Marriage - secular or religious

Remove all ads!

Um, the same God that has expressly forbidden homosexuality? And what if obedience to God's commandments is the most sure way to happiness that the founding fathers charge the citizenry to pursue? Bear with me, but this will be hard to develop. I've experienced it, but for those that haven't cued in, I'm not always the best at explaining things. Here goes:

For those of you who are married with children, are your children one of the greatest joys in your life? Basically, you have obeyed the commandment to go forth, be fruitful and multiply (whether you recognize it as a commandment or not), and have been blessed for your obedience. Without the aid of science or other accommodation, homosexual couples are, by tyranny of biology, denied this opportunity for joy.

But I believe that among the sundried Christian faiths, there is enough of a consensus that the mandate can be agreed upon despite the theological differences.

So in relation to this topic, the State's mandate is to secure these civil rights, why can't they use different nomenclature to reflect that difference?

Your position is not good enough. It does not provide ample seperation from the Religious ordinance. By changing the definition of marriage, you are then going to have it taught in schools, thus cramming it down the throat of innocent children. When that contradicts the religious faith that the parents supposedly have the right to teach their children, you create confusion. When morality becomes ambiguous, it erodes...

By changing the definition of Marriage, you run the risk of exactly what you say you don't want to happen coming to reality. If Marriage is ruled a right, and gays have the right to marry, then your arguement REQUIRES the government to step in to compel a religion to recognize a gay couple as married--perhaps even performing the ceremony themselves!

One of the links posted on the previous page of this thread suggests otherwise.

People here aren't saying it, but that is a very real possibility of doing things as they say. By changing the definition of marriage, it ultimately regulates the way socitey views it. This ultimately brings religion into conflict with the state. When teh state is pushing it's definition in the schools, you teach the next generation the secular philosophy, as opposed to allowing parents to teach morality to their children.

Another definition that is at risk in this debate is tolerance. A contemporary, secular understanding of tolerance suggests that to be tolerant, you must abandon your own convictions if they offend others. By making personal convictions a bad thing, you discourage them outright.

And I'm asking that such separation be made more explicit. By a differenct in nomenclature, you establish the contract as a civil extention, and not to be mistaken for a religious rite. Church stays within their influence, the State stays where they belong.

I provided a link on page 4 that did make a moral case against Gay Marriage, citing a couple specific studies that suggest that the traditional, heterosexual marriage, where both parents do their best is the most effective and stable environment for hte raising of children. This link also provides an ethical arguement to preserve the definition of marriage. And I have come across this public health arguement, but most of these points have been shouted down in prior threads.

I may have actually stumbled into that. If the Civil components, or contract if you will, is actually a framework built around the religious practice of marriage, then it should function as a contract without involving the religious aspects. This framework, a contract should exist in cases where religious sanction will not be forthcoming, like common law relations or homosexuals. If the contract functions as an implied contract for common law couples, then it would be implied regardless of a gay or straight couple...

I disagree with that. Secular Morality would be an effort to establish morality without religious influence. I've looked at you as living proof that that can exist.

It may not be the intention, but it is the risk that is run by not checking it. By putting standards in place outside of religion and trying to universally enforce them, Secularist philosophy undermines the teachings of the individual religion. That is why A seperation of church and state needs to be mroe explicit in such cases. It preserves religion while dealing with concerns of the state.

 

Not all the religions in America are "Christian," and I'm sure you are already aware of that. This is Thmas Jefferson:

That would be correct. The same God who created people who CHOSE to become gay. It's called Free Will, sometimes, self-determination.

Then you would have a theocracy, like they do in Iran. In Iran, the state hangs gay people in public. TJ Again:

One of the mandates of the State, at least here, according to one of its main Founders, is to keep the tyranny of organized religion out its citizen's civil rights:

 

I have always wondered why conservatives from different countries and cultures tend to be at such odds with each other. Their basic values are generally the same. Everything Gnarff seems to want in a country they have in Iran. The holy script is the law and the word of the priests is everything. Oh and faggots are hung as has been stated, sounds like heaven eh Gnarff? One of the main reasons that muslims nowadays really mistrust the west is our stance on homosexuals. They find it completely abhorrent, maybe we should cave in and just ban it again. Would certainly make a large chunk of the arab world more friendly towards us.

As for Martaug, what were you trying to say? What arguments did you make against what? You do not like gay marriage? Or? I dont get it, why? You have claimed to be a secular person in the past. If you are posting it would be nice if you state your position instead of, well, whatever it was you did.

 

You have a right to feel that my position isn't good enough, as long as we are now on the same page about what my position is. Another disconnect between us is that you think we are changing the definition of marriage. The problem with that is the simple fact that we don't agree on what the definition of marriage is in the first place. You say that you think marriage is a purely religious institution. If that really is your stance, then why are you OK with it being performed in the courthouse? If marriage is always sacred in any and all contexts, then it should never be administered by the state.

Sure.

Gnarff, the catholic church doesn't consider my marriage valid (having never formally left the church or being excommunicated, I am still technically catholic), and my wife is female! They recognize that I am legally married because I am, but if I actually wanted to come fully back into the fold, I would need to have my marriage blessed by the church. While they would have accepted a marriage performed by another Christian denomination, my marriage was performed by a secular humanist, which the church sees as a bit of a problem.

Allow me to rephrase. No one who has been debating on the opposite side of the issue from you on this subject appears to agree with your premise. That said, if you base an entire argument on a premise I and others don't agree with, you can't reasonably expect us to be open to the rest of your argument. If I don't agree that the government discriminates against religions, then it logically follows that I'm not going to agree with any argument you make that requires that point to be true.

In that case, I take it you'll be comfortable requiring that all women wear the hijab, so that Muslim parents won't have their children exposed by society to mixed messages which run counter to the decency and modesty standards that they wish to instill? To ban pork so that Muslim and Jewish children won't get similarly mixed messages from society? Hell, To in fact ban all meat consumption so that Hindu parents won't have their children exposed to what their religion deems to be murder on a regular basis? Gnarff, kids aren't stupid, and they know damn well that the values of their faiths are often at odds with what society allows. Kids are smart enough to understand that a marriage within their faith and a marriage in a courthouse are not the same thing. That said, as I've allowed before, I have no problem with the civil union solution, as long as all licenses issued by the state are termed "civil unions". It won't stop everyone from calling it a marriage anyway, but if it will enable us to put this silliness behind us, so be it.

Actually, you aren't required to abandon your convictions at all. You can hold any convictions that you want and, provided that doing so doesn't violate anyone else's rights, you can even act on them. What you aren't allowed to do is force your convictions onto other people who hold different convictions than you (I've never met a man who had no convictions, and I wouldn't want to). Fortunately, it cuts both ways, preventing people like me from forcing you to follow my convictions.

Gay people don't usually reproduce and most don't even try to adopt, which greatly weakens this point. Add to this the fact that a loving gay couple is still a better home than an orphanage or a broken home, and even adoption becomes a moot concern.

It was hardly shouted down. The public health argument is somewhat weak, because it assumes that if gay marriage were legal we'd have more gay people. It talks a bit about the dangers of gay sex and whatnot, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that heterosexuals really don't seem to have any trouble giving each other VD, either. They don't even bother to back up or explain their premise other than stating that legalized gay marriage would "further normalize" gay sex, in effect arguing that "further normalizing" gay sex will lead directly to more gay people. From that line of reasoning, we also know that they view homosexuality as a choice rather than a state of being - a point on which the various medical and psychological professionals are hardly in lockstep agreement.

Most of the gay people that I know claim lack of attraction to the opposite sex as the reason for their orientation, arguing that they did not choose to become gay. Don't get me wrong, it is an established fact that when society treats homosexuality punitively, homosexual behavior becomes increasingly rare (and there are obviously some switch-hitters out there, too, who could be considered to have chosen their lifestyle). The reverse, however, has not been proven. We know that when gay people aren't subject to legal recourse for their lifestyles, that homosexual behaviour becomes more common, but we really don't know what happens when we legalize gay marriage. Given the enormous percentage of homosexuals who are still in the closet, it is actually quite hard to ascertain whether the total gay community is growing or shrinking; we only see whether the public community grows or fades. It is perfectly legal to be homosexual, and most states protect them from unreasonable discrimination, and our sitcoms are positively littered with positively portrayed gay characters in prominent roles, so I really don't think we can normalize gay sex any more than we already have. However, legalizing gay marriage would serve to normalize gay monogamy, which I think is likely to do some good.

Our government already has this exact framework in place. You just don't like what they call it.

What you are talking about is ethics or philosophy, not secularism. Secularism is about separation of church and state, not morality. My moral compass doesn't stem from my "secularism". Back when I was still a practicing, faithful, and devout catholic, I believed just as strongly in the importance of separation between church and state as I do today.

 

I thought I was done with this thread when I said I didn't have a problem calling unions performed at courthouses - regardless of whether the people getting married were gay or straight - to be civil unions, but then Gnarff comes up with this.

While a school should teach a great many things, one of the things I don't see being taught - and this is coming from someone whose wife is a school teacher - is morality. Another thing that I don't see being taught in school is a definition of marriage. At least that's how it works in public school. I have never attended a private or parochial school, nor do I have any family or friends who work at one, so I cannot comment on them to any degree. That having been said, most private schools are so ciriculum-driven that I cannot see there being enough time in the day to teach morality and definitions of marriage. Finally, where parochial schools are concerned, they would teach Christian morality and the Christian definition of marriage, which you don't seem to have a problem with. So unless you are going to a religious-based school that actually has theology as a course you take during the day, the place where a child is going to learn morality and what marriage means is from home, from family, from friends, and yes - from church (if he/she attends) - but not from school.

What? Why do you think that? I am a tolerant person, but I also have many deep-rooted convictions about what I think is right. That comment is actually quite insulting. I don't know anyone who meets that description, and quite a few people like myself that fly in the face of that description. If in order to be tolerant you must abandon your convictions, then all the people arguing with you on this thread are either A) intolerant - which I at least am not or B) have no convictions - in which case there wouldn't be an arguement. I'm inclined to say your point of view on this is a little misguided.

High comedy. In a post on the previous page, martaug asks DR a direct question, DR responds to it, and then, when martaug does like the answer, he adds DR to his ignore list. You can't make stuff like this up - some jokes write themselves. However, Gnarff, using your definition above, maurtag must have the strongest convictions of anyone posting on this board. He doesn't mess around with any of that "tolerance" stuff. (And I'm sure I'll be next on the ignore list - whatever)

 

I understand that, but I would also believe that the Christians represent significant numbers that in a democracy they can affect the vote. AS such, even if they don't specifically write the laws, their beliefs should be taken into account at the legislature--regardless of the source.

And despite their choice, they should have civil rights extended, but religious privelidges should be dependent on adherance to the commandments of the faith. That's why I want the nomenclature to reflect that which is civil as opposed to religious.

I'm not saying a total theocracy, but allow the law to discourage major diversion from such views. Like restricting marriage to man and a woman--which 44 of 50 states have done, 27 by ammending their constitution! I don't call for the criminalization or abuse of homosexuals, and do defend civil rights being offered to them, but the sacrement of marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples.

But vigilance must be maintained that the opposite also be prevented--tyrany of the state over the free practice of religion. By extending marriage to homosexuals, ultimately you force an unacceptable definition onto the faithful. That is no less worrysome than any "tyranny of Organized Religion" that you discuss.

This behaviour, though historically accurate, is also not in the divine plan of Jesus Christ. Here's what God had to say on the matter...

It is wrong to use the name of God to secure your own vain purposes. Anything you do in the name of God has his full attention. Those priests in the past that have abused their position to the support of a despot will answer to God at the end for their part in the sins of the despot they served in life. What does this suggest that the role of the priest is? To look after the faithful and to minister unto them. They are not to directly intervene in the political process, but to excercise their agency (free will is you prefer) as the state allows. Any attempt to influence a government body is done as a private citizen talking to other private citizens, not as a religious leader.

It's a difference in what values they seek to conserve. In Canada and the US, they look to the Bible and Christianity for their values. In Iran, they look to Islam and the Quaran for these values. While there may be some similarities, there are many more differences presented...

No matter how frustrated I get with a thread like this, I NEVER want to see a homosexual harmedfor their chosen lifestyle. I don't agree with a specific faith writing the laws.

That's just it, it's not a position at all. It's reducing something sacred to just a piece of paper with legal implications. You try to claim to have it both ways, when that clearly is not an option. Either it is religious, which excludes homosexuals and those that do not want to seek the blessing of religion, or it is secular, which makes it the province exclusively of the state. You can't have it both ways. That tug of war will not go away until one side wins.

Was it not at one point exclusively defined as requiring heterosexual couples? By extending it to homosexuals you are changing that definition.

A courtesy traditionally extended to the state. The definition, as I understad it, requires a heterosexual couple, bound under any appropriate authority. Since the church recognizes the state, then the courthouse is a valid location, and a judge is a valid authority. If the Catholic Church refuses to accept that, that is their perogative.

Let's go one step less likely: You and your bride decide to convert to Mormonism. The Church would recognize this union because you are straight and the authority was legally recognized. You would be temporally married. They would try to prepare you and your wife for the Temple, so that you can be sealed for eternity, but that's a bit far from the topic...

Likewise, I have rejected that marriage is simply a contract, and any attempt to use that premise to shout me down is also rejected.

No, That is going overboard. I want the government to stay the hell out of morality. By extending marriage to homosexuals, they are interfering in said morality. By putting a homosexual friendly agenda in the classroom (which IS starting to happen in Canada), the state is interfering with morality.

Again, that's up for debate. Holding certain convictions and preaching them could be ruled hate speech. Simply citing a moral opposition to homosexuality has been alleged to be a hate crime in Canada...

I'll believe that when I see it. But by taking marriage outside of the religious realm, you threaten to do just that.

It's a temptation. I'm sure even you feel the desire from time to time to do something you KNOW is wrong. That's temptation. The choice becomes to act on the temptation. They choose to identify themselves by their temptation.

Exactly, By "legitimizing" the practice, we hear about more hiomosexuals. The number of homosexuals may not change though. That's not the issue...

The government should not have called it marriage in the first place.

But do they not push for morality to develop in the abscense of religion?

You're lucky. That's starting to happen in Canada. But also, while teaching morality may not appear to be the objective, it can happen if there is no vigilance. If the definition of marriage is changed to include homosexuals, that IS a moral issue that sneaks it's way into the classroom.

The vilification of those that continue to hold to politically incorrect positions.

I agree that that definition of tolerance is insulting. To me, tolerance is refraining from violence and hatred towards those that are different. Tolerating a homosexual means not harrassing, assaulting or insulting him for his chosen way of life. It does NOT demand that I endorce it.

It's not MY point of view, but my observation of what society is pushing on its members. I personally find it frightening...

 

So should everyone else's. And "Christians" are not the only ones who can affect the vote. There are a lot of groups that can claim that as well. Now you are just stating the obvious.

That's matter for the Church, not the State. The problem, again, is that there are many Chruches and some of them may not agree with your point of view.

Please don't preach to me. You are only showing your disrespect by doing so. I have my own pastor, at my own church, who does a better job of it than you can (no disrespect intended on my part towards you). But your arrogance in preaching to the rest of us is uncalled for a thread of this nature. Generally, I'm respectful and sympathtic towards you and your views because we are Brothers in Christ, (even though I believe that your views of Christ and his teachings are somewhat removed from mine). Again, it is your conceit in believeing that all "Christians are the same" (which really means that they all think the same as you) that causes you a lot of probems here. Humility is a better approach when it comes to telling people that you may know what "God says," especially when you are telling non-Christians (and there are many on this board) that they are not aware of what God says, because they have a different set of beliefs than you. No one has a monoploy on what "God says."

 

But I do still think it was the Christians that put George W over the top in 2004. That should say something for our influence. Also, sometimes I just get the feeling here that people want Christianity to take a backseat because they are a religious group as opposed to a secular. To you and me it is obvious, but it doesn't feel like it.

But leave that to the churches to deal with. The State has it's own mandate (the civil rights part of the arguement). I still believe that there is a solution that allows both sides to remain seperate, not having one trump the other.

That was not my intention. My intention was to go to the source document that the priests (I feel it safe to presume he meant Christian priests) that Jefferson complained about are supposed to be working from. That to abuse their authority, as Jefferson had complained about, is as much an offense to God as it is to human sensibility. I ask that we not be tarred with the same brush as them.

I'm looking at the big picture, here. Sure theological differences exist between the sects, but they pale in comparison with the major issues--that Marriage is sacred, and that homosexuality is wrong. I don't know how to classify so-called Christian faiths that don't hold to those commandments. Just as you cite, there are similarities in our belief despite theological differences. I extrapolate this to the multitude of other Christian faiths.

Likely not, but this is just one quote from Scripture. I'm sure that God has revealed things to other peoples that have not made their way to the western world with the understanding that they come from God. All I said was that that quote I used came from God.

 

Just when I think I'm out, they suck me back in!

Gnarff, the problem being that it IS both ways. Not only can you have it both ways, but in all 50 states it actually exists in both forms. There are both religious and secular marriages. Even in states that have constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there are straight couples that are married in secular ceremonies every day.

I've heard this comment from you and others, and I have to say it is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. Engaging in a homosexual act is only a temptation IF YOU ARE ALREADY GAY (or at least bisexual). I have never been tempted to participate in a homosexual act, because quite simply, I'm not gay. Or, to turn that example around: If you find the thought of taking part in a homosexual act to be tempting, then chances are you ARE gay.

Regardless of whether you get a marraige or a civil union, you make a vow to foresake all others (regardless of thier sex). However, straight couples would only find another member of the opposite sex tempting because they aren't gay. Similarly, I don't think gay couples worry about their partner having an affair with a member of the opposite sex. Gay or straight, you are agreeing to that vow - just keep in mind that the vast majority of people do not find both sexes to be tempting.

 

Sigh. Gnarff, marriage is sacred to you, and you are religious. Marriage is every bit as important -even sacred - to me, yet I am not. The gay couples that were married in Christian ceremonies by Reverend Wright considered it sacred, too.

It is obvious that you are very passionate about marriage, but what you need to try and comprehend is that marriage is every inch as important to homosexuals, atheists, and secularists alike. The way they view marriage is every bit as important to them as the way you view marriage is to you. Those evil secularists don't view marriage as a simple piece of paper any more than you do, which is why they want to make sure that the government extends the right to everyone, regardless of race or credo and, yes, even regardless of sexual orientation.

Not really. The long-standing Native American Two-Spirit tradition allowed gay marriage...and still does. Obviously, gay marriage hasn't gained traction within Judeo-Christian tradition, but they are hardly the only culture or tradition in the world.

Gnarff, the state doesn't derive its power from the Church. In a democracy like ours, it derives its power from the people. The government doesn't perform marriages because the the Church allows them to do so. It performs them because it chooses to do so. Clergy needs to be licensed by the State in order for their marriages to be legally binding, not the other way around.

Fortunately for us, we aren't actually trying to convince you that marriage is simply a contract*. We are trying to convince you that from the state's perspective, marriage is simply a contract. There's a simple reason for this, of course. You see, from the state's perspective, marriage is simply a contract. That you do not like this fact and would like to see it changed doesn't change the fact that this is the way the state (you keep ignoring this crucial operator) currently views marriage.

How is this going overboard if you want the government to "stay the hell out of morality"? Do you honestly think that hindus who equate meat consumption to murder don't consider eating meat immoral? By allowing us to eat meat, our government is legalizing murder in the mind of a hindu, which is interfering with morality a hell of a lot more than legalizing gay marriage. If you were hindu and felt that the government had a duty to enforce morality, you wouldn't see this as going overboard. Gay marriage would seem pithy by comparison.

Sure.

If you view it as temptation. Most homosexuals don't view homosexuality as a sin.

In the context of an argument that gay marriage will lead to health problems because legitimizing the practice will lead to more gay people, it certainly is.

Perhaps, but we can't change history, now, can we? Feel free to make that case with your government.

Since most secularists are religious themselves, no. Like I said, most secularists turn to religion for their morality. The ones that do not, like myself, turn to philosophy.

* In fact, myself, T2, Chandos, DR, Aldeth (and I'm sure there are a few people I've missed) have all gone on record stating that they believe marriage is much, much more than a contract.

 

I think a basic premise of the two sides in this argument are in direct opposition. Without agreement on the premise, the debate can never reach a medium. The premise:

Homosexuality is a genetic trait. Edit: reworded below.​

I think those people who are accepting of gay marriage generally accept this premise. Those individuals against gay marriage typically believe homosexuality to be a sin, a weakness, and something that can be overcome through faith and sufficient resolve -- and therefore believe the premise is false.

Without agreement on this premise, any further argument is futile.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I don't necessarily agree that being gay is a genetic trait. If that were true, being gay would run in families, and I have never seen any study indicating this was the case. For example, while I know several gay people, I do not know anyone who is gay that also has a gay sibling. So that kind of blows the genetic arguement out of the water for me. However, I do think people who are gay are born that way. However, just because you are born with something does not necessarily mean that it was a genetically inherited trait.

 

Good argument.

I stand corrected. The basic premise, IMO, then is:

Homosexuality is hard wired. It is a trait a person is born with and cannot be altered.​

 

I don't necessarily believe that either, T2, but I think it's closer. I'm much more comfortable simply stating that we don't know how hard-wired homosexuality is or if it is even hardwired at all.

It is theorized to be genetic, though few geneticists and biologists actually believe this, and most of the proponents are activists. It is theorized to stem from a hormonal or chromosomal defect, but we have yet to link any specific chromosomal or hormonal defect to homosexuality. Both male and female homosexuality is theorized to result from an abusive relationship with one's mother, or in the case of females, from that relationship being exceptionally close. Both are theorized to come from child abuse on the part of the father, or in the case of males, from that relationship being exceptionally close. Whether you argue that sexual orientation is a matter of choice, upbringing, genetics, or just plain happenstance, you can find a respected expert who argues that position.

There are, of course, a few things we do know. While sexual orientation may or may not be a choice, the lifestyle, like any lifestyle, most assuredly is. Just as there are gay men who fight their orientation and marry a woman anyway, I'm equally sure that there are a few men who aren't attracted to other men but nevertheless live the gay lifestyle. We also know that while psychologists don't agree on the cause of homosexuality, the current consensus is now that there isn't anything mentally wrong with homosexuals and that they don't need treatment for it.

In the end, the best conclusion we can come to is "we don't know, yet." As in all such situations in which the "crime" has no victim, I think homosexuals deserve the benefit of the doubt from our legislature.

 

"I knew I shouldn't have let your father change your diaper."

Please. The abuse (or over attraction) theories were disproven a long time ago. I know you're making a point, but some of those old (and disproven) theories should just be allowed a quiet death.

I made a generalization in my statement and freely acknowledged it as such. There are always exceptions to such generalizations. However, you also added support to the generalization -- people who are not against gay marriage accept the premise. You may not fully agree with the premise, but accept it as a possibility. Most Mormons I know cannot accept the premise as a possibility (which is all of my family, their friends, my ex's family...), it goes against fundamental teachings of the church about sin and free agency.

 

Totally & completely but there seems to be a fairly large number of mormons & former mormons on the boards. I wonder why that is.

 

I agree with you, but the fact remains that they are not dying a quiet death; just as you can find the occasional rogue geneticist out on a quixotic quest to capture the elusive snipe...er...gay gene, you can also find psychiatrists or psychologists that still publicly maintain that sexual orientation is caused - or at least affected - by the relationship with one's father or mother.

 

And what does the cause of homosexuality or any type of sexuality have to do with whether or not marriage is religious or secular?

 

Not much, but gay marriage is the issue that spawned this thread...the elephant in the living room, if you will.

 

Drew, good one. But it -IMO- shouldn't be the issue. Beren's question was whether marriage was religious or secular. Granted a rather broad question open to various interpretations.

Having been forced by circumstances to be away from the boards for several months I still wasn't surprised to see the same arguments by basically the same people but to be very blunt and honest it annoys the heck out of me to see good threads degenerate into this homosexual topic.

I'm not a moderator so it isn't my place to point out that there is a "Post new Topic" but tom. So I won't mention it. Oh, dear me I did mention it. Bad Nakia. Slaps self on wrist before a mod can get to her.