Same sex marriages. Your opinion?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Bardan - I have to agree with Yorick on this issue - at least to a degree.

I understand the system you are proposing and the reasoning behind it. Yes, it would work and could satisfy the spiritual needs of those who wish it, or just skip the spiritual aspect for those who don't care about them. But the point you seem to overlook is that our current system IS similar to this.

Yes, the religious ceremonies also combine the required legal aspects to make the marriage official in the eyes of the state...but a religious ceremony is not the ONLY LEGALLY BINDING method of getting married. Your insistence that the two cermonies be totally separate implies that a religious ceremony is the only "official" method of being married in the U.S. - and that isn't the case.

Anybody who does not wish to have a religious ceremony CAN just go down to their local courthouse, sign a piece of paper, and they are JUST as married as the ones going through the religious ceremony. The choice for a seperate alternative to religion-influenced unions already exists.

The fact that this right isn't extended to homosexuals in most states is NOT the fault of the church (at least not directly), because the church does NOT have the power to make the laws prohibiting homosexual unions. Admittedly, the laws are INFLUENCED by religious groups, but this would occur under your proposed system also. Even if the two ceremonies were made completely separate, religious groups will still oppose legalized homosexual unions and will be still be able to exert the same amount of pressure on State Legislature as they do now.

In other words, Your proposed system wouldn't change a thing in reality.

And as for your continued assertion that - under your system - religous groups would be FREE to DENY ceremonies to whoever they wished without recriminations...All I can say is that you have seriously underestimated the litigation-mind-set of America. Not only could homosexuals still sue the church, I'm sure they would find a judge somewhere that would agree with them.

I'm not faulting your proposed system, Bardan, I'm just saying it isn't necessary...because the goals you expect to achieve with it already do exist and the benefits of a hassle-free homosexual union would not occur, because it is the State Legislature that outlaws these unions, not the church. Even if the system were changed as you suggest, the State lawmakers would still bring their own personal ideologies into the law making or law-blocking process.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Yorick: Again you've missed the point. There are many churches that could and would conceivably marry two homosexuals. However, the STATE in America doesn't recognise the union. You totally missed the whole concept of legal elements WITHIN a ceremony. The ceremony is all personal choice. The ceremony contains no legal function as is, except for the paper being signed in front of witnesses.

And this is my whole point. The State *should* recognise the union. However, what is behind the state law preventing homosexual marriage? Religious dogma. Why do we get religious dogma interfering in state law on marriage? because the two are intertwined in such areas as the performing of the ceremonies.

Okay, say you have a homosexual couple who are both catholic, and they wish to get married, and homosexual marriages are recognised (as they are in some states). Will they be able to perform this service in a church that does not approve of homosexual marriage? No - they will have to find somewhere else to carry through the legal ceremony. What you have there is a church - a religious institution - refusing to give someone their secular right to marriage simply because of that particular church's religious views. That is an attack on human rights.

When you hear people arguing against homosexual marriage in America today, what do you hear? I'm afraid all of the social arguments take a abck seat to "Men shouldn't sleep with men - it says so in the Bible"

This whole problem is the mixing of the two concepts of state marriage and religious marriage, and the including of the signing of a legal document under the umbrella of a religious ceremony, is what is causing the vast majority of the arguments today.

You can, as Mouse stated end up being married with no paper signed or ceremony undergone. The only elements a ceremony have are spiritual, emotional and social. I don't see why you aren't seeing this. The point has been made by TIMBER, MOUSE and I. Yet this is why I cried foul. You were advocating removal of peoples personal choices. What you are seeking already exists, but people CHOOSE to combine the two elements/ceremonies, whatever you want to call it.

No, Yorick - you are showing a spectacular flair for missing my point. Let me trya nd make it easier for you. *You* are advocating removal of peoples' personal choices, because you continue to back the mixing of religious marriage and state marriage by having both ceremonies performed under the same umbrella of "marriage in a church". By doing this, you give the church a voice in who it allows to have their legal right to marry, and who it does not. a religious institution deciding who gets their legal rights.

And about those legal rights. Why do homosexuals not have the right to even get a state marriage in most states? Because religious groups and people like you refuse to see that you are pefectly at rights to defend the pratice of your religion in refusing to marry people it disapproves of , but you should have no religious argument against alloowing homosexuals to marry in a state union.

You prate again and again "you can already do what you suggets and have a ceremony without God." Yes, Yorick, I could, but homosexual couples in most states cannot. Why? The interference of religious dogma in state marriage that comes about partially through the mixing of the state and religious ceremonies.

Try to keep to the topic, Yorick. The topic isn't "should we allow state marriages without God?", because we already do. This is about homosexual rights. you would stand a far better chance of convincing me of your arguments if you were actually arguing on the same topic as everyone else is.

Forcing people to split to the two is ludicrous and unworkable and an attack on cultures and human rights.

It doesn't matter how many times you say this without anything to back it up. You could aay it in every other post you make on this thread (and probably will), but without any valid reasons, you won't convince anyone. As I said before, no religion has the right to say "Because I believe any pronouncement of mine should be accepted as law by the state", as you seem to wish.

You can have a perfectly legal marriage with a ceremony containing no mention of God if you want Bardan. You're making a song and dance about a nonissue.

*sigh* yes, but can homosexuals? In most cases, no, because of the religious interference aspect. Please, try to stay on topic, Yorick. I know you have much more success when you argue on the wrong topic, but can you try to stick to the right one this time?

Whether homosexuals can or cannot marry is a social issue, not simply a religious one. The Catholic Church is simply the most outspoken about their beliefs. They do have a right to do that however much we may disagree with them. Islamic groups, Jewish groups are also in the same boat. It's a social issue, not just a Christian one.

Yes, and this is exactly my point. the issue is a social one, yet when it comes to homosexuals fighting for the right to get a state-recognised marriage, or churches trying to refuse to marry homosexuals, the problems faced are always of a religious nature. This is my whole point. Seperate the two ceremonies. Then Jews, Islamic groups, Christians, whoever you name can do whatever they want and marry/not marry anyone they choose to, and because they would not be involved in the granting/refusal of secualr rights to anyone because of a religious reason, nobody would have cause for com[laint. It's a simple concept. why can't you grasp it?

What do we want our society to be? How do we encourage parents and families to stay together? [/QB]

Well, even though this is wildly off-topic and really doesn't impact my comments at all, I will reply as an act of courtesy. I want our society to be a place where everyone has a right to their religious freedoms, but where religious institutions have no say in secular law.

I think we encourage families to stay together by reaffirming marriage is no quickie-thing, but is a lifetime commitment by two loving, consenting adults, and one that should be taken seriously.

[ 08-02-2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: The fact that this right isn't extended to homosexuals in most states is NOT the fault of the church (at least not directly), because the church does NOT have the power to make the laws prohibiting homosexual unions. Admittedly, the laws are INFLUENCED by religious groups, but this would occur under your proposed system also. Even if the two ceremonies were made completely separate, religious groups will still oppose legalized homosexual unions and will be still be able to exert the same amount of pressure on State Legislature as they do now.

Cerek, i tend to think you've posted a very reasonable viewpoint, but you've hit upon the very thing Yorick seems to be missing.

Yes, I agree that separating the two ceremonies would do nothing to reduce the opposition of religious groups to the marriage of homosexuals. What I am saying is that at the moment, I think the only reason homosexual marriages are not allowed in many places is *because* the mixing of the ceremonies (performing the signing of the legal documents after/during the church ceremony) is exactly what gives religious groups the idea that they have some say in the secualr law of who may marry, and who may not. I truly believe that is the legal aspect of marriage had always been distinct from the religious aspect, then homosexuals would have been allowed the same human rights as other couples to marry for years now. As it is, I firmly believe that the presupposed influence of the church over the legal aspect of marriage is what holds us back.

I totally support the right of any religious group to deny a religious ceremony to a homosexual couple. However, when as a part of denying them that ceremony, they are *also* witholding a right they possess under law (in some states), then what you have is religious discrimination intruding upon the grounds of a person's rights under the law of the land.

If you totally remove the aspect of legal validity (including the signing of legal documents) from the religious ceremony, this actually makes things alot easier on the religious institutions, since they are no longer offering a service which has as a part of it the signing of a legal document, they are as such outside of any criticism. their right to religious freedom protects their right to pick and choose who goes through their completely religious ceremony.

In other words, Your proposed system wouldn't change a thing in reality.

Actually, I think it would. It would give homosexuals the same rights as straight consenting adults to get married, which is an issue of human rigths that is being held back by the influence of the chucrh. The church could still object, but my feeling is that with the religious ceremony totally divorced form the legal one, then their right to try and dictate to people what the secular law should be based on their religious law would be lessened, as it should be.

Your insistence that the two cermonies be totally separate implies that a religious ceremony is the only "official" method of being married in the U.S. - and that isn't the case.

It does no such thing. Everyone knows that the official method of tying the knot *can* be totally distinct from the religious ceremony. What I have said above answers this. I know (and have known since I was 12) that you can get married without ever stepping into a church or hearing the word God. What I am saying (as stated above) is that the two should be separated because mixing them gives legitimacy to the claim of any religious group performing a ceremony including the signing of legal documents that they should have a direct say in what the law of the land is.

Anybody who does not wish to have a religious ceremony CAN just go down to their local courthouse, sign a piece of paper, and they are JUST as married as the ones going through the religious ceremony. The choice for a seperate alternative to religion-influenced unions already exists.

I know. Again, see above. All the more reason to say 'Since the legal aspect is already possible without the religiouc ceremony, let us therefore complete the separation of religion and legislature by removing the right of religious institutions to marry a couple under law.'

EDIT : This post is considerably longer than it was when I first made it. To anyone who read my original short reply and cannot remember the last few paragraphs - no, you're not going mad. I came back and added substantially after rereading a few posts.

[ 08-02-2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

[Mouse]

Bardan, if I understand you correctly, we are in agreement.

I am fully in support of either religious or secular marriage ceremonies resulting in a couple having access to the rights and privileges of "marriage" so long as both conform to legislative formalities. If a religious ceremony adds other stipulations, so long as they are not on conflict with the statutory regulations then so be it. People can participate or not as their faith dictates. What I cannot support is an unelected religious authority seeking to deny such rights and privileges to anyone who does not accede to their doctrines.

By all means let those of whatever faith plight their troth in whatever manner their faith dictates, be that a church ceremony or by the exchange of vows in a sacred place at the Summer solstice. Just don't expect the secular authorities to automatically accept that just because you believe you are married according to your beliefs, you are in the eyes of the law.

Your marriage may well be constituted by the laws of your faith, but in the eyes of the law, you have different criteria to satisfy. It's not an attack on religious freedom, it's simply the way society has evolved. If you don't like it, in the sort of western liberal-democratic societies in which most of us live, the way to change it is via the legislative process.

[ 08-02-2003, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

[Chewbacca]

Sort of like when you are born you get a birth certificate from the state and a baptism at church. Ones is a legal formality the other is a religous ceremony, both mark the same event (birth) but for different reasons.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: [qb]The fact that this right isn't extended to homosexuals in most states is NOT the fault of the church (at least not directly), because the church does NOT have the power to make the laws prohibiting homosexual unions. Admittedly, the laws are INFLUENCED by religious groups, but this would occur under your proposed system also. Even if the two ceremonies were made completely separate, religious groups will still oppose legalized homosexual unions and will be still be able to exert the same amount of pressure on State Legislature as they do now.

Cerek, i tend to think you've posted a very reasonable viewpoint, but you've hit upon the very thing Yorick seems to be missing.

Yes, I agree that separating the two ceremonies would do nothing to reduce the opposition of religious groups to the marriage of homosexuals. What I am saying is that at the moment, I think the only reason homosexual marriages are not allowed in many places is *because* the mixing of the ceremonies (performing the signing of the legal documents after/during the church ceremony) is exactly what gives religious groups the idea that they have some say in the secualr law of who may marry, and who may not. I truly believe that is the legal aspect of marriage had always been distinct from the religious aspect, then homosexuals would have been allowed the same human rights as other couples to marry for years now. As it is, I firmly believe that the presupposed influence of the church over the legal aspect of marriage is what holds us back.

I totally support the right of any religious group to deny a religious ceremony to a homosexual couple. However, when as a part of denying them that ceremony, they are *also* witholding a right they possess under law (in some states), then what you have is religious discrimination intruding upon the grounds of a person's rights under the law of the land.

If you totally remove the aspect of legal validity (including the signing of legal documents) from the religious ceremony, this actually makes things alot easier on the religious institutions, since they are no longer offering a service which has as a part of it the signing of a legal document, they are as such outside of any criticism. their right to religious freedom protects their right to pick and choose who goes through their completely religious ceremony.

In other words, Your proposed system wouldn't change a thing in reality.

Actually, I think it would. It would give homosexuals the same rights as straight consenting adults to get married, which is an issue of human rigths that is being held back by the influence of the chucrh. The church could still object, but my feeling is that with the religious ceremony totally divorced form the legal one, then their right to try and dictate to people what the secular law should be based on their religious law would be lessened, as it should be.[/QUOTE]I disagree that the "religious influence" on secular law would be removed under your system for one simple reason, Bardan. Because it isn't "THE CHURCH" as an organizational entity that is influencing the laws, it's the members who are also registered voters that have the biggest impact.

The Southern Baptist Association could march on Capitol Hill all they wanted, but that would actually be counter-productive, because the law-makers could then say "We can't concede to your views because that would violate separation of Church and State". HOWEVER, if the individual members of the SBA tell their respective Congressmen "We'll vote you out of office if you approve this law", THAT is where the "religious influence" comes in.

The fact that marriage is the one religious ceremony that can also be a legal contract doesn't give the church any extra power to introduce, enforce, or affect secular law (IMHO). The power comes from the individual voters in each district. Even if the two ceremonies were completely separate, the individual districts would STILL have the same number of religious voters writing letters to their congressman over homosexual unions...and Congressmen ARE going to listen to the group they think will represent the most votes in the next election.

As I said before, I understand your reasoning - and it makes sense on paper - but I seriously doubt it would have a significant impact in reality. Of course, thats just my opinion - and I've been wrong before.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: I know. Again, see above. All the more reason to say 'Since the legal aspect is already possible without the religiouc ceremony, let us therefore complete the separation of religion and legislature by removing the right of religious institutions to marry a couple under law.'

Individuals marry couples, not institutions. What is stopping a Priest from getting the requirements to marry secularly and everyone choosing to perform the ceremony in a church.

It's unenforcable without draconian measures. Are you going to:

a. Discriminate against religions by forbidding Priests getting a licenses when any other citizen can?

b. Make churches the only place where you cannot get married? You can get married anywhere as is.


You're being ludicrous.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Mouse: What I cannot support is an unelected religious authority seeking to deny such rights and privileges to anyone who does not accede to their doctrines.

They're excercising their democratic right just as with any other bloc. Are not capitalists forcing us to adhere to their doctrines by influencing the democratic process? Corporations? Media giants? Environmental groups? Why ban religous bodies from doing what any other group can do?

Our laws are founded on principals the Catholic church originally espoused. Are we picking and choosing the right to voice an opinion publicly simply because we disagree?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Sort of like when you are born you get a birth certificate from the state and a baptism at church. Ones is a legal formality the other is a religous ceremony, both mark the same event (birth) but for different reasons.

Plenty of Christian churches don't perform infant baptisms, only adult ones. It's a different issue.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Sort of like when you are born you get a birth certificate from the state and a baptism at church. Ones is a legal formality the other is a religous ceremony, both mark the same event (birth) but for different reasons.

Plenty of Christian churches don't perform infant baptisms, only adult ones. It's a different issue. [/QUOTE]Your taking it a bit literal here. The idea is you get married in a church for religous reasons and you get married at a courthouse for legal reasons, two different things entirely. So my analogy makes sense even if its not perfect. [img]smile.gif[/img]