have no problems anymore.

[Samuel Dravis]

I still think marriage should be made an entirely GOVERNMENTAL institution... take the religion out of marriage and you have no problems anymore.

Eh. Since the government has a vested interest in marriage as toms said, it can support civil contracts (like marriage). Those contracts can be given to anyone. If a church wants to endorse said contract that's their prerogative. It isn't a 'either religion based marriage or nothing' kind of thing.

 

It seems to me that the reason homosexuals would want to be 'married' is to have the benefits of marriage: ability to control the estate of their partners if they have an accident, etc. Tax breaks should be given on the number of children supported, not on the basis of just being married. It seems pretty obvious that they could avoid a lot of argument if they just said they wanted a 'civil contract' that would give them these benefits, instead of the religiously-charged word 'marriage'. If they want that contract recognized by a church, however, they're on their own - the government cannot interfere.

[rccar328]

Going liberterian then?

Not quite. I know that's what it sounds like, but it's not libertarian, it's Constitutional. The US Constitution just doesn't give the government the right to be meddling to the extent that it does. And you're right about Republicans and other right-wingers claiming to be conservatives and then wanting to legislate morals on other people...this is a byproduct of the preeminence of liberal thought since after the Gread Depression. Too many people take it for granted today that the government should have control over peoples' lives, so when they think people should behave a certain way...have the government make them do it!

 

That's not the way things should work...but I'm deviating from the topic. For a little more on my perspective, check out this post on my blog.

[StaffSaberist]

I still think marriage should be made an entirely GOVERNMENTAL institution... take the religion out of marriage and you have no problems anymore.

 

They don't have to be religious in nature. Sure, they're held in a church, but you can have the traditional vows or have them modified to suit your tastes. At least, that's the way it is in this chunk of the US.

[Kurgan]

My cousin was married to her husband in a courthouse by a justice of the peace, if that helps.

[toms]

My cousin was married to her husband in a courthouse by a justice of the peace, if that helps.

 

If someone is being married in a courthouse, by a judge, then what place do any christian (or other religion) traditions/values have? I would argue none. In which case why couldn't your cousin marry her wife in a courthouse with a JotP?

 

Country clubs can set rules about the conduct of their members, and who can become members.. but they can't set rules for people outside the club. Religion should be the same.

[Kurgan]

People don't just get married in Christian churches (or synagogues, temples, mosques, etc) you know. People have been getting married by judges for years. It's called a civil ceremony. And it technically doesn't have to be in a courthouse, my other cousin got married by a judge at a banquet hall, again a civil ceremony (and these are both straight couples).

 

A marriage is recognized by the state, whether done in an ecclesiastical setting or a civil setting. Some states also have "common law marriages" that is, if you've been living with your partner a certain number of years (as if you were married in all but name) you are automatically considered legal husband and wife (and have to do the paperwork based on it, etc).

 

I think there might also be some kind of "common law divorce" in similar states (not sure if that's the right word) like if the couple have been seperated a certain amount of time, they are considered divorced, in law.

[SkinWalker]

Regardless of how you are married in the United States, marriage is a power that is vested from the state level to the marrying authority, be it a judge, clergy, justice of the peace, etc.

 

Marriage is a civil and state function that is used by religion. Religion should have no say whatsoever in a state function as it is not religion's business. Religion -that silly superstition of supernatural agency that is unique to humanity - has nothing to do with the secular powers of government. One of these secular powers is the authority to bind a civil contract called marriage.

[Kurgan]

Aren't the concepts of "government" or "law" also uniquely human concepts? And 'marriage' (which is a legal definition) too for that matter?

 

Anyway, ecclessiastical (and here I refer to any religion, not just a Christian denomination) marriages are a reality that the state recognizes as equal to marriages peformed by its own legal representatives (not all religious marriages are recognized of course, some churches have "blessed same sex unions" when in fact they are not legally recognized, just as some Mormon groups have blessed polygamous unions which are similarly illegal). The power is vested in certain recognized officials that include clergypeople of various religious groups. Sure you can say, if it's not illegal for two people to randomly have sex if they're both over a certain age and haven't entered into a legally binding contract with one another (entitling one of them to sue the other for divorce for "breach of contract"), why bother with marriage at all? Marriage is one of those things that people place value on (not all people, but a great number of people). "Opponets" of marriage always point out how half of marriages fail, and the so-called "marriage penalty" in taxation, but still, a lot of people place value on it. So homosexuals wishing to be married are asking for that kind of value to be available to them, and whatever legal "benefits" of that recognition also to be available. Opponents of same-sex unions/marriages/whatevers are saying that marriage should be defined so as not to allow homosexual unions legally (just as whatever other marriages we don't legally recognize such as polygamus, close cousins, or whatever other restrictions anyone places on it). As I see it, 'marriage' is a legal thing, whether it is done by a representative of the state, or a legally recognized function of a religious authority. Since you can be married in a church and divorced in a civil court (at least I think that's correct).

 

Anyway, blah blah blah, etc.

 

 

Skin, would you say that only secular marriages should be recognized by the state and all others deemed illegal (ex: state decides that gay marriage is fine, "religions" decide it is not, thus gay couples get married outside "religions" they get all legal benefits, I guess no celebrating their anniversaries or renewing their vows in churches, etc. though I doubt that would be the case anyway because at least a few churches have outspokenly supported "gay marriage" even though such marriages are often not legally recognized by the state)?

 

Or are you just saying that religion should play no part in the decision making process, regardless of popular support, and religious leaders should be forced to "recognize" (whatever that would entail) legally sanctioned homosexual marriages? Should governments exert pressure on religious bodies to enforce their consent? (that is, take away tax exempt status of churches that teach homosexuals should not/can not be married/refuse to perform gay weddings, etc.)

 

Maybe it is being "skirted around" by calling it "civil unions" rather than "marriage for homosexual couples" because it is felt that marriage is somehow a religious issue only. However in my example, both my cousins who were married in each their own seperate civil ceremonies (note: I'm not saying my cousins married EACH OTHER, nor that they are gay... both are negative, don't get the wrong idea) are considered "married" not "civilly unionized" or whatever, though there was no ecclesial authority involved in either case. I don't know if either will consider to have their marriages blessed by a clergyperson later, but that's not necessary anyway, they are considered "married" by law.

 

Since religion isn't going to go away anytime soon, I wondered if you would clarify that point, without starting the whole argument over again, of course (since I'm just jumping in here late in the game, and really didn't have plans to take it on, it's that darn subscription thing, always bringing me back to threads when I forget to unsubscribe!).

[SkinWalker]

Skin, would you say that only secular marriages should be recognized by the state and all others deemed illegal [...] Or are you just saying that religion should play no part in the decision making process, regardless of popular support, and religious leaders should be forced to "recognize" (whatever that would entail) legally sanctioned homosexual marriages? Should governments exert pressure on religious bodies to enforce their consent? (that is, take away tax exempt status of churches that teach homosexuals should not/can not be married/refuse to perform gay weddings, etc.)

 

I'm saying only that religion should have no input in the civil institution of marriage. If the religious prefer that their marriages be conducted by their religious leaders, thats their choice as long as the religious leaders are educated in the laws and policies of the state. Indeed, if people prefer to be married by the General Manager of McDonald's via the Drive-Thru, this should be acceptable as well as long as the GM is trained in the same laws and policies.

 

If the religious leaders don't want to marry couples that don't subscribe to their specific superstitions (i.e. the pastor of the local place of worship for his Noodly Appendage refuses to marry a couple that dislikes spaghetti; or the GM doesn't want to marry a couple that are vegan) that should be fine. The couples can go other places. But superstitions should not dictate the state's qualifications for the secular institution of marriage.

[Kurgan]

Okay, sounds good!

[toms]

So then... following this line of reasoning too far... if marriage is a civil/governmental institution, and the US constitution bans religion from interfering with government...

 

..does that meant that hetero-only marriages are unconstitutional?

[SkinWalker]

This thread was split & merged with The Separation of Church and State, which was an existing thread, due to so many off-topic posts.

 

Bigotry on the ballot fails to get even 50 votes. But the Presidential pandering will probably go on. I'm sure other "wedge issues" will be brought up in attempt to distract the American public from real issues. Right wing politicians will undoubtedly use gay-marriage as a means to appeal to their religious base and have no real interest in the issue, as demonstrated by the Senate vote. Even Bush used the code words "activist judges" to alert the religious nutters that he's speaking to them in his speech over the weekend.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Bigotry on the ballot fails to get even 50 votes

Yay! Great news of the day!

[Darth Methos]

Marriage was created by the church. Correct?