Marriage - secular or religious

Remove all ads!

Great post DR.

I would add just a little. To deny a person because of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation is prejudice. Everyone has biases and prejudices, it's part of what makes interaction with others interesting (and at times frustrating). Having a prejudice is not wrong -- acting on that prejudice is.

At the core of Christianity is acceptance of others (love thy neighbor as thyself). I remember when the aids epidemic first hit the news in America. Several fundamentalists organizations were against spending money on aids research because they did not agree with lifestyles most at risk from aids. Many of these same groups and individuals have gotten on the anti-gay marriage bandwagon. I simply do not understand how these groups can be so biased and so prejudiced they are willing to ignore that second greatest commandment (according to Jesus) of tolerance.

The vow to love, honor and obey is universal in most relationships. Whether the relationship is straight or gay, formalized by a ceremony or just living together; those concepts are practiced in some way. I have known many couples who have exchanged vows in private ceremonies and never married. The rights and protections which have come about with regard to marriage are a fairly recent development. When the laws were made to grant certain rights to married couples, there was blatant prejudice involved in intentionally excluding those who did not meet the "christian" definition of marriage. The current law appear to be correcting that illegal prejudice -- illegal in America where "All men are created equal."

 

In that case DR, you have no right to deny someone wanting to marry 2 or more people. If marriage is not just 1 man & 1 woman than any other combination is just as relevant as any other.

 

You know, you'd do much better in these types of discussions if you responded to arguments I've actually made. When have I ever said that I'm denying polygamist marriages?

Personally, I don't like polygamist unions and think they're selfish and ripe for emotional abuse, but if two or more consenting adults of sound mind want to get married, as a team, I have no legitimate problem with it personally. Just like I have no problem with Marijuana, a "drug" that is in no way addictive, far less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol and creates far more problems for our society being illegal than it would if it were regulated by the government and legally sold the way alcohol and cigarettes are. But the government certainly has issues with polygamy in terms of tax benefits, estate rights, etc. that extend beyond a mere religious issue. If polygamists can successfully lobby and make a logical legal case before a state or supreme court why polygamist unions should not be denied, and can furthermore lay out a logical set of tax benefits that would necessitate government recognition of the union while still fairly account for the multi-beneficiary nature of a plural marriage, and they succeed the way proponents of gay marriage have in some states, then more power to them. So few people would willingly enter into such unions that it wouldn't have a negative impact on my life in any meaningful way anyway. But so far polygamist "activists" have failed to make a compelling legal case for their inclusion. It isn't as if they haven't been trying since 1878.

 

If it is done right, by reflecting secular or legal nature as opposed to that which is sacred, it doesn't affect me. But as it stands, by calling it Marriage, it defiles something sacred. You are asking me to sit there and let it happen? Even if I can't stop it, I still reserve the right to complain about it.

I don't seek that, I just want the law to recognize a seperation between two irreconcilable factions.

Again, no. While they may deny any such attempt, they are reducing that which is sacred to something base by removing the spiritual components from it. They want us to accept this hollow version of that which we considered sacred. We would like them to stop that and save their hollow facsimilies for those that don't seek that which is spiritual.

No, I just looked at that as a claim that can't be proven. Further, I don't know how reliable any recorded histories were and how you can reliably put a date on these records. It is just as likely that Religion would have existed before a reliable recorded history, just not in a recognizable form in Sumeria. This basically nullifies your claim that Marriage existed separately from Religion.

Again, I'm okay with that for heterosexuals because their chosen way of life is not an abomination. As long as the Covenent is made and bound by those in authority, I'm satisfied.

I don't know. Homosexuals often refer to their significant other as a "life partner". This is another example of this seperation that I have been talking about. Actually, they seem to understand something that most straight couples seem to forget--your wife (or husband for the ladies that read this) should be your partner, not a servant. By using the term partner, they denote an equality in the relationship that many couples seem to write off...

And Christians have been notoriously complacent in the last 50 years, so I know I've lost this battle. This does not release me from my obligation to defend it by any means available.

Now we're getting somewhere! Marriage is more than just a contract. I've been saying that for 4 pages now. And that's why extending it to homosexuals is so offensive to a great many people.

Actually, ALL sexual sin is an abomination. Two unmaried persons having sex is fornication, a grave sin regardless of the genders. Sexual relations with a married person, or with a partner other than your spouse is adultery, the gender of your partner is also irrelevent. Homosexuality just creeps people out more, thus making it seem worse. Marriage, however, is strictly heterosexual, and thus homosexuality cannot get the legitimacy of a heterosexual union.

While Homosexuals have a right to the contract, the piece of paper, they do not have the right to the sacred rite of Marriage. That's why I want a different word used.

But the law has the obligation to keep the peace. Can't a Civil Union be just as special to a gay couple as a Marriage is to a straight couple?

That's the root of the problem--it's also why this can't satisfactorily be resolved. Someone isn't going to be happy with whatever happens. Why is it almost always religion that gets the **** end of the stick when the court sticks their nose into it?

I'm not thrilled with the drunken Vegas weddings, but the covenents are made, and carry the same consequences for violation of the vows. As long as the couple is straight, then it's a clumsy attempt to do the right thing...

Sexual Orientation is a different angle. I've been arguing that Marriage is Sacred. Something sacred implies a code of behaviour to qualify for it. The first component is that the couple comply with who can marry. Skin colour, religion, or ethnicity are not factors, but one factor is--the couple must be male and female. While you are right that we can't deny them the contract or piece of paper, we can't give them the sacrement of Marriage.

True, but this is not hatred, but preserving that which is sacred from blasphemy.

That love that Christ refers to would require not that we tell them that their sins are okay, but to call them to repentance. Don't ask, don't tell is simply apathy, the opposite of love. When confronted with their sins, we have to decry them--out of love, not hatred or intolerance.

I'm not denying that. I just can't accept that something sacred is extended to a group that blatantly abuses it's divine purpose.

They are doing a piss poor job of that. They should make sure that the language reflects that this is a civil matter, and leave religious terminology out of it. To refuse to do this signifies that the religious faithful are now a second class of citizen.

I look at the way people are, and I don't think I could manage a relationship where I had two wives or where I shared a wife with another man. I believe that it can work, but without legitimate checks on the relationship, it is very risky...

But enough people do have a problem with it that it remains illegal. For polygamy to be excluded from the definition of Marriage yet homosexuals to be granted that right is an act of prejudice against the polygamists.

That's because of the prejudice against religion that seems prevalent in the courts and government. They fear that if they give something to religion, they have to keep giving, but they fail to realize that in giving to other minorities, they have started the same trend...

 

Ok Gnarff, I'm really sorry. i cannot do this anymore. We are NOT getting anywhere. I got about halfway through your responses to my last post and realized you aren't actually absorbing anything I said, you're just filtering it through your own position without really addressing any of my points. You missed nearly every point I made, it seems deliberately. As has been stated, your inability to use reason and common sense (and I would add your refusal to view things through the eyes of others) causes no end of frustration with the people who try to engage you. I'm no longer going to be one of them.

 

Isn't being intractable kind of SOP for the Alleys?

Seriously, though, IMO the problem here is what we see so often, particularly where religion is involved. The religious side has one point of view based on its belief system, and that view is basically the opposite of (and therefore irreconcilable with) the secular perspective. Personally, I'm not surprised that nobody is giving ground here (other than Aldeth to a certain degree), and my lack of surprise has nothing to do with Gnarff's general approach to these types of discussions (as frustrating as it can be at times). Unless you want to try to convince Gnarff that his entire set of beliefs is wrong (and I'm pretty sure any such attempt would be unsuccessful), you're not likely going to be able to convince him that certain elements of that set are wrong. Again, this has nothing to do with Gnarff specifically; it's just the nature of these kinds of debates.

Anyway, somewhat off-topic, but the ad at the bottom of this page currently says "Meet Gay Singles In Your Area Today!"

 

Splunge, no one in this thread is trying to convince Gnarff that his religious beliefs are wrong. What we are trying to get Gnarff to understand is that the way the state sees marriage and the way each and every individual faith* sees it are not the same. Secular marriages are a reality, have been happening for generations, and are not held to the same rules and standards as religious marriages. This isn't a matter of perspective. It is an incontrovertible fact. Whether this was always the case may be debatable, but it is also wholly irrelevant to the subject of marriage as it exists today.

* Anyone who believes that the various faiths - let alone just the christian faiths - out there all agree on the meaning and significance of marriage and who should be allowed to marry is deluding himself. More than a few Christian denominations and ministers have blessed and continue to bless gay marriages.

 

I realize that, and I'm not suggesting anyone should try. But that's why you're not going to convince him that his views in this particular case are wrong. Although I will concede that he seems to think that all religions hold the same view as his which, as you point out, is not the case.

 

I hear you Splunge, but please understand me. I'm not trying to convince him his religious views are wrong - not once have I done that - just that they aren't universal.

He can believe that gay unions are a non-scared abomination all he wants, and I will defend his right to do so. What he seems incapable of understanding is that this is just his belief, and therefore does not extend beyond his own little world. What he doesn't get is that even though he will never consider gay unions sacred, gay couples absolutely do - and they are entitled to that. Just as many Christians consider certain mormon beliefs of Gnarff's to be abominations and distinctly non-Christian, even though he disagrees - and I think he is MORE than entitled to that, and have defended him on that point. Gnarff is absolutely a Christian as far as I'm considered, even though much of the Christian world, especially those familiar with the specifics of Mormon doctrine, would vehemently disagree.

Others who do not share his belief - and especially his narrow definition of marriage - are not obliged to conform to his standard just because he doesn't like what they do. He can have his definition of marriage, and others can and will have theirs. What he doesn't understand is that one definition doesn't trump the other, and there's no need to go changing terms - a completely superficial measure - just to make him happy. They are still married whether he likes it or not. It doesn't matter that he considers their union distinctly non-scared - they do, and it's their marriage, not his. He has just as much right to consider them an abomination on his own time as they to refer to themselves as married.

I really don't know how much clearer I can make my point than that.

 

Gnarff, marriage is an English word. It has a meaning that was given to it by men. It is not a sacred word, and to interpret it differently between men (and women) is not sacrilege or blasphemy. Perhaps it could be interpreted as blasphemy if the ancient Hebrew term for a wedded couple was used (nisuin is believe) -- but not the English word. From wordorigin.org:

Certainly not a sacred word if it's also used to describe animals mating and making hybrid plants. In fact, as far as I remember, the Mormon church does not call their temple ceremonies (i.e., sacred) marriages -- they are sealings. I guess I could understand your indignation if the gay marriages were designated as "sealings" but you seem stuck on a minor definition that really plays no major role in your religion.

Edit: I'll further define the "no major role" bit. Couples who are simply "married" and not sealed in the Mormon temple are really looked down upon in the Mormon church. A secular marriage, or even one performed by the religious leader outside the temple, sends a loud and clear message to other Mormons that the couple was not "worthy" of being "sealed in the temple." Thus a marriage not performed in the temple is basically substandard and not desirable. As such, I don't see a religious reason for Gnarffs indignation here. If he is just personally against it ... well ... that's a different issue. I think playing the "against my religion" card when it's personal is rather tacky.

 

I hear you too, DR, and I agree with everything you say (although I would like to point out - again - that I'm not suggesting that anyone has been trying to convince Gnarff that his religious views are wrong). All I'm saying is that, given that he firmly believes that that institution of marriage, and by extention, the word marriage itself, are sacred, and that homosexuality is an abomination, it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to convince him that it is wrong to want non-religious marriages to be called something else. I disagree with him (for all the reasons you, Aldeth, BTA, Drew and others have stated), but I don't really want to argue with him because I just see it as being futile.

 

Right on. Which is why I tend to stay out of these types of debates. T2 was exactly right when he commented that you can call a union "Fred" and it would not change the nature of what it means to him and his wife (that's exactly my own view). Gnarff, sees "marriage" as a holy sacrament, and in that context, the terminology carries with it a definable, specific, religious principle, which is completely at odds with the secular notion of marriage, as a legal contract. It's wrong to ask him to give up that definable, religious, principle. Therefore the two sides are, as Splunge points out, "irreconcilable."

 

Actually, I think that it's not so much that "Gnarff simply refuses to believe that fact", but rather that he believes it to be irrelevant, given his religious beliefs.

 

Since this thread appears to no longer be about marriage, but instead about Gnarff and his rhetorical...um, gifts, I think we should probably all stick a fork in it and move on, no?

 

I've never claimed that I make sense.

 

Splunge, I understood you perfectly but then I'm "seeing" things a bit differently these days.

Marriage is pure and simply a contract between two people. It is a misconception to say that a priest, minister, judge, justice of the peace, whatever married the couple. Whether the contract is a religious or a secular one the two marry each other. Anyone else involved is there as a witness. The Catholic Church (Roman, Angllican, Greek, etc) consider it a sacrament with a spiritual imprint but it can also be a secular contract giving the parties certain legal rights which is what the homosexual community desires. Two unrelated people become next of kin and this is important from a legal standpoint.

And that's my

 

I received this today, and I think it makes some of my points much better than I can. It is long, and LDS based, but it brings up some good points. Article

Reason and Common sense lead me to a different conclusion than what others want, and they don't like it.

Since Religion, Government and Marriage all predate your precious recorded history, you can't claim it exclusively for secularism. Further, the doctrine of Abrahamic religion has the first marriage performed by God himself. Governments have, throughout time, recognized the important functiont hat Marriage plays in maintaining a healthy society, and have given their legal sanction to the unions.

And you hold them up as a reason to force your secular beliefs on us? I'm not buying that either. I am aware that this has happened, but question your use of the word many...

44 of 50 States? 27 of which by constitutional ammendment? Sure California and Massechusettes get attention for their court decisions, but what about the other 6 states where that battle was not won? That world is bigger than you'd think...

I understand that they consider themselves married, but do not accept that as their right. Their rights extend only to civil concerns, not Spiritual. To call them Married is offensive to those that believe marriage is sacred.

It does not release me from my obligation to make the case for what I believe.

I disagree. Language is NOT superficial. Language shapes our understanding of the world. To allow one group to redefine an important term like marriage at the expense of another reshapes the world in a way that I believe to be negative for society as a whole.

I've heard both sealing and Temple Marriage used. The bottom line is that it is a Marriage performed in teh Temple, binding them for time and eternity.

That is not entirely true. If someone married someone not a member of the church, they can't be married in the temple until after the spouse is baptized. Even after that there is a process of preparing the spouse to enter the House of the Lord. Further, If a widow remarries, the marriage cannot be sealed. I seem to remember hearing that Divorce can complicate matters as well. Yes, Temple Marriage is the prefered way of doing things, but those that have not gone that route are not looked down upon.

If it was just personal, it would be beyond tacky, but abhorant. It takes the Name of God to defend a vain position. I assure you that this is not personal, but in line with the teachings of the Church, as the article I linked will show. They actually wxplain it better than I can.

In 44 states, this arguement is moot, as marriage is explicitly straight. It is extending it to homosexuals that has been my bone of contention, not the authority...

But they are important to human experience. That is why what seems trivial to many here is such a big deal to me.

And nobody wants to explain why the word is that important that it must apply to both. And if it's not that important, why other terminology will not be considered?

LMAO. I thought that article was hilarious. But the phenomenon you describe is easily explained. Supporting evidence is subjected to less scrutiny, simply examined and stored away. Contradictory evidence elicits a WTF reaction, and is examined closer in hopes of figuring it out. In many cases, does not hold up to that scrutiny, and is written off as inaccurate or incomplete at best, complete hooey at worst.

I didn't mean to become the spectacle myself...

Actually, some of the things presented as facts are not accepted as such, because they don't stand up to the scrutiny that this contradictory evidence calls for. It's not that I refuse to believe it, it's that I believe opposite to what is stated.

No, it's not that simple. If it's that simple, we wouldn't be up to page 5 of this discussion.

No, it's not. These people provide the authority that legally and spiritually binds the union between man and woman.

That's not up for debate. It is important. It's so important that governments have involved themselves in the practice for thousands of years, but they hold no monopoly over it either.

 

And that, folks, is why I said the debates over religion are futile. The two sides have different opinions about what constitutes reason and common sense.

(I'm not trying to ridicule Gnarff here. In a lot of ways, I respect him for sticking to his beliefs. Even when those beliefs go against my version of reason and common sense )