A Tipping Point for Gay Marriage?

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by August

Actually no they don't. Even if they win the right to get a marriage certificate the government cannot force any religion to recognize it let alone perform the ceremony.

Don't have to force, gay churches all over, mute point. The issue is unions over marriage, it should be their choice.

I do agree a church against it has the right to refuse, but that's legal already, no pastor or church can be forced to do this, but plenty will.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by August

Actually no they don't. Even if they win the right to get a marriage certificate the government cannot force any religion to recognize it let alone perform the ceremony.

This I do agree with. I'm a huge proponent of gay rights, but you can't force a religion to change its rules. Being a member of a church is optional and voluntarily, so the members should adapt to the wishes of the church. Being a member of society is obligatory and unavoidable, so society should adapt to its members.

At least that's what I think about it.


EDIT: so in conclusion, I'm for gay marriage, but only marriage in the legal sense of the word. Marriage in the religious sense of the word is something for churches to decide on.

[August]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

EDIT: so in conclusion, I'm for gay marriage, but only marriage in the legal sense of the word. Marriage in the religious sense of the word is something for churches to decide on.

I'm not for government recognized marriage of any kind. There should be no government benefit or penalty associated with the institution.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by August

I'm not for government recognized marriage of any kind. There should be no government benefit or penalty associated with the institution.

I tend to agree with you here, but that still shouldn't justify denying gays the right to choose.

[August]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

I tend to agree with you here, but that still shouldn't justify denying gays the right to choose.

What exactly are they being denied? They can enter into civil unions which have the same legal benefits.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by August

I'm not for government recognized marriage of any kind. There should be no government benefit or penalty associated with the institution.

this brings an interesting concept into question.

Is marriage a religious concept?

as the Government provides tax perks etc to married couples, does this not become a separation of church and sate issue?

[Gerald]

It's different laws and regulations with regard to gays and their cohabitation, the Church has of course some countries rejected this pretty hard, because they do not like turning on gay anyway

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

this brings an interesting concept into question.

Is marriage a religious concept?

as the Government provides tax perks etc to married couples, does this not become a separation of church and sate issue?

What you're really saying is gays can't be religious. They're many gay churches and pastors, so they have the religion part covered should they desire a religious wedding.

Marriage isn't an institution of the church, DOA's can marry, ship captains, judges, etc..

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by August

Actually no they don't. Even if they win the right to get a marriage certificate the government cannot force any religion to recognize it let alone perform the ceremony.

A religion can't be forced, but any priest can be bought.

[gay couple walks to a priest]
A: we'd like to get married
P: what ??? I can't marry you too, it's unholly
A: oh no, and we saved 3000$ for the ceremony
P: now now my children, the good Lord will make an exception

[August]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Marriage isn't an institution of the church, DOA's can marry, ship captains, judges, etc..

Well not now it isn't but it used to be. What exactly is the governments justification for requiring people to beg their permission to get married?

[Gerald]

Perhaps, you have to show a decent A-hole

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by August

Well not now it isn't but it used to be. What exactly is the governments justification for requiring people to beg their permission to get married?

In different cultures, for the last 2000 years some marriage laws applied to government. Marriage itself existed before that dictated by the customs of the people.

Wwhen church and state shared power, many religious codes were written into secular law. This was mostly for the elite class, the poor still did things like jump over a brookstick or had sex and called themselves married, but then the man retained all the power. Women and children were often left in poverty after divorce, so more secular law was written in over time to protect them, much more in the last 100 years.

Like most things government got involved. They define it's legal status for our so called protection. If you want those legal protections and benefits you get a legal wedding. You can still call yourself married, just has no legal status.

Have to remember most of our secular law evolved from religious laws. Judges needed standards to apply for divorce, most of those standards however apply for divorce.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Armistead

In different cultures, for the last 2000 years some marriage laws applied.
Started when church and state shared power, Many religious codes were written into secular law. This was mostly for the elite class

And for the elite classes, marriage was often about little more than creating political or military alliances, the transfer of property and power, or the acquisition of it through a binding connection to another family or ruling dynasty. The use of the church to sanctify and validate such a union was incredibly useful at a time when people believed that to go against the church was to risk one's immortal soul, possibly through excommunication if the family of the party you offended had the right connections.

[August]

Originally Posted by Armistead

In different cultures, for the last 2000 years some marriage laws applied.
Started when church and state shared power, Many religious codes were written into secular law. This was mostly for the elite class, the poor still did things like jump over a brookstick or had sex and called themselves married, but then the man retained all the power. Women and children were often left in poverty after divorce, so more secular law was written in over time to protect them, much more in the last 100 years.

Like most things government got involved. They define it's legal status for our so called protection. If you want those legal protections and benefits you get a legal wedding. You can still call yourself married, just has no legal status.

Have to remember most of our secular law evolved from religious laws.

Exactly. Take the religious aspect out of it, like we're supposed to, and what is left is a lot more accurately termed a "Civil Union" than a marriage.

So maybe instead of allowing gays to get "married" the government should stop issuing marriage licenses.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Exactly. Take the religious aspect out of it, like we're supposed to, and what is left is a lot more accurately termed a "Civil Union" than a marriage.

So maybe instead of allowing gays to get "married" the government should stop issuing marriage licenses.

I could go for that.