• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marriage Violates Seperation of Church and State

No it doesn't as marriage is used by every religious groups and atheists and has existed before modern religion in almost every society.

If you are religious, you believe God created the world, so your argument that marriage predates religion/God is moot.
 
If you are religious, you believe God created the world, so your argument that marriage predates religion/God is moot.

Which I am not and marriage does predate any modern religion.
 
Use of the word Marriage is unconstitutional as it promotes religious beliefs. The state only has the power to grant civil union and all unions are thus civil unions.

Go to church to get married.

Marriage is not, nor has it ever been, strictly a religious ceremony. Indeed it wasn't until 1563 that the Council of Trent decreed that marriages be performed in front of a priest and a witness.....when was the America's discovered again?.......(hint...Columbus died in 1506 so it was before 1563).
 
Marriage is not, nor has it ever been, strictly a religious ceremony. Indeed it wasn't until 1563 that the Council of Trent decreed that marriages be performed in front of a priest and a witness.....when was the America's discovered again?.......(hint...Columbus died in 1506 so it was before 1563).

so why are the fundies so upset gays want to use the word marriage? if the word isn't religious why are they so mouth frothing about it?
 
so why are the fundies so upset gays want to use the word marriage? if the word isn't religious why are they so mouth frothing about it?

Because fundies rely on ignorance. All of their arguements against gay marriage is based on them expecting people to be ignorant. Its the only reason that they have any following at all.
 
Because fundies rely on ignorance. All of their arguements against gay marriage is based on them expecting people to be ignorant. Its the only reason that they have any following at all.

In that case, sounds like they have something in common with liberals and socialists.
 
1.)That's true, except we have the situation that religious marriage and legal marriage still use the same term,
2.)and the government licenses priests and ministers to carry out legal marriages.
3.)I think we should just give the word "marriage" to religions, and keep the term civil unions for all legally recognized unions,
4.)and thus avoid this battle over "marriage".
5.) With marriage liberated from any legal standing any church or group could have any restrictions or requirements or none, that they want.
6.) And nobody could interfere with that, and it wouldn't cause any more social conflict.

1.) who cares many terms are used by religion that are also used but non religious things
2.) yes many people can be licencesed to do legal marriages, but this is a non impact
3.) they already have it, theres no need to do this and make more work, waste more money and more time
4.) the battle is silly because its made up, legal marriage and religious marriage are already to separate things.
5.) they already can do this now
6.) again nobody can now

nothing needs changed because one sides is making up a false issue of it.
 
Here we go again with Mr. Know it All. Everyone else is a liar and dishonest, and a kid. sheesh.
weird can you qoute me saying kid or liar or dishonest in that post?

nope you cant, because i didnt, you just made it up.
No need to be angry because you have been factually proven wrong and got your feelings hurt. Ig you personally do not like being told that you make stuff up then dont do it like you just did in the quoted post above.

why dont you simply try to refute my post? or continue to fail and deflect. Ill wait.
 
Last edited:
1.) who cares many terms are used by religion that are also used but non religious things
2.) yes many people can be licencesed to do legal marriages, but this is a non impact
3.) they already have it, theres no need to do this and make more work, waste more money and more time
4.) the battle is silly because its made up, legal marriage and religious marriage are already to separate things.
5.) they already can do this now
6.) again nobody can now

nothing needs changed because one sides is making up a false issue of it.

I don't have strong feelings about this. But I think you are underplaying the fact that both religion and civil society call marital unions "marriage". That's why the traditional religions are fighting so hard to prevent the normalization and legalization of same sex unions. And that's why same-sex couples, quite understandably, are fighting so hard for the status of marriage, not just a second class version of civil unions. Change the terminology and the debate for the most part becomes moot.
 
I don't have strong feelings about this. But I think you are underplaying the fact that both religion and civil society call marital unions "marriage". That's why the traditional religions are fighting so hard to prevent the normalization and legalization of same sex unions. And that's why same-sex couples, quite understandably, are fighting so hard for the status of marriage, not just a second class version of civil unions. Change the terminology and the debate for the most part becomes moot.

Except it really wouldn't. What we would end up with is a bunch of people on both sides mad at the other side for taking away what they felt was a term they deserved, either exclusively or in combination with those already using it.

This is an analogy that comes to mind. Lets say that you have a group of children coloring. They have whole/new crayons that they are coloring with and broken ones that have been left off to the side. There are plenty of whole crayons for them and many more children. Now another group of children comes over and wants to color but some of the children (not all though) from the first group don't want to let the new group color or they think the new group should only be allowed to color with the broken crayons. A discussion starts and an adult steps in and takes away all the new crayons and makes them both share the broken crayons figuring that this would somehow be a good compromise. Despite what many may believe, this doesn't actually fix the problem. In all likelihood, both groups are mad because neither get to color with the new crayons and they're going to blame the other side or even possibly some on their side for not just giving into the other side. Now, they all could just color and be happy (the broken crayons are still viable crayons), but is it really fair? What did the new group do wrong besides wanting to color with the unbroken crayons? If there were plenty of crayons (and remember I said there were), then why shouldn't they have just been made to share the new crayons, especially since some in the original group were more than willing to share?
 
Which I am not and marriage does predate any modern religion.

It can't. God created everything. Religion didn't begin with the pegans, jews, muslims, christians, etc. It began with Adam and Eve. They were given commandments. Those original commandments begot religion. "Modern religion" as you call it, began with man. Marriage cannot predate religion.
 
It can't. God created everything. Religion didn't begin with the pegans, jews, muslims, christians, etc. It began with Adam and Eve. They were given commandments. Those original commandments begot religion. "Modern religion" as you call it, began with man. Marriage cannot predate religion.

There was no Adam and Eve. Shiva would have mentioned it.
 
There was no Adam and Eve. Shiva would have mentioned it.

But that's not the point. It doesn't matter if he believes they existed or not. What matters is that the religion's believe they are the origin of marriage. Then, they have the right to claim it is a religious ceremony. Any law, regulation or endorsement that states otherwise and creates a legal obligation of the followers of said religion to violate their beliefs is a violation of the first amendment.
 
But that's not the point. It doesn't matter if he believes they existed or not. What matters is that the religion's believe they are the origin of marriage. Then, they have the right to claim it is a religious ceremony. Any law, regulation or endorsement that states otherwise and creates a legal obligation of the followers of said religion to violate their beliefs is a violation of the first amendment.

They do not have the right to claim the term "marriage" as their own though without proof. And they can't prove that they owned marriage first. Plus, no one, not even religions can actually own such a word.
 
But that's not the point. It doesn't matter if he believes they existed or not. What matters is that the religion's believe they are the origin of marriage. Then, they have the right to claim it is a religious ceremony. Any law, regulation or endorsement that states otherwise and creates a legal obligation of the followers of said religion to violate their beliefs is a violation of the first amendment.

The violation of the first amendment is to allow a religion to dictate the liberty of people not in the religion using the power of the state.
 
They do not have the right to claim the term "marriage" as their own though without proof. And they can't prove that they owned marriage first. Plus, no one, not even religions can actually own such a word.

You are confusing prolonged bastardization of a religious ceremony/institution with secular definitions. You do understand that the government did not have anything to do with marriage until Henry the VIII and even then it was a theocracy, so it was still the church? It wasn't until the USA began to regulate marriage through local governments that the term marriage was solely a legal term. Until then, marriage was (and I would argue that it should have remained) a social construct, enforced by social groups (i.e. churches, families, neighbors).

My argument always has been that to many religions (and social groups) have their own definitions and rules regarding marriage for the government to effectively regulate without violating at least some (if not all...it really is all) peoples' first amendment rights. We all must abide by the laws of the land and if the laws of the land tell us that our religion's rules regarding a ceremony are not valid, then the government is dictating what our religion's rules are.
 
The violation of the first amendment is to allow a religion to dictate the liberty of people not in the religion using the power of the state.

I never would argue differently. But, I would argue that any rules regarding a religious ceremony/institution are inherently a violation a the first amendment, even if those rules are intended to parallel those of one, many or all religions.
 
You are confusing prolonged bastardization of a religious ceremony/institution with secular definitions. You do understand that the government did not have anything to do with marriage until Henry the VIII and even then it was a theocracy, so it was still the church? It wasn't until the USA began to regulate marriage through local governments that the term marriage was solely a legal term. Until then, marriage was (and I would argue that it should have remained) a social construct, enforced by social groups (i.e. churches, families, neighbors).

My argument always has been that to many religions (and social groups) have their own definitions and rules regarding marriage for the government to effectively regulate without violating at least some (if not all...it really is all) peoples' first amendment rights. We all must abide by the laws of the land and if the laws of the land tell us that our religion's rules regarding a ceremony are not valid, then the government is dictating what our religion's rules are.

The church can still do their ceremony. Gays getting married doesn't violate anyone else's 1st amendment rights. The church forcing its particular view on everyone by force of the state does violate others liberty.
 
I never would argue differently. But, I would argue that any rules regarding a religious ceremony/institution are inherently a violation a the first amendment, even if those rules are intended to parallel those of one, many or all religions.

It is not a religious ceremony. A justice of the peace is not a religious leader.
 
The church can still do their ceremony. Gays getting married doesn't violate anyone else's 1st amendment rights. The church forcing its particular view on everyone by force of the state does violate others liberty.

Ah, but it does. The very notion that we as citizens must recognize all laws as valid, disagreements aside, means we must put our religious values behind those of the state, if the state is in fact mirroring religion. The perfect example is the florist in the north west that was sued by the state for not providing her products to a marriage she didn't agree with. Because the law says she can't discriminate, even though her religion is against the practice, she is being compelled to violate her religious values or face persecution in the form of a law suit. The laws and regulations on marriage are, and always have been, a violation of the first amendment.
 
You are confusing prolonged bastardization of a religious ceremony/institution with secular definitions. You do understand that the government did not have anything to do with marriage until Henry the VIII and even then it was a theocracy, so it was still the church? It wasn't until the USA began to regulate marriage through local governments that the term marriage was solely a legal term. Until then, marriage was (and I would argue that it should have remained) a social construct, enforced by social groups (i.e. churches, families, neighbors).

My argument always has been that to many religions (and social groups) have their own definitions and rules regarding marriage for the government to effectively regulate without violating at least some (if not all...it really is all) peoples' first amendment rights. We all must abide by the laws of the land and if the laws of the land tell us that our religion's rules regarding a ceremony are not valid, then the government is dictating what our religion's rules are.

No, I'm not. I know history and it tells us that marriage has existed long before any current religion. It is not plausible to believe that religion owns marriage, at all. Even the Christian religions did not require any religious involvement or get involved with marriages until around the 10th Century. And almost every culture in the past has had marriages in some form or another, and the majority of those did not involve religion in those marriages.

No one's religious rights are being violated by the government using the word "marriage". It simply doesn't work that way. No one is being prevented by the government from practicing their religion or performing their religious marriage ceremonies by the government using the term "marriage" in certain laws. Religion does not own marriage. Society owns marriage.
 
Ah, but it does. The very notion that we as citizens must recognize all laws as valid, disagreements aside, means we must put our religious values behind those of the state, if the state is in fact mirroring religion. The perfect example is the florist in the north west that was sued by the state for not providing her products to a marriage she didn't agree with. Because the law says she can't discriminate, even though her religion is against the practice, she is being compelled to violate her religious values or face persecution in the form of a law suit. The laws and regulations on marriage are, and always have been, a violation of the first amendment.

The violation of the first Amendment is the your religion to use the power of the state to bar me from practicing my religion. As I have said before Shiva thinks it's OK to be gay.
 
It can't. God created everything. Religion didn't begin with the pegans, jews, muslims, christians, etc. It began with Adam and Eve. They were given commandments. Those original commandments begot religion. "Modern religion" as you call it, began with man. Marriage cannot predate religion.

Well considering Christianity, Judaism, and Islam did not exist till after the death of Jesus. I would say it definitely predates modern religion the Greeks were getting married under the guidance of Aphrodite and neanderthals probably had some sort of marriage like institution. Besides creationism is bull****.
 
Back
Top Bottom