Marriage - secular or religious

Well, being an atheist I see it as a deeper commitment between two people. Very special, and should be sacred, not the kind of thing you do at the drop of a hat and then divorce later.

I dont see it as religious of course, but if my wife-to-be (when I find a suitable girlfriend!) wants to get married in a church by a minister for traditions sake, I wouldnt really have a problem with it, but I would be worried about being hypocritical.

I dont have a problem with gay unions at all.

 

Marriage itself is a religious ceremony, even if between atheists A lot of atheists will preach much more than any church going citizen anyway, just because an Atheist wedding ceremony is called a civil union doesn't change what it is

As for homosexual marriage, I say why not? Why deny a union between two people that love each other very much and saying they shouldn't get the rights a married couple should is simply unfair.

You can't chose who you fall in love with or who you find attractive, same as you can't choose what race or sex you are when you're born anyway!

 

I am all for a religious ceremony EDIT because I do see marriage as a spiritual bond /EDIT (hat tip, NOG) and not as a mere contract, but should I fall in love with a godless heathen I might make an exception ( probably while secretly trying to baptise her so she won't burn in hell all that long that's the least I can do ).

My brother is going to marry secularly in a few weeks, and in the half-assed way he is approaching it, I am confident it is going to be the most romantic administrative act ever The tax benefits for married couples with children are undeniable. Darling. Marriage is in our rational self interest. The good thing is, they think alike

 

In my mind, marriage is primarily a permanent (ok, literally until death) spiritial bond between a man and a woman in the eyes of God. Love, mind you, is different than marriage and, while it should be a pre-requisite, it does not necessarily lead to my idea of marriage. Outside of the Church (for those who marry not in the eyes of God), it is a legal contract and religious ceremony, but I believe it has little more spiritual significance than any other non-Christian ceremony (y'know, me being a Christian and all).

That being said, if homosexuals want to call it a marriage, and if the Law has no problem with that, then neither do I. If they aren't Christians anyway, then it doesn't really matter one way or the other. On that note, I may at some point be corrected by God, but until then, this is how I see it.

Essentially, I see Christian marriage and all other marriage as two different entities, with the latter being a pale imitation of the former.

 

You know NOG, for how often we butt heads, sometimes you come up with some really sensible ideas. That's been my point all along - no one is making Christian priests, ministers, etc. marry homosexuals, and as such, they do not get Christian weddings. Who cares what they call it?

Perhaps it is the religious type of marriage that should have to be more clear. Everything can be a marriage, but if it is religious in nature, you should specify the religion. You can say, for example, Christian marriage, or Hindu marriage, or if not religious, secular marriage. Honestly though, what's in a name?

 

I consider myself to be fairly intelligent. What I am not is technologically skilled. I am too stupid to link. So although I really do not like posting something of this length, It's the only way I can post this article. My apologies for my lack of tech know-how.

EDIT: OK, try this:

http://mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1586

Despite the title of the publication, please note that at no time in his piece does he directly reference the Mormon faith or even Christianity in general.
/end edit


I do not agree with everything he says here (I don't think this will break the American Constitution) but in general I believe his premise is sound. As I inferred in an earlier post, gay marriage is a change from what almost all societies accepted as the norm (I doubt there were gay marriages allowed in purely secular countries with little religious influence either). I do not see this particular piece of change to be progress. It is a change that to a certain degree people like myself must tolerate but there is no requirement, in my mind, for us to embrace it. Anyhow, here it is.

 

@LKD

That sounds very alarmist to me.

Um, since when has the public democratically chosen which laws to enact? As far as I know (and I could be wrong) that power has always been left to those who know it best, the judiciary, although any member of the public can appeal a law on constitutional grounds (again, not sure about this, I'm not even American).

The next few comments from me are not directed at you LKD, they are directed at the article, but of course please feel free to comment.

Thats just alarmist. Theres no way that that would be legal, unless it were vital for the mothers health, and even then I think with all the time required to make the decision, the mother would probably die and the baby would live.

I hate political correctness, but I really dont see a reason for homophobia, and sometimes thats just what it is. I'm straight, but allowing homosexual marriage doesnt make me any less straight or threaten my own possible marriage, neither does it violate marriage for me. If other people want to get married, thats their business. I dont care.

Actually its the government's responsibility to define just about everything, to avoid confusion and conflict, and keep things running smoothly. What marriage means to individual people and what marriage means to the government can be two completely separate things, but ultimately the government has the right to say who can and cant be married. And they can use that term all they like - its an English term, not a Christian one, regardless of its origins. We borrow words from all sorts of cultures and languages, so it doesnt really matter where it came from.

Nonetheless, I agree that no Christian minister or priest should ever be forced to perform a ceremony that they are uncomfortable with - the government can change the legal definition of marriage but not the Christian definition.

 

Poor old Orson, he wrote one really good book and several decent ones which is strange seeing as he seems to half a step away from being awed by the fashionable eating trend: cooking over fire.

 

I've never thought about marriage as a religious union. Of course I was aware of the concept, but I've never thought about it that way.

To me, marriage is ideally a show of will to be together with someone. There's nothing inherent sacred about it; individual couples can give it religious meaning if they so desire. Does that mean I'm not going to hold my wedding in a church? Hell no, I'll still do it in a church - not because I believe that it's going to bind my soul or whatever, but because it's nice and traditional and a good feel. Do I think marriage is just a piece of paper? Basically, yes. But it's the emotions involved with the relationship that makes it more than that, I think. People can be married without having underwent the ceremony or registration, I think.

I said ideally, because the worst-case scenarios are forced/arranged marriages, in which case it's no more than a business arrangement, etc. This is probably becoming obsolete though (in Western society anyway).

And there's nothing wrong with homosexual marriages at all. I don't see why Christian homosexuals can't get married in a church - though I guess the priest's consent might be nice.

 

Because of the sacred nature of marriage, a great many people will be offended at the extension of the ordinance to those who's lifestyle is classed in scripture as an abomination--a sin of extreme magnitude.

It's the live and let live that is the responsibility of the state. Gay rights is a civil matter, and all I ask is that the language and choice of wording reflect that. Live and let live in this case could mean civil unions to provide civil benefits to gay couples that make the same sacrifices as a childless married couple to live together, and a "don't ask, don't tell" where appropriate. I could accept Joe and Bob in a civil union as long as I don't have to hear details about their sex life...

Add in Heterosexual and you have my definition. Whether Mormon, Catholic, Jewish, Islam or whatever authority you revere, the sacrifices and covenents are the same. It's probably not too different between gays either.

Because in most religious traditions, homosexuality is a greivous sin, while marriage is a divine ordinance. To use divine authority to santify such a sin is blasphemy. Fairness is the problem of Civil authority, not Religious authority...

But you can choose, to some extend who you attempt to become sexually involved with. I can meet a woman who I can become completely attracted to, but if she's already married, I would be expected to refrain and seek out a different companion. Likewise, The Religious consider it fair to ask that those who have same gender attraction to refrain from choosing a partner of the same gender.

The Seperation of Church and State is what's implied here. The State wants to grant Gay Rights, don't expect the people to embrace their way of life. If done right, an uneasy peace can develop. I have little confidence in politicians or judges to get it right, however, so we can expect continued division over the issue...

But it doesn't mean we have to approve of what they do. Homophobe, used outside of a pathological context, is just as hateful as the term queer. Marriage, to many, is a religious priviledge, not a right. To qualify for this priviledge, you should abide certain commandments. Among them is choosing a bride of the opposite gender.

And you trust them to do this? I don't...

 

It is to many? And these many get to decide what I should abide by? Oh please. I shall follow laws set down by democratic institutions, not the rules randomly selected by one of the religions that are currently in fashion.

 

Looking at ancient history, marriage was a legal contract between two people, whether or not religion is involved. So, IMO, marriage is in reality a secular contract.

 

To clarify my point, marriage is a (rather obsolete) legal contract that exist to simplify inheritance and other financial issues.

 

It's anything you want it to be!

For some it's a deeper spiritual and holy union. For some a contract and for some others just about anything else!

 

Marriage, as it is regulated by the government, is a legal issue. The definition of marriage by the government should be fairly broad, but have some limitations (such as consent and age). Religions should be allowed to practice marriage in whatever way they see fit, so long as their definition includes the limitations set by the government.

 

Marriages do a lot of things, but they don't simplify anything!

 

You know, I was thinking about this point this morning. Now, please understand, I'm not trying to offend when I say this...

I was thinking, who makes a marriage sacred? Who makes the bond between two people sacred?

For me, its the two people in question. And only them. If two people have a special bond, and honour it, and each other, then thats all that matters. Some body else having a gay marriage doesnt diminish the importance and sacredness of my (future) marriage any more than someone getting a divorce does. It doesnt affect me, and doesnt affect my (future) marriage.

If you were a Christian, I dont see why you couldnt say that God wont bless a marriage that isnt respected by those involved, and surely he would want more love in the world, not less? Is gay love always wrong?

 

From a Christian perspective? Yes. The bible states unambiguously that men that have gay sex (it doesn't actually say anything about lesbians) should be stoned to death. It doesn't say anything specific about gay marriage, but since marriage usually involves sex...