Marriage - secular or religious

Remove all ads!

Agreed. This is why I think any "civil union" solution should essentially replace state-run marriage. If marriage is 100% sacred 100% of the time, then our government has no business performing them. The flip side, of course, is that there really isn't any way that congress would pass such a change in nomenclature. That said, I still think the "heterosexual marriage, gay civil union" solution is better than nothing...or at least it was before Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 2006. Until this act gets repealed, even homosexuals living in states where gay marriage or gay civil unions are legal will be still be denied the 1000+ legal benefits that accompany marriage or civil union at the federal level.

 

Why do you have trouble following the logic Vukodlak? A marriage & a Civil Union stand for the same basic thing - the binding of 2 people in love. But they denote different definitions, 1) is between a man & a women & 2) is between 2 individuals of the same sex.

Just like the big homosexual groups differentiate between male & female gays. Look at the LGBT groups( Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual & Transgender). Aren't all lesbians gay? why call them something different if it all means the same thing?

 

Some people choose to define marriage as a union between a single man and a single woman, but this definition is hardly universal and, as Nakia points out, heterosexual couples have also had Civil Unions. That said, this whole thing is a waste of time.

Fair-mindedness, as usual, just ends up biting the fair minded in the ass. We have one side arguing that marriage is always religious. The other side is, to its detriment, graciously allowing that marriage often is religious, and often is not. This, sadly, leaves no room for compromise because the debate is being held between a hard-right religious position (that marriage is always religious - 100% of the time) and a moderate, secular position (that marriage is often religious in tenor, but isn't always). Now, if we had some people taking a hard-left, atheistic position (the opposition of religion is atheism, not secularism) to balance things out, compromise might be possible, as Gnarff currently views the folks arguing for tolerance of multiple points of view as extremists. What we need are some Marxists to come in and show him what the opposite side of this issue really looks like. Until perspective is gained on where the real extremes of this issue are, no progress will be made.

 

Because that is NOT what is being argued. I am hearing that they denote different things, yes. But the prevailing argument seems to be that: 1) is religious and 2) is between two individuals of the same sex. Either there is a category missing, or definitions need to be revised somewhat.

I think YOUR definition martaug, is a rather more honest representation of the prevailing opinion among those who oppose gay marriage.

 

I pretty much agree with you vukodlak. The only problem is Drew(& his ilk) wants to label me as always believing marriage is religious whereas i don't, i think marriage should ALWAYS be between 1 man & 1 woman. I think Civil Unions should cover ALL the rest, including those of 3 or more people.

 

Seperate but equal should only exist where differences are truly irreconcilable. The State has to come up with the best solution possible. If the state does their job right, the only noses out of joint would be the more extreme sides of the issue.

That is exactly the point. By using marriage in a way that pushes these buttons polarizes would be moderates to the more extreme position. That only serves to further contention...

I have to see the other point of view before I can point out the flaws with it, don't I?

So you'd settle with putting the faithful that oppose the measure as second class citizens to get what you want instead of standing for the right thing? I fear that you are too quick to sell out your stated beliefs in order to get a resolution that grants these important civil rights to a controversial minority. You seem to disregard the objections of a great many people who don't share your views.

So basically, they insist that the government over-ride religious doctrine and force people who traditionally have opposed their lifestyle for thousands of years. They aren't just about their rights, but about claiming a victory over their hated foes. Civil unions or whatever should only offend the more extreme groups. The Rank and file are just seeking their own rights.

Again, a more extreme group. I would imagine that the majority of Christians would tolerate Civil unions, even though they believe the lifestyle to be sinful, as long as the definition of Marriage was preserved as sacred. By insisting that the word marriage be used, you are swelling the ranks of this right wing group. Is this a fight you really want to see escalate?

First off, The KKK should not qualify for this analogy. They exist specifically to voice hatred for a number of minorities. AS for Religion, we don't see that in the cases you brought up, but I have seen it argued that the Canadian Government should put legislation in place to make it illegal to restrict clergy to only men, forbid marriage to clergy, or possibly even allow gay clergy in such religions. It would ultimately deny religion the right to restrict marriage, requiring them to marry any legal couple--even homosexuals. I want a line in the sand drawn to stop such groups from forcing religion to abandon it's principles in the name of compliance with law.

That's already been challenged. A marriage commissioner was fined for refusing to perform a same sex union despite this promise embedded in the law that allowed gay marriage in the first place.

No, the Church abandoned the principle of doctrine under duress from the state. Basically, if the definition of marriage is so important to over-rule the first ammendment, it should be important enough to preserve today.

It's only an injustice if gay marriage is legalized. If Gay Marriage is not allowed, then the state has acted in a consistent manner when another minority tries to have a different definition of marriage.

WTF? They both involve a group fighting to have their own definition of marriage accepted. One group has been forcibly required to abandon their pursuit. It would be unjust to give in to a second group now.

That's what we're trying to resolve. There has to be a way to answer this question without defiling the sacred nature of Marriage. I just think that there is not enough will to find it. Either that or more of a will to fight over it...

And with the current culture of polarization, I don't see this resolved any time soon. All people seem to want is a fight, not a solution.

Unfortunately, I think it would need both. A Constitutional ammendment to protect Marriage, but a simple law after that to cover the civil rights.

But if the Gay Rights activists can't accept that, then the conclusion I reach is that they value a fight more than the civil rights they trumpet.

But the fact that it is deeply sentimental and even sacred to many people is why they fight so hard against gay marriage. By using the word Marriage, the gay community polarizes citizens that would otherwise be sympathetic to their cause. This, in turn, delays the rights that they claim this confrontation is about.

And for us, to call it marriage is a grave act of betrayal by a government that we look to to protect our rights. The Government faces a catch 22. They have to find a solutiont hat works for as many people as possible. For this to work, the government needs to excuse themselves from the fight and look at the issue involved. The rights involved can and should be granted without the headache and polarizing conflict...

Because one is religious in origin and the other is civil in origin. This is a huge difference...

That is because Marriage is heterosexual. Whether they realize, care or even object to the religious sanction of their union, it still furthers the Divine plan--the union of a man to his wife and the rearing of children in such bonds of holy matrimony. Gay Marriage does not further this end.

I'm not the one that wanted it changed in the first place. I was perfectly happy with a heterosexual definition of marriage. I see no sense in drawing the ire of the multitude like me that was happy with that definition of marriage by changing that definition. All that does is lead to a fight...

That is exactly the point.

I don't have a problem with that because heterosexuals getting married is not offensive. Homosexuality, however, is a grave sin, that's why I, and many others object to gay marriage. We acknowledge the need to have gay rights, but we also want what we consider sacred preserved.

Again, you go with criticizing defense of what is sacred. Why can't you move forward and try to solve the problem instead of griping about the protection of religious rights? Preserving marriage as sacred is not mutually exclusive extending rights to homosexuals. Insisting on that mutual exclusivity only fosters a fight and ultimately maintains the status quo that you also find intolerable.

Sometimes I feel that way. One minute you decriminalize homosexuality, the next thing you know, they are attacking what many consider sacred. We need to draw a hard line somewhere...

I disagree. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Athiesm, Secularism, Scientology, etc. All of them are various theories on that which is of ultimate concern. They aren't opposites, just competing voices in a growing debate.

But you are not arguing tolerance, but the subjugation of a different group. By defending gay marriage, you're arguing that a majority should be subjugated to embrace something they find morally offensive. Tolerance would be a recognition that Marriage originates in religion, and whatever they accept as marriage is their business, then proceeding to the state's mandate of guaranteeing equal civil rights for all. You have abandoned a similar position to mine in favour of continuing a heated debate in hopes of villifying us religious folk.

There is a wide variety in what religion recognizes as marriage. But Marriage should be left to religion, and the state take the framework they have built around marriage and work from there to help a minority.

 

Pragmatics, joacqin. No my argument isn't the same as Gnarf's. His is based on biblical authority. Mine simply is that if you wish certain legal rights you make compromises. That is what politicians do. You vote for this and I'll vote for that. If gays really want the same legal rights as straight couples in the current atmosphere they will have to compromise.

If what they want is something called marriage they can already get that. Go to a church that does same-sex marriages and get married. Years ago I attended the wedding of two male friends. According to Gnarf and according to the State they were not married but they considered themselves married and their friends considered them married.

We can argue the meaning of the word marriage until Doomsday but it won't change the facts that during my life time I doubt that gays in this country will get the majority of states to grant them the right to use the word marriage legally. Not sure that will make sense but am uncertain how to word it.

Let me try this. I doubt that the majority of states will pass laws stating that gays may get married but they might pass a law that states they may have a civil union that grants them the same or similar rights as a married couple.

The segregation battle could be fought and won because a majority of people, not only blacks but whites also, were willing to put their lives on the line for it. It had a national appeal and gained national support. Do you really think that is going to happen with gay rights? I don't not at this time maybe in time but not now.

 

I thought we were discussing what we thought was right and proper and not was realistic and feasible. Pretty sure you were pretty adamant about that in the piracy threat that right was right and damned be pragmatism.

 

You completely missed my point. The point was that a past injustice does not justify a current injustice; Separate but Equal was just an example.

 

Got me!!!

I am a pragmatic person and do believe that sometimes it is necessary to compromise in order to get what you want.

 

You and yourself appear to have a disagreement.

Yes, which is actually the problem, Gnarff. You haven't been pointing out flaws in my reasoning.

Am I a legislator? Do I write laws and pass bills? I'd love more than anything to see the state officially announce that, in response to all the whining coming out of the religious right about the government having a duty to protect the sanctity of marriage, it no longer performs marriages. However, the aforementioned religious right, many secular, progressive, religious, atheistic, and conservative groups - even my mother and my wife - are all going to have a problem with it. This is a reality. These many and various groups may not agree about marriage, but they'll see eye to eye on the importance of keeping the institution alive in our legislature. Perhaps this is possible, and I'd be happy if it was, but I doubt it will ever happen.

You still haven't proven that allowing gay marriage over-rides religious doctrine.

I believe I may misunderstand what your position is. I thought you were advocating that the government, in order to protect the sanctity of marriage, limit itself only to the performance of civil unions. In doing this, Gnarff, it would be necessary that the government no longer issues marriage licenses, since our constitution explicitly forbids the use of a religious test to receive a government service.

If your position is that the government issue marriage licenses to people getting religious ceremonies and "civil union licenses" to people getting civil ceremonies (or ceremonies from churches that the government has yet to formally recognize), this would constitute a clear violation of the separation of church and state. The first position, while highly, highly unlikely, is at least technically possible. The second position, on the other hand, would require a constitutional ammendment.

I thought you'd say that. My point in using the KKK as an example is that since our government allows exclusive clubs like the extremist hate group known as the KKK to exist without interference from the government, they sure as hell are going to allow exclusive clubs such as churches to refuse to perform gay marriages.

Gnarff, while it is true that the Utah territory may have been under "duress", the fact remains that they ultimately abandoned polygamy as a condition for statehood. The government of the Utah territory was not forced to do this. That said, 120 years ago isn't today. If you really want to re-institute polygamy so badly, by all means, sue or petition the government to that effect. I won't stop you. If you were an American, the ACLU you hate so much would probably be happy to help you, too.

You really haven't heard of context, have you? Let's look at what I said again. As a courtesy, I'll even put the quote in it's proper context and put the part you quoted in bold.

Gnarff, I thought you said you were in favor of gay civil unions. The defense of marriage act doesn't just codify our federal government's refusal to recognize gay marriage. It also codifies our federal government's refusal to recognize gay civil unions, which I thought you said you support.

This gets worse, though. The part of my statement that you quoted wasn't even a criticism! My first sentence might qualify as a criticism, but it wasn't a criticism of defending the sanctity of marriage. The second sentence is an established fact which is easily corroborated by a simple reading of the Defense of Marriage act, and was not a criticism. These are the types of straw men I keep talking about. You took a statement of fact - made about a tertiary subject - out of context and then twisted it into a glaring assault on the efforts of some to preserve the sanctity of marriage. What's more, you appear to be incapable of distinguishing between fact and opinion. I'd like to say this is the last time that I'll have you twist my words in such a way in this thread, but I'm a glutton for punishment. I should have listened to DR.

 

No drew, it's called moderating your position.
Why would the NAACP help him? Do you mean the ACLU?

 

You're allowed to do that, but you can hardly blame me for taking you at your word, now, can you? The post I quoted is only a week old, after all.

Fixed, thanks, I don't know what I was thinking when I typed that.

 

The Key difference here is that by insisting on the use of the word marriage, the Gay activists polarize the straight community against them. This ensures that Gay Rights will always lag behind, thus keeping these activists employed.

But what if trying to accomodate one group would greatly anger another group? Your definition of tolerance here only further widens the gulf between the sides, and threatens to deny gays the rights they should have. Your definition makes this a binary choice between tolerance and hatemongering. Further, your suggestion here for tolerating homosexuals would be intolerant of the majority of religious faiths in the same society. The door has to swing both ways here.

On the contrary, it would cram it down our throats. People on these boards objected to my suggestion that the Lord's prayer be returned to schools because I was forcing my beliefs on them, now you argue fro the same thing here? You aren't talking tolerance of gays here, but embracing them.

Then why must you insist on defiling what is sacred to the religious faithful by using the same word?

It's that legal framework that is important, not what they call it. Simply respecting that while Marriage itself is religious, that same framework, which has been built around it, under a different name would handle that civil rights dilema.

But I'm not proposing an injustice here. To redifine marriage to include homosexuals would be a second injustice to the Mormons. To maintain the sanctity of Marriage yet find another way to grant civil rights to homosexuals is not an injustice, but it is the best solution possible.

Then the Gays have lost their fight in the US. It is the insistance of the use of the word marriage and forcing a binary choice that have caused this civil tragedy. And this one you can't blame ont he Religious side of the debate.

The Chruch says one thing. The State says another. The two can't both be right. Who wins the arguement? The state, because they will do as they need to maintain control of its citizens.

Then how about restricing marriage to heterosexuals, like in 44 states. If 10 states have gay Civil unions, and 48 states are considered (California and Massechusettes use the term Marriage), that means that 6 states entertain this duality. I can support this...

The Government opened this can of worms when they built a legal framework around marriage.

Like the ones in place already in 27 states and on the ballot in three more (including California). Keep insisting on the use of the word Marriage, and that's what you'll have by 2012...

Once they got from preaching hatred to violating the laws, the law will intercede. If the KKK burns a cross on the lawn of a black person or a Jew, the police will step in and lay charges. Likewise, A Church can preach whatever they want, but when their actions violate the laws of the land, the law will step in. If the law states that you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, sooner or later, the law will try to force the church to comply.

Official declaration 1, which is the cannonical termination of the practice of polygamy sites the duress specifically, not the politics.

They weren't the ones that were required to change the doctrine of the church. It was the Church that was forced into changing their doctrine and practice. Seperation of Church and State my ass.

I took that as a context of "I agree that your idea is good, but I really don't care enough to fight for it." The criticism stands.

Okay that goes a little too far, but this does not close the door to gay rights entirely. It just means that those pushing for Gay rights have to be more creative in figuring how to get what they want. And they have to do it without polarizing the faithful against their cause.

I could see where that would be confusing had you not corrected that...

 

You mean the same way the government forced the Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran churches to admit female priests, forced orthodox jews to allow female rabbis, and forced Muslims to allow female imams?

Let's go to the videotape one more time for the record.

Where in my statement was I criticizing the defense of what was sacred? Where was I griping about the protection of religious rights? What did I say I didn't care enough to fight for and when did I say it?

I provide my family's sole income, work 60 hours a week, have two kids, and I have the extra bills and time commitments that come with them. I don't have time to sit down and fight for each and every little cause on the face of this earth (and if I did, I can assure you that I'd be spending my valuable time and effort on bigger, more pressing issues than gay marriage). Like most people,when I fight for a cause, I do it in the voting booth or with my pocket book, and I've already made it perfectly clear that while I'm hardly in love with the idea, I support gay civil unions. I'm pragmatic enough to take what I can get, and after the amendment or repeal of the Federal Marriage Defense act, they will be better than nothing. What more do you want? If you'd like to pay me* to lobby the government to remove marriage from all federal nomenclature, maybe legalize polygamy, and require the states to comply with it, I'll be more than happy to do it for you, but until then, I'd appreciate it if you got off my case about what you think I should be doing with my personal time.

* I'm not expensive. If you pay for my travel and arrange a per diem while I'm on the road, I'll only need a salary of, say, 60K per year.

 

Err, yeah? You make it sound like a bad thing...

 

There's already been arguements for that in Canada too.

By criticizing the Defence of Marriage by legislation in the first place, that is a criticism of the defense of that which is sacred. If you had pointed out that the law was poorly executed at that point, then the point would have been clearer. You seem to admit that seperating religious defined Marriage from Civil defined unions for homosexuals is a good compromise, but you seem to abandon that in favour of a solution that overrides religious doctrine on the subject of marriage.

Why do you think that I get frustrated when an actual solution seems to be rejected? Sometimes I think that people are more interested in the fight than the answer...

I do too, but my resources are limited (although since I buggered up my back, I seem to have more time and less money), and my faith in any politician non existent.

While a revision of the Defence of Marriage act would likely be the best way to deal with this, there has to be a way to work within that system if that is not forthcoming. If there is another way to grant that 1000+ rights in a civil manner then that needs to be examined.

If I could find such a job, and they were still hiring after I got my foot in the door, I'll PM you...

Well, I am from a faith that teaches that Marriage is sacred, and instituted by God to join a man and a woman for the purpose of organizing families. We also believe that homosexuality is a grave sin. To be required to marry homosexuals would be blasphemy. That is why I want Marriage in the hands of Religion, and gay rights in the hands of the civil government. Sure heterosexuals will have an easier go of it, but that is becasue Religion devotes itself to whatever divine entity they worship, while government shows a less obvious master. AS an Institution, they serve the people, but as individuals, they serve themselves, and a set of ideals that they put forward...

I guess that in the US, the gays should get over it and shut the hell up. Drew did point out a law that not only preserves Marriage but ends the debate on gay rights on this matter. And for the record, they are still cramming their defintion down our throats...

Looking back as Nakia's comments on how Segregation came to an end, it took both sides to come together to provide enough support to mandate the change. In this case, the Gay Rights lobby is trying to re-define marriage to suit their purposes, but this is contrary to the belief that the opposition has. It shows a lack of tolerance for the beliefs of the larger group that they need the support of to get the rights they want. As long as they maintain that position, they alienate those that would be sympathetic to their plight, denying them the influence they need to affect these much needed changes.

I see that in your definition, more than my definition. By refusing to abandon my beliefs, I am not complying with your definition of tolerance. By standing up for the beliefs that I refuse to abandon, I am hatemongering--defending a situation under which one group is denied 1000+ rights that the mainstream group gets. I'm not forcing anyone to accept anything but the sanctity of Marriage. I'm defending that and asking that the civil government figure out a way to grant civil rights to this group without defiling what I consider sacred. To me it's like asking the guy in the mens room to wipe his ass with something other than a page out of the Qu'ran or any other holy book.

But these definitions are NOT protected from government interference. Once upon a time the Mormons had a definition of Marriage that did not limit a man to one wife. The Government used every means of coersion at their disposal to force them to abandon this definition, even with the support of the Supreme court in 1878, leading to the compliance by the church in 1891. That precident stands, and if the Government does change the definition of Marriage as you suggest, then they have the authority and mandate to enforce that standard on all religions.

No, you are the one doing that. I'm just preventing that door from damaging something precious when you kick it in. Your idea of tolerance places my beliefs at odds with your objectives. The ideals of Religion should not be mutually exclusive with gay rights. By insisting on the use of the word marriage, you are the one polarizing the debate, and the moderates are taking the other end of the spectrum from your position...

 

It can be one, or the other, or both!