I am against all marriage!

[bengal_fan]

couldn’t find a forum i thought more appropriate for this, so i put it here.

i am not against marriage as a mystical union between a man and a woman within a religious context. but…

i am against all government sanctioned marriages. marriage is, ultimately, a religious institution. it is mystical in nature and thus implies a supernatural existence. therefore, the government has no business involving itself in marriage of any kind. i am married, happily, but am fully aware that my marriage “license” has nothing to do with my marriage. my marriage represents a mystical joining of two humans into one entity.

i am all for civil unions for the purposes of taxes, benefits, etc. i think a male and female couple should be recognized as a civil union as well as any other couple (or group of people living in community for that matter, although it would be more difficult to determine the nature of the commitment and the idea of ending the civil union or one person leaving the union of a group could get messy). if you choose to align yourself permanently with some one else, the government should have a system of recognizing that partnership, but the government should not regulate an inherently religious institution such as marriage.

therefore i am against the government legalizing gay “marriage” as it does not have the spiritual authority to do it. but i am also against the government legalizing “straight” marriage as well.

i also think that those religious institutions that view homosexuality as sinful should not be forced to perform homosexual marriages under penalty of discrimination which is an easy place to get if the government were to legalize gay marriage. people should be free to believe how they want to believe and the government should get it’s nose out of all religious affairs… this includes marriage.

so what do you all think?

 

[Phemie]

I think there are many non religious people who want a marriage, not a ‘civil union’. Marriage has always been a legal concept. What I’d like to see is the Churches get out of performing legal marriages the way they do in many European countries.

 

[bengal_fan]

I think there are many non religious people who want a marriage, not a ‘civil union’. Marriage has always been a legal concept. What I’d like to see is the Churches get out of performing legal marriages the way they do in many European countries.

actually, marriage has always been a religious concept and the governments have sanctioned it in one way or another. if you look throughout history, most governments had a national religion out of which their view of marriage grew. and even though the government recognized the marriages, they were inherently religious. therefore, our secular government should not be in the business of authorizing (or not authorizing) a religious institution such as marriage.

as for the non-religious who want a marriage… they could still get one if they can find a church or minister to perform it for them. look at how many non-religious people get married in churches every year. a civil union IS a non-religious “marriage”, so they would not be denied any of the benefits that come with government recognized marriages. they would now be civil unions and the government could actually adhere to the constitution in dealing with same sex people who want to be bonded together in a legal sense and it would avoid religious institutions from having to protect the sanctity of marriage (well, against homosexuals that is… they should do more in curbing the rampant infidelity and divorce within Christianity).

 

[JimG]

Marriage is more than a mystical union. It’s also a bodily union of persons, and the basis of the family unit: mom, dad, kids. And the family unit is the basis and fundamental unit of society. That’s why government gets involved in marriage. The state of marriage affects the health of society.

Healthy families support the social institutions, provide the next generation of citizens and taxpayers, and are the primary educators and socializers for children.

When healthy families don’t provide these services, what happens? The government has to step in and be the mother or father or nanny of last resort.

Children without moms or dads, children living in dysfunctional families, end up in gangs–their substitute families–or doing crime or drugs or incarcerated, once again becoming a burden to society instead of a support for it.

Government must provide for the common good. And the common good has for centuries relied upon marriage and family as its very basis.

So no, it’s not just a religious matter. It’s a matter of civilization.

 

[rwoehmke]

The U.S. government, state by state, never legalized marriage. They just regulate it and maintain records. Marriage existed long before any modern governments. No regulation and record keeping and we would have all sorts of chaos.

 

[bengal_fan]

Marriage is more than a mystical union. It’s also a bodily union of persons.

it has to be both together. which is why it is inherently religious because of the mystical and spiritual nature of it.

, and the basis of the family unit: mom, dad, kids…

civil union could do this within society

And the family unit is the basis and fundamental unit of society. That’s why government gets involved in marriage. The state of marriage affects the health of society…

i disagree. the individual interacting and cooperating with other individuals is the basis of society. marriage can be one aspect of this interaction but no the only one nor the fundamental basis. also, civil unions can perform this function.

Healthy families support the social institutions, provide the next generation of citizens and taxpayers, and are the primary educators and socializers for children…

again, civil unions can do this

Children without moms or dads, children living in dysfunctional families, end up in gangs–their substitute families–or doing crime or drugs or incarcerated, once again becoming a burden to society instead of a support for it. .

this is a complete over-generalization. children WITH mom and dads do the same things. actually, most serial killers had both a mother and a father growing up. the statistics show some correlation between a broken family and crime, but not enough to say that all crime is based in that nor that anyone from a broken family will end up a criminal.

Government must provide for the common good. And the common good has for centuries relied upon marriage and family as its very basis.

So no, it’s not just a religious matter. It’s a matter of civilization.

again, civil unions can provide all of this. we can keep marriage as the sacred, religious act it inherently is and still accomplish all of the goals you set out through civil unions. plus, the constitution can be upheld by no longer denying citizens the right to the pursuit of happiness and liberty.

 

[bengal_fan]

The U.S. government, state by state, never legalized marriage. They just regulate it and maintain records. Marriage existed long before any modern governments. No regulation and record keeping and we would have all sorts of chaos.

the government can now keep track of civil unions the same way. the religious institutions can keep track of the religious institution of marriage.

 

[Phemie]

actually, marriage has always been a religious concept and the governments have sanctioned it in one way or another. if you look throughout history, most governments had a national religion out of which their view of marriage grew. and even though the government recognized the marriages, they were inherently religious. therefore, our secular government should not be in the business of authorizing (or not authorizing) a religious institution such as marriage.

as for the non-religious who want a marriage… they could still get one if they can find a church or minister to perform it for them. look at how many non-religious people get married in churches every year. a civil union IS a non-religious “marriage”, so they would not be denied any of the benefits that come with government recognized marriages. they would now be civil unions and the government could actually adhere to the constitution in dealing with same sex people who want to be bonded together in a legal sense and it would avoid religious institutions from having to protect the sanctity of marriage (well, against homosexuals that is… they should do more in curbing the rampant infidelity and divorce within Christianity).

Marriage was a legal arrangement long before it was a religious arrangement. Marriage was first and foremost a contract between families as a means of acquiring money and property. They were usually arranged, sometimes from the time the children were born. Wives were viewed more as property and a means of getting lawlful children than the way they are today.

The idea that non-religious people, those who have no desire to approach the church for marriage, would be satisfied with a ‘civil union’ status is ridiculous. Even those who want gay ‘marriage’ want ‘marriage’, not a civil union even if it comes with the exact same benefits as a ‘marriage’.

 

[bengal_fan]

Marriage was a legal arrangement long before it was a religious arrangement. Marriage was first and foremost a contract between families as a means of acquiring money and property. They were usually arranged, sometimes from the time the children were born. Wives were viewed more as property and a means of getting lawlful children than the way they are today.

from a Christian perspective you would be wrong. all of the perversions of marriage (which is what the viewing of women as property is) still have their basis in a spiritual realm of the mystical meaning of marriage. it began as a spiritual union. it was adopted as a legal union. marriage is and has always been, first and foremost religious in nature. even if we hold to the evolution route, the fact that as we developed true ability to think and reason we became more attached to 1 other person emotionally for life shows the inherent spiritual aspect of marriage before there was ever a legal aspect to it.

The idea that non-religious people, those who have no desire to approach the church for marriage, would be satisfied with a ‘civil union’ status is ridiculous. Even those who want gay ‘marriage’ want ‘marriage’, not a civil union even if it comes with the exact same benefits as a ‘marriage’.

it’s not ridiculous. the reason they want “marriage” and not civil unions is because straight people get marriage that is sanctioned by the government. if we all only had a civil union recognized by the government, it would be no big deal and homosexuals would gladly accept their commitments being recognized by the government in the same way the government recognizes straight commitments. as for non-religious, i stand by the same logic. as long as they are getting the same benefits as everyone else, they don’t care what the government calls it. now, if they aren’t religious but still want to experience the religious aspect (inherent) in marriage, it is never impossible to find a “minister” who will marry you. but the civil union for all idea would serve to protect those religions that oppose same sex marriages and would give them more freedom to deny a marriage ceremony to a couple that doesn’t believe.

 

[Hastrman]

Marriage was a legal arrangement long before it was a religious arrangement. Marriage was first and foremost a contract between families as a means of acquiring money and property. They were usually arranged, sometimes from the time the children were born. Wives were viewed more as property and a means of getting lawlful children than the way they are today.

Really?

In what culture were they actually viewed as property?

Name me even one.

I’ll put it this way: Neo-Confucians, Muslims, and Hindus have never viewed wives as property.

And if they didn’t, nobody did, because those three religions/cultures/ideologies have the lowest views of women of any culture, with the possible exception of Manichaeans–who banned all marriage.

 

[Mystic_of_God]

Oh please…

There is no logical argument for gay marriage…NONE!

People who support it are either gormless twits or else have not thought seriously about the issues.

 

[Newbie2]

Oh please…

There is no logical argument for gay marriage…NONE!

People who support it are either gormless twits or else have not thought seriously about the issues.

“Gormless”?

 

[drafdog]

MARRIAGE,* n.* The state or condition of a community consisting of a
master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
Ambrose Bierce

I’m sure your friend “Bitter” Bierce is applauding your stance on matrimony from his grave, wherever that may be.

Matthew

 

[that1dude]

Of course governments should have no business defining marriage. A third party, including a government, can arbitrate contractual agreements among adults. There seem to be some people with a communistic mentality who think governments can disallow some adults from contracting together.​

That being said, Catholics should be free to grant or deny their imprimatur.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

To the OP:

I have actually given thought to the notion of doing away with legal “marriages” altogether, and going with civil unions for all. If the couple so desires, then they can go to their religious institution of choice and be “married”.

This would open the door for two non-religious people to obtain a civil union (they can call it marriage if they want). It would also allow for non-traditional couples (my polite way of saying a gay couple) to marry…but free the Church from the legal ramifications for refusing to perform a marriage or civil union.

I have heard a compelling argument that if gay couples were ALLOWED to marry, that there would be more incentive for fidelity and less promiscuity. We cannot dictate morality, and it would probably be beneficial to society if people who refuse to reject a homosexual lifestyle could enter into legally recognized, monogamous relationships. I don’t know if there is anything to it, but it deserves some thought.

Anyway, the jury is still out on all this. It’s just some things I have considered over the past few years. This has been an interesting discussion, though.

 

[LRThunder]

To the OP:

I have actually given thought to the notion of doing away with legal “marriages” altogether, and going with civil unions for all. If the couple so desires, then they can go to their religious institution of choice and be “married”.

This would open the door for two non-religious people to obtain a civil union (they can call it marriage if they want). It would also allow for non-traditional couples (my polite way of saying a gay couple) to marry…but free the Church from the legal ramifications for refusing to perform a marriage or civil union.

I have heard a compelling argument that if gay couples were ALLOWED to marry, that there would be more incentive for fidelity and less promiscuity. We cannot dictate morality, and it would probably be beneficial to society if people who refuse to reject a homosexual lifestyle could enter into legally recognized, monogamous relationships. I don’t know if there is anything to it, but it deserves some thought.

Anyway, the jury is still out on all this. It’s just some things I have considered over the past few years. This has been an interesting discussion, though.

More incentive for fidelity? How? Infidelity is still a problem among actual married couples at times, so what makes you think legalizing gay “marriage” would make them be more faithful?

 

[that1dude]

Full disclosure: I am an “ethnic Catholic”. In other words, I was reared by Catholics, but am no longer a Catholic.
People say that one cannot legislate morality, but I disagree. It is immoral to use the force of government to disallow gays from entering into any contract of their choosing, or from enjoying any rights privileges, and licenses like other citizens. Therefore, legislation that GUARANTEES gays equality under the law would be legislation in favor of morality. The various states are not free to re-institute slavery (unless they secede) and the should not be free to discriminate against my gay friends.

 

[Drlit]

Interesting discussion but I just have to agree that the FAMILY IS THE BASIS OF A SOCIETY. Even in the simplest historical societies, the grouping was first families, then CLANS, and the clans merged to form larger and more complex inter-relations, hence, societies.

A bunch of unrelated individuals doesn’t make a society. So I can’t agree that the basic unit of a society is individuals. It’s FAMILIES.

Governments regulate and monitor marriage because of the economic implications. But from a legal perspective, it is not illegal to have babies out of wedlock, it is not illegal to live together without a legal or spiritual marriage. It is not even illegal to have 3 live-in girlfriends. It’s only illegal to try to marry them all. All of those things are highly objectionable to nearly all mainstream religions, however.

So while we have a separation of church and state, both have a stake in issues that relate to marriage and family. Difficult sometimes to stay separate and still interact in that way.

When someone is married and for whatever reasons wants to be “unmarried.” there are legal issues – economic and parental.

I don’t even want to think of the chaos that would result in SOCIETY if there was no legal definition, institution, and monitoring of MARRIAGE and FAMILY.

 

[that1dude]

Since family and inter-personal interactions are sacrosanct, they should not be monitored or defined by government. Chaos would not ensue if people did not have to ask a beurocrat’s permission to enter into contracts. Chaos would not ensue if people could make agreements with each other without even (perish the thought) signing forms and hiring lawyers. What if my parents lost the paperwork? How many old people out there could produce proof that they had a government marriage license?​

But even if getting the government out of our personal lives caused some armegeddon, so be it. Freedom trumps safety in this case.​

Think about it: It is legal to live with multiple partners, but it is illegal to enter a certain contract with these same partners. It is illegal to attempt to stabalize your family with the tools afforded by a system we all pay for (government).

 

[sarah_anne_628]

More incentive for fidelity? How? Infidelity is still a problem among actual married couples at times, so what makes you think legalizing gay “marriage” would make them be more faithful?

I don’t know. Like I said, I’m not sure I buy it, but I thought it deserved some thought.

Ummm…good point about infidelity in existing marriages now.