Marriage - secular or religious

Remove all ads!

No ****. I'm not the one arguing that religion is either purely religious or purely secular. You are.

Again, no ****. Recognizing the benefits of marriage to society, the government even decided to extend that privilege to everyone with no concern for their religious affiliation, even allowing agnostics, atheists, devil worshipers, pagans, godless communists, and swingers to marry. What exactly is your point here? Can you please explain to me what the doctrine of Abrahamic religion has to do with the laws written and enforced by our secular government? While you're at it, can you also please explain why we should defer to your view of religion in particular? Please be sure to list any special qualifications you have that would make you more of an expert on Judeo-Christian theology than, say, an actual expert with a divinity degree, a seminary school graduate, a PHD in Judeo-Christian theology, or someone with a divinity degree who graduated from seminary school and holds a PHD in Judeo-Christian theology.

What planet are you on? Seriously, I'm clearly wasting my time posting here, since it's obvious that you are either utterly incapable of comprehending what's being written at higher than a third grade level or you simply aren't bothering to read anyone's responses. This is getting far, far too ridiculous.

No one here is trying to force the you, the LDS church, or any other church for that matter, to perform gay marriages or secular marriages, or to recognize such unions as valid under God. No one here is trying to force their "secular beliefs" on you. You can believe whatever you damn well please about marriage, and I'll defend you're right to believe it, but what you can't do is force everyone else to use your definition. We'll allow you your definition, but you need to allow humanists, atheists, and people of other faiths their definitions, too. If you really can't deal with it, I'll be happy to PM you some links that I think will help you out.

 

After my long enforced absence why am I not surprised to see the same arguments by the same people?

Come, come let Granny tell you the facts. Marriage is both religious and secular. I repeat myself. It is a contract between two people. In English we call this marriage. It could be called larktime and still be the same thing. It gives people certain rights and privileges and responsibilities.

Fact: Marriage as the establishment of a family unit bestows rights, privileges and responsibilities. From the religious point of view this is a sacred and blessed union. From the secular point of view this is a legal contract and is defined as such.

A society could restrict marriage (and has done so) to not only a union between a man and woman but to a union between only certain men and women. Marriage between people of different races or cultural backgrounds could be forbidden. This is a matter of legal restriction/ Religious belief may also restrict who may marry and this has nothing to do with the secular definition. The two may or may not agree.

Let us not hijack this thread into the on going argument between religion and secularism. As Splunge has said that is a futile project. The importance of marriage to non-traditional people is the secular. Marriage bestows financial . medical and other rights to people.

The problem as I see it is the word "marriage". To some it has deep connotations and using it pushes a but tom and throws up flags. To others it is merely a word that simply means the union between two people to establish a family unit with legal rights and responsibilities.

 

Well said Nakia!

I've been absent for a while and this will be my last post here.

For several hundred years, marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman that has societal approval / approbation. As Nakia pointed out, the State has on several occasions limited that definition and has at other times broadened it. If the State wishes to broaden the definition, I understand that. As a citizen of a democracy, I reserve my right to attempt to change that state definition back and / or to oppose that broadening of the definition. What I resent is the smear tactics used by both sides of the argument:

"Filthy faggots!"

"Homophobic troglodytes!"

I don't believe that either attack furthers the argument, no matter how deftly it is worded. I also find it morally questionable to force someone into participation, however secular that participation may be, in an act that person finds morally repugnant -- just because their basis for their opinion is religious doesn't automatically invalidate their position. We find accomodations for all sorts of people, we should endeavor to do so for people of faith, however much we may disagree with or despise that faith.

One day this will come to a head in a court in a Western Democracy. I sincerely hope that at that time the judge in charge strives to find a balance between the desires of the left to achieve what they see as equality and the desires of the right to achieve what they see as respect for tradition and morality.

 

Actually, I'm arguing one side, you argue the other. I at least have a supporting document--The Bible.

That Marriage originates in Religion, not secular government as you claim.

Secular laws are merely a framework build around this divine principle. If you insist on seperating the secular framework from the divine principle, I have insisted, and will continue to insist that the nomenclature reflect this.

This does not need special credentials. It explicitly states in Genesis that God Married Adam and Eve while they were still in the Garden of Eden. You don't need a decade of schooling to know that. You just have to open your eyes...

Oh, no? Check this out. Basically, it suggests there is a group in Canada that wants government to step in to inflict secular standards upon religious organizations. This would include forcing religions to modify elements of their practice that they dislike--including adopting their definition of Marriage, which extends to homosexuals.

But you can? That is ...

But when the definitions become so far different from each other, then why not use a different word? That would make too much sense...

That's exactly what I have disagreed with all along. I've been claiming that the contract you and others speak of is just a framework, constructed by secular government around this sacred and important part of religious doctrine that directly affects the people they govern. Granted, that framework is necessary, but if it's done right, it should function separate from religion, in such cases where the contract is implied as opposed to formalized (common law relations), or in places where religious sanction is not desired, or where religious sanction is refused. Because it's a secular framework, it should take on a different name outside of religious sanction. Religion was complacent while the ends of church and state were compatable, but the problem comes to a head where the differences are irreconcilable. People here want the secular definition to trump religion in such cases.

Then why is it so difficult for people to use a different word outside of religious sanction? Nobody has yet answered that question to my satisfaction...

 

Gnarf, quite some time ago in a different thread I and others suggested this. Why the government is so blind as to not see this I neither understand or can explain. If the primary reason for two people t iso form a union is for legal reasons there is no reason IMO to not call it a civil union or whatever term people prefer. IMO Marriage in the religious sense is a separate issue and has nothing to do with secular legal contracts.

I could marry someone religiously without any government sanction. I would receive no legal benefits from except what might exist under common law but it would be a true and valid marriage. Before someone jumps in and disagrees with me stop and think. We have a definition problem here. Some are defining marriage in a broad and IMO secular way while others (Gnarf & I in particular) are defining marriage in a stricter religious sense. Marriage as a religious institution is a union blessed by god for the purpose of founding a family. I really do NOT want to get involved in the futile and silly religion vs seecularism arguement. I fail to see any point to it and it is only

Also before someone claims it is only a word let me say: Words have power. They can destroy a person or give hope and relief. The words that people have posted to me in my thread in SS give me joy and comfort. They make me feel more postive. I get that warm fuzzy feeling from them. So don't bother telling me that a word is only a word. Without words how would we as human beings communicate? There is a religious definition of marriage and there is a secular definition of marriage. Gnarf and I disagree about a lot of things but I think we do agree that a person's religious beliefs are the standard by which they must live. A huminist, for instance, also has beliefs by wich he must live.

So let us get back to marriage, secular or religious. Both I say and as I say let it be written.

 

Well, cool so we all agree now, right? Neither 'side' has monopoly on the word marriage. Gay people should be able to enter a secular union (called marriage) is they so wish, because it has nothing to do with the 'religious institution is a union blessed by god for the purpose of founding a family' called marriage. Sorted.

 

Gnarff, go back and actually read and understand what people have been saying , because, right now, you don't have a clue. I have never argued that marriage, as it stands today, is purely secular. My position on whether marriage is religious, secular or both hasn't changed at all in two threads and 12 pages. Religious marriage is religious, and secular marriage is secular. How many times do I have to levy that argument before you are actually able to comprehend it? If you would actually respond to the arguments I and others are actually making instead of responding to strawmen, you'd make a lot more headway and would stop looking like a semi-literate hack with the reading comprehension of an eight year old.

Even if that were true, what does it have to do with marriage as it exists today? 300 years ago, "Gay" meant "lively". Now it usually means "homosexual". The meaning of our words change. Even if marriage was originally a purely religious institution, this has no bearing whatsoever on what it means now.

 

The other side has the Declaration of Independence, which is a supporting document, and states that "all men are created equal" and entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That means essentially that if you are "pro life," get one of your own and stay the hell out of everyone else's.

Calling a gay union a "civil union" is a solution, affording equal rights and protections under the Law of the Land. And it has already been suggested in some places. But I bet the LDS, and other evangelicals STILL will not be satisfied with that change in terms.

 

Or you could change a marriage conducted in a church to be 'religious union'. Seriously, it's nice to see a thread conclude with everyone agreeing - well, more or less anyway .

 

you dreamer. We'll never agree even when we do agree. We can only agree to disagree.

 

I don't agree to that!

 

Not quite.

You had me up until you called it marriage.

If it has nothing to do with marriage, then why call it marriage?

You think a farm boy like me wouldn't recognize horse **** when I encounter it? I've shoveled enough of ot to know about that...

Make an actual arguement instead of trying to shout me down because you reject my whole premise to begin with and we'll see what I can do. For twelve pages now, I've been asking questions about why religious matters aren't given the same rights other groups, and decrying the attempts by secular theory to erode the moral fabric of society, and for the most part have not received a real answer.

I've been responding to what I read here. Unless that's a wizard of Oz reference, then I fail to see what's wrong here...

I doubt that. It's a well established fact that if someone does not want to believe something, you can't force them to believe it. If people don't believe that the word has a meening more than a hollow contract that they talk about, they won't buy it. They also don't see the harm in doing things their way and refuse to see that as well.

LMAO.

But Marriage is only in the process of changing to an offensive definition. Do we, the ones offended by the proposed change, have not right--no--obligation to try to stop this from happening?

Yet again, a secular arguement to shove secular morality on a religious public. When will you accept that your secularism is just as much a religion as any other out there?

A responsibility of the state to protect. The First ammendment also suggests that the state should do so without interfering with Religion and it's mandate. I believe that there is a solution, but it's not as simple as some people here would seek to make it.

One problem: Nobody does that anymore. AS more divergent segments of the population arise, the more deeply rooted the conflicts become. Soon it becomes more and more difficult to satisfy one group without trampling the toes of another...

I can't speak for any evangelicals, but that should satisfy the LDS. First, it is not Marriage. The term Civil union makes that clear. Marriage is ordained of God, and a Civil union is ordained by a secular government. AS long as they provide the rights to gay couples that straight couples get (courtesy of the Civil authority), it woud seem to satisfy the Church. I draw this conjecture from this statement:

Basically, this statement calls for Civil rights granted through Civil means without interfering with the moral foundation of the nation.

 

Actually, it is every citizen's responsibility and especially the responsibility of the Church. The Founder's who crafted the document - Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin - wrote that:

I would like you to look carefully at the statement because no where does it say as "long as it does not interfere with religion and it's mandate." Since these rights are endowed by the Creator anyway- God given - it is also the responsibilty of every church to protect those "God given" rights as well. These are sometimes known as "natural rights." God created you to have a "free will," and to be the master of your own destiny.

Regardless, whose religion and whose mandate are you speaking of? There is no "national religion," nor is there a "religious mandate" from which everyone would agree upon. Thusly, there are many religions and many sets of "mandates" fashoined by many "Churches." That is why there is a separation of Church and State that protects both sides: The People - the representative democracy, binds all its citizens under a set of agreed upon laws (the consent of the governed) - THAT is the State's mandate. And religious freedom on the other side, which allows for many different types of "doctrines" and "mandates" as long as any religious members, who ARE ALSO CITIZENS, respect the Laws of the Land - and they are free to worship as they see fit, without interference from the State. On that last point you are correct, Gnarff.

 

Gnarff, my position is that Secular marriage is secular and that religious marriage is religious. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it, but, for God's sake stop acting like this hasn't been my position. I do not want to see any church forced or even encouraged by the government to marry homosexuals or to do pretty much anything else for that matter. The only time I want to see the government interfere with religion is when religion attempts to circumvent the rights of others. I want my government to have no more a role in my religion (and probably less, actually) than I want it to have in my bedroom.

The problem, Gnarff, is that no one agrees with your premise. As far as the rest of us are concerned, religions are given the same rights as other groups. If you want us to follow your line of reasoning, you are going to have to provide further arguments and supporting material for that. We aren't going to simply "take it on faith" that government is discriminating against religion. You need to prove it first. You could probably start by providing us with examples in which one religion or secular group gets preferential treatment over another. Of course, these examples would need to be recent, since just half a century ago our government saw no problem with segregation, a century ago it had no problem denying women the right to vote and allowing children to work long hours under dangerous conditions with no breaks, even for water, and a little over 150 years ago, our government had no problem with slavery. Our government as it exists today is quite a bit more conscious of discrimination than it was in the past, so examples of past discrimination really aren't going to hold any water.

No one posting in this thread is arguing that religions should be forced to follow secular ideals. What they are arguing is that our secular government shouldn't be forced to follow religious ideals. You have a bizarre disconnect in which you see allowing private individuals to have a non-religious gay marriage without forcing any religious organizations to perform or accept them as a violation of your rights while failing to see depriving those individuals of that right solely on the basis of your religious beliefs (which the private individuals in question do not share) as a violation of theirs.

There are other arguments against gay marriage that you can proffer. There are moral, ethical, perhaps even public health arguments you could raise, you could question whether it is really necessary to legalize gay marriage. You could argue that, since every American of legal age - including homosexuals - currently has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, that homosexuals are not actually being discriminated against. These arguments will require more thought to raise and, to be honest, they would likely be uphill battles for anyone, but at least such arguments are valid. Proffer them, please, but stop trying to argue that allowing homosexuals to marry in the courthouse somehow violates your rights. It's embarrassing for all of us (but mostly just you).

Gnarff, when everyone is telling you that you are creating and responding to convenient strawmen rather than thinking about the arguments they are actually making and responding to those arguments, the reason is usually because you are creating and responding to convenient strawmen rather than thinking about the arguments they are actually making and responding to those arguments. With your stubborn refusal to respond to the arguments that are actually being made (a key ingredient in any honest debate), you have effectively stopped the debate before it even had a chance to start.

You do realize that secular morality is an oxymoron, right? Secularism isn't about morality. Most secularists turn to religion for their morality. Secularism isn't about destroying or weakening religion. It is about separating the role of the state from the role of the church. This ensures not only that I, as a happy agnostic, will not be forced to live by the edicts of a religion to which I do not subscribe, but also ensures that you, as a Mormon, will also not be forced to live by the edicts of a more mainstream religion (like, say, Catholicism, Islam, or Voodoo) to which you do not subscribe. Most "secularists", like most people, are actually religious, themselves, which is the very reason that they become "secularists" in the first place. As a happily uncommitted agnostic who has consciously chosen to eschew religion of any type, I'm actually an exception.

 

No drew not everyone agrees with you & a lot of us agree with gnarfflinger.
You just happen to be a member of the loud group that proves the maxim "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"

 

Do you have an actual rebuttal to the points Drew has made, or is that all we get?

 

It's all we ever get, DR. I blame cable news and the decline of our educational system.

 

You pull the typical BS of trying to portray your side of whatever as being the only "obviously right" one to whatever arguement you are in at the moment & rather than reinforce your argument you instead insult the person you are arguing with. You will not believe anything that the other person posts if it disagrres with your position & yes we all do that to some degree or another but you have taken it to an artform. I don't know what Death rabbit has posted as he is on my ignore list & i would be happy if he put me on his. The crap he spews i got sick off & now don't have to view it.

 

I guess I got my answer, didn't I.

 

I'm inclined to agree with martaug. I understand were Gnarflflinger is coming from even when I don't agree with him. Please do not use the term "no one agrees" when there are some who agree or at least understand and are willing to compromise. I have so stated this but this whole thing is becoming quite silly so