|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:46 pm
Valheita Shiori Miko Why would you need to prove that it isn't a choice? I was under the impression we had the right of choice as well. confused *shrugs* Some weird stuff about how if it's a choice, it's not covered as a fundamental human right that you get to marry. Making the choice waivers the right to marriage, or something like that. I dunno, the whole debate is kinda silly really. @Slamuel: Correction, you punch them in the nose. Talking to them is pointless. @Vaja: No, it's as religious as ever. One thing religions will never do is let go of their playthings, like a spoilt child. I agree. The whole debate IS rather silly. Gay marriage is obviously right. 3nodding
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:59 pm
AHMETRock Now don't try to argue that. Because marriage is a religious thing. It really isn't up for arguement. So seeing as my boyfriend and I are both Athiests, we should never be allowed to marry either? Even though when I do get married, I intend on having little to no religion involved?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:17 pm
Shiori Miko AHMETRock Now don't try to argue that. Because marriage is a religious thing. It really isn't up for arguement. So seeing as my boyfriend and I are both Athiests, we should never be allowed to marry either? Even though when I do get married, I intend on having little to no religion involved? Religion is automatically put in when you get married. If it wasn't, you'd have a civil union, that's the same as getting married though. Married is just a word. So you will be involved with religion for the time that your wedding takes. He's not saying you have to be religious to get married, just that marriage is a religious thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:03 am
CH0Z0 Shiori Miko AHMETRock Now don't try to argue that. Because marriage is a religious thing. It really isn't up for arguement. So seeing as my boyfriend and I are both Athiests, we should never be allowed to marry either? Even though when I do get married, I intend on having little to no religion involved? Religion is automatically put in when you get married. If it wasn't, you'd have a civil union, that's the same as getting married though. Married is just a word. So you will be involved with religion for the time that your wedding takes. He's not saying you have to be religious to get married, just that marriage is a religious thing. But it's not. You don't even need to go to a church to get married; you can have the entire thing done in a courthouse. Religious marriage and civil marriage are not one and the same- you could, in theory, get a religious marriage but never be 'legally' married and when the time comes, you're going to file your taxes separately and you quite possibly won't be considered their spouse for anything.
The only thing that the US government is concerned with is civil marriage- religious marriage is up to the individual church. I know the church that my family attends, a Lutheran church, supports same-sex marriage, and the pastor has told more than one gay couple at the church that he will be willing to marry them if it is legalized here and if they choose to do so. So attempting to ban it for all of religion is bunk, because obviously there are churches out there that like the idea.
In the end, the 'religious' marriage is really just an empty ceremony. It might have some religious meaning, but it has no legal standing whatsoever. The IRS doesn't care whether or not you got married in a church, but if you are legally married, you will get those benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:40 am
Tabihito CH0Z0 Shiori Miko AHMETRock Now don't try to argue that. Because marriage is a religious thing. It really isn't up for arguement. So seeing as my boyfriend and I are both Athiests, we should never be allowed to marry either? Even though when I do get married, I intend on having little to no religion involved? Religion is automatically put in when you get married. If it wasn't, you'd just hang out together and stuff, that's the same as getting married though. Married is just a word. So you will be involved with religion for the time that your wedding takes. He's not saying you have to be religious to get married, just that marriage is a religious thing. But it's not. You don't even need to go to a church to get married; you can have the entire thing done in a courthouse. Religious marriage and civil marriage are not one and the same- you could, in theory, get a religious marriage but never be 'legally' married and when the time comes, you're going to file your taxes separately and you quite possibly won't be considered their spouse for anything.
The only thing that the US government is concerned with is civil marriage- religious marriage is up to the individual church. I know the church that my family attends, a Lutheran church, supports same-sex marriage, and the pastor has told more than one gay couple at the church that he will be willing to marry them if it is legalized here and if they choose to do so. So attempting to ban it for all of religion is bunk, because obviously there are churches out there that like the idea.
In the end, the 'religious' marriage is really just an empty ceremony. It might have some religious meaning, but it has no legal standing whatsoever. The IRS doesn't care whether or not you got married in a church, but if you are legally married, you will get those benefits. Hm, the state I live in is quite different, but now I am informed. Here (at least in the area I live) you almost always get married at a church and it has religious connotations (I do see your point though), but since it can be any church, then like you said; you could get a church that supports it. You don't have to be religious to get married, it's just where you go to do it, like how you can go to wall mart but not work at wall mart. In the end I'm agreeing with what Val has to say, civil union is what it should all be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:11 am
On the whole "married in a church" thing, sometimes you're not allowed to be married in a church even when your a part of that religion.
I was Catholic and attended CCD until the 4th grade, but since I did not stay in CCD classes until the confirmation I wouldn't be allowed to get married there. If you didn't have a confirmation you have to take classes before the church will marry you. It may just be the Catholic church that does this though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:46 pm
I thought I said it wasn't up for arguement? AND THEN YOU ARGUE WITH IT? I am dissappointed.
Marriage is a religious thing. Perhaps not just by monotheistic religions, but the concept of this monogamous relationship in which property and etc are shared between the partners is solely a religious thing. It is so common that it is seen as a default. Most people who want to "protect the sanctity of marriage" do so because it is a religious thing. Whether or not you think it is acceptable in the religion needs to be left up to your religion. The state should not have any interpretation of marriage, as it is a religious thing.
Now, for those of you who want to get married for reasons that are not religious, does it matter if it is called a marriage? Those of you who want the right to marry don't want it because you are otherwise forbidden from being with one another, right? You want it for the legal, secular implications. So I'm saying that marriage's legal implications should be transfered to civil unions! You get married, and it counts as a civil union, but you can also get a civil union by signing on the dotted line, with or without the matrimony.
That's all there is to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:56 pm
I would be pissed if I was not granted the right to marry. The word means a lot of me and I am not religious. Marriage has changed over time, like many things and we need to understand that it is not a religious thing anymore. Yes, many religions still hold on to it for dear life but it's not exclusively theirs, it is legal term now with legal benefits.
stare Besides, if they tried to change the entire institution of marriage to civil unions you would have a bigger s**t fit on your hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:18 pm
Neko Chan 777 I agree. The whole debate IS rather silly. Gay marriage is obviously right. 3nodding No. Gay marriage is obviously wrong. Marriage period is wrong. It's just a scam designed by society to take your money. @Tabihito: I think you've hit where the confusion is coming from. There's two aspects to marriage, the legal and the religious. You can't separate them while using the term marriage, because it contains both connotations. At the end of the day, the world needs to call it a union, leave the marriage as the holy religious union, and move on. @AHMET: We agree! Let the law have civil unions for all, and let marriage fall by the wayside be what it used to be, a religious union. @Vaja: But it -SHOULDN'T- be a legal term with legal benefits. What happened to separation of church and state?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:36 pm
Exactly, and it's no longer a religious thing. Yes, you can be married by some one of the church, but you still have to go through a legal process and you do not have to be married by someone of the church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:46 pm
Vajapocalypse Exactly, and it's no longer a religious thing. Yes, you can be married by some one of the church, but you still have to go through a legal process and you do not have to be married by someone of the church. ... Vaja, go on the streets and ask 100 people whether it's religious or not. I think you'll find your answer. The dictionary definition of it is legal, but the social connotation is religious. Words have both. I don't see why we can't just let the religious have their marriage and come up with a new legal term. We're being just as petty as the church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 6:58 pm
Valheita Vajapocalypse Exactly, and it's no longer a religious thing. Yes, you can be married by some one of the church, but you still have to go through a legal process and you do not have to be married by someone of the church. ... Vaja, go on the streets and ask 100 people whether it's religious or not. I think you'll find your answer. The dictionary definition of it is legal, but the social connotation is religious. Words have both. I don't see why we can't just let the religious have their marriage and come up with a new legal term. We're being just as petty as the church. Val, words and definitions change over time as do laws and customs. Just because 100 people today may think it's religious doesn't mean the next generation will if we continue to progress and alter the idea. Why can't we? To get in touch with my overbearing fundamentalist, it's wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:01 pm
Vajapocalypse Val, words and definitions change over time as do laws and customs. Just because 100 people today may think it's religious doesn't mean the next generation will if we continue to progress and alter the idea. Why can't we? To get in touch with my overbearing fundamentalist, it's wrong. Yes, but why should homosexuals have to suffer the wait, when we could just use a different word for the legal union, strip the social religious connotations, and let them have the same right to a legal union as everyone else, regardless of what religion says. Also, how is changing a word wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:32 pm
I think it is the opposite. Just because 1000 people don't think marriage is religious doesn't mean it no longer isn't.
The question of popular opinion and their influence on fact has always been a big question for me.
Does everything have an absolute truth, one that stands firm for all time? Is everything relative, the difference between crime and custom being consensus? I, personally, think that it's half way. There are things that are true as we know it, and then things that are just true.
Where something has originated isn't up for debate. The history of marriage is rooted in religion. For thousands of years it has been stressed as important, until it is seen as important to our society as it is, either to get married or to be opposed to the process or whatever. This is a fact, something that we cannot argue nor change.
What we can change is "what we can change". It is redundant and yet profound. If it can be changed, you can change it. This has inspired countless revolutions, inventions, and innovations.
Right now, you seem to want to revolutionize the marriage process to include gay and lesbian couples to be married. I would say that it would be better to innovate what you are after. If you don't care about the religious part and you can just be together anyways, the only thing you'll stand to gain is recognition and protection under the law. Change the standard we use from marriage to civil unions, and you've solved your problem. The only "butthurt" left would be by those who believe that gays and lesbians shouldn't be encouraged to be together, and that's just some bigotry you are going to have to deal with in life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:17 pm
AHMET, you're getting dangerously close to the first amendment. Because marriage has different meanings and traditions in different religions, and because the government can neither support nor condemn any given religion, they cannot say that marriage as the Christians believe is the one true marriage. Due to changing perspectives of what the word 'marriage' means, and the growing number (or perhaps simply prominence) of Buddhists, atheists, and others who do not believe in the Christian (and Jewish and Muslim and anyone else who has more stringent requirements for it) view of marriage, why is it still being based on the religious assumption that it is a man and a woman, and that is that?
Buddhism says nothing of gender; it's a personal thing to promote happiness. Wiccans, likely, believe the same thing (I do know they are not religiously opposed to same-sex marriage). Atheists, having no religious views, are for the most part in favor of it, as the gender restriction thing seems to be primarily, if not entirely, religious.
Religion has no place in the American government. Its more basic moral rules (don't kill, don't steal, etc) tend to overlap with what is generally acceptable in society in order to promote, well, order, but that is neither evidence of foundation nor of intent. We were, and always have been, intended to be a secular state. Our oaths of office even have an option to affirm, rather than swear- in order to enter the Air Force ROTC, I had to state:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
I leave the last line in there, even though I was not required to and chose not to say it. I also chose to affirm, rather than swear. And when I (hopefully) enter the Air Force itself as a commissioned officer, I will say the same exact thing.
Even though marriage was originally religious, does not mean that its religious meaning has any place in our legal system. The concept is similar, perhaps, just as the more basic tenets of the Constitution are rather similar to those laid down in the Bible, the Qur'an, and the Torah.
And the whole 'separate but equal' thing has proven pretty consistently in the past to be not equal. Until marriage is solely religious and has absolutely zero legal standing, until 'married' on all forms is replaced with 'in a civil partnership', and until civil unions/partnerships become the socially accepted norm rather than marriage, it is as its current legal definition says. There could still be room for discrimination towards people who may not be able to or refuse to be religiously married.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
