Why is marriage important in America today?

[Corraleno]

The Bible was never mentioned. What was mentioned was this,"...completely antithetical to the tenets of all of the world's major religions..." which was one reason in the author's list of reasons. I didn't realize the Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists use the Christian Bible.

From http://www.aljazeerah.info:

Islam...was revealed to humanity in different stages when people needed guidance. Thus, the message of Islam was taught through Adam, Noah, Ibrahim (Abraham), Abraham's descendants (Ismael, Isaac, and Jacob), Moses, Jesus Christ, and Muhammed, to name the most prominent of the messengers. Thus, the Old Testament (the Torah) and the New Testament (the Engel) are Books of Islam, too.

 

As for the author's argument that homosexuality is "completely antithetical to all of the world's major religions," this is simply not true. Many Buddhists do not believe that homosexuality is wrong, and in some cultures (e.g. China and Japan), it was once common among monks. The main argument against homosexual behavior is that it involves using body parts in an incorrect way — in other words, anything other than straight intercourse is considered wrong, whether practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. So straight couples who have oral sex are "sinning" just as much as homosexual couples are. Buddhists also do not believe that they should impose their own beliefs on others. The Dalai Lama has said "If an individual has no faith, that is a different matter...If two men really love each other and are not religious, then that is OK by me."

 

And many Buddhists do not consider it a sin anyway:

The Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, holder of the Karma Kagyu and Nyingma lineages, in a 2008 talk delivered to LGBT Dharma practitioners at the Shambhala Meditation Center of New York, stressed that for vajrayana lay practitioners, homosexual relationships are no better or worse than heterosexual relationships and that only unhealthy relationships in general are to be avoided. Both the Nalandabodhi sangha, which was founded by The Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, and the Shambhala sanghas founded by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche have stated that they are welcoming of all sexual orientations. The Shambhala Meditation Center of New York hosts a weekly practice group, Queer Dharma, specifically catering to the needs of the LGBTQ Buddhist community. According to the Danish Karma Kagyu Lama Ole Nydahl, Buddha saw homosexuality as circumstances making life more difficult, but also explained the reason for homosexuality could be aversion against the opposite sex in a former life. Nydahl says however that sexual orientation is not really important in order to practice Buddhism.

 

A Buddhist temple in Salt Lake City connected with Jodo Shinshu, another Japanese school of Buddhism, also holds religious rites for same-sex couples.

 

As for Hinduism:

Hindu views of homosexuality and, in general, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) issues, are diverse. Homosexuality is regarded as one of the possible expressions of human desire and Hindu mythic stories have portrayed homosexual experience as natural and joyful. There are several Hindu temples which have carvings that depict both men and women indulging in homosexual sex. Same-sex relations and gender variance have been represented within Hinduism from Vedic times through to the present day, in rituals, law books, religious or so-called mythical narratives, commentaries, paintings, and sculpture. The extent to which these representations embrace or reject homosexuality has been disputed within the religion as well as outside of it. In 2009, The United Kingdom Hindu Council issued a statement that 'Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality', subsequent to the decision of the Delhi High Court to legalise homosexuality in India.

 

The "4000 year old tradition" that the pastor claims to be defending also included polygamy, concubinage, and sex with slaves. He is conveniently leaving out the parts that do not support his argument, and he is mischaracterizing the tenets of other religions.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

What is insulting is the attempted aggressive co-opting of an age-old tradition that people value that is the bedrock of our society, that we want to protect and nurture. The definition of marriage is one man, one woman according to law and the commonplace definition of the word. No amount of bashing will change that.

No, but legislation will. :001_smile:

 

Many "age-old traditions," including slavery, the subjugation of women, and religious persecution, have also been changed through legislation. Personally, I call that progress.

 

Jackie

[Bluegoat]

Of course not. But I do think it's illogical to expect civil laws to be based on religious notions of sin, especially when those notions are used to deny rights to fellow citizens. I think it's illogical to believe that "freedom of religion" gives someone the right to impose their beliefs on others.

 

Everybody is religious in one sense or another. Even atheists of the most virulent kind have based their worldview on observations, principles, or assumptions about how reality is structured. Any kind of thoughts we have on any question are going to be based on those first principles.

 

In some cases particular issues are obviously meant to be ritual or belief based behaviors. No one is seriously advocating a law requiring or forbidding people to attend church, whatevber they personally think of that activity.

 

But when you get into deeper questions it is really impossible to deal with them without bringing in our most fundamental beliefs about reality. Social justice issues are a good example. A libertarian with a sort of Randyian conception reality is going to have radically different ideas about what is appropriayte than a humanist or a Christian (except the Christian Randians but that is an inexplicable combination IMO). Not because either group is trying to impose "religious values", but because there is no way to think about social justice without drawing on what we believe about human nature and justice in general.

 

Some aspects of marriage are issues that could be really considered just religious, but I wouldn't say it exclusively falls into that category. And the same is true about sexuality. Questions like how are we related to our bodies, or whether sex (gender) is an ontological category, or the sense in which it is appropriate to separate ends from means, can't really be approached without reference to worldview. If someone wanted to try to leave behind a religious worldview to do so, what would they substitute for first principles? Humanism? Materialism? Are they somehow more neutral?

 

LOL, actually I was raised as a Catholic; I attended church until I was 16 and catechism every week until I was confirmed at 12. I have studied other cultures and religions extensively (PhD in Anthropology). The fact that I disagree with you doesn't make me ignorant. :001_smile:

 

And yet you say things like same-sex marriage is not allowed because sinners aren't allowed to marry, and therefore it is inconsistent to let other sorts of criminals be married. I can't imagine you would purposefully misrepresent things, and that is a pretty large misunderstanding of some basic aspects of Christianity (like, what is sin.) I agree that disagreeing doesn't equal being ignorance - not understanding the underlying principles and the reasoning that derives from them does. I obviously can't speak about what you learned about religion in your degrees, but it doesn't seem to have given you a clear understanding of theology.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand this paragraph. Are you saying that anyone who doesn't believe that marriage is an institution created by God, not man, is incapable of coming to any conclusions about it based on logic or evidence? :confused:

 

No. I am referring to your earlier argument that marriage was only a human construct. If that is true, it can be defined any way you like to lead to any conclusion you like - there is really nothing to be wrong about. Given that you think the traditional understanding is wrong and unjust, it doesn't seem consistent with saying you think it is a human construct.

 

If it had some sort of objective aspect, it wouldn't matter where it came from - God or nature or whatever - it would be possible to say something about it.

 

My understanding of religion is based on (1) having been raised as a Christian, (2) having studied human culture and religion for 10 years in college and graduate school, and (3) having travelled extensively, including living abroad for 10 years (so, for example, I have a good idea of the role of religion in life and law in Europe vs the US).

 

Other than a couple of Evangelical relatives, all of the Christian fundamentalists I have "come into contact with" are on this board, actually. I certainly wouldn't characterize them as "nasty."

 

Jackie

 

Interesting. Usually people who talk about understanding things Biblically are from fundamentalist groups or reacting to them.

[Mrs Mungo]

Many of those here who are arguing for civil unions for everybody *are* Christians.

 

If we are going to use Islamic and Judaic books to make laws, then are we going to make bacon cheeseburgers illegal? Because that would make me super-sad. Not as sad as my friend in California who has had his marriage nullified a couple of times, but sad.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think you mean 342 AD here. ;)

 

So sorry!

 

I also don't get this "the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman." Where? All the stuff I remember reading about in the Bible, marriage is between one man and many women, and the man also has assorted concubines and slaves who he has free s*xual access to. This is not a model I'd wish modern society to follow.

 

I rather like a definition along the lines of "marriage is a monogamous union between two committed individuals, who swear to love, honor and cherish each other, in sickness and health." with any luck until death do they part, but considering the divorce rate, maybe that's too much to ask...;)

 

Agreed.

[Bluegoat]

It's only "simple" if you assume that marriage has nothing to do with love. Claming that gay people can just marry someone they don't love isn't "simple," it's absurd, sarcastic, and insulting.

 

Jackie

 

Well, you know not everyone would say marriage was about love in the way I think you are suggesting. I would say that our approach to choosing a spouse is actually not at all fundamental to marriage, it is one of those cultural traditions that is fine but can legitimately differ.

 

I think that view of marriage is a very common one now, but it isn't one that exists worldwide and it is overall a pretty recent idea. I think we can probably thank the Romantics for it.

 

Love is of course involved, but in many traditions they would not say you are marrying because you love someone, but that you are loving them because you are married to them.

 

It comes down again to our underlying beliefs about what marriage is and about human nature.

[Impish]

First, I'll remind everyone that same s*x marriage is legal in Canada.

 

The comment I want to make is re: civil unions.

 

The gay ppl I know were vehemently opposed to a civil union. They wanted to be *married*, period. They felt there should be no distinction btwn hetero and homo.

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, you know not everyone would say marriage was about love in the way I think you are suggesting. I would say that our approach to choosing a spouse is actually not at all fundamental to marriage, it is one of those cultural traditions that is fine but can legitimately differ.

 

I think that view of marriage is a very common one now, but it isn't one that exists worldwide and it is overall a pretty recent idea. I think we can probably thank the Romantics for it.

 

Love is of course involved, but in many traditions they would not say you are marrying because you love someone, but that you are loving them because you are married to them.

 

It comes down again to our underlying beliefs about what marriage is and about human nature.

 

This pretty much refutes the idea that the current incarnation of marriage is THE traditional one. Don't you think?

[nmoira]

Everybody is religious in one sense or another. Even atheists of the most virulent kind have based their worldview on observations, principles, or assumptions about how reality is structured. Any kind of thoughts we have on any question are going to be based on those first principles.

Only if you use "sense" in broad terms. The most common definitions of religion involve a super-human power. If you want to include atheists under that umbrella, you'll have to lobby to change the definition. :) Some actual religious folk might have a problem with that, as would most atheists, I suspect. I don't think you have much of a chance.

 

And is "virulent" an adjective I could use to describe some Christians in polite company?

[Corraleno]

If you all want the change, it's up to you to prove it won't.

Seriously? We need to prove that legalizing gay marriage will not lead to people trying to marry animals and inanimate objects??? Let's look at the states and countries that have legalized gay unions so far. Hmmm... no one is marrying objects or animals. Civilization has not collapsed.

 

But don't you see, you're actually asking for acceptance of a practice many people believe is wrong.

Many people believe that divorce is a sin, but they're not lobbying to make it illegal. Even if gay marriage were legalized in every state, there would still be millions more divorces than gay marriages. If the Bible says that the only grounds for divorce is adultery, as many claim, then why aren't they trying to pass laws making it illegal to divorce for any other reason? Isn't sex outside of marriage a sin? Why don't we have laws making it illegal to have sex outside of marriage?

 

Well, I love my guinea pig. I want to marry her.

I'm sure you're just being snarky. If you are equating marriage between two gay people with marriage between a human and an animal, that is a pathetic insult to gay people. And if you honestly don't believe it's possible to restrict legal marriage to HUMANS, then rational discussion is pointless.

 

Actually, it's insulting to denigrate someone's closely held beliefs for your own benefit.

I'm not denigrating anyone's beliefs. People are free to believe whatever they want, including the idea that homosexuality is wrong, homosexuals are sinners, whatever. I just don't think that one group's religious beliefs trump the civil rights of others who don't share those beliefs.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

This pretty much refutes the idea that the current incarnation of marriage is THE traditional one. Don't you think?

No kidding! :lol:

 

Jackie

[TranquilMind]

Many "age-old traditions," including slavery, the subjugation of women, and religious persecution, have also been changed through legislation. Personally, I call that progress.

 

Jackie

 

You can call it whatever you like,but the fact is that these immutable characteristics of skin color, gender, and religious tradition are unlike the behavioral characteristic of with whom one has sex. Apples to oranges comparson.

[Mrs Mungo]

First, I'll remind everyone that same s*x marriage is legal in Canada.

 

The comment I want to make is re: civil unions.

 

The gay ppl I know were vehemently opposed to a civil union. They wanted to be *married*, period. They felt there should be no distinction btwn hetero and homo.

 

I agree on one point and not the other. If marriage is a religious ceremony, then the government should not be marrying anybody. Everybody should get a civil union from the government or nobody should.

[TranquilMind]

And is "virulent" an adjective I could use to describe some Christians in polite company?

 

Sure.

 

It is certainly applicable to the pro-gay zealots you see spewing on television and in print.

[nmoira]

Sure.

 

It is certainly applicable to the pro-gay zealots you see spewing on television and in print.

:confused:

[TranquilMind]

Also, whether or not one church recognizes another church's marriage religiously, has no bearing whatsoever on legality. Getting married in church doesn't make a marriage a civil union. It's the marriage license, properly filed after being signed by appropriate witnesses, that does. Check the regs in any state and you'll find that if your clergy person does not file that license within X days of the signing, the marriage is null. Ask us how we know, Dh has a relative whose pastor "forgot" to file the license. When they attempted to add the wife to the husband's medical insurance policy, they had to provide proof of marriage. Wife went to the courthouse only to discover that the marriage license was never filed and was told flat out, "you aren't legally married". She could not be added to the policy until they applied for another marriage license, got blood work again (some states require this and some do not), grabbed witnesses, and ran down to the magistrates office to get the deed done. The magistrate was very, very nice and told them that instead of waiting until the end of the day when he would normally walk all of his paperwork down to the clerk's office, he would take it immediately so they could see him hand it in!

 

My church should have the right to not perform religious unions for LGBT couples and the state, reminding itself that's its nose does not belong in the matter of religious unions, should respect that. The UU SHOULD have the right to perform religious unions for LGBT couples and the state should keep its nose out of that too. The only time the state should get involved is when churches attempt to unite two people who are not adults and can therefore, not consent legally or spiritually to the bonds of matrimony. At that point, the church has adopted an abusive practice and the state does have a right to protect the innocent...the children. So, if you want to "marry" 13 year olds...gender aside, you are going to get in trouble and rightfully so!

 

As a religiously conservative person, I still readily recognize that for my religious rights to be respected, I have to respect those same rights for others.

 

As for legality, the state will do whatever it needs to do to protect its own self-serving interests. If it is self-serving to provide civil marriages to non-heterose*ual couples, then it will. If it is self-serving to provide them to polygamous couples (consenting adults of course), then it will. If it is NOT self-serving to do so, it will refrain. Whom the state will or will not issue a marriage license to should not have any effect upon whom any particular church will choose to provide a marriage ceremony for.

 

Additionally, NO clergy should be forced by law to violate his/her own beliefs on the subject. So, a UU pastor should not lose his/her right to perform a religious marriage for LBGT couples because the state chooses not to extend civil marriages to the same couples. By the same token, my pastor should not lose his right to perform religious marriage ceremonies for hetero couples because it is a violation of his beliefs to perform them for LBGT.

 

In terms of whom a church will marry or not, the state should keep it's nose out of it unless there are innocents to be protected.

 

I'm rather libertarian though so even though dh and I are religiously and morally conservative, we don't actually fit in too well with a lot of "church" folk!

 

Faith

 

Excellent post.

[Bluegoat]

This pretty much refutes the idea that the current incarnation of marriage is THE traditional one. Don't you think?

 

Yes and no. The structure is traditional, but the popular conception of it isn't. Some of the rituals aren't, but they aren't necessarily fundamental.

 

I think though that you would find that more educated Christians would tend to have a fairly clear understanding of the difference. If you read C.S. Lewis, you can see it explicated pretty clearly. I wouldn't assume that everyone accepts the popular conception.

 

As far as the laws around marriage though, they are generally consistent with the older understanding - some might argue that no-fault divorce isn't.

 

it could be the case though that the popular conception isn't altogether positive.

[cdrumm4448]

When the choice is between equal rights on on hand and continuation of tradition on the other, then equal rights IMO should win, don't you think? Equal rights has won over tradition earlier and even then there were people who believed that the new ideas of equality for all were wrong and that society would degenerate and it would be the end of western civilization.

 

You cannot equate the gay movement with civil rights, for reasons we've covered extensively.

[TranquilMind]

It's only "simple" if you assume that marriage has nothing to do with love. Claming that gay people can just marry someone they don't love isn't "simple," it's absurd, sarcastic, and insulting.

 

Jackie

 

Or they can love someone they marry, like millions have done, arranged marriages or not.

 

You know, you CAN decide.

[cdrumm4448]

From http://www.aljazeerah.info:

 

 

As for the author's argument that homosexuality is "completely antithetical to all of the world's major religions," this is simply not true. Many Buddhists do not believe that homosexuality is wrong, and in some cultures (e.g. China and Japan), it was once common among monks. The main argument against homosexual behavior is that it involves using body parts in an incorrect way — in other words, anything other than straight intercourse is considered wrong, whether practiced by homosexuals or heterosexuals. So straight couples who have oral sex are "sinning" just as much as homosexual couples are. Buddhists also do not believe that they should impose their own beliefs on others. The Dalai Lama has said "If an individual has no faith, that is a different matter...If two men really love each other and are not religious, then that is OK by me."

 

And many Buddhists do not consider it a sin anyway:

 

 

As for Hinduism:

 

 

The "4000 year old tradition" that the pastor claims to be defending also included polygamy, concubinage, and sex with slaves. He is conveniently leaving out the parts that do not support his argument, and he is mischaracterizing the tenets of other religions.

 

Jackie

 

Where and when has homosexuality been proven to have been normalized?

[cdrumm4448]

No, but legislation will. :001_smile:

 

Many "age-old traditions," including slavery, the subjugation of women, and religious persecution, have also been changed through legislation. Personally, I call that progress.

 

Jackie

 

You cannot equate the gay movement with civil rights.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes and no. The structure is traditional, but the popular conception of it isn't. Some of the rituals aren't, but they aren't necessarily fundamental.

 

How is the current structure traditional throughout the ages? How many wives did Solomon have again? This argument is failing because it just is not true.

 

I think though that you would find that more educated Christians would tend to have a fairly clear understanding of the difference. If you read C.S. Lewis, you can see it explicated pretty clearly. I wouldn't assume that everyone accepts the popular conception.

 

I am an educated Christian who has read many Christian and non-Christian authors, theologians and philosophers. I disagree with your assertions and conclusions.

 

As far as the laws around marriage though, they are generally consistent with the older understanding - some might argue that no-fault divorce isn't.

 

There are *many* aspects of modern living that do not fit with *any* culture's traditional understanding of marriage and family. Should we make nuclear family living illegal?

[Bluegoat]

Only if you use "sense" in broad terms. The most common definitions of religion involve a super-human power. If you want to include atheists under that umbrella, you'll have to lobby to change the definition. :) Some actual religious folk might have a problem with that, as would most atheists, I suspect. I don't think you have much of a chance.

 

And is "virulent" an adjective I could use to describe some Christians in polite company?

 

 

In the sense I meant in my post, and explained, it works just fine. Everyone has a woldview. No worldviews are neutral. There is no really neutral, secular way to approach questions about reality.

 

Not all religion involves the idea of a super-human power. And not all belief in a super-human power (that is not a great way to characterize it mind you) involves religion.

 

Yes, I have met virulent Christians and would say so in polite company. The Westboro people come to mind immediately.

[cdrumm4448]

I'm not denigrating anyone's beliefs. People are free to believe whatever they want, including the idea that homosexuality is wrong, homosexuals are sinners, whatever. I just don't think that one group's religious beliefs trump the civil rights of others who don't share those beliefs.Jackie

 

I don't believe it's wrong for religious reasons, so my religious beliefs aren't being imposed on you. I believe traditional marriage is a benefit to society AS IS. And who was it that stated I was bigot? That is denigrating my beliefs.

[Bluegoat]

How is the current structure traditional throughout the ages? How many wives did Solomon have again? This argument is failing because it just is not true.

 

No tradition has been around for ever. As far as I have seen noone is saying that anything traditional is therefore correct though some things have been argued in a confusing way.

 

None of the early polygamous Hebrews is trying to make a case for that model here, so I think it is safe not to worry about them. What is happening is there is a desire to change from an older structure that has been well established for quite a while, to a new one. If there was unanimous support it would be easy, but there is actually a fair contingent that still believes the underlying assumptions or worldview of the old one.

 

I think what those pointing out that it is traditional are really trying to get at is that it reflects a real change in the understanding marriage and to explicate the nature of the change. People keep trying to tell them it is the same thing, and they keep talking in circles.

 

I am an educated Christian who has read many Christian and non-Christian authors, theologians and philosophers. I disagree with your assertions and conclusions.

 

You disagree with the idea that marriage was understood differently, or that there are people who still think that? Or something else?

 

 

There are *many* aspects of modern living that do not fit with *any* culture's traditional understanding of marriage and family. Should we make nuclear family living illegal?

 

That would be a logical fallacy, so no. That isn't the point at all.

[FaithManor]

Many of those here who are arguing for civil unions for everybody *are* Christians.

 

If we are going to use Islamic and Judaic books to make laws, then are we going to make bacon cheeseburgers illegal? Because that would make me super-sad. Not as sad as my friend in California who has had his marriage nullified a couple of times, but sad.

 

 

My thoughts exactly! A religious book does not always make the best text for civil law in a society that wishes to embrace religious diversity, freedom of speech, freedom to practice religion, and freedom from the state establishing a religion that all of the citizens must follow. A social contract that comprises the belief systems of a diverse citizenry cannot then be rooted in one particular text - even if it is the text I believe in. :001_smile:

 

For the record, the outlawing of bacon cheeseburgers would be a real travesty of the legal system! :D

 

Faith

[Corraleno]

Everybody is religious in one sense or another. Even atheists of the most virulent kind have based their worldview on observations, principles, or assumptions about how reality is structured. Any kind of thoughts we have on any question are going to be based on those first principles.

Atheism: "1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Religion: "1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

 

Nope, everybody is not "religious in one sense or another." "Worldview" is not synonymous with "religion." If one's worldview does not include belief in a superhuman power, then it is not a religious worldview. Are you really trying to redefine "religion" without any reference to a superhuman power? :confused:

 

 

And yet you say things like same-sex marriage is not allowed because sinners aren't allowed to marry, and therefore it is inconsistent to let other sorts of criminals be married. I can't imagine you would purposefully misrepresent things, and that is a pretty large misunderstanding of some basic aspects of Christianity (like, what is sin.) I agree that disagreeing doesn't equal being ignorance - not understanding the underlying principles and the reasoning that derives from them does. I obviously can't speak about what you learned about religion in your degrees, but it doesn't seem to have given you a clear understanding of theology.

Then maybe you should take up this theological debate with your fellow Christians, who have posted, at various times and in various threads on this board, that their objection to gay marriage is that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. I was arguing with them, not making stuff up.

 

I am referring to your earlier argument that marriage was only a human construct. If that is true, it can be defined any way you like to lead to any conclusion you like - there is really nothing to be wrong about. Given that you think the traditional understanding is wrong and unjust, it doesn't seem consistent with saying you think it is a human construct.

This is the part I'm not understanding. I believe that marriage is a cultural custom invented by humans. I think that language, law, social structures, economic systems, educational systems, etc., are all cultural components invented by humans. I think that people in different cultures do create and define these components in many different ways. Are you saying that unless I believe that these customs were either ordained by God or that there is some ideal "correct" form for each custom which is inherent in the natural world, then I have no basis for supporting certain customs over others? :confused:

 

If it had some sort of objective aspect, it wouldn't matter where it came from - God or nature or whatever - it would be possible to say something about it.

The "objective aspects" I base my opinions on are: (1) I believe all people are created equal and deserve equal rights under the law, (2) I have never seen any evidence that homosexuality is harmful to society, but I have seen a great deal of evidence that labeling homosexuality as deviant and "wrong" has caused a huge amount of suffering and harm; (3) I believe that the principle of separation of church and state means that people may not abridge the civil rights of others because of their own religious beliefs.

 

Jackie

[nmoira]

In the sense I meant in my post, and explained, it works just fine. Everyone has a woldview. No worldviews are neutral. There is no really neutral, secular way to approach questions about reality.

In your view and using your all-encompassing non-standard definition. :001_smile:

 

Not all religion involves the idea of a super-human power. And not all belief in a super-human power (that is not a great way to characterize it mind you) involves religion.

Such as? Buddhism isn't a straightforward "yes" or "no."

 

Atheists are not defined by a belief, but rather literally by a lack of one. That is all they need have in common.

 

Yes, I have met virulent Christians and would say so in polite company. The Westboro people come to mind immediately.

:001_huh: Wow. I'd hope I'd be able to have a little lower bar than that, since there is certainly no public atheist equivalent to them out there.

[Corraleno]

You can call it whatever you like,but the fact is that these immutable characteristics of skin color, gender, and religious tradition are unlike the behavioral characteristic of with whom one has sex. Apples to oranges comparson.

Are you claiming that religious discrimination is illegal because the religion one practices is as "immutable" as race, and not a choice??? :confused:

 

There is increasing scientific evidence that, at least for most people, sexual orientation is not a choice. The majority of Americans do not agree with your stance on that.

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

You cannot equate the gay movement with civil rights, for reasons we've covered extensively.

Yes I can, for reasons we've also covered extensively. :001_smile:

 

Jackie

[nmoira]

Yes I can, for reasons we've also covered extensively. :001_smile:

 

Jackie

I can too. :D

[Mrs Mungo]

No tradition has been around for ever. As far as I have seen noone is saying that anything traditional is therefore correct though some things have been argued in a confusing way.

 

None of the early polygamous Hebrews is trying to make a case for that model here, so I think it is safe not to worry about them. What is happening is there is a desire to change from an older structure that has been well established for quite a while, to a new one. If there was unanimous support it would be easy, but there is actually a fair contingent that still believes the underlying assumptions or worldview of the old one.

 

I think what those pointing out that it is traditional are really trying to get at is that it reflects a real change in the understanding marriage and to explicate the nature of the change. People keep trying to tell them it is the same thing, and they keep talking in circles.

 

They are not trying explicate the nature of the change. They are *attempting* to explain why change A was a completely valid evolution of society but change B is supporting deviant, non-"normative" behavior and cannot possibly be accepted by polite society.

 

You disagree with the idea that marriage was understood differently, or that there are people who still think that? Or something else?

 

You said, "the structure is traditional, but the popular conception of it isn't. Some of the rituals aren't, but they aren't necessarily fundamental."

 

I disagree that the *current* structure of marriages is traditional. It is not. Traditionally, the vast majority of societies in the past and many societies today live as family units that encompass people beyond a husband/wife bond. Part of the purpose of marriage and family was to care for extended family members, the aged, etc. This is very clear in the Bible. Just look at the story of Naomi and Ruth for an easy example. In my tribal tradition people lived in familial groups, with a husband leaving his family to live with his wife's family. Extended family groups taking care of one another is the traditional model. We have abandoned that. Therefore, we have already changed the paradigm. Replacing a woman with another man is a much smaller shift in thinking.

 

ETA: You are downplaying the ritualistic part, but that is *clearly* the most important part of the whole shebang to many people in our current society. Haven't you watched "Say Yes to the Dress?"

Edited July 26, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[Momof3littles]

I can too. :D

:iagree: I can and I will :)

[La Texican]

You cannot equate the gay movement with civil rights.

 

Yes we can. Someone figured it out in the 60's that it really was a civil rights issue. Even a child knows that.

 

 

Where and when has homosexuality been proven to have been normalized?

Here and now civilization will normalize gay civil rights.

 

 

None of the early polygamous Hebrews is trying to make a case for that model here, so I think it is safe not to worry about them. What is happening is there is a desire to change from an older structure that has been well established for quite a while, to a new one. If there was unanimous support it would be easy, but there is actually a fair contingent that still believes the underlying assumptions or worldview of the old one.

 

I think what those pointing out that it is traditional are really trying to get at is that it reflects a real change in the understanding marriage and to explicate the nature of the change. People keep trying to tell them it is the same thing, and they keep talking in circles.

 

 

Actually there have been a few families on tv. Some were committing child abuse by forced marrying too young (illegal) and some other polygamous familes were doing a better job raising their children than many divorced or blended families. Speaking of divorced and blended families (I googled define explicate) yes society needs to Verb:

Analyze and develop (an idea or principle) in detail.

Analyze (a literary work) in order to reveal its meaning.

marraige, guardianship, rights and responsibilities of marraige and of people as they actually exist here and now. You know these things changed when women earned the right to divorce.

[Murphy101]

I will boldly state I think the government has absolutely no business whatsoever in civil unions or marriage.

 

There is not one benefit of marriage that cannot be given to another to another , or even several others, by legal means already accessible.

 

Marriage is not a basic right, it is a holy sacrament. Civil union is just a name for marriage without recognition of any religious base.

 

If you want your BFF since high school to receive your benefits, then you should be able to go to a lawyer and have it draw up to state your beneficiary. Same goes for inheriting property and access to medical and other such things.

 

There is absolutely no reason for the govt to state you MUST give your benefits to who you are married to. Why shouldn't you be able to decide to leave them to your nephew or BFF instead?

 

For that matter why should the government pay your benefits to anyone else at all?

 

And I don't think insurance coverage should be based on relationships either. That is certainly not a civil right either IMO. Even if I were to think insurance is, which I don't, I don't think anyone is required to put you on their policy. My dh does not have to carry me on his insurance even tho we are married. Granted I'd feel rather stunned if he didn't, but he has no obligation other than personal choice to do so.

 

So why is marriage important today?

 

Same as always. It is a holy sacrament, not just a means to an end of getting an insurance policy or the right to make end of life decisions for someone.

 

It is wrong to insist those who view marriage as a holy sacrament between a man a woman to redefine their definition to suit the desire to attain material goods that are attainable via other means.

 

If those means are only attainable via marriage, then the real question to my mind is why aren't people insisting on having their freedom to make choices honored and other methods made available to attain those means?

 

Lastly, yes I am aware that some homosexuals view marriage as a holy sacrament as well. However, I am not trying to convince them to change their definition of what constitutes a valid marriage either. They have the right to their own POV and beliefs. The problem here is that government needs to completely exit the marriage business. Then we would not be having this discussion, nor need it.

[Mrs Mungo]

There is not one benefit of marriage that cannot be given to another to another , or even several others, by legal means already accessible.

 

Marriage is not a basic right, it is a holy sacrament. Civil union is just a name for marriage without recognition of any religious base.

 

If you want your BFF since high school to receive your benefits, then you should be able to go to a lawyer and have it draw up to state your beneficiary. Same goes for inheriting property and access to medical and other such things.

 

There is absolutely no reason for the govt to state you MUST give your benefits to who you are married to. Why shouldn't you be able to decide to leave them to your nephew or BFF instead?

 

For that matter why should the government pay your benefits to anyone else at all?

 

And I don't think insurance coverage should be based on relationships either. That is certainly not a civil right either IMO. Even if I were to think insurance is, which I don't, I don't think anyone is required to put you on their policy. My dh does not have to carry me on his insurance even tho we are married. Granted I'd feel rather stunned if he didn't, but he has no obligation other than personal choice to do so.

 

So why is marriage important today?

 

Same as always. It is a holy sacrament, not just a means to an end of getting an insurance policy or the right to make end of life decisions for someone.

 

It is wrong to insist those who view marriage as a holy sacrament between a man a woman to redefine their definition to suit the desire to attain material goods that are attainable via other means.

 

If those means are only attainable via marriage, then the real question to my mind is why aren't people insisting on having their freedom to make choices honored and other methods made available to attain those means?

 

Lastly, yes I am aware that some homosexuals view marriage as a holy sacrament as well. However, I am not trying to convince them to change their definition of what constitutes a valid marriage either. They have the right to their own POV and beliefs. The problem here is that government needs to completely exit the marriage business. Then we would not be having this discussion, nor need it.

 

Marriage makes me Next of Kin, a contract does not. We deal with Next of Kin issues a lot in the military. It is *by far* the easiest way to transfer rights and benefits. A civil union could do the same thing with little impact in current law. A contract cannot do the same thing without significant rewriting of existing laws.

[FaithManor]

They are not trying explicate the nature of the change. They are *attempting* to explain why change A was a completely valid evolution of society but change B is supporting deviant, non-"normative" behavior and cannot possibly be accepted by polite society.

 

 

 

You said, "the structure is traditional, but the popular conception of it isn't. Some of the rituals aren't, but they aren't necessarily fundamental."

 

I disagree that the *current* structure of marriages is traditional. It is not. Traditionally, the vast majority of societies in the past and many societies today live as family units that encompass people beyond a husband/wife bond. Part of the purpose of marriage and family was to care for extended family members, the aged, etc. This is very clear in the Bible. Just look at the story of Naomi and Ruth for an easy example. In my tribal tradition people lived in familial groups, with a husband leaving his family to live with his wife's family. Extended family groups taking care of one another is the traditional model. We have abandon that. Therefore, we have already changed the paradigm. Replacing a woman with another man is a much smaller shift in thinking.

 

:iagree:

 

Also, replacing polygamy with monogamy was a much larger change in structure than same gender monogamy is as well. For that matter, most states setting an age limit upon marriageable age and setting that boundary much higher than was "traditionally" accepted was also a HUGE change in thinking. It wasn't all that long ago that it was accepted even amongst the most conservative of Christians that marrying a 13 or 14 year old girl to a 45 to 50 year old man was "normal" and we've rejected that too though there is absolutely NO guideline anywhere in the OT or NT on the age at which it is appropriate to marry two humans together nor any proclamation of acceptable age difference. Yet, in less than 300 years, the above situation has gone from being perfectly acceptable to being labeled pedophilic and disgusting!

 

Marriage as one man, one woman, monogamous relationship, no marrying off of young teens and children, etc. is not traditional.

 

Faith

[Corraleno]

They are not trying explicate the nature of the change. They are *attempting* to explain why change A was a completely valid evolution of society but change B is supporting deviant, non-"normative" behavior and cannot possibly be accepted by polite society.

:iagree:

Not to mention those who are now claiming that marriage has nothing to do with love. :rolleyes:

 

Jackie

[Corraleno]

Also, replacing polygamy with monogamy was a much larger change in structure than same gender monogamy is as well. For that matter, most states setting an age limit upon marriageable age and setting that boundary much higher than was "traditionally" accepted was also a HUGE change in thinking. It wasn't all that long ago that it was accepted even amongst the most conservative of Christians that marrying a 13 or 14 year old girl to a 45 to 50 year old man was "normal" and we've rejected that too though there is absolutely NO guideline anywhere in the OT or NT on the age at which it is appropriate to marry two humans together nor any proclamation of acceptable age difference. Yet, in less than 300 years, the above situation has gone from being perfectly acceptable to being labeled pedophilic and disgusting!

 

Marriage as one man, one woman, monogamous relationship, no marrying off of young teens and children, etc. is not traditional.

 

Faith

:iagree: Excellent points!

 

Jackie

[nmoira]

:iagree: I can and I will :)

I'd bet that many, many would. :D

[Corraleno]

There is absolutely no reason for the govt to state you MUST give your benefits to who you are married to. Why shouldn't you be able to decide to leave them to your nephew or BFF instead?

Well, the original reason for those benefits (e.g. pensions, SS benefits, etc.) was to ensure that spouses (most of whom were not income-earning) and children were protected. If Joe Blow could write up a secret contract diverting his pension and benefits to his BFF (or mistress or someone else) in the event of his death, then it would negate the purpose of the benefits to begin with.

 

But I do agree that a reassessment of those sorts of things is in order, given how much the structure of families has changed over the years. If the government wants to continue to support & encourage families by extending certain benefits, though, I think those should be extended to all families, regardless of a parent's sexual orientation.

 

Jackie

[Bluegoat]

Atheism: "1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Religion: "1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

 

Dictionary definitions don't "prove" meanings.

 

Nope, everybody is not "religious in one sense or another." "Worldview" is not synonymous with "religion." If one's worldview does not include belief in a superhuman power, then it is not a religious worldview. Are you really trying to redefine "religion" without any reference to a superhuman power? :confused:

 

Please try to understand context. I was talking about how we can understand the world without reference to our underlying beliefs about reality. Trying to say that religious people can somehow do this is no different than saying a non-religious humanist can.

 

I am not trying to "redefine" anything, I am trying to explain why it isn't possible to somehow adopt a neutral way of thinking about reality.

 

Then maybe you should take up this theological debate with your fellow Christians, who have posted, at various times and in various threads on this board, that their objection to gay marriage is that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. I was arguing with them, not making stuff up.

 

That answer is fine as far as it goes, which is not far at all - it requires a lot more explanation and is potentially kind of confusing. Some people are not up for that. It's an entirely inadaquate answer but doesn't mean anything like what you are suggesting. A sin is an act (not a person) which separates a person from God in some way. From a Christian perspective we are all separated from God and generally we could say we are all sinners. There is no religious principle that says that sinners can't marry. Being sexually attracted to people of the same sex doesn't make someone a sinner either.

 

This is the part I'm not understanding. I believe that marriage is a cultural custom invented by humans. I think that language, law, social structures, economic systems, educational systems, etc., are all cultural components invented by humans. I think that people in different cultures do create and define these components in many different ways. Are you saying that unless I believe that these customs were either ordained by God or that there is some ideal "correct" form for each custom which is inherent in the natural world, then I have no basis for supporting certain customs over others? :confused:

 

Maybe. (Do you really believe language is invented and not natural?)

 

I'm not sure I would use the word "correct". But I'll see if I can be more clear. Keep in mind the original question I was responding to - how could saying that we can change the meaning of marriage potentially "break" marriage.

 

If marriage is a human construct, we could potentially define it in any way we wanted, or even in a way we didn't want. That being said, words to have to have recognized boundaries to be useful.

 

There is nothing inherently unjust with having a different word to describe a different kind of relationship. It isn't unjust for example to call daughters daughters, and not call them sons. They are just words to define a different thing.

 

In the West until recently, marriage was understood to define a particular relationship between a man and woman. That isn't, in itself, unjust - there is nothing unfair about giving a name to a particular custom. There wasn't really any comparable custom or term for people in same-sex relationships.

 

So lets say the culture or some portion of it wants to somehow create a custom that is similar for same-sex couples. You could redefine the term marriage if you want to. On the other hand you no longer have a term or custom relating specifically to a relationship between a man and a woman. There is also nothing stopping you, if someone wanted to, from redefining it again or many other times - we could redefine it to just be more of a kind of business partner arrangement. (Which isn't to say anyone would want to.) Any of these things are possible if that is what people want. It isn't really unjust to have or not have any of these options. You could only say that some are more or less useful than others.

 

That isn't a bad thing necessarily - some things are decided that way. But in general, same-sex marriage is treated as a justice issue - as if marriage is rightly something that belongs to same-sex couples as well as opposite sex couples.

 

To put it another way, and maybe this is simpler. You've said that you think marriage is about being with the person you love. If so, it could be argued that it is a justice issue, since same-sex couples also may love each other. But that would not be a culturally constructed custom, it would be a codification of a particular natural human relationship, so you could argue it as a justice issue.

 

(...)

 

Jackie

[[email protected]]

Let's move on, folks.

 

Moderator