polisciguy
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 396
- Reaction score
- 133
- Location
- Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
i understand that, but most religions are. And most major ones are too.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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
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.
i understand that, but most religions are. And most major ones are too.
They're mixed in Sikhism as well.
It's surprisingly Zoroastrianism which takes it to another level.
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.
Yeah, without the state getting involved, people would have to clearly define their expectations and plan for the future.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?