Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 353

Thread: The Marriage Rights Thread

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    826
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)

    The Marriage Rights Thread

    One of the Koch brothers said the following at the Republican National Convention last night:

    "I believe in gay marriage," the 72-year-old Koch told
    Politico. He was in Tampa as a New York delegate and to attend an event held by Americans for Prosperity -- the political advocacy group he helps fund and lead. He also told the newspaper the U.S. military should withdraw from the Middle East and that the federal government should consider tax increases and defense-spending cuts to improve fiscal woes."

    Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...#ixzz25AKUNcxN


    What the shitting fuck? Koch is not a human... he's a two dimensional card board cutout of everything I hate. What in the sam hell is going on here!?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,778
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    To me the debate, at least in the US, comes down to the separation between church and state. Civil marriage needs to be extended to all adults, not just the straight ones. Religious people have no business imposing their beliefs on the rest of us.
    Last edited by aggroculture; 08-31-2012 at 05:43 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    897
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    I just want to point out how weird I think using the word "believe" in that statement is. Actually, the use of "believe" in political opinions is strange. Even signs saying "I believe in So and So!" irritates me. Maybe because of it's association I have with the religious use of "belief", but I'd rather people use words like agreeing or supporting.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    826
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    That's an interesting point. Believing in something somewhat implies faith, which as we all know refers to the magic fairy pixey dust of reality: denial of facts. Ultimately though we're probably coming from a non-theistic bias.

    I tell people that one of the only things I believe in is equal rights. Not because I'm so moral or anything, but because it's so totally obvious even to an over-thinking cynic. I believe in it because it's one of the few things in this world that falls squarely into the good vs bad binary. Using the word belief is not by accident though; I use that word primarily in conversations with people who tend to be religious and can relate to it better than the slightly more nebulous, "I support." It helps me present a moral case for the equal treatment of people far too easily characterized as perverts and sinners in conservative circles.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    UGH, magtig. Your first sentence actually made me not want to read the rest of your post (which is also a bit condescending, but I can see your point). In a lot of languages, there are no different words for what the English call 'faith' and 'belief'. It's semantics, and it sucks.

    What the argument comes down to, though, is nothing to do with religion and everything with whether or not you accept the relativity of ethical systems. Coming from a secularist country, which has liberal legislation on abortion, marriage and euthanasia; the debate is no different here. People who are otherwise atheistic and even antitheistic will bring out the sanctity of life and the argument of the slippery slope just as much as christian conservatives.

    The point is this: if you truly believe that your ethical system is the best, are you ever capable of allowing other ethical choices to be possible in legislation?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    In the United States, the point is this:

    Look at this list and see what ANY of it has to do with the Bible or God etc:

    http://money.msn.com/family-money/6-...estopedia.aspx

    The STATE considers marriage a CONTRACT and a FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT, one that only the STATE can license, and that only the STATE can sever (via divorce).

    Financial benefits should be available to EVERYONE. To deny them based on God or the Bible is a violation of civil rights.
    Last edited by allegro; 09-02-2012 at 12:16 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Ha. Like considering marriage a financial contract open to everyone isn't part of an ethical system.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Well, yes, ethical, but I guess we stress that it's based on our constitution and civil rights, NOT the Bible.

    See Loving v. Virginia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

    And this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
    Last edited by allegro; 09-02-2012 at 08:43 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Yes, but that's the point: not everyone in the world thinks the concept of civil rights is a good one. Not everyone thinks the individuals rights should be protected over the collectives. Yet most of us assume that a secular state with the most liberal civil rights concepts is ultimately the most ethical one. Which is in itself an ethical notion, based on an ethical system.

    So again, the question is: how is your (and my) belief that a secular government with extensive civil rights and liberties is the best possible government when it comes to social issues any different from the belief that a government that bases the moral principles it enforces on a holy text? There are solid arguments that can be made for a government that bases its social policies on a very clearly defined moral system, rather than the very woolly and ultimately almost nihilistic concept of absolute civil rights (there is a very real danger that it results in desintegrating individualism, as K.A. Appiah wrote about).
    Again, I'm in the second corner, but it annoys me that people somehow don't see how their ideas are no different from the christian conservatives or the right wing nationalists in the UK or even islamists.

    Only moral relativism can allow for the stance you advocate, and a lot of people aren't moral relativists. It's their right to not be that, and it's their right to advocate their point - that's what you and I believe.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,778
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Elke: correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you erect a false equivalance. A secular liberal state which allows same-sex marriage is not taking anything away from religious people, however much they may believe it to be the case. They already must accept the difference between civil and religious marriage: if you get married in a church you still need to file with the state for the marriage to be recognized. Whereas a theocratic state that imposes its beliefs on everyone, religious or not, is taking something very material away from a certain section of the population. This is why the two systems are not equivalent. One lives and lets live, the other does not. Yes, both are ethical systems: but one is fairer than the other.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    826
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aggroculture View Post
    Whereas a theocratic state that imposes its beliefs on everyone, religious or not, is taking something very material away from a certain section of the population. This is why the two systems are not equivalent. One lives and lets live, the other does not. Yes, both are ethical systems: but one is fairer than the other.
    Exactly. Maybe I'm misunderstanding too, but I don't understand how a level playing field negates individualism. Private organizations, such as religion, are still free to forbid homosexuals from being married in their particular church are they not? Wait... speaking of which, is that what individualism gets based on in your argument? The denial of rights/enforcement of moral code? Actually, hang on, how is uniform enforcement of a moral code promotional of individualism. Isn't that kind of like saying conformity promotes individualism?

    Anyway, regarding my comments on the word faith. I realize that not all religious people are in denial about problematic facts regarding their faith, but here in Christian America I've seen it used over and over as exactly what I said, 'denial of facts.' If you want to be offended by that your ire should probably be directed at fellow Christians who so regularly rely on the phrase, 'you just have to have faith,' as an escape hatch from cognitive dissonance.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aggroculture View Post
    This is why the two systems are not equivalent. One lives and lets live, the other does not. Yes, both are ethical systems: but one is fairer than the other.
    THAT is in itself an ethical judgement: it's moral relativism. THAT is my point. There's nothing neutral about a secular state.


    So, for those with too much time on their hands: the long version.

    We already picked an option, and value both systems through the lense of that option, which makes it seem like a false equivalance. Much like a child would not consider a meal of Brussels sprouts, mashed potatoes and liver equivalent to a nice hearty bowl of spaghetti bolognaise, even though the nutritional value is probably about the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by magtig
    Actually, hang on, how is uniform enforcement of a moral code promotional of individualism. Isn't that kind of like saying conformity promotes individualism?
    Again, exactly my point (except where I refer to Appiah): civil liberties are based on the concept that every human being has equal value in itself, regardless of its contribution to society, and complete ownership of its body, its actions and its thoughts.
    Post-enlightenment Western-Europe and (parts of) the U.S.A. are unique in that idea. If you look throughout history, it's an idea that is often touched upon, but even more often disregarded. It's not a natural state of things, quite the contrary, because objectively speaking we are not equal.

    The option that our countries have taken over the course of the last 200 years is to consolidate this ethical idea of equality in legislation, which has encouraged us in turn to believe in this idea. An idea that has no basis in fact, but is a moral concept.

    And it's obvious most people here believe that this option is the best one - see aggro's use of the word 'fair'.

    But there are a good number of people out there who do not believe that all human beings are equal, and therefore don't believe in the concept of civil rights that we use. And while 200 years of legislation has made the minority into a vast majority, those minorities still have the right to differ in opinion with us. It's a right that we hold sacred because of the moral option we chose.

    Our political individualism is a form of collective thinking, because the majority of us western people believe it's the soundest and most rational option. But I can think of a number of societies that don't, and not just because they're being oppressed by evil communist regimes.
    When Appiah mentions the desintegrating effect of individualism he does it in much the same way as Nietzsche ties nihilism to science: it's a possible effect, if the actual benefits don't match the expected ones. In other words: if society lets you down and doesn't provide a safehaven for you, you tend to become self-centered rather than individualist, cutting yourself off of the collective.
    [I should really look up that article of his again, it's been ten years since I read it and the terminology is hazy.]


    Also, magtig? I realize that not all black people are thieving thugs, but here in my block most of the gang members who make my life uncomfortable are black, so don't call me racist, blame the blacks who ruin it for the rest of you.
    Yeah, I'm sure there's a fancy name for that type of reasoning. Oh, wait, that's it: hypocrisy. Or intellectual laziness. You choose, I'm not picky. Just irritated.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,778
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Elke, I still don't get your point. You are basically saying that we are judging both ethical positions through the prism of one of them, and finding that one superior. And so? Should we refrain from doing so because we are biased by the ethical position from which we make a judgment?

    How would acting in a morally relativistic fashion help here? We have an either/or situation: we either legalize same-sex marriage, or we don't.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    born under punches
    Posts
    2,180
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    I wish the people who say "The government should have no place in the bedroom!" would be consistent. They're right, they government should have no place in the bedroom. And that includes marriage. It's an archaic, pointless tradition. I think it should be abolished, for both gays and straights. It's not the government's job to be handing out pieces of paper that say you're in a committed legal relationship with another person.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    826
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Elke View Post
    Also, magtig? I realize that not all black people are thieving thugs, but here in my block most of the gang members who make my life uncomfortable are black, so don't call me racist, blame the blacks who ruin it for the rest of you.
    Yeah, I'm sure there's a fancy name for that type of reasoning. Oh, wait, that's it: hypocrisy. Or intellectual laziness. You choose, I'm not picky. Just irritated.
    Being black is not analogous to choosing a religion.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    324
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Elke wasn't saying it was. Her point soared right over your head.

    Try it another way: it's hard to see roses when you're wearing rose-colored glasses, but the blue hydrangeas stand out. Instead complaining to the gardener about the flowerbed having so many hydrangeas, maybe what you really ought to be doing is taking off those glasses.

    You're wearing several fallacies and biases on your face—right there, sitting there on your nose, where everyone can see.

    And actually what she's really saying (by my interpretation) is that you need to be aware that you're always wearing some kind of tinted glasses, and that you need to be aware of that fact before you start telling everyone what color the sky is.

    Quote Originally Posted by aggroculture View Post
    How would acting in a morally relativistic fashion help here? We have an either/or situation: we either legalize same-sex marriage, or we don't.
    It's the support in '(YES/NO) because I believe...' It isn't that there's a way of acting morally relativistic that would help, it's that the moral relativism informs our side on that argument, and has led to our being confronted with it in the first place.
    Last edited by Corvus T. Cosmonaut; 09-02-2012 at 06:22 AM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Thank you, Corvus. That.


    We are moral relativists, which is what allows us to think it's better for everyone to have the right to choose than to have those choices limited or even made for you. But a group within our western societies clearly believes that universalism is a better approach to ethics, and they oppose our moral opinions. They're not necessarily misinformed biggotted Biblehumping morons, because despite a lack of Bible belt in Belgium, there is a similar voice in my very secularist utopia and it doesn't take its arguments from religion, but from social mores, conventional wisdom and even science.
    [Also, moral relativism itself is universalist itself, imposing moral relativism everywhere.]

    I'm just getting fed up with this argument reduced to enlightened open-minded people / religious nutcases. It's too easy. And that was where my initial remarks came from: annoyance at the reduction of an actual legitimate ethical / political debate to black/white terminology. If that's all you can take away from it, you're really thinking no harder about the issue than the aforementioned Bible belters. Who, for the sake of argument, I just all lumped together even though they clearly ought not be.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    I think those of us in the U.S. are only speaking about what it's like here in the U.S., not all over the world.

    Here in the U.S., LOTS of times you see a politician (or people backing certain politicians) on t.v. talking about being against same-sex marriage, they cite the Bible as their reason for being against it. And they cite freedom of religion as their right to do so. That's why we keep stressing that the Bible shouldn't dictate our rights, due to separation of church and state: because of all these Americans very matter-of-factually citing "Leviticus" as the single simple reason why same-sex marriage is "wrong" and that freedom of religion allows them to think that way.

    I do occasionally see people on television -- particularly senior citizens and MOST particularly African American senior citizens -- simply being against same-sex marriage because they "believe" that a marriage is between one man and one woman (and they somehow believe that anybody going against that denigrates their own marriage) and they don't particularly state the Bible as being the reason for that belief, but we're so overwhelmingly "Christian," here, we pretty much (perhaps erroneously) assume it's because the Bible told them so. (Or, at least, their interpretation.) In our country's history, we've used the Bible many times as a reason for our actions. Like slavery, for instance. Stating this in this forum isn't pointing fingers at "religious nutcases." It's simply pointing out the history -- in THIS particular country -- of people using the Bible as an excuse. Not the Bible's fault; it's the people's fault. They'll find any angle they can to avoid uncomfortable change, and the Bible is often the first excuse they'll trot out.
    Last edited by allegro; 09-02-2012 at 12:17 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    I do understand that, but I also think that the actual debate - the actual conflict - is a much, much larger one than marriage equality, and I think understanding the scope and nature of that debate and your own position in it, is important.

    I also suspect a lot of secularists think that a further seperation of church and state is going to 'solve' much of the problem, and it isn't, because in the end it's a clash of two very different ethical viewpoints that are irreconcilable.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    897
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    I have to say, I think I see the point that Elke made, and it made me change the way I view my first statement- saying I believe in equal rights definitely implies moral code, so I now I feel less irritated at the "I believe in gay marriage" statement. But, I agree with allegro's statement, that it just feels so damn loaded considering the context of...this country. Overall, is it terrible to say I got excited at how much debate/through provocation was caused over a small observation in word usage?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    826
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Elke View Post
    The point is this: if you truly believe that your ethical system is the best, are you ever capable of allowing other ethical choices to be possible in legislation?
    So to go back to your original question, if this means legislating against gays and other minorities, then no. I believe everyone should have equal rights in eyes of the state, but I also believe that if you want to belong to a religion that doesn't allow gay marriage it's your right to do so. It's the religion's right to have their own conditions for membership as well. Isn't that the best of both worlds? I realize the paradox this would create if a state religion were to use the same system, but that's the difference to me: the morals that secular versus non-secular would choose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elke
    So again, the question is: how is your (and my) belief that a secular government with extensive civil rights and liberties is the best possible government when it comes to social issues any different from the belief that a government that bases the moral principles it enforces on a holy text?
    It's different in terms of the effect on groups of people. When you say we're not objectively equal, aren't you mostly speaking on an individual level? Entire groups of people are objectively equal, aren't they? A secular government is more likely to base its particular morals on scientific fact and consensus of it's people (hopefully, at least), rather than scripture; there's an inherent pragmatism to this. The diversity of secular leaders is a way of promoting the rights of diverse groups. Structurally, maybe the two aren't so different. But when you say that our ideas are no different than Christians, Islamist, fascists, etc I can't help but think, 'but our ideas would allow all of those groups to exist, so long as they didn't harm others (see the KKK), whereas their systems would not allow me to exist as the person I am at all.' Their ideas do not exist on the premise of justice as fairness, they exist on the premise of God's word and nothing else. One set of morals is inclusive of diverse belief systems, while the other is absolute even though both utilize universalism. Governments based on holy text tend to be the very definition of dogmatic and rigid, they go right back to what I was saying about the word faith: denial in the face of evidence (which, by the way, can apply to anyone with any strong belief in anything).

    Also, regarding that, what would you have me do? I'm not intentionally trying to be offensive to you, but I've seen religious people use that word over and over exactly as I said: as an escape hatch from cognitive dissonance and as a shield from factual evidence. Hell, growing up in a religion I used that word myself for those exact reasons. Should I pretend none of that happened so I don't inflame your biases towards religion? Should I pretend that the largest voting block opposing gay marriage isn't squarely in the Christian/religious demographic (at least in the US, and probably most of the rest of the world)? I'm also not interested in tip-toeing around everyone, nor am I interested in presenting myself as perfect anymore. I'll save you the trouble: I'm not. But characterizing my attitude towards religious people as 'bible thumping morons' is a straw man, and all it really amounts to is you reinforcing the stereotype you're railing against. I don't even think that all people with blatantly racist or homophobic attitudes are necessarily bad people. I grew up in a religious community, and I talk to religious people all the time. Very rarely are they as well informed, willing to face dark jagged truths, and philosophically educated as you are. If they were we could have debates about what this conversation might ultimately be about: do objective truths exist? Instead, I wind up having conversations about how gay marriage will not lead to alligator marriage.

    I think equal treatment of women, homosexuals, and all races is better. That is my bias, and I acknowledge it. I understand that other people have different ideas of what constitutes morality, and I'm really not trying to deny them that within certain bounds (like, let's not throw acid on women's faces for a start). In terms of legislating basic human rights, perhaps universalism is a better approach but only from a secular state. People will still not be equal in terms of societal position, objectively speaking, but it won't be because they are denied rights as an entire group. Theoretically their own actions will have a large role in determining their place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elke
    They're not necessarily misinformed biggotted Biblehumping morons, because despite a lack of Bible belt in Belgium, there is a similar voice in my very secularist utopia and it doesn't take its arguments from religion, but from social mores, conventional wisdom and even science.
    Ah, I see, they're misinformed biggotted non-believer morons (I'm being facetious). What are those arguments, by the way (the social mores, conventional wisdom, and especially science)?
    Out of curiosity, do you have any information on how many atheists oppose gay marriage in Belgium? I tried googling it, but couldn't turn up much. I'd be curious to see some polls on the percentages of who opposes gay marriage in your country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elke
    I also think that the actual debate - the actual conflict - is a much, much larger one than marriage equality. ... I also suspect a lot of secularists think that a further seperation of church and state is going to 'solve' much of the problem, and it isn't, because in the end it's a clash of two very different ethical viewpoints that are irreconcilable.
    I think simultaneously holding a magnifying glass on this one issue, and putting it along side moral relativism is making it too complicated. You want to have a debate about how to structure society, and that's definitely a debate worth having, but it's overreaching to think that gay marriage is at the heart of that debate. It also doesn't take into account that most people have irreconcilable viewpoints, in terms of philosophical structures, simultaneously contained inside their heads at all times without realizing it. There probably never will be a full reconciliation, and yet, people will go on living, and gay marriage will probably become legal, and eventually people will just get used to it. We are deeply paradoxical beings, living in a deeply paradoxical universe, and we know for a fact that logic itself is limited.
    Last edited by Magtig; 09-02-2012 at 04:33 PM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    2,778
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Elke View Post
    And that was where my initial remarks came from: annoyance at the reduction of an actual legitimate ethical / political debate to black/white terminology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Elke View Post
    I also suspect a lot of secularists think that a further seperation of church and state is going to 'solve' much of the problem, and it isn't, because in the end it's a clash of two very different ethical viewpoints that are irreconcilable.
    As Allegro points out, in the US, the debate is very much dominated by a clash of Christians vs. secularists, or certainly appears that way. I for one, have never heard articulated a specifically secular opposition to same-sex marriage in the US. Sometimes you hear a "slippery slope" argument (the "conventional wisdom/social mores" you refer to?) which is nonetheless based on a homophobia which would appear to have its historical basis in the judeo-christian religious one. If same-sex marriage normalizes homosexuality, why would that would be a bad thing?

    It's interesting to hear from you about the Belgian secular opposition to same-sex marriage: I'd like to hear more about what their arguments consist of.

    But you still haven't answered my question, which is: of what use is it to talk of moral relativism when, as you yourself admit, the issue is an either/or situation? We either legalize same-sex marriage, offending those who will be offended. As people were, and still are offended by divorce, abortion, birth control, interracial marriage, marriage across social classes or castes, sex and procreation out of wedlock, etc. Or we don't, keeping same-sex couples in an inferior category. There is no solution which keeps both sides happy. There is no "morally relativist" position which keeps everyone happy. In other words, beyond your statement that not only religious people object to same-sex marriage (a statement that in principle I accept) I still don't understand what your discussion of moral relativism brings to the debate: accepting that moral systems may be socially constructed and relative is not incompatible with believing one solution is better, fairer, juster than others - even to its opponents, and fighting for it.
    Last edited by aggroculture; 09-02-2012 at 04:40 PM.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,574
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    This is actually going to the Supreme Court, so it should be a very interesting ruling. I really can't see how the SCOTUS won't rule for civil unions because of equal protection. I'm not a lawyer though.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Highland Park, IL
    Posts
    14,384
    Mentioned
    994 Post(s)
    Even the seasoned trial lawyers at work who discuss this say they can't predict it. It all depends on how it's argued and the case law presented.

    I sure hope those on the side of equal protection don't fuck it up.
    Last edited by allegro; 09-03-2012 at 04:13 PM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,216
    Mentioned
    551 Post(s)

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    327
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    And this is why I'm a big Chris Kluwe and Minnesota Vikings fan.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Laughingstock of the World (America)
    Posts
    4,579
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Magtig View Post
    Private organizations, such as religion, are still free to forbid homosexuals from being married in their particular church are they not?
    Maybe I'm horribly wrong here, but I thought marriage certificates were issued by government agencies (courts), not churches. I was always under the impression that the church was simply a venue; no different than saying "I want to get married in a field". The state, on the other hand, is responsible for giving you the piece of paper that says "you're married, and are now eligible for all benefits related to said status". Tax benefits, benefits from employers, etc. Things that don't have anything to do with what church you go to (or don't go to) or what god(s) you do/don't believe in.

    Correct me if I'm wrong - I've never been married, so I don't know exactly how the system works. But I always thought religion's only role, at the very core of it, was to provide a venue and a person to preside over the ceremony if so desired. What does religion have to do with government programs like tax benefits for couples?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,216
    Mentioned
    551 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by theimage13 View Post
    Maybe I'm horribly wrong here, but I thought marriage certificates were issued by government agencies (courts), not churches. I was always under the impression that the church was simply a venue; no different than saying "I want to get married in a field". The state, on the other hand, is responsible for giving you the piece of paper that says "you're married, and are now eligible for all benefits related to said status". Tax benefits, benefits from employers, etc. Things that don't have anything to do with what church you go to (or don't go to) or what god(s) you do/don't believe in.

    Correct me if I'm wrong - I've never been married, so I don't know exactly how the system works. But I always thought religion's only role, at the very core of it, was to provide a venue and a person to preside over the ceremony if so desired. What does religion have to do with government programs like tax benefits for couples?
    The issue here applies with "who is allowed to marry you." The general authority is a religious one. There's a few exceptions, but they're anachronistic and strange. The institution of marriage is so anachronistic with its restrictions, that someone I know had a "ship captain" officiate his wedding at sea... the reason for why this guy can do this is because back in the day, when you were at sea, you couldn't find a priest sometimes. I've also had friends join a cult just so they can officiate over a wedding... because then they have "religious authority" or some shit... once you're a priest in some random fucking cult.

    We need to grow the fuck up.
    Last edited by Jinsai; 09-08-2012 at 05:55 AM.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    I've had a busy week, but I'll get back to the secular oppostion when I find some free time.

    Also, the issue is not that churches have the right not to marry gay people, it's that they don't have the right to marry gay people.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    96
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    The issue here applies with "who is allowed to marry you." The general authority is a religious one. There's a few exceptions, but they're anachronistic and strange. The institution of marriage is so anachronistic with its restrictions, that someone I know had a "ship captain" officiate his wedding at sea... the reason for why this guy can do this is because back in the day, when you were at sea, you couldn't find a priest sometimes. I've also had friends join a cult just so they can officiate over a wedding... because then they have "religious authority" or some shit... once you're a priest in some random fucking cult.

    We need to grow the fuck up.
    In the US a justice of the peace can marry people at a court house or at a venue. When you get married you sign a legal contract and you have a certain amount of time to have a ceremony (a religious one or with a justice of the peace) with witnesses. My parents got married at a court house with a justice of the peace (they had McDonalds afterward).

    Also in response to Harry Seaward the government hands out legal contracts all the time why should marriage contracts be any different if people want it. And that is the point, marriage is no different then any other legal document, therefore, if constitutionally the federal government must recognize contracts and licences issued by the states they have to recognize all marriage contracts including same sex marriages as long as a state legally issues it. Hopefully the supreme court sees it the same way.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions