Homosexual Marriage

[Jack]

If we remove all the social implications of marriage and reduce it to its religious context alone, married couples will receive no tax exemptions, no rights beyond their rights as individuals. Add to that; what about other religions that recognize marriage? Do you expect Muslims to get married in a Christian church?

The social concept of marriage goes back further than the church. People were married before Jesus came along, before there was a HRC church. Marriage is a contractual obligation and as such a social institution. The religious embellishments were added later.

[Night]

Unfortunately, most American voters in most states do not support full rights for gays.

However, if you look at younger generations, there is much less ignorance and more acceptance of gays.

It will happen.

Give it time.

[Calam]

Quote by: Jack If we remove all the social implications of marriage and reduce it to its religious context alone, married couples will receive no tax exemptions, no rights beyond their rights as individuals.

As it should be. And so if they want legal union according to the government, then they should seek it according to the government's standard of measuring that. Go to the judge, sign the papers, fill out the forms, bada-bing. No religion involved, no marriage to dispute. They're bound according to the law. Call it domestic partnership. Call it legal union. Call it hubby and wifey. I don't care. But don't force it on a church.

Add to that; what about other religions that recognize marriage? Do you expect Muslims to get married in a Christian church?

I expect them to get married in whatever religious institution they want to get married in (and belong to). Again; it's a social and religious issue, and should not be a legal one.

The social concept of marriage goes back further than the church. People were married before Jesus came along, before there was a HRC church. Marriage is a contractual obligation and as such a social institution. The religious embellishments were added later.

The religious embellishments were an integral part of it to begin with. But that's not the point. The government's definition of a legal union and the church's definition of a religious marriage should be utterly independant.

I'm really surprised most gays don't advocate this very concept, because it would allow them to be legally bound if marriage is seperated from the government and kept in religion.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Calam Just don't make me change my religious beliefs to accomodate someone else's relationship with the government.

If other Christians who are gay want to marry, you really can't do anything about it. If there are people who are of the same religion as you, but are gay, and they want to be married in a church, at the end of the day, you can't stop them.

Whilst to me religious moderates are hilarious in so many ways, and why gays want to find solace in a religion (and community) that demonises them, I don't know. But you don't have to be Christian to be married in a church, obviously. So if you want to be really arsey, you can rally for all non-believers and apostates to not be married in a church as well. Churches have long stopped being a solely religious institution, and have integrated into society. If you want that to stop, then don't just target homosexuals, as plently of sinners and unbelievers get married in churches every day.

[Calam]

If other Christians who are gay want to marry, you really can't do anything about it. If there are people who are of the same religion as you, but are gay, and they want to be married in a church, at the end of the day, you can't stop them.

Depends on the church and the pastor. But no, I can't stop them, you're right. However. This does not mean that a pastor or what-have-you should be forced to marry a couple, whatever they are, just to satisfy a legal demand.

But you don't have to be Christian to be married in a church, obviously.

You don't have to be a surfer to get married on the beach, either. The point is that no pastor should be made to do it against his will.

So if you want to be really arsey, you can rally for all non-believers and apostates to not be married in a church as well.

They can get married wherever a pastor will marry them. That's not what I'm arguing. It's the legal entanglement I don't like. If two gays find a pastor that is willing to marry them under the definition of religion, ok, no, I can't do squat. And if that religion tolerates their marriage, then no, I can't do squat about that either. They can get married in the Church of Scientology for all I care. That's a "religious institution". But that's exactly what I'm saying: a religious institution should be the one that decides who marries in their church, not the government.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Calam a religious institution should be the one that decides who marries in their church, not the government.

To which I totally agree. While I can grumble about how Christianity views homosexuality, yes, at the end of the day, you are right.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Ish If we remove all the social implications of marriage and reduce it to its religious context alone, married couples will receive no tax exemptions, no rights beyond their rights as individuals.

And that's a bad thing because...?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Calam The point is that no pastor should be made to do it against his will.

Once again, this assertion is a strawman. It has been argued and refuted many times in this thread.

Once again, for all those who lack the ability to read for content :

The vast majority of gay people ALREADY AGREE no religious leader/organization should be FORCED to marry ANYONE!

HOWEVER, the word "marriage" is NOT used exclusively by religious organizations. Therefore:

[1] As long as government continues to insert itself into the process of marriage, and,

[2] As long as the word "marriage" appears in government documents, including laws, applications, licenses and certificates,

[3] The word "marriage" should apply to ALL CITIZENS.

[Calam]

Quote by: italiangm The vast majority of gay people ALREADY AGREE no religious leader/organization should be FORCED to marry ANYONE!

And yet it happens.

Quote by: italiangm [1] As long as government continues to insert itself into the process of marriage, and, [2] As long as the word "marriage" appears in government documents, including laws, applications, licenses and certificates, [3] The word "marriage" should apply to ALL CITIZENS.

All the more reason for the government to take its hand out of marriage entirely.

[Jack]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy And that's a bad thing because...?

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I would contend that those who want to make marriage solely a religious institution and remove all the social benefits enjoyed by married people haven't really considered all the implications that would entail.

Of course they also ignore the point that marriage is far more a social institution than a religious one.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Ish I'm not saying it's a bad thing.

So really, there's thus far been no argument put forward in this thread for having any marriage, and therefore gay marriage, recognised by the state.

Quote by: Ish I would contend that those who want to make marriage solely a religious institution and remove all the social benefits enjoyed by married people haven't really considered all the implications that would entail.

On the contrary, in my experience, that's generally the main basis of their argument: people don't deserve special treatment from the government simply by virtue of being a couple.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Calam And yet it happens.

If so, a same-sex marriage ceremony is performed with agreement of the religious leader. To my knowledge, there isn't a government on earth that forces religious organizations/leaders to perform such ceremonies. If you disagree, it's time to pony up a citation.

Quote by: Calam All the more reason for the government to take its hand out of marriage entirely.

Gee, ya think? But until then:

[1] As long as government continues to insert itself into the process of marriage, and,

[2] As long as the word "marriage" appears in government documents, including laws, applications, licenses and certificates,

[3] The word "marriage" should apply to ALL CITIZENS.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: ital Gee, ya think? But until then:

Until then, shouldn't people be arguing for the government to be keeping itself out of the marriage business, rather than for it to be getting even further involved? Granted, something needs to be done about the inequality in the marriage system, but why shouldn't that something be the logical something of removing the entire unjust system, rather than expanding it? The solution to black slavery wasn't to enslave the whites as well.

[SoylentGreen]

The Bacon GuyGranted, something needs to be done about the inequality in the marriage system, but why shouldn't that something be the logical something of removing the entire unjust system, rather than expanding it?

Perhaps your talking about something specific to england. What is the inequality of the marriage system?

These are some I came across.

Tax Benefits * Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. * Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. Estate Planning Benefits * Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate. * Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse. * Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts. * Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf. Government Benefits * Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. * Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans. * Receiving public assistance benefits.

But what is the inequality here. A single person cannot get this because they are single, they only have to get married to have them.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Soil Perhaps your talking about something specific to england. What is the inequality of the marriage system?

I'm talking about the fact that gays can't get marry one another in the US, whereas straight people can. That is unequal.

There are two possible ways of solving this problem: remove the institution of marriage from hetero relationships, or grant it to homosexual relationships. I don't see any reason that it should be the latter over the former.

[italiangm]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Until then, shouldn't people be arguing for the government to be keeping itself out of the marriage business, rather than for it to be getting even further involved? Granted, something needs to be done about the inequality in the marriage system, but why shouldn't that something be the logical something of removing the entire unjust system, rather than expanding it? The solution to black slavery wasn't to enslave the whites as well.

Doing both are good options.

But let's be realistic, here. Given the current mindset/opinions/beliefs of the majority of US citizens, marriage equality for all has a much better chance of succeeding than getting government (and marriage-related benefits) out of the marriage business.

IMHO, nothing short of a major political paradigm shift (ie, a majority of US citizens shifting to a Libertarian mindset) would get government out of the marriage business.

[SoylentGreen]

italiangmIMHO, nothing short of a major political paradigm shift (ie, a majority of US citizens shifting to a Libertarian mindset) would get government out of the marriage business

Considering that the only apparent business that the government has with marriage is that of taxation then your probably right.

[Dirty Name]

Nearly 300 pages and all you people have managed to do is argue yourself into pretending that government should get out of the marriage business.

I love it. As one opposed to same-sex marriage, I'd much rather you argue that hopeless cause as to claim your relationships are somehow "equal."

I guess you long ago gave up on that flawed premise. Good. I'll chalk it up to my efforts.

[southernbread]

Quote by: Night Unfortunately, most American voters in most states do not support full rights for gays. However, if you look at younger generations, there is much less ignorance and more acceptance of gays. It will happen. Give it time.

ass the younger generation i have to say ur wrong, but i would say there is more igornace about gays. which means we dont know. like was said in one of the other guys comments, blacks and gays arent the same. gay is a choice. not being black. if u want to live in this country u should abide by our rules. being married is sacered and helped out by the govenment. so, why would u want to make something that is against god, be in a church. that makes no sense. Being married is of the lord. so why do u want something thats of the lord, but ur not living the life. that makes no sense and ur mocking the lord as u do it. thats like the kkk being mad that they cant have a ralley at church. you see what im saying. and please dont use the word ignorant where it doest belong. ignorant is NOT knowing. and well just use it in the right context next time. not a personal thing just saying
southernbread

[southernbread]

[quote=pikatore;536449]If other Christians who are gay want to marry, you really can't do anything about it. If there are people who are of the same religion as you, but are gay, and they want to be married in a church, at the end of the day, you can't stop them.


um wow, ok look at what u just said, if christians are gay ans want to marry, thats like saying u cant put that guy on death row for murder hes a christian. ok they may claim that there christian but obviously there not. how does that work. IM a white guy, i can say im black all day, doesnt make it true does it. And you can stop them because a "christian" church that would marry two gay people isnt a christian church, thats not my opinion thats a fact. there someother kind of non god church