Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

So by our government recognizing gay marriages, or hetero marriages for that matter, is that not a direct breach in the separation of church and state?

No, it isn't. Are you required to be married in a church? Are you required to be a member of a church prior to getting married? Is there ANY profession of faith required before the state will allow marriage?

What I am getting at is that marriage may have its roots in religion, but does it really matter where a good idea comes from?

If the cure for cancer were discovered by Osama Bin Laden, would you ignore it because of where it came from? Of course not. So who cares that marriage has roots in religion? It's still an institution that benefits society as a whole, regardless of its origins.

Finally, I would ask any of you people who are advocating the abolition of public marriage to be specific about which particular provisions you would do away with... Our society cannot simply "do away with marriage entirely." Marriage and family law are interwoven together and it will take radical surgery to extricate the institution from our public laws. Where will you start? And in light of what I have said about public marriage NOT being a religious institution, why would you want to eradicate it?

[DavidShankle]

Are you required to be married in a church? Are you required to be a member of a church prior to getting married? Is there ANY profession of faith required before the state will allow marriage?

Irrelevant... the point is that marriage is a religious institution. And our government recognizing it doesn't make it any less of a religious institution. If you say that marriage does not breach the establishment clause, then you can no longer say that baptism, communion, or PUBLIC PRAYERS do either. I don't adhere to this perversion of the establishment clause; I'm simply showing the flaw in that standard. The consistent reason that the government should not recognize marriage is because it oversteps its boundries, outside of its jurisdiction, and mingles in church affairs... which is an accurate case of breaching the establishment clause.

What I am getting at is that marriage may have its roots in religion, but does it really matter where a good idea comes from?

Marriage is only a good idea, though a poor choice of words, if you are a Christian for which the institution was established. Though it may seem to benefit non-Christians, it only does so based on the guidelines that governments formed while overstepping their boundries in the first place. That's a grossly flawed comparison to put religious institutions and medical tools in the same category.

If the cure for cancer were discovered by Osama Bin Laden, would you ignore it because of where it came from?

No. However, if Osama instituted a foot washing ceremony to glorify Allah, and then our government decided to give insurance rights and tax benefits to those who participated in that ceremony, then I would ignore it. Once again, very poor comparison.

Our society cannot simply "do away with marriage entirely." Marriage and family law are interwoven together and it will take radical surgery to extricate the institution from our public laws.

Our society most definitely can do away with the governmental recognition of marriage entirely. And for the record, it took "radical surgery" to instill the institution into our public law in the first place. So it should be relatively easier to erase these laws than it was to unlawfully instill them.

And in light of what I have said about public marriage NOT being a religious institution, why would you want to eradicate it?

Because you failed to make even one valid argument for why marriage is not a religious institution.

[Dirty Name]

Irrelevant... the point is that marriage is a religious institution.

Prove to me that legal marriage recognized by any of the 50 states is a religious institution. Just because you declare something "irrelevant" doesn't make it so.

What is it in your mind that makes legal marriage a religious institution? The fact that 80% of weddings are done in a church is "irrelevant," because the law doesn't REQUIRE it to be that way. Sorry, David, but the state's legal recognition of marriage is a societal institution which benefits the state - religion has nothing to do with it.

If you say that marriage does not breach the establishment clause, then you can no longer say that baptism, communion, or PUBLIC PRAYERS do either.

You're a bit confused, it seems. You see, legal marriage doesn't require religion, but Baptism, Communion, and Prayer certainly do... unless the state, for some reason should choose to make those ordinances of the state rather than ordinances of the church, but naturally they would have to purge them of any mandatory references to God...as they have done with marriage.

[Dirty Name]

Though it may seem to benefit non-Christians, it only does so based on the guidelines that governments formed while overstepping their boundries in the first place.

Does it benefit non-Christians or not? Yes or no? Religion or no religion, whatever your standard for considering marriage beneficial, I'm curious if you believe the institution of marriage is beneficial to the state, and if not, why not?

[Dirty Name]

No. However, if Osama instituted a foot washing ceremony to glorify Allah, and then our government decided to give insurance rights and tax benefits to those who participated in that ceremony, then I would ignore it. Once again, very poor comparison.

The only poor comparison is yours, David. Here, you equate a non-religious state institution with one that is clearly religious - Islamic, to be specific. To make your own analogy better, you would have to say that Osama Bin Laden issued a "fatwa" to make foot-washing cereomonies mandatory forms of praise for Allah, and that the state, via statistical evidence, learned that people who wash their feet cost the state less money, and decided to issue tax breaks for people who agreed to wash their feet. Oh, but wait, there's more - to keep your analogy consistent with the topic at hand, you'd also have to say that the state could not require any particular God to be praised during the foot-washing exercise...

So now that we have a accurate analogy, let's reframe the question to see if you would be opposed to the idea for the EXACT SAME REASONS you claim to be against marriage:

If the state decided to grant tax breaks to everyone who participated in a weekly foot-washing ritual, based on incontrovertible evidence that such foot-washing was in the best interest of the state (in that it suppressed a number of social ills), would you be opposed to those tax breaks due to your feelings about the Congress making no law respecting the establishment of religion?

And if, for some strange reason, your answer is still "yes," then please explain to me how a foot-washing tax break could be equated to the establishment of religion.

[belverron]

Protostar and I get along surprisingly well on this topic.

DavidShankle, you need to distinguish civil marriage from religious marriage. The government institution is a form of civil union, nothing more. Now, does that mean I support it? Not really, but it's hardly an unconstitutional institution, especially at the state level.

[Dirty Name]

Our society most definitely can do away with the governmental recognition of marriage entirely. And for the record, it took "radical surgery" to instill the institution into our public law in the first place. So it should be relatively easier to erase these laws than it was to unlawfully instill them.

Two points here. First, when you say we can do away with the governmental recognition of marriage, then let's consider this question:

What law are you going to use to determine who gets the house when two people decide to split up after 25 years of living together, if in fact the male is the person who signed the deed, while the female stayed at home, raised the children, and supported the male?

Currently, marriage laws, including common-law marriages (a decidedly non-religious form of marriage) govern the dissolution of such relationships. Do you propose to re-write the law in it's entirety? Without marriage, what possible claim does the female have to any portion of the house? Her name isn't on the deed, and she never paid a single cent toward the purchase of the property. Is there some magic word you are going to substitute for "marriage" so that you can still use the law to protect people in these situations, or does the woman just get the shaft in this case?

The other thing I'd like to point out is your RIDICLOUS claim that it took "radical surgery" to put marriage into the law. This statement proves that you are either clueless or just making stuff up in order to sound intelligent. The fact of the matter is that marriage has existed long before federal and state law did, and the law formed itself around the institution over a great many years. There was no "radical injection" of marriage into the law as you claim.

[DavidShankle]

What is it in your mind that makes legal marriage a religious institution? The fact that 80% of weddings are done in a church is "irrelevant," because the law doesn't REQUIRE it to be that way.

...the same thing that makes Baptism, Communion, Passover, and many others religious institutions: because the Judeo-Christian Church established them as Christian "sacraments".

Sorry, David, but the state's legal recognition of marriage is a societal institution which benefits the state - religion has nothing to do with it.

It only benefits the state as much as any other ambiguous institution that would give tax breaks, legal authority, and insurance rights... look at my comparison of the foot washing. This is how it is not a poor comparison as you claimed. If you think so, tell me ONE way that marriage in itself benefits the state, without including changes that the state has made to it. So you have to name one and only one way that marriage, in its original state, benefits society as a governmental institution.

You're a bit confused, it seems. You see, legal marriage doesn't require religion

You're confused... "legal marriage" is an oxymoron in a sense. Marriage as a religious institution doesn't require the parties to be Christian. But it does require them to be man and woman, and it does require that clergy perform it. You keep leaving out necessary details. In all of your statements, you assuming that marriage by the state is sound instead of looking at the pretenses.

The only poor comparison is yours, David. Here, you equate a non-religious state institution with one that is clearly religious

Again... you're leaving out pretenses. If the issue is whether or not marriage is a religious institution, outside of the state's jurisdiction, then you can't say that marriage is not a religious institution as part of your argument. Logic 101.

The main point of my entire argument is the trampling of Christians by the government in the state instituted marriages. According to Christianity, marriage licenses are not necessary. However, if I get married by my pastor without one, the state views it as an illegal marriage. However, that same exact marriage, with permission from the state, is all of a sudden, perfectly legal. By definition, a license is granting permission, and making legal something that is illegal without that license. That being said, according to the state, marriage is illegal. This is the true meaning of the establishment clause. It was written to protect the church from tyrranical governments. I don't by any means believe in separation of church and state as courts are now ruling according to it. It's a myth, and our nation was rooted in Christian principles, even by non-Christians who valued the necessity of Christian law. So don't misconstrue that for liberal interpretation of the establishment clause.

[Dirty Name]

...the same thing that makes Baptism, Communion, Passover, and many others religious institutions: because the Judeo-Christian Church established them as Christian "sacraments".

OK. So let's test your theory. If the Judeo-Christian Church issued a decree that getting a drivers license was now going to be a Christian Sacrament, would that also mean that your state's Department of Motor Vehicles was a violation of the First Amendment?

[Dirty Name]

According to Christianity, marriage licenses are not necessary.

According to Christianity, we are instructed to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's (Matthew 22:21). This means we should obey the laws we are subjected to, while still following God's commandments.

However, if I get married by my pastor without one, the state views it as an illegal marriage.

Wrong. The state doesn't give a crap - they don't view it as anything at all. You are free to consider yourself married if you wish. The state only cares when you try to collect benefits or pass your ceremony off as a legitimate marriage. But it's not illegal to go to church and participate in a religious ceremony that unites you with a woman in some sort of emotional or spiritual bond.

Again... you're leaving out pretenses. If the issue is whether or not marriage is a religious institution, outside of the state's jurisdiction, then you can't say that marriage is not a religious institution as part of your argument. Logic 101.

What pretenses? It's YOU who is "leaving out the pretenses." Specifically, we are talking about LEGAL marriage, which is substantially different from religious marriage. Do you agree that a man may, if he wishes, stand before his Church in a wedding ceremony, and "marry" an entire harem of 100 women? Is there any law in this country that says he cannot do this? Show it to me.

No, the fact is, he is totally free to do what I have described. What he CANNOT do is then attempt to file paperwork with the government claiming more than one of his wives as a dependent, or as his LEGAL spouse. He can only LEGALLY marry one of them. He also cannot file as husband to Wife A for tax benefits, and husband to wife B for insurance purposes. The law stipulates that he can ony be married to one woman at a time.

So, let's re-examine your claim that your position is "Logic 101." Your position incorrectly assumes that because religion comprises one part of the institution of marriage, then, by your "logic", ALL elements of marriage - including state sponsored legal marriage - must be religious in nature.

Unfortunately, you are commiting the logical fallacy called a "category error," specifically, one of composition. You can read it about it here:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/category.htm

Hope this helps.

[RickSp]

OK this should resolve things once and for all.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong


01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Hope this clears things up.

[sergeant]

Quote by: Gorgo I think the whole thing should be looked at from top to bottom. Some see marriage as a religious ritual. Some see the contractual and social benefits. They talk about things like the idea of "kin." When you live with someone, they're not kin. When you get married, they're kin. I think there are probably cases where two people who are not sexually involved would benefit from the idea of civil unions, so I don't think it's just a sex thing. I think anyone who wants to enter into that kind of contract ought to be able to. I think if the state does anything, it should offer "civil unions" , or simply contractual unions with public benefits, to everyone who wants it regardless of whether or not they have sex, and leave marriage to the churches. However, if the State offers marriages, it should offer them at least to homosexuals or heterosexuals.

I agree...."MARRIAGE" is a religious ritual! Civil unions should be an acceptable compromise. Which brings up a separate but interesting question.....Do atheists and agnostics marry in a church with a minister's blessing? I have known people who have said they were not religious but they walked down the isle of and church and accepted the blessings of GOD.

[sergeant]

Quote by: belverron Protostar and I get along surprisingly well on this topic. DavidShankle, you need to distinguish civil marriage from religious marriage. The government institution is a form of civil union, nothing more. Now, does that mean I support it? Not really, but it's hardly an unconstitutional institution, especially at the state level.

I was quickly married in the District Court House in Manhattan, KS...the judge referenced God during the ceremony........he did not distinguish civil marriage from religious marriage!

[sergeant]

Quote by: Protostar So based on this, to satisfy the best interests fo the state, it would be better to discourage people to have children rather than encourage. That way, the state would not have to worry about having to take care of peoples children. I really don't care about the sacrifice of pregnant women. They are pregnant of their own accord. I don't see why they should be afforded special perks because of a personal choice they made. Overall, government recognition of marriage is socialism, and socialism is bad no matter what the intentions. Get the government out of marriage on all levels and put everyone on equal legal standing.

Not necessarily...your looking at it short-term....more offspring more tax income in future years. I'm I crazy here! Maybe! I didn't catch the special perks....you mean 6 weeks leave....hell other counties have it a lot better...in Germany women have at nine months of paid leave.....they pay high taxes though!

[sergeant]

Quote by: Dirty Name Statistics don't support your anecdotal evidence - even if the particular kids you know are just fine.

He said SEEM fine.......I grew up in a single parent home....I missed not having a mother terribly.....having two fathers would not have been the same and not helped me at all. So, the ideal situation would be a mom and a dad.......but life isn't ideal! Yet I don't support "Gay Marriage" from what I understand "Civil Unions" or more appropriate. Marriage in itself doesn't provide the legal benefits you all assume. Being in the military...before my husband was deployed he had to give me a POWER OF ATTORNEY to handle all our finical things....even tough we had a joint bank account.

[sergeant]

Quote by: Protostar What does everyone think of this? How about we get the government out of marriage altogehter? Why recognize anyone's marriage? I never intend to get married, so my partner and I will not be able to reap the benefits that the government offers married folks. Will that make our relationship worth any less than married folks? No, so why should they get perks and not everyone? I don't feel the government should be involved in marriage on any level, federal, state, or local.

Marriage does matter to the Gov. because in tacked homes benefit children in therefore society.

[Protostar]

Quote by: sergeant Not necessarily...your looking at it short-term....more offspring more tax income in future years. I'm I crazy here! Maybe! I didn't catch the special perks....you mean 6 weeks leave....hell other counties have it a lot better...in Germany women have at nine months of paid leave.....they pay high taxes though!

I'm not concerned about more tax income for the government. They get far too much as it is. As far as pregnancy leave, I feel it should be left up to individual companies to decide. The government has no right to FORCE companies to give pregnant women time off and not be able to fire them. It is uncapitalistic.

[sergeant]

Quote by: Protostar I'm not concerned about more tax income for the government. They get far too much as it is. As far as pregnancy leave, I feel it should be left up to individual companies to decide. The government has no right to FORCE companies to give pregnant women time off and not be able to fire them. It is uncapitalistic.

I was talking about how the Gov would view taxable income not you...

You want to fire a women for becoming pregnant.....that is ridiculous...I real jerk thing to suggest...if the damn military can handle a pregnant women with respect... freaking Wal-Mart can. I served in the military pregnant and still brought a benefit to the company I was attached to...even more so than the some of my lazy male counterparts....I also graduated with honors from college...and you would say it is proper to fire me because I take some freaking time off after having a baby.....well lets fire someone who has a death in the family or an illness as well...the thing is...unlike you.... reasonable people can see past the short-term time off and look at what the employee brings to the company through their entire time with the company....that is where you are going wrong my friend.

[Protostar]

Quote by: sergeant I was talking about how the Gov would view taxable income not you... You want to fire a women for becoming pregnant.....that is ridiculous...I real jerk thing to suggest...if the damn military can handle a pregnant women with respect... freaking Wal-Mart can. I served in the military pregnant and still brought a benefit to the company I was attached to...even more so than the some of my lazy male counterparts....I also graduated with honors from college...and you would say it is proper to fire me because I take some freaking time off after having a baby.....well lets fire someone who has a death in the family or an illness as well...the thing is...unlike you.... reasonable people can see past the short-term time off and look at what the employee brings to the company through their entire time with the company....that is where you are going wrong my friend.

Pregnancy is a choice, a death in the family is not. The company should not be FORCED to suffer because of your choices. If a woman wants to have a baby, fine. But she should expect to be replaced if she doesn't return to work in a reasonable time fashion (2 or 3 weeks at the most). Employees can be replaced and if they are slack enough they usually are. I have no problem if a company wants to have maternity leave program on it's own. The problem I have is the government FORCING companies to give women a certain amount of time off for a decision THEY made.

[sergeant]

Quote by: Protostar Pregnancy is a choice, a death in the family is not. The company should not be FORCED to suffer because of your choices. If a woman wants to have a baby, fine. But she should expect to be replaced if she doesn't return to work in a reasonable time fashion (2 or 3 weeks at the most). Employees can be replaced and if they are slack enough they usually are. I have no problem if a company wants to have maternity leave program on it's own. The problem I have is the government FORCING companies to give women a certain amount of time off for a decision THEY made.

The gov. stepped in so that companies would be reasonable... and as you suggest.... 2 to 3 weeks is not....if companies are allowed to abuse this.... they will abuse illness and death as well.....just wondering are you a female do you have children....if not..... have you spoken with a doctor before assuming 2 to 3 weeks is enough time...like I said you are not looking at what the employee offers the company long-term...