Marriage - secular or religious

Remove all ads!

Actually, Drew, the New Testament includes women, and doesn't mention the stoning.

Proteus, in my view, it is God that makes marriage sacred, thus any marriage without God is not sacred.

My only real problem with the way gay marriage and gay rights are going is that, all too often, the State and the People aren't the ones making the decision. In many cases, their decision has been specifically overturned be the people who are making the decision: the Judiciary and a vocal minority. Now, the Judiciary does it on the supposed bases of the constitutions, but that's BS. Marriage isn't a right to anyone. If a brother and sister want to love together, without any intention of sex or children, and just pool their resources, they aren't allowed the legal benefits of marriage. If this is constitutionally acceptable, then applying a similar ban on same-sex marriages is also.

Mind you, my position is that it should be decided either by the duly elected state legislative bodies, or by an amendment to the US Constitution (as the 10th amendment takes this out of Congress' hands).

 

If you're referring to 1 Corinthians 6:9, it depends on the translation you are using. The greek term Paul used was "arsenokoitai", which is sometimes translated as "homosexual" in modern translations. The exact meaning of the word is lost (although it isn't exactly difficult to figure out that "koitai" and "coitus" might somehow be related to each other), but "Arsen" means man in Greek, so there is no way that "arsenokoitai" could refer to both male and female homosexuals. If you are thinking of another New Testament passage referencing homosexuality, please let me know which book it's in. I'd like to read it. The fact that the new Testament doesn't mention stoning is somewhat irrelevant to my point, since the old testament is still part of the bible.

All of this is, of course, semantics and utterly beside the point. All I was trying to say was that, since every reference to homosexuality in the bible labled it, at best, as a horribly grievous sin that would deny you entry into heaven, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Judeo-Christian tradition wouldn't condone gay unions without doing a little, ahem, selective reading. I doubt you disagree with me.

 

And by seperation of Church and state, the Government should make sure that their accommodation of Gays should not offend the religious faithful.

These regulations were only built around the tradition to simplify certain matters. That framework should be able to stand without the traditional marriage around it. To reflect that the wording should be changed...

God. It is the divine principle common to most marriages historically that led tot he enduring tradition. When so many religious affiliations vehemently oppose homosexual behaviour, they would not wish that which they hold sacred mixed up with it.

Again, it is divine approval that makes it sacred. Fornication, adultery and homosexual relations certainly hold similar emotional intensity, but the word sacred implies divine blessing.

That is very important to a happy relationship, but not the only thing that matters.

He doesn't bless those that are unfaithful. The blessings only come through obedience to divine commands, councils and pricniples.

Gay love is a temptation from Satan to lure people into a severe sin. Gay sex is ALWAYS wrong. It is a sin on par with fornication and adultery.

I read that passage in Leviticus and there is no ambiguity. "Thou" is a gender neutral pronoun. That commandment extends to women as well.

They have the chance to repent, but true repentance involves the forsaking of the sin in question. If the repentance is true, forgiveness can be attained.

 

Gnarff, the bible wasn't originally written in King James English. It was written in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. How it was translated in the KJV - the most inaccurate English biblical translation currently available - has no bearing on what it actually said in the original Aramaic. It's reasonable to assume that the admonitions in the bible extend to lesbians (I am not contesting this), but the fact remains that the only homosexuality references in the bible used words that applied to male homosexual relationships only.

 

So not offending the faithful is more important than giving everyone equal rights?

 

Isn't that the diametric opposite of separation of church and state. In this case you're advocating religion set government standards and directly influence law making. I would oppose such a position.

 

I hear what you are saying, T2 -- I always took the position that separation of church and state meant that ONE religion could not impose its religious dogma at the expense of another. In that sense I agree that a particular faith or creed should not be given more power or influence in government than another.

However, religious groups, just like any other groups, should not be prohibited from trying to influence public policy. Also, we all tread on eggs not to offend some special interest groups -- I'd like to see religions also get the same level of respect, even if in the end the decision goes against them.

More later from me on this topic . . .

 

No, it's about requiring the state to use their head a bit and deal with equal rights without offending other members of socitey.

But it is possible to avoid causing the offense yourself. All I ask is that marriage be recognized as religious, while gay rights is a civil matter. Since marriage laws are a framework, that framework could be applied to gays with a different name and that's one problem solved...

No, it's not. It's the state handling a civic matter without interfering with religion at all. It preserves marriage for the religious, while giving gays their own rights. Doesn't that satisfy that mandate?

 

It also draws a line between two segments of the culture who can NEVER reconcile their differences. It keeps the peace...

There probably are already guidelines in place for that already considering the tax exempt status that most of them enjoy. It shouldn't be too difficult for a newer groups to achieve this status once they show that they meet certain criteria or the court determines that they need to adjust this criteria...

That becomes the church's determination. Anyone that the church approves is then married. That then is determined by religious doctrine.

That's what I'm afraid the current solution in Canada would open the door to. Two gays go to a Mormon Bishop and seek to be married, he refuses as he is obligated doctrinally to, then they go to the Human Rights commission and stir up trouble...

 

montressor, most countries already determine which religions they agree are that. Like gnarff mentioned here in the states it is determined by certain criteria & rules through govt agencies including the IRS.
Look at germany, they don't recognise scientology(goofy as it is) as a religion even though they are recognised as such in other countries.
Hmm, looks like they aren't officially recognised in canada but i'm not completely sure

 

But marriage only becomes sacred if it is done during a religious ceremony. As Drew has pointed out repeatedly, what is religious about a man and a woman going to a courtroom and getting married in front of a Justice of the Peace? I will concede that religious marriage is sacred, because presumably you would not (and in fact likely could not) get a religious marriage if you were not a member of that particular religion. The hangup I have with this is that you naturally assume that all marriages are religious in nature, when that is demostrably not the case. Heterosexual marriages occur every day that have nothing to do with religion. In fact, I am friends with two couples who have been legally married for years now. One couple was married by a judge, the other by a justice of the peace, with no religious aspect involved in either of their weddings. They are no less married than someone like me who was married by a priest in a Catholic Church.

This was a curious statement to me. When has it ever been required for us to "embrace" a law? Tolerance is fine by me. For example, you may not like that the right to bear arms does not mean you can own a rocket launcher. But, unless you're a complete nutjob, you tolerate the law by not owning a rocket launcher. Same thing with gay marriage...

 

This is erroneous. As Drew pointed out, there has been no case of a religious minister being sanctioned by the government for refusing to perform a marriage that does not meet the parameters laid down by his faith. Gnarff doesn't think that'll last, but I think it will. If you are not a Catholic in good standing (or at least, in their opinion, following a lifestyle that conforms to Catholic beliefs), I don't think a Catholic priest will perform your marriage. The same thing for a Mormon wedding in the temple. (Mormon weddings outside of temples is a different kettle of fish. If you ask a Bishop nicely, he'll marry pretty well any heterosexual couple that is over the legal age of consent -- My friend married his Muslim girlfriend in the Bishop's office no questions asked.) I'm sure the same thing applies to strict Orthodox Jewish rabbis. I can guarentee that no Muslim imam has ever or will ever be forced to perform a marriage that he opposes on religious grounds. The discussion all along has been about Justices of the Peace who ALSO happen to be religious.

My bit about embracing involves, well, being involved or associated with something. What I mean by that is this. I can accept that at this time Western society is moving toward (or has arrived at) legal recognition of gay marriage. Fine. I tolerate that because A: I must and B: I have better things to do with my time than However, I personally want no part of it. I don't want my name in particular associated with it. I want no personal involvement in any way, shape or form with what I see as a sinful behaviour. My contention all along is that a JP or other civil representative should be given the opportunity to opt out of participation (as in forced officiation) in an act he or she completely disagrees with on religious grounds. There are many mechanisms by which this can be accomplished and the gay couple can still get their marriage. What worries me is that some radical gays won't stop there -- they see a failure to embrace and celebrate their behaviour as the same as direct violent repression against them, and that, my friends, is utter horse-puckey.

Another long post -- blast! I'll continue later . . . .

 

I agree 100% BTA. If you don't want to do the job, don't take the job. Period. The JP has the option to quit. This reminds me of the conscience objectors in the US military: it's an all volunteer force -- how can someone possibly be a CO when they volunteered.. It just boggles the mind. If he/she doesn't want to do the job -- fire them. AND have them pay for the cost of replacement.

 

T2, I think the conscience objectors came about when it wasn't all volunteer (i.e. the draft). Furthermore, if you volunteered to join durring WWII (all fine and noble of you) and stayed in until the beginning of the Korean War (not so fine or noble) or even worse, Vietnam (really not fine or noble), you were stuck to finish your current term in the service. This is the situation for JoP and Judges. If they start the job when such things are not legal, and aren't even on the horison, and then later it's made legal (and they have a moral and/or ethical objection to it, based on religion or not), should they be forced to give in or quit?

What if a law were passed that all female judges had to be naked when working? Assuming it were actually passed, would you say all female judges have to either give up their positions and years of service or go naked until the law is repealed? No, it isn't the same thing, but its close. Officiation of gay marriage, even if not in a religious ceremony, is personal recognition that it is an acceptable practice, whereas passing it off to another judge is saying you personally don't approve, but it is legal. That way, no one get's oppressed.

 

It's why I want the government to stay out of marriage altogether, but they felt the need to stick their nose in for other reasons. So they build a framework around marriage. It is my contention that the framework can exist if the sacred ordinance of marriage is seperated from the framework. The laws are in place, why not have these civil unions--since you insist on reducing marriage to a contract anyway--for those that do not meet religious criteria and they do what they will to celebrate it. Just change the nomenclature to reflect the secular rather than religious committment...

Heterosexual couples, this is not objectionable...

Then make sure the nomenclature reflects that this is just a contract. Civil Union works. Calling it marriage is not separating it from the religious rite, and thus would openly violate their religious beliefs. Fire one of them for that and you'd get dragged before the Human Rights commission...

I would say no, but that's exactly what some of these people are arguing for. It's like one group is getting their rights at the expense of another group...

You'd think that would be common sense. Evidently that's not good enough. I guess that LKD was right when he said:

Can't we have a society where we still believe that what they do is immoral without people assuming that we're trying to harm them? Such violence against them is potentially a worse sin (murder) than what they do, but it doesn't make what they do acceptable...

 

I have one more question - and this is primarily for NOG, LKD, or Gnarff to answer, although it specifically applies to Gnarff's response. Gnarff does not have a problem with calling a heterosexual couple married by a judge or justice of the peace to be a marriage, and not a civil union. Is it not the religious aspect of marriage that makes it sacred? How is a heterosexual couple married by a judge any more or less religious than a homosexual couple married by a judge? To me, you can't have it both ways.

If you insist on a different nomenclature, it has to apply across the board - either everyone who is married by a judge gets to call it a marriage or everyone gets to call it a civil union. If we aren't talking about a religious ceremony here, then it is absurd to give it a different name based on whether we are talking about poeple of the same or different sexes.

That should solve the judge problem too - you are not marrying two gays - you're giving them a civil union.