Gay Marriage (touchy subject, keep it nice)

A lot of it is semantics, in my mind. A civil union is (as I think has already been said) a document that binds two people together. A marriage is a religious ceremony that binds a man and a woman together. I have no opposition to gay people being allowed civil unions, on the basis of all the arguments that have been put forward, such as it not being the place of religion to interfere in a government issue. But by that declaration, it has to work the other way. Marriage is the business of the church (or mosque, synagogue, whatever), and should not involve the government. By it's very definition, a homosexual union cannot be a marriage, and to my mind, complaining about the unfairness of that seems a lot like complaining about men being unable to give birth.

Don't get me wrong here, I'd hope most of you know that I'm very tolerant of homosexuality (though I don't like the word tolerant... It makes it sound like I think it's something wrong, and I just put up with it, which isn't true...). But there seems to be a lot of unfairness in this thread towards religion. If you want seperation of religion and the state, then it's gonna have to work both ways. The church cannot be allowed to interfere in governence, but neither can government be allowed to interfere in the church.

And as I've already said, if two consenting male adults love each other, and want to enter a civil union, I have no objections, and indeed am very happy for them. Maybe that makes me a bad christian, but on this score I think I'll settle for being a good person...

 

That's incorrect, if you're attributing marriage to christianity. The act of creating an official 'union' between a man and a woman existed long before christianity came along. Marriage is a bit like christmas, it's something christianity took ownership of to assist with social control, but they certainly didn't invent it.

As another example, a form of homosexual marriage existed centuries before christianity did. Lovers in Thebes in ancient Greece often swore an oath to each other at the tomb of Iolas, who, in mythology, was Hercules' homosexual lover. Members of the Sacred Band of Thebes, an elite unit of warriors comprising of 150 pairs of homosexual lovers, would also swear oath's to their beloved 'shield-brother' at this tomb, in an act of union that went far beyond defending each other in battle.

 

Maybe so, but the definition of "marriage", is still a man and a woman. I'm not saying that it's an exclusively christian thing, and I'm not saying that there haven't been homosexual equivelents.

 

Yes it is, but it's an example of religious morality not being able to adapt and evolve and so becoming anachronistic. Human morality, in an unrestricted state, always seems to want to evolve. That would seem perfectly natural for a creature that has evolved specifically to adapt, and that can envisage abstract concepts. Religious morality itself is just a human abstract concept, but one that is resistant to change, and that's what's unnatural about it, and also counter-productive.

Take a look at the scramble for equality and human rights during and after western secularisation, and compare that to the frozen, unevolved morality that still occurs in many nations around the globe that have a religious moral authority. Some of those are like relics from the medieval era. A secualr society always has to question morality that is refusing to move in order to evolve it, whether it is religious or not. It's necessary to rationalise it rather than fall back on dogma, and if we approach the issue with some ancient moral yardstick then we're failing to do that, and undermining our own ability to morally mature.

Homosexuality has probably been around for as long as humanity has, it has certainly been around for as long as history can record, and our species has never suffered for it. So if gay marriage is proscribed by any religion or discriminated against you have to identify where the problem really lies.

 

Although is may seem that reserving the term "marriage" for the man-woman pairing, and just give the same rights to a civil union, it really does relegate civil union to a lower status. Many laws are already written to apply only to "marriage" or a "married couple", so unless specifically included in the definition of a civil union, it leaves a loophole that can be used in courts to deny benefits or rights accorded to a married couple from attaching to people in a civil union.

The fact is, marriage under the law is a contract entity and a legal status, despite its origins in religious custom. The same problems arise from using an "equivalent" term as caused the notion of "separate but equal" to be found an unacceptable policy in other civil rights cases.

 

Guys, just quietly I think the notion of marriage is all a little old now anyway. Sure alternative couples don't really get the same legal benefits but the landscape looks better every time you look in Australia with the introduction of 'domestic partner' laws, allowing alternative couples pretty well the same rights as married couples. Marriage I find is more or less a religious affair, and civil marriages are only carried out for the benefits in law of being married.

 

I do hope people here (and elsewhere) realize that "marriage" isn't a solely Christian or even a religious concept and never has been...? The ancient Egyptians had marriage before Christianity arrived. That's just one culture. And "clergymen" weren't always involved. In some American Indian cultures "marriage" pretty much consisted of two people getting the consent of their parents and moving in together. When they wanted to divorce, one moved out. There was no written contract, no government involvement, and pretty much not even any religious involvement. They did not go to a "clergyman" for "consecration" because there was no such thing. But they were still married.

While this might not count as "marriage" in the eyes of a modern-day Christian, it DID count as "marriage" to the cultures who participated in it, so really, the issue here isn't about marriage or religion or government or whatnot, it's about what one particular culture or religious group defines marriage as.

And of course, not every other group is going to agree. Especially not in the US, which is a melting pot of cultures and where religious freedoms are supposed to be guaranteed.

The point being--there ISN'T always a religion, or a church, or a clergyman, or a government involved for something to be considered marriage by everyone involved. That's something that has to be kept in mind. Marriage isn't a new thing, it isn't a Christian thing, it isn't even always a religious thing. Different people will define it differently but one has to keep in mind that their definition won't necessarily agree with another's. And that's the problem.

And yes, there HAVE been cultures were two men or two women have gotten "married"--while it wasn't technically considered a "gay" union, it has happened. I just read about this recently with the American Indian concept of the two-spirit, but people can look that up if they wish, I shan't get into it here. Just saying that it has happened.

Also, what if one's PERSONAL religious beliefs condone gay marriage? One doesn't have to belong to an organized church or religion to have religious/spiritual beliefs, but those beliefs--and rights based on them (which don't infringe on the rights of others)--can just as easily be denied by the government. If my faith insists that gay unions are acceptable, but I don't belong to a recognized church, does that mean my beliefs are less worthy of consideration?

 

A short rant follows...I'm against inequality and discrimination in every way, especially where another human's right to equality is affected. Why do people discriminate against others? Fear? Ignorance? Sense of rightiousness? What's wrong with two people of the same sex marrying? If you don't like what they do together, mind your own business and get on with your own life. Who says it's wrong? The Church? Is the earth still flat? Are there dragons still out there? Be there demons around the corner? Is our tiny orb still the centre of the universe? Hmm, I don't think so. Such archaic ideas have, thankfully, long been flung overboard, along with many others as silly and as damaging. Ignorance is the biggest enemy of equality. I'd much rather live my life on an equal basis than live in blissful ignorance while those I disagree with suffer for my 'sins'. To paraphrase my late mother - "You'd want to take a good look at yourself before opening your mouth." If only we were ruled by mothers...

 

The problem arises where some religions believe they are sinning (substitute appropriate term for not operating piously) if they permit "evil" (anything not allowed under their belief structure) to thrive, even outside their membership.

For example, some Christians honestly believe that homosexuality is evil, and that to even allow it among non-Christians is sinful. They are ethically driven to take any possible action to prevent it from spreading.

I am not endorsing this position, only reporting that it exists. In fact, it is direct conflict with the broader human rights principal that allows people to follow their own belief system as long as it does not directly curtail the same rights for others.

In reality, the exact definition of what actions by one directly affects another is the sticking point. If Person A does not attack person B's sin, does person A go to Hell?

 

Marriage is specifically a Abrahamic ceremony if you trace the origins of the word and the ceremony practice. There are ceremonies with the same purpose in ever culture, but the traditional "Marriage" ceremony as most people would think of it, is specific to the Abrahamic Religions. The Greeks, Romans, and Mesopotamians merely took oaths, and there was no recognition by governmental or religious bodies (Technically they had unions not marriages, as there was no recognition of the relationship by higher authorities). The word marriage however, at a time was specific to a union of two individuals in the eyes of God and as we have it now, is descended from Jewdism and carried on into Christianity and Islam.

As I said earlier though, word's change with time. Marriage has become a catch all term for any pair of two (or more...) individuals committed to a very personal relationship. It's sort of like the Palestinian-Israel argument. The Palestinians don't want history to go back any farther than when they had control of the land, while the Israelies want to go all the way back to Rome and say "no we were here first and got kicked out!" Both sides have legitimate claims, but only one of them is going to win unless they compromise. Marriage is the same way. You can't with hold it or give it out without discriminating against someone (In the marriage debate someone's going to get the short end, and it'll probably end up being the Christians looking at how things are going).

Compromise: No state recognition of marriage. Just throw it out as an irrelevant non-secular ceremony as it originally is and give everyone civil unions with marriages having no binding legal authority. Most christians I know don't mind civil unions it's the use of the word marriage that upsets them (It's sacred after all I guess...) and only a few radical die hards actually oppose same-sex civil unions, but you can't get rid of or please those groups so they're best ignored (And there will probably be similar groups forming on the other side of the argument too). Luckily they're so small they aren't really worth paying attention too.

You can't please everyone. If a line has to be drawn you draw it where it pleases the most people possible while minimizing unfairness and maximizing fairness.

Off topic but the Sacred Band of Thebes is a fun little group to learn about. Their service record was win-win-win until Alexander the Great crushed them (and I mean common he's Alex the Great. He's like a juggernaut who's only kryptonite is malaria ).

 

Not really. Yes, there are quite a sizeable group of Poster weilding zealots out there, but they certainly don't speak for a majority of the christian sects. Like lordofhats said, they're the "die hard radicals". There's always going to be some of them around, but they're the minority. What I hear from most of my neighbors and coworkers (all catholics and christians and a few protestants) stems from a justified fear that their religious rights will be threatened. This is, I suppose, a misunderstanding of sorts due to a mix-up of information from the media. However, what I can't understand is how certain members here (and certain louder groups in the gay community) can say, " Don't discriminate!" and " Christians shouldn't be stuck in the dark ages!" in the same breath. Aren't people entitled to their beliefs free of discrimination also? Or does this only apply to one group and not the other? >.>

Sounds like a great proposal.

 

You're narrowing the definition down to a semantic one but the real purpose of the point being made is that unions between two people seem to be a natural development amongst most human cultures regardless of their religion, or whether they are religious or not. The fact that western christianity (or judaism) has been most prevalent throughout human history doesn't mean that they can somehow lay claim to it end exclude certain people from it. That's a logical fallacy.

I agree with your second point though, in that marriages should become completely secular to cut out these anachronistic, outdated prejudices that have no place in a modern society. If these sort of discussions took place outside of religious circles (ie: discussions involving excluding people from certain everyday behaviours because of sexuality) they'd be condemned as discriminatory.

 

Actually it's a logical fallacy to assume that because two things are similar they are the same. The ceremony and word "marriage" are distinctly Abrahamic in origin and replaced all other similar practices in western europe during the middle ages. Just because we have Mercenaries in Europe circa 1400 and Ronin in Japan circa 1400 doesn't make them the same thing. Similar yes but they are different in their behavior traditions and how they operated.

If you take the strict interpretation of marriage, and exclude what modern times have turned it into, it's a religious ceremony. Christians can't lay claim to every form of union just marriages. Marriage is a specific word (a word that comes from Hebrew mind you) that refers to a ceremony in which two individuals are recognized as being together and as another member said earlier "God is cool with it." Like I said, marriage has evolved into a catchall term, and it comes down to arguing how far back into the history of the practice we want to go. Go back 200+ years marriages were always heterosexual, but after that same-sex marriages began popping up.

Again, we can debate etemology all we want, but someone's going to end up hosed. We can discriminate against same-sex couples and say what you guys do isn't cool with us so we can't let it happen, or we can spit in the face of christians and say they're uptight and illogical and living in the 1500's. It's wrong either way but we're going to be discriminating against one of the two groups (Is that a Catch-22? I'm not sure).

Not what I said. Christians don't want it secular to them it's a religious ceremony and is sacred, and offering it to people who they consider are sinning is trampling over them instead of the "sinners."

The best way to solve the problem is not to use the word marriage. Do that and probably 80-90% of all Christian nay sayers will shut their mouths and stop complaining because their concern has been addressed (That concern being the sanctity of marriage). Just remove marriage from the equation it's that simple. People in the US love to call something old fashioned and throw it out the window for no other logical reason. I fail to see why we should stop now .

For christians the problem is that the government is saying it's OK, and in other words taking what is to them, a religious ceremony that is holy out of their hands, and letting "sinners" participate in it. For them that violate their beliefs. I really wish people would stop dismissing the christian position as being wrong and stupid because that is trivializing what is to a very large group very important. You can't just hand marriage over to same sex couples willy nilly that's just reversing the discrimination.

In my view what I've seen is one group saying it's all or nothing (Marriage for everyone) and another saying you can go this far but don't come into this territory because we have a problem with it (You two can be together but leave this practice out of it and we're cool).

It's not a hard problem to solve just call it something else and all reasonable people will give up the opposition and we can move on to the next social crises. *Checks list* And that would be frou frou wigs (damn them and their frou frouishness !)

 

The word "marriage" is used in too many legal contexts. Switching to a new term causes too many legal tangles, and guess who will end up strangled by the tangles? Not the traditional man-woman couples married in a church, but the argument will always be admissible that such and such law or precedent was not intended to cover same sex couples and should not be applicable, yadda yadda.

And just try pushing the notion to the Bible Belt that future church weddings will be named "civil unions" under the law instead of "marriages". Good luck getting that to pass!

There must be one term used for all, or there will not be equality under the law. History has clearly shown that.

 

You're splitting hairs in an attempt to make it look as if that act gives your argument substance. It doesn't, it just deflects from the point. The fact is that 'marriage' is generally recognised in western societies as the ultimate act of union, by the vast majority, whether they are religious or not. Christianity long ago took ownership of that seemingly natural desire within people to bond themselves to a loved one. Those preconceptions of ownership that we have are testimony to the control that religion once had, and they're still backed by the law. That's a situation that has to change in a secular society.

As I said earlier, static moral systems can't evolve 'organically', because moral change and moral evolution is anathema to any institution that controls via a prescribed morality. That will always restrict us, as it currently restricts many non-secular nations. This debate over gay marriages is a prime and exact example of that. The control of who gets to say who can be 'married' has to be wrestled from religion to prevent outdated perpetuation of discrimination if they refuse to move with the times.

Of course, moral evolution can cause fear amongst religious conservatives as it can undermine what they've built their beliefs on. That's a shame, but it's also productive in any society.

 

Of course laws can be rewritten (yeah... that's not simplifying things ) and a simple find/replace job can dissolve the problem. We rewrite and overturn laws all the time. It's not like it hasn't happened before.

Honestly I don't think christians are going to win. We're going to be going back and forth for an eternity probably (or until we get over it... yeah. Good luck of that happening for the next century or two). The same-sex marriage argument will probably win out in the end and we can start arguing about those frou frou wigs .

I'm from the Bible Belt. Trust me. Most of us are cool with it. We don't care what the government calls it. Not in my experience anyway and I've been in and out of hardcore Baptist Chruchs going on two decades now. The only real complaint is it's secularization (turning something viewed as holy and trivializing it).

 

How is telling someone "You shouldn't be stuck in the Dark Ages" discriminatory? That's an opinion, the voicing of which is perfectly valid. (Just like certain Christians can, under the secular law, freely tell other people, "You're going to Hell.") A statement of belief is not discrimination.

Now, if you're talking about forcing Christian churches which do not support gay marriage to marry gay couples, then yes, that would be illegal under the Constitution.

---

So, uh, all this talk about how a Christian marriage "can't" involve homosexuals... did we kick out the Episcopaleans or something? They're not Christian any more? What gives?

You can't say, "Well, it won't ever be a marriage." Language changes. Concepts change. You can say that you believe a church which supports gay marriage isn't "true" Christianity, but you can't say that what they're doing isn't a Christian marriage. They identify themselves as Christians, they're ordained by a major church, and they performed a marriage ceremony. That makes it a Christian marriage.

You wanna debate theology? You wanna argue the appropriateness of the action? Go nuts. Doesn't change the fact that it's still a marriage and it's still Christian.

 

In the same way that it's discriminatory to walk up to a black person and say "You were born to be a slave." You can claim it's just an opinion, but it is stated as a fact, which makes it doubly offensive.

Another thing I've noticed is the tendency for people in this thread to talk about Christianity as one single unified religion instead of the conglomeration of many smaller religions that it is. Each one has it's own doctrines and beliefs ranging from strict literal adherence to the bible to saying that the bible teaches good things but is essentially a work of fiction. There is even considerable debate over what constitutes a christian religion believe it or not, with many churches claiming others arent christian at all. With that in mind you can hardly pin anything like "christianity is against homosexuality" to christianity any more than you can say that "white people are against blacks."

 

It always surprises me how people can say let's end discrimination and unfairness and advance our morals, then point out a group as being obstructive and outdated in the same breath (hypocrisy much?). You're entire statement is itself discriminatory against 4/5 the world's population (If you divide the world between the religious and the non-religious, religion wins).

Try and step out of your view point. What you can call social evolution, others would call social devolution. You can't solve the problem by calling one group wrong and ignoring them (reverse discrimination again). The world is a complex place and just because you say something is wrong doesn't automatically make it wrong (Not that either of us is in any position to determine right and wrong). Society isn't made of a single moral system it's made of multiple moral systems (with social conflict sometimes being the clash of these systems). Christianity isn't outdated, it's just a moral system that's been flexible enough to last 2000 years and will probably last another 2000 (although I'll bet that in 100 years it's size will be drastically reduced).

There isn't a right or a wrong side in the same-sex marriage debate. Both sides have what I see as perfectly legitimate reasons. We can have them punch each other in the face till one passes out ($10 on same-sex marriage in 10 rounds/years ), or you can reach a middle point where both groups can get a little of what they want. Maybe they won't get everything but at least they both left with a little something.

 

That is what I was trying to say, when the majority of the church, and by this I mean like makes it official, like the pope or something, decides that being homosexual is not a sin and is allowed in the eyes of God, then sure, have a religious ceremony. Until then I think it is hyporcritical for the church to marry gay peple if they do not agree it is right.

And as for the people saying marriage is no longer a religious thing, well then that is where I have a problem. I think that marriage is the joining of two people, saying they will love one another and care for them, under the eyes of God. If someone does not beleive in God, do not get married, have a civil ceremony.

This annoyed me about my mam, she disbeilives anything to to with God and what not, yet made my dad attend church for a few weeks so they could get married there, because it is pretty. I think it is vain and it has no meaning if you do not beleive in God.

 

even if you enacted a federal law stating that the term "civil union" shall be equivalent to marriage in all legal contexts, someone would find one of the thousands (millions?) of decisions for which that new law would be clearly ridiculous (Any person entering into marriage civil union with a goat shall be subject to...), and that would be precedent to challenge other laws and decisions.

The problem is that marriage has not been meticulously defined from the beginning, unlike many other terms also heavily used in legalese. That looseness of definition practically guaranteed that any attempt to make the terms marriage and civil union legally equivalent would be doomed from the start.

Then there are the various legal phrases indirectly derived from the term marriage, especially when you drill down into state and local laws...

 

Incorrect. I'm talking about a moral system, not a set of 'people'. There are many spiritual people who don't hold with dogma. You're indulging in hyperbole for mere effect.

Of course it is, that's moral evolution for you. Of course, that's not often the case in non-secular states where other moral systems are often treated with intolerance, as was also often the case in the pre-secular west (and, as we can see with this whole gay marriage thing, can still happen today).

There's another thing we have to consider. Some are talking about secular, non-religious unions as an alternative, as if they're unions made out of the sight of God's eyes for fear of offending him, but what of the homosexuals who do believe in God?

Christianity for a long time had a mission statement that pledged to extirpate all other religious contenders. It executed this so thoroughly that the christian god still presides over most western people's idea of divine approval and an afterlife. But he's obviously an exclusive god, the christians have ownership of him. Are gays meant to accept christian 'we cornered the market on god, buddy, we've got the monopoly, so we call the shots.'?

That's not acceptable in a secular society that not only aims for tolerance of all beliefs and faiths but aims for total tolerance within them. Those sorts of decisions, whether it's gay marriage, education, or whatever else, should be taken well out of religious hands. God should belong to the people, not to the church.

 

Persoanlly I don't believe in religion but that has to be one of the wisest things said in this thread so far.

 

Word up on the "Christianity not a monolith" point. I've been pointing to the Episcopal Church, which has an ordained homosexual bishop among other innovations, for like three pages now.

Anyhoo, saying to a black person "You were born to be a slave," is not discrimination. It's racist as all get out, but it's not discrimination. Discrimination is what happens when someone violates the law because of their prejudice. You and I and everyone else in America can SAY whatever we want about our beliefs, whether we're followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or heading off to the latest Klan rally in our clean white robes.

Saying "Don't discriminate," and "I think [institution] is stuck in the Dark Ages," in the same breath is not contradictory. Saying "Don't discriminate," and "We should ban all [members of institution] from holding public office," would be a contradiction.

 

My question is, can you be sued for saying so?