Marriage Violates Seperation of Church and State (1 Viewer)

[captainawesome]

Bastardization =/= secularization

I don't really care if some don't like secular marriage. They aren't forced to get secular married.

 

[ksu_aviator]

I don't really care if some don't like secular marriage. They aren't forced to get secular married.

But they are forced to recognize it.

 

[ksu_aviator]

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.

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****.

You both have missed the point. Christianity may have only begun in current years, but it is just he latest adaptation of the laws of God. If we recognize that people have the right to believe in whatever deity they want, then you cannot dismiss the Christian/Islamic/Judea point of view that God created man and with the first man and woman created marriage.

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.

Why does it matter what Shiva thinks? Why don't you debate for yourself?

Are you reading what I write? I'm saying that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. That means, if there is any social group out there that wants to recognize that two people are married, the government couldn't say yes or no. They'd be completely out of it. How does that violate the first? It doesn't. I'm starting to think that your only objection to my p.o.v. is that you want to violate christians' rights to get even.

 

[captainawesome]

But they are forced to recognize it.

No they are not. They don't have to perform or recognize.

 

[captainawesome]

You both have missed the point. Christianity may have only begun in current years, but it is just he latest adaptation of the laws of God. If we recognize that people have the right to believe in whatever deity they want, then you cannot dismiss the Christian/Islamic/Judea point of view that God created man and with the first man and woman created marriage.



Why does it matter what Shiva thinks? Why don't you debate for yourself?

Are you reading what I write? I'm saying that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. That means, if there is any social group out there that wants to recognize that two people are married, the government couldn't say yes or no. They'd be completely out of it. How does that violate the first? It doesn't. I'm starting to think that your only objection to my p.o.v. is that you want to violate christians' rights to get even.

Gays getting married doesn't hurt Christians except in their imaginations.

 

[Carjosse]

You both have missed the point. Christianity may have only begun in current years, but it is just he latest adaptation of the laws of God. If we recognize that people have the right to believe in whatever deity they want, then you cannot dismiss the Christian/Islamic/Judea point of view that God created man and with the first man and woman created marriage.



Why does it matter what Shiva thinks? Why don't you debate for yourself?

Are you reading what I write? I'm saying that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. That means, if there is any social group out there that wants to recognize that two people are married, the government couldn't say yes or no. They'd be completely out of it. How does that violate the first? It doesn't. I'm starting to think that your only objection to my p.o.v. is that you want to violate christians' rights to get even.

Marriage likely flung forth as a societal concept that people then attached to religion. Marriage began as a way of either bargaining between tribal groups and/or the fact that two people are in love and feel a connection and thus society creates a concept surrounding that. They then thought what is causing it and how to solve issues why they pray to Aphrodite, Venus, or whatever of course.

 

[ksu_aviator]

No they are not. They don't have to perform or recognize.

Actually they do, hence the reference to the case in Wa.

 

[captainawesome]

Actually they do, hence the reference to the case in Wa.

No church will be forced to perform any ceremony or recognize any gay marriage as a church.

If they operate a for profit business like say a hospital yes they will not be able to kick a gay spouse out of the ICU. That is good.

Religions that hate are not of God anyway.

 

[Papa bull]

Society is seeing marriage change from one thing into something quite different. Marriage is actually more of a government entity than anything else. You can get "married" in a church without a license and will have no government sanction. You can get married by a justice of the peace outside of the church and have no religious sanction. One may matter to your God. One matters to the government. In this world, what matters to the government is the big deal. What seems to be the central issue is confusion about what marriage actually is and what it is for and why the state sanctions it.

We seem to want to think of marriage as a "love commitment" and that's where homosexuals feel they have every right to marriage anyone else does because they love as much as anyone else does and that claim really can't be refuted. Marriage, historically, however, has served society and was sanctioned for other reasons; namely for the sake of establishing biological families, complete with property rights and family names. For the actual benefit and purpose of state sanctioned marriage, homosexual marriages are an oxymoron. And what makes it an oxymoron has nothing to do with religion.

If we have changed marriage to some sort of legal "love commitment", then we have dispensed with the original purpose and marriage has morphed into something a great deal different and we have no idea where that's going to go. We should, however, know that it changes the nature, perception and effect of marriage on society, so change will be coming and only if the original purpose of marriage was a bad thing, can we be sure that kicking it to the curb will result in change for the better.

 

[tessaesque]

Religion doesn't own the word marriage.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)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".
2.)That's why the traditional religions are fighting so hard to prevent the normalization and legalization of same sex unions.
3.) 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.
4.) Change the terminology and the debate for the most part becomes moot.

1.) no i recognize it 100% in fact its the basis of my argument. They do both have them and they are 100% separate entities.
2.) no not all of them because some of them clearly see the fact they are separate and as far as normalizing thats meaningless and not their job, they dont get a say in equal rights. Many religions fought hard against minority and womens equal rights too, in this country as far as rights, equality and ending discrimination goes they were wrong then and they are wrong now.
3.) its actually not understandable at all, its obnoxious, pompous hypocritical and ignorant. If they understand how this country works and how rights and freedoms work its illogical.
4.) theres an easier way, just understand the fact that legal marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage and this is a free country with rights.

 

[ksu_aviator]

No church will be forced to perform any ceremony or recognize any gay marriage as a church.

If they operate a for profit business like say a hospital yes they will not be able to kick a gay spouse out of the ICU. That is good.

Religions that hate are not of God anyway.

What I'm getting here is that freedom of religion is only valid if you agree with the religious principles. That is a violation of the first amendment if applied by the government.

 

[AGENT J]

What I'm getting here is that freedom of religion is only valid if you agree with the religious principles. That is a violation of the first amendment if applied by the government.

then you get it wrong, what he pointed out is that religion doesnt give a person free realm to violate others rights and he is right.

religion is protected and the have the right to discriminate in thier church and in religious realms. Not anywhere and every where they please.
No violation is present.

 

[captainawesome]

What I'm getting here is that freedom of religion is only valid if you agree with the religious principles. That is a violation of the first amendment if applied by the government.

Ending discrimination by government does not hurt religious liberty. Religion is not a license to violate the rights of others.

 

[ksu_aviator]

then you get it wrong, what he pointed out is that religion doesnt give a person free realm to violate others rights and he is right.

religion is protected and the have the right to discriminate in thier church and in religious realms. Not anywhere and every where they please.
No violation is present.

That's not what's going on here. This is forced recognition of a ceremony/institution that is bastardized by law.

 

[captainawesome]

That's not what's going on here. This is forced recognition of a ceremony/institution that is bastardized by law.

The law absolutely does no make people attend gay weddings that is silly.

 

[AGENT J]

That's not what's going on here. This is forced recognition of a ceremony/institution that is bastardized by law.

nope its not factualy forced nor is it bastardized :shrug:

like i said you got it wrong

religion is protected and it has the right to discriminate in thier church and in religious realms. Not anywhere and every where they please.
No violation is present.This fact will not change

 

[Aunt Spiker]

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.

Hmm?

I wasn't married in a church - That's not necessary, that's just a common component. :shrug:

 

[captainawesome]

Hmm?

I wasn't married in a church - That's not necessary, that's just a common component. :shrug:

Pretending to not understand is a weak debate tactic.

 

[AGENT J]

Pretending to not understand is a weak debate tactic.

I agree so you should stop pretending like you dont know the fact that marriage is not solely a religious term and that legal marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage because this is why your OP completely failed.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Pretending to not understand is a weak debate tactic.

I understand - You're claiming that government can only grant civil unions and you're trying to say that marriage is religious even though every nation / people has had marriage through out history. . . two people get hooked up together under their own ___.

It's not strictly a religious construct.

Thus - not a violation of church and state.
The government isn't ordaining it within any sort of religious concept - people bring that into their marriage if they want to.

 

[captainawesome]

I agree so you should stop pretending like you dont know the fact that marriage is not solely a religious term and that legal marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage because this is why your OP completely failed.

Well then I am sure you will say the same thing in SSM threads where those against say SSM violates their freedom of religion.

 

[AGENT J]

Well then I am sure you will say the same thing in SSM threads where those against say SSM violates their freedom of religion.

i have no idea what you are talking about?
say that again

are you saying there are people out thier that are against SSM and they say that SSM violates thier freedoms or religion?

if so yes, like your OP those people are complete and 100% factually wrong

 

[Lakryte]

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.

I don't think government should be involved in marriage because I don't think it should grant anyone special privileges just for being in a relationship. But the term marriage predates religion, so the argument of "separation of church and state" simply does not apply.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I don't think government should be involved in marriage because I don't think it should grant anyone special privileges just for being in a relationship. But the term marriage predates religion, so the argument of "separation of church and state" simply does not apply.

Yeah, I've heard this so many times.

Still struggling to understand how I, as a stay at home mom, am expected to cover my taxes, etc - when I don't work and instead raise our children that we have together. LOL - nice fantasy, though, treating everyone as if they're an equal heft on society.