A possible solution to the gay marriage problem

[workinprogress]

We can just quit calling marriage by the state, a marriage. Marriage is a religious institution anyway (it would be nice if the fed government–and/or fed. judges–keeps the feelings of the people in mind when legislating, but it has not despite the wishes of some founding fathers and whether it needs not is legal knowledge I’m not aware of and so we should not expect it to for long) and since this is not a theocracy, we’ll just leave it to pastors who they want to bring together in matrimony (holy matrimony or not). We could call the legal bond between a couple as an interpersonal merger or something. It might give the same benefits to gays as widows or widowers who live together to save cash, but I don’t know. Before I knew it was a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance, if not repented of, I thought, because straight people do it sometimes, it would not necessarily be a win for the gays (and so it would not be as bad as if the agenda of gay lobbies had won; I later, however, came to feel they did and we who thought as I did had smoke blown up our—selves).

   Anyway, though, by making no marital bonds by the state called "marriage", the word would not be further abused and we will thus, we'd keep marriage unredefined again (divorce and remarriage being the first redefinitions, the latter of which would not be recognized in heaven any more than gay marriage anyway) to prevent further scandal to the "little ones".  It will keep government out of the affairs of religion as separation of church and state was meant to do in Jefferson's letter to the Babtists about which liberals love to misinform the public.

Is that a good idea? I’ll let you all consider the ramifications of it and post your thoughts if you want.

 

[JimG]

It’s not so much a matter of deciding on the proper word as deciding on the proper reality.

Throughout history, marriage has been both a civil and a religious matter. As you suggest, the state could simply get out of the business of marriage and regulate some form of civil union.

But the State has historically provided civil incentives for traditional marriage–that is–marriage between a man and a woman, because marriage as such was considered to benefit the state and society.

It provides future taxpayers, for one thing. (Something it has been remiss in doing of late, as shown by the dwindling number of children (=future workers) to support the next generation of retirees.) It provides for the procreation and raising of children. It acts as a basic building block for society, and provids a stable underpinning for the social structure.

The question is whether traditional marriage still provides these benefits, and whether the state wants to continue to give the institution preferential treatment under the law. I think it should.

But marriage has declined in its social effectiveness over the last few generations. Divorce, the birth dearth, “shacking up,” single parenthood, have all contributed to its decline.

If marriage no longer provides society any benefit, then the solution is for the state to no longer give marriage any state benefits–any marriage, straight, gay or other. Treat all taxpayers as single, regardless of marital status.

But if we believe that traditional marriage is still beneficial to society, there is no reason to add benefits for relationships which do not benefit society in the same way.

 

[AmericanAtheist]

Liberals arent mis-informing the public, you just read way too much into things…

 

[4_marks]

work(name removed by moderator)rogress:

We can just quit calling marriage by the state, a marriage. Marriage is a religious institution anyway (it would be nice if the fed government–and/or fed. judges–keeps the feelings of the people in mind when legislating, but it has not despite the wishes of some founding fathers and whether it needs not is legal knowledge I’m not aware of and so we should not expect it to for long) and since this is not a theocracy, we’ll just leave it to pastors who they want to bring together in matrimony (holy matrimony or not). We could call the legal bond between a couple as an interpersonal merger or something. It might give the same benefits to gays as widows or widowers who live together to save cash, but I don’t know. Before I knew it was a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance, if not repented of, I thought, because straight people do it sometimes, it would not necessarily be a win for the gays (and so it would not be as bad as if the agenda of gay lobbies had won; I later, however, came to feel they did and we who thought as I did had smoke blown up our—selves).

Anyway, though, by making no marital bonds by the state called “marriage”, the word would not be further abused and we will thus, we’d keep marriage unredefined again (divorce and remarriage being the first redefinitions, the latter of which would not be recognized in heaven any more than gay marriage anyway) to prevent further scandal to the “little ones”. It will keep government out of the affairs of religion as separation of church and state was meant to do in Jefferson’s letter to the Babtists about which liberals love to misinform the public.

Is that a good idea? I’ll let you all consider the ramifications of it and post your thoughts if you want.

The marriage between same gender persons remains a civil marriage, but it can never be the Sacrament of Marriage. That’s the real distinction that can be made.

 

[4_marks]

work(name removed by moderator)rogress:

We can just quit calling marriage by the state, a marriage. Marriage is a religious institution anyway (it would be nice if the fed government–and/or fed. judges–keeps the feelings of the people in mind when legislating, but it has not despite the wishes of some founding fathers and whether it needs not is legal knowledge I’m not aware of and so we should not expect it to for long) and since this is not a theocracy, we’ll just leave it to pastors who they want to bring together in matrimony (holy matrimony or not). We could call the legal bond between a couple as an interpersonal merger or something. It might give the same benefits to gays as widows or widowers who live together to save cash, but I don’t know. Before I knew it was a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance, if not repented of, I thought, because straight people do it sometimes, it would not necessarily be a win for the gays (and so it would not be as bad as if the agenda of gay lobbies had won; I later, however, came to feel they did and we who thought as I did had smoke blown up our—selves).

Anyway, though, by making no marital bonds by the state called “marriage”, the word would not be further abused and we will thus, we’d keep marriage unredefined again (divorce and remarriage being the first redefinitions, the latter of which would not be recognized in heaven any more than gay marriage anyway) to prevent further scandal to the “little ones”. It will keep government out of the affairs of religion as separation of church and state was meant to do in Jefferson’s letter to the Babtists about which liberals love to misinform the public.

Is that a good idea? I’ll let you all consider the ramifications of it and post your thoughts if you want.

The marriage between same gender persons remains a civil marriage, but it can never be the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. That’s the real distinction that can be made.

 

[Seven_Sorrows]

work(name removed by moderator)rogress:

Your idea wouldn’t work…only for the fact that their are religious out their that believe in gay marriage, so then all the gays would just go to them to get married. Also, anyone and their mom can become a pastor, actually even start their own church, so then it would just become a money making scheme to become a gay church and marry people.