Gay Marriage? Or just legal benefits

[Jerry]

It may be semantics to you, but it is deeply rooted in faith for me. And if it is so mundane and unnecessary for you, why not just make everything not endorsed by a church a civil union. It doesn't seem to be that important to you, but it very important to me and those who share my faith

In so far as a matter of faith is concerned, 2 people of the same gender will never be married in the eyes of God no matter what US codified law, a rouge church or popular opinion says. It's just not in the cards.

 

[Kelzie]

I don't think that you can say that religion isn't in the control of the churches, because what would it be under the control of the secular which is almost its opposite. People's view on religion is indeed in the control of the state, but the state only controls the lens to view it through.

I never said that. Let me rephrase. I'm not entirely sure what you are saying I said, so I'm guessing that I never said it.

I am not interested in what marriage used to mean, I am interested in what it means now. I want to know why people that are married outside of the church want to be called married? I suspect it has something to do with the holy connotation of the word, that would seem to suggest that marriage should only be a religious ideal. If people that are married outside the church only call themselves married for lack of a better term, then I don't see why they wouldn't just accept a civil union

Except I'm saying that people want to be married because the word has lost any if not all religious connotations. It's too late for you to claim it as a word sacred to religion because a whole lot of people don't believe it has anything to do with what god you worship.

 

[Kelzie]

In so far as a matter of faith is concerned, 2 people of the same gender will never be married in the eyes of God no matter what US codified law, a rouge church or popular opinion says. It's just not in the cards.

:lol: According to your faith. That's pretty funny. Cause I'm sure you're the only one who knows what God wants.

 

[jfuh]

It may be semantics to you, but it is deeply rooted in faith for me. And if it is so mundane and unnecessary for you, why not just make everything not endorsed by a church a civil union. It doesn't seem to be that important to you, but it very important to me and those who share my faith

Not in this country. The US is not a sectarian nation, we're secular. Thus if marriage is to be defined as only a religious ordeal than it need be taken out of the state. Where then all unions by anyone hetero or homo are civil unions. But then by what right does one religion over another have the right to reserve the word "marriage" for their own use?
This is not an issue of "mundane", "importance" or "un-necessary" but the very approach to which all people would proceed on the issue of marriage. If the only rational that you have behind supporting marriage between a man and woman is that of a religious one, than all marriages need be abolished and in place be called civil unions. Hence, as I stated, this is but a semantics argument - were that the case.

 

[Jerry]

Except I'm saying that people want to be married because the word has lost any if not all religious connotations. It's too late for you to claim it as a word sacred to religion because a whole lot of people don't believe it has anything to do with what god you worship.

That only means that a whole lot of people are wrong.

 

[Jerry]

:lol: According to your faith. That's pretty funny. Cause I'm sure you're the only one who knows what God wants.

Oh calm down sweetie, you may be hot but that's no reason to try and call doubt to my faith.

 

[Kelzie]

What I think he was getting at is the constant dichotomy in the arguments for gay marriage. If you say "I believe very strongly in the importance of marriage as a product of the tradition of marriage as the standard of legitimacy for adult relationships", the response is "It's not important, traditions mean nothing, don't be stupid, this is a legal issue, or this is a secular issue. Well fine, it's a legal issue, why not create an institution providing identical rights as marriage, but called something else, so as to acknowledge that there is a difference? It's because it's important to be married and connect with the traditions of marriage as the standard of legitimacy, as gay relationships should be accepted!

It can't go both ways, either the traditions of marriage are important, or they're not. If they're important, then there's a reason to pursue gay marriage, and it should be pursued in building popular acceptance for homosexual relationships, so as to not separate marriage from its tradition as the standard of legitimacy for adult relationships. If they're not important, then there's no purpose in gay marriage over equitable civil unions.


I understand a lot of this is not to what you were saying, and I apologize.

It is a tradition and it is important. But it is no longer a religious tradition, else people who aren't religious (and there are many of them) would have no desire to get married. But they still do. Traditions can still be important even if a religion is not tied to them.

 

[Kelzie]

Oh calm down sweetie, you may be hot but that's no reason to try and call doubt to my faith.

Wait, let me get this straight. You can call doubt to other people's faith because they believe something different than you and are therefore wrong, but if I call doubt to your faith, I need to calm down? That's so...something. Give me a minute, I'll think of the word.

 

[PolySciGuy]

I don't really think you can argue anymore that "religion" is solely the domain of the church.

This was when I said that religion had to be under the control of the church because the only other option is that is is secular.

Religiousness and Secularism are just about opposites

I never said that. Let me rephrase. I'm not entirely sure what you are saying I said, so I'm guessing that I never said it.

 

[Kelzie]

This was when I said that religion had to be under the control of the church because the only other option is that is is secular.

Religiousness and Secularism are just about opposites

And I'm saying that marriage has been secular for many decades. You can't undo it now.

*Edit* I see the confusion. That sentence should have read: "I don't really think you can argue anymore that "marriage" is solely the domain of the church." My bad.

 

[PolySciGuy]

Not in this country. The US is not a sectarian nation, we're secular. Thus if marriage is to be defined as only a religious ordeal than it need be taken out of the state. Where then all unions by anyone hetero or homo are civil unions. But then by what right does one religion over another have the right to reserve the word "marriage" for their own use?
This is not an issue of "mundane", "importance" or "un-necessary" but the very approach to which all people would proceed on the issue of marriage. If the only rational that you have behind supporting marriage between a man and woman is that of a religious one, than all marriages need be abolished and in place be called civil unions. Hence, as I stated, this is but a semantics argument - were that the case.

I agree entirely with this statement, Marriage should not be secular! As far as the word marriage goes for the different faiths, I recognize an Islamic marriage to hold the same meaning to Islamic people as a Christian marriage has to Christian people. I also like to think that people from other religions hold Christianity in the same respect that I hold the respective religions (sorry if that last bit was ridiculously confusing)

 

[PolySciGuy]

And I'm saying that marriage has been secular for many decades. You can't undo it now.

*Edit* I see the confusion. That sentence should have read: "I don't really think you can argue anymore that "marriage" is solely the domain of the church." My bad.

ah i see

As far as marriage not being religious for many decades.... I disagree. It wasn't until after WWII that marriage outside of a faith became acceptable (to the best of my knowledge) perhaps this is just a discrepancy between our definitions of "many"

 

[Kelzie]

ah i see

As far as marriage not being religious for many decades.... I disagree. It wasn't until after WWII that marriage outside of a faith became acceptable (to the best of my knowledge) perhaps this is just a discrepancy between our definitions of "many"

I qualify anything above three as many. Regardless, the fact remains that the meaning behing marriage has already changed.

 

[PolySciGuy]

I qualify anything above three as many. Regardless, the fact remains that the meaning behing marriage has already changed.

I think that is ridiculous reasoning. That is like saying we shouldn't overturn supreme court trials, or make amendments to the constitution. Are you advocating that just because something is, it cannot be changed?

 

[Jerry]

Wait, let me get this straight. You can call doubt to other people's faith because they believe something different than you and are therefore wrong, but if I call doubt to your faith, I need to calm down? That's so...something. Give me a minute, I'll think of the word.

On the greater topic of believing in God, in any way shape or form, if a person has faith then there could be a discussion.

However, it is imposable to call doubt on the faith of the world you spoke of in post 24, which as you said has grown away from religion, because without any religion there is nothing for me to question.

Surly you have skimmed the "Atheism is a religion" threads in due coarse of your mod duties to know that the absence of religion is not religion.

Perhaps I misunderstood post 27:

Except I'm saying that people want to be married because the word has lost any if not all religious connotations. It's too late for you to claim it as a word sacred to religion because a whole lot of people don't believe it has anything to do with what god you worship.

In the bolded portion, did you mean that a lot of people think that marriage has nothing to do with the god of one's preference, or that a lot of people think that marriage has nothing to do with rather or not one believes in any god?

*Edit*

*Edit* I see the confusion. That sentence should have read: "I don't really think you can argue anymore that "marriage" is solely the domain of the church." My bad.

Actualy that clears it up for me also.

Yall have fun :2wave:

 

[jfuh]

I agree entirely with this statement, Marriage should not be secular! As far as the word marriage goes for the different faiths, I recognize an Islamic marriage to hold the same meaning to Islamic people as a Christian marriage has to Christian people. I also like to think that people from other religions hold Christianity in the same respect that I hold the respective religions (sorry if that last bit was ridiculously confusing)

Honestly I'm very confused, could you elaborate?

 

[Dogger807]

Marriage...really it's a concept that developed along side religion and was often annexed by religion as it's own. If you stop to think other cultures in the world have marriage , not just the judo christian portion. Heck we have records of marriages from the age of Egypt.
The traditions of the last couple hundred years really don't lock it's definition in concrete. Heck with a big enough hammer even that wouldn't be an obstacle.

It is most definitely not religious in nature no matter how many religions thru the ages have tried to claim it. Let me say it very simply "Christianity has no monopoly on marriage." In fact it has very little right to call marriage it's own.
Any culture or lifestyle has equal rights to the word and the prestige behind it. Whether you believe in superstitious gods sanctifying it or not.

 

[Sammy2]

I qualify anything above three as many. Regardless, the fact remains that the meaning behing marriage has already changed.

Possibly, but not for about 100 years. But if so, what are you referring to, exactly?

Marriage has been LEGALLY recognized by the 50 states as a union between a man and a woman. We're not talking about "feel good" we're talking about what states have recognized as "law" according to what the legal definition for "marriage" is for MORE than 100 years.

So we just need to change the law every time someone gets their panties all wadded up over an issue that affects only them? No.

 

[desertfox]

jezz does anyone know what a comprimise is

every conservative ive seen post on here has said that civil union is fine (EVEN NAVY PRIDE!!!) if everyone just HAS to have everything there way we'll never get anything done. If religious people want to keep the word marriage let them have it, its just a word anyways. Isn't a cival union with all the fixin's fair. But politics is so polarizing in this country that we cant get anything done. I'm sure the vast majority of the population would support cival unions for gays and its happened in several other countries around the world, but sadly i realy dont see it happening here.

 

[PolySciGuy]

Marriage...really it's a concept that developed along side religion and was often annexed by religion as it's own. If you stop to think other cultures in the world have marriage , not just the judo christian portion. Heck we have records of marriages from the age of Egypt.
The traditions of the last couple hundred years really don't lock it's definition in concrete. Heck with a big enough hammer even that wouldn't be an obstacle.

It is most definitely not religious in nature no matter how many religions thru the ages have tried to claim it. Let me say it very simply "Christianity has no monopoly on marriage." In fact it has very little right to call marriage it's own.
Any culture or lifestyle has equal rights to the word and the prestige behind it. Whether you believe in superstitious gods sanctifying it or not.

here's where you are wrong. Religion owns marriage, I would not hope to say that Christianity owns marriage, but religion owns it. I make this claim because marriage was not called marriage until Christianity invented the word

What religion cannot lay claim to is a man and woman sharing the same house and the same bed and raising a family, that is human nature. However, human nature is not always the most productive way of going about something

 

[PolySciGuy]

Honestly I'm very confused, could you elaborate?

I would say that religions across the world hold each others traditions in the same respective esteem

This is true with me and another religion's marriage rites

Your previous main argument was a contention between religions and their claim to the word marriage, my point is that religions won't mind other religions using the word marriage, but they do mind non-religions (atheism) using the word marriage

 

[1069]

I would say that religions across the world hold each others traditions in the same respective esteem

Oh? And on what basis would you say that?

This is true with me and another religion's marriage rites

Which proves what?

Your previous main argument was a contention between religions and their claim to the word marriage, my point is that religions won't mind other religions using the word marriage...

Evidence to support this claim?

but they do mind non-religions (atheism) using the word marriage.

Evidence to support this claim?

Not that I doubt you; I'm sure that, being an individual who is apparently inclined to making broad, sweeping generalizations and blanket statements, you have evidence to back them up right on hand and that said evidence will no doubt be forthcoming.
Yep, I'm sure any minute now, you'll be producing it.

 

[Dogger807]

here's where you are wrong. Religion owns marriage, I would not hope to say that Christianity owns marriage, but religion owns it. I make this claim because marriage was not called marriage until Christianity invented the word

semantics ....

 

[PolySciGuy]

Oh? And on what basis would you say that?



Which proves what?



Evidence to support this claim?



Evidence to support this claim?

Not that I doubt you; I'm sure that, being an individual who is apparently inclined to making broad, sweeping generalizations and blanket statements, you have evidence to back them up right on hand and that said evidence will no doubt be forthcoming.
Yep, I'm sure any minute now, you'll be producing it.

Before you go off on one of your personal vandalisms i would like to see you disprove what I say. I know most of what I say (here) cannot be backed with statistical data. All I know is what is said in churches and the opinions of my peers and the adults in my life.

One of my main reasons for believing this is the idea of tolerance which is practiced in almost every major religion.

Buddhists are allowed to celebrate other religion's holidays

Christians recognize marriages outside of the faith

I have no personal experience with religions outside those two, but I would assume that a religion can only take hold if it is one of tolerance.

I would claim that religions don't recognize marriages in the way of non-religious marriages because the church still believes in the holiness of matrimony, one does not elope in the eyes of the church

 

[PolySciGuy]

semantics ....

I know this is about semantics, that has been the point from the beginning! Since it is semantics why do you find it offensive that anyone not married under the church not be called married? If it simply semantics what is wrong with a civil union?