Should the state recognize marriage at all?

[polisciguy]

Would it be better to simply keep marriages, regardless of gender or number of spouses, purely a religious or otherwise private ceremony? Why or why not?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Would it be better to simply keep marriages, regardless of gender or number of spouses, purely a religious or otherwise private ceremony? Why or why not?

I'm all for the state recognizing marriage - I'm opposed to the state rewarding marriage.

 

[Cardinal]

Would it be better to simply keep marriages, regardless of gender or number of spouses, purely a religious or otherwise private ceremony? Why or why not?

There's no good reason to make it purely religious because religion doesn't own it. As for the state giving out marriage licenses, this helps keep the recognitions and benefits consistent as you move from one place to another.

 

[iacardsfan]

Not at all. No religion as of now is going to marry a gay couple, this doesn't solve anything.

 

[Goshin]

Would it be better to simply keep marriages, regardless of gender or number of spouses, purely a religious or otherwise private ceremony? Why or why not?

Ideally perhaps, but when property or children are involved, and there is a divorce or a death requiring division, it is hard for the State NOT to get involved unless there is a contract spelling out who-gets-what and it goes uncontested.

 

[polisciguy]

I'm all for the state recognizing marriage - I'm opposed to the state rewarding marriage.

Interesting you bring that up. I'm opposed to state sanctioned benefits of marriage.

 

[Rainman05]

Yes. Couples in marriage are the foundation of society. Hence, the state should have a vested interest in being a part of that process. The process of marriage. Again, marriage has 2 parts:

A) legal
b) ceremonial.

The legal part is the state part when you go and sign a piece of paper at the city hall or social office or what naught. There is nothing romantic or religious about it. It just informs the state that there is another group of people who are ready to be part of the building block of society. Gay or straight, as it is now in 13 states in the USA I think.
The ceremonial part is the religious one. Also known as a wedding in Christianity, where you go at the church, say some vowes and put a ring on each others' finger. This is the romantic part also. The ceremonial part is also optional. All you really need is the legal part. The state part, to be married, by law.

 

[polisciguy]

Ideally perhaps, but when property or children are involved, and there is a divorce or a death requiring division, it is hard for the State NOT to get involved unless there is a contract spelling out who-gets-what and it goes uncontested.

I have noticed you can always be counted on for a well-rounded opinion, sir.

 

[Cardinal]

Not at all. No religion as of now is going to marry a gay couple, this doesn't solve anything.

Not all religions are against gay marriage, though interestingly enough the most conservative elements of religions "of the book" are consistently against it.

 

[iacardsfan]

Not all religions are against gay marriage, though interestingly enough the most conservative elements of religions "of the book" are consistently against it.

i understand that, but most religions are. And most major ones are too.

 

[Cardinal]

i understand that, but most religions are. And most major ones are too.

I've taken part in the whole gay marriage debate for years now, and I'm entirely embarrassed to confess I have no idea what the thoughts of Buddhism, Shintoism, Sikhism or Hinduism are. I'm going to look into that.

 

[Lakryte]

Ideally perhaps, but when property or children are involved, and there is a divorce or a death requiring division, it is hard for the State NOT to get involved unless there is a contract spelling out who-gets-what and it goes uncontested.

When property or children are involved, or if there is a divorce or requirements of division, the state only needs to get involved to enforce the private marriage contracts, like any other contract. No need for an official government issued license.

 

[sawdust]

Clearly marriage is not a Federal matter other than the interstate transference of the rights granted by the laws of the individual states. States have to be involved in marriage because so many legal issues are involved. Property rights alone provide a necessity for the State to be involved in the regulation of marriage. Having the authority to regulate marriage, how States manage that authority should be governed by the will of the people in each state. It's messy. It's marriage, it's always messy.

 

[polisciguy]

Clearly marriage is not a Federal matter other than the interstate transference of the rights granted by the laws of the individual states. States have to be involved in marriage because so many legal issues are involved. Property rights alone provide a necessity for the State to be involved in the regulation of marriage. Having the authority to regulate marriage, how States manage that authority should be governed by the will of the people in each state. It's messy. It's marriage, it's always messy.

Which leads me to believe it's not for me :lol:

 

[iacardsfan]

I've taken part in the whole gay marriage debate for years now, and I'm entirely embarrassed to confess I have no idea what the thoughts of Buddhism, Shintoism, Sikhism or Hinduism are. I'm going to look into that.

In all honesty, all i have is the word of wikipedia, but I believe that they are not as stringent as some of more western religions but they are not open to it either. Of course please correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Cardinal]

I've taken part in the whole gay marriage debate for years now, and I'm entirely embarrassed to confess I have no idea what the thoughts of Buddhism, Shintoism, Sikhism or Hinduism are. I'm going to look into that.

Well, I've found this at any rate:

Buddhism

There is no universal Buddhist position on same-sex marriage. According to some interpretations of the Buddha's teachings, one of the 10 non-virtuous deeds that lead to suffering is "sexual misconduct." This term is generally understood to refer primarily to adultery. However, some Buddhists interpret the term to include homosexuality.

Hinduism

There is no official Hindu position on same-sex marriage. Some Hindus condemn the practice of homosexuality, but others cite ancient Hindu texts, such as the Kama Sutra, that seem to condone homosexual behavior.

Judaism

The Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish movements have supported gay and lesbian rights, including same-sex marriage, since the mid-1990s. In May 2012, the Conservative Jewish movement approved a ceremony to allow same-sex couples to marry. All three movements also allow individual rabbis to choose not to officiate at the weddings of gay and lesbian couples. Orthodox Judaism does not accept same-sex marriage, and its highest governing body, the Orthodox Union, has lobbied against gay marriage nationally and in various states.

Religious Groups' Official Positions on Same-Sex Marriage - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Hindu thoughts on homosexuality are mixed.

Religion and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cardinal]

They're mixed in Sikhism as well.

Sikhism has no written view on the matter, but in 2005, a Sikh religious authority described homosexuality as "against the Sikh religion and the Sikh code of conduct and totally against the laws of nature," and called on Sikhs to support laws against gay marriage.[83] Many Sikhs are against this view, however,[84] and state that the Sikh Scriptures promote equality and do not condemn homosexuality.[85]

It's surprisingly Zoroastrianism which takes it to another level.

Zoroastrianism
“ The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is a man that is a Daeva [demon]; this man is a worshipper of the Daevas, a male paramour of the Daevas

 

[shrubnose]

Would it be better to simply keep marriages, regardless of gender or number of spouses, purely a religious or otherwise private ceremony?

Why or why not?

Taxes and property rights, etc.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I'd be perfectly happy with marriages that were strictly matters of religious ceremony and/or contract law. No need for a license, just pick up a package off LegalZoom and customize it to fit your personal needs.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Ideally perhaps, but when property or children are involved, and there is a divorce or a death requiring division, it is hard for the State NOT to get involved unless there is a contract spelling out who-gets-what and it goes uncontested.

Yeah, without the state getting involved, people would have to clearly define their expectations and plan for the future.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

i understand that, but most religions are. And most major ones are too.

Yeah, it's awfully funny how personal prejudice can color one's perspective on what any particular religion is for or against.

 

[shrubnose]

They're mixed in Sikhism as well.

It's surprisingly Zoroastrianism which takes it to another level.

Unfortunately for the Zoroastrians, what goes around, comes around. They have suffered a lot of persecution from other religious groups.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Marriage, and families built on marriage, is essential to a stable and prosperous society. Government has a duty and a responsibility to uphold, protect, and encourage this institution. Failure to do so will unavoidably lead to the collapse of the society.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Marriage, and families built on marriage, is essential to a stable and prosperous society. Government has a duty and a responsibility to uphold, protect, and encourage this institution. Failure to do so will unavoidably lead to the collapse of the society.

Maybe what we need are more realistic expectations, rather than a romanticized vision of marriage and government's role in it. Maybe then we'd have a divorce rate under the 50% mark.

 

[Cardinal]

Yeah, without the state getting involved, people would have to clearly define their expectations and plan for the future.

The state doesn't currently define the expectations of marriage.