Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Gay Marriage

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powderhorn View Post
Marriage is a religious institution and I think should remain as such.
I'm still not sure that I accept this assertion that marriage is a religious thing. There are plenty of atheists who get married, as well as couples of various religions and couples whose members are of different religions.

If marriage is a religious institution, how do you reconcile a Buddhist and a Baptist getting married, or any other possible pairing?

I just really feel the whole 'marriage = sacred union' issue falls down to proper nouns. Effectively, there are two forms of 'marriage' being talked about:
  • A religious covenant held between two (or more) people.
  • A status recognized by the government that confers benefits such as filing joint tax returns and special rules for distribution of property upon death.

Personally, I wish we'd use different terminology for one to make things more clear. Say, two adults who wish to be recognized as spouses by the government enter a civil union, conferring on them the same legal benefits currently allotted to married couples. No ceremony necessary. If two adults want to have a religious ceremony to recognize their union, that's a matter between them and their respective church. No legal obligation required. I'd much rather see the split be between 'legal benefits' and 'religious rite', than giving a different term based on the genders of the couple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlictoatl View Post
I'm still not sure that I accept this assertion that marriage is a religious thing. There are plenty of atheists who get married, as well as couples of various religions and couples whose members are of different religions.

If marriage is a religious institution, how do you reconcile a Buddhist and a Baptist getting married, or any other possible pairing?

I think the inevitable 'solution', there is in having religious 'marriages' (with little or no legal ramifications) alongside some secular 'civil union' (carrying the vast majority of the legal weight of current 'marriages').

It just seems like a lot of effort to go to to change all instances of 'marriage' and its derived terms to 'civil union' and its far clumsier derived terms in the stacks of affected legislation and for little real gain.

@Atlictoatl: Marriage & monogamy I wouldn't disagree find most of their roots in religion, but I don't think the want for stability, loyalty and a life partner are religious by any stretch of the imagination. The idea that religions should be the only institutions allowed to perform a marriage (Which is an institution in and of itself now, things have changed) isn't attractive in the least. To me, that's actually segregating between practitioners and non-believers and nothing more.

Gay marriage doesn't pass because of older voters of all political ideologies. Those generations just aren't very open-minded about certain things, and they represent a huge block of likely voters. Republicans, incidentally, draw a lot of support from older white voters - so they have to cater to that mindset.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earthbound View Post
@Atlictoatl: Marriage & monogamy I wouldn't disagree find most of their roots in religion
Poppycock. If people are going to assert this sentiment, let's see some proof of it.

In lieu of that, here's what wikipedia has to say on the subject in a heavily footnoted article:

Quote:
Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[14]

Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[15] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation.

In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[16] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[17]
Marriage is at least as much a civil and social institution as it is anything religious, and it predates any of the religions you're likely referencing when you make claims that it is a religious institution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlictoatl View Post
Poppycock. If people are going to assert this sentiment, let's see some proof of it.

In lieu of that, here's what wikipedia has to say on the subject in a heavily footnoted article:

Marriage is at least as much a civil and social institution as it is anything religious, and it predates any of the religions you're likely referencing when you make claims that it is a religious institution.
I feel like my distinction was of monogamy being tied to religion, not marriage being tied to religion. I'm sure you can find evidence of polygamous marriage that predates the main monotheist religions.

Yeah, still going to need some evidence to back even that more restricted claim.

Monogamy is both religious and cultural- it derived from a blending of Judaic traditions (where a man could have multiple wives but sexual fidelity was largely expected) and Roman culture (where a man could have only one wife but sexual fidelity was unheard of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powderhorn View Post
Marriage is a religious institution and I think should remain as such. It certainly has it's place, but I'd like to see it (which will never happen) removed entirely from the government in any shape or form.
Which religion?





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status