This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
California Ban on Gay Marriage deemed unconstitutional - overturned
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
MyTie, you can get married outside of a church, many people do, and since marriage is recognized by law (the government), they can restrict, or not restrict, whuat they view as marriage.
The church is not a building. Also governments ability to recognize something should not automatically give precedent to regulate.
But Government isn't regulating marriage in a biblical sense. They're taking something which has a religious basis, adjusting it for their own purposes, and regulating that. They're not trying to regulate religious marriage. If anything, it's the Church which is trying to regulate secular marriage.
If they called it 'civil unions', then there wouldn't be an issue. So it's just a naming convention. And in that respect, the Church should be able to see past that fact.
I mean, a set of legal documents is typically referred to as a "Transaction Bible". Should the Church get up in arms over this?
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, you can get married outside of a church, many people do, and since marriage is recognized by law (the government), they can restrict, or not restrict, whuat they view as marriage.
The church is not a building. Also governments ability to recognize something should not automatically give precedent to regulate.
But Government isn't regulating marriage in a biblical sense. They're taking something which has a religious basis, adjusting it for their own purposes, and regulating that. They're not trying to regulate religious marriage. If anything, it's the Church which is trying to regulate secular marriage.
If they called it 'civil unions', then there wouldn't be an issue. So it's just a naming convention. And in that respect, the Church should be able to see past that fact.
I mean, a set of legal documents is typically referred to as a "Transaction Bible". Should the Church get up in arms over this?
Should gays be able to get legislation which says they can be baptized?
Post by
Heckler
Should gays be able to get legislation which says they can be baptized?
If a legally-recognized baptism (which doesn't exist) allowed tax breaks, privileges, etc (like secular legally-defined and legally-recognized marriage does), then
yes
, of course they should.
But it doesn't grant those things, it doesn't even exist, and that's the point. Your question
perfectly
outlines the point that Squish was making. Just as most would agree that the government has no right sticking its nose in religion, the converse is also true. A legally-defined marriage and a religiously-defined marriage are not the same thing. Its unfortunate they share the same name, because that seems to be the
true
source of all this hubbub, as your question points out.
Post by
MyTie
Why doesn't legalized baptism exist?
Post by
MyTie
His point is that because legal marriage does exist it should be regulatable. My point is that legal marriage shouldn't exist.
Post by
Heckler
Why doesn't legalized baptism exist?
Because baptism is not something that exists by
legal
definition. Legal is the keyword here, I'm not saying that Baptism is illegal somewhere, I'm saying that it is not a legal contract involving the state. If your point is that it doesn't exist because it shouldn't exist, I agree with you.
His point is that because legal marriage does exist it should be regulatable. My point is that legal marriage shouldn't exist.
I think he agrees with you in a way (I do), the legal version of marriage should probably be called something else, maybe "Civil Unions." All marriages -- male-male, female-female, male-female -- should be called something else in terms of legal recognition. The contract which allows spousal privileges, and tax breaks, and all those goodies should be named something different than the religious ceremony that most people are 'protecting' when they protest gay marriage.
Traditional religiously defined marriage is exactly that, a religious thing -- the government shouldn't have anything to do with that. Just because you went to church and said 'I do' with God and your wife, that shouldn't entitle you to tax cuts or any other legally defined privilege (and it doesn't). A contract that you agree to (with the State) should do that (and it does). So really, your argument is that the word 'Marriage' should not be used to describe that State contract, I tend to agree with you.
If the argument against same-sex marriage is a religious one, then this also serves as an argument against legal marriage
in general
, because allowing religious principles to guide legislation in any way is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Post by
Dragoonman
Homosexuality is of course deemed abomination by the Bible.
However, I believe that equality of humans is in this case necessary to uphold. After all, this is what America was founded upon. Equality above all else.
Personally, I do not believe in homosexuality, and find it... gross, for lack of a better word.
However, this is America, and compromises must be made. No consequences should come from letting homosexuals be homosexual. So let them be free.
We need more equality and freedom still. Here's to logic.
P.S. There is marriage under law and under God. I think marriage licenses should not be required if it is under God, but under law, it is understandable. But I think marriage under law should be called something else as well...
Post by
Squishalot
Why doesn't legalized baptism exist?
It's generally called 'dunking', that is, to act in a way resulting in someone being immersed fully in water. And it's not illegal (although it's also not considered important enough to bother legislating about). And as Heckler pointed out, if
legalised
secular baptism provided government benefits and privileges (and responsibilities), then it should be regulated and be free and open to all people.
His point is that because legal marriage does exist it should be regulatable. My point is that legal marriage shouldn't exist.
What on earth are you calling 'legal' marriage? When did I introduce that? I didn't.
There is a secular definition of the term 'marriage' that has been adopted by most governments around the world. The term 'marriage', in that context, should not be mistaken for the word 'marriage' in the context of the Bible.
What you're saying is that "
governments shouldn't use the word 'marriage' or 'marry', because they have specific meanings in the Bible
". I say that argument is a load of crap. "God" has a specific meaning in the Bible, which is clearly distinguishable from the secular / non-denominational word "god" describing a supernatural, overseeing deity. What other words do you think should have specific meanings that governments and linguists can't touch? Offering? Idol? Bible? Egypt?
A secular government is perfectly entitled to use the term 'marry' if they so wish. It might be confusing for some people, but it's not 'wrong', and it's not that difficult to tell the difference.
Just because you went to church and said 'I do' with God and your wife, that shouldn't entitle you to tax cuts or any other legally defined privilege (and it doesn't). A contract that you agree to (with the State) should do that (and it does).
And this is why you are required to have a state recognised celebrant preside over a wedding, indeed...
So really, your argument is that the word 'Marriage' should not be used to describe that State contract, I tend to agree with you.
But to this, I disagree. Following on from my argument to MyTie about the word 'marriage', why should we be restricted from using a term, no matter its origins? Language evolves. I don't believe that laws and society as a whole should be beholden to paticular forms of words used in the past. Otherwise, realistically, we'd be referring to "gay marriage" as "the union between two
happy
people under God". Are we not allowed to use the term 'gay' to refer to homosexual men either, simply because it refers to something different in a different context?
P.S. There is marriage under law and under God. I think marriage licenses should not be required if it is under God, but under law, it is understandable. But I think marriage under law should be called something else as well...
If a marriage is only under God and not licensed 'under law' (or registered with state authorities, at least), then why should the state provide you with any benefits attributable to marriage under law?
Post by
Heckler
So really, your argument is that the word 'Marriage' should not be used to describe that State contract, I tend to agree with you.
But to this, I disagree. Following on from my argument to MyTie about the word 'marriage', why should we be restricted from using a term, no matter its origins? Language evolves.
I don't believe that laws and society as a whole should be beholden to paticular forms of words used in the past.
I agree with this as well, my point is simply that
if
everyone who is against "gay marriage" will acknowledge that they are simply against the word choice, then changing the word (for everyone) is a valid compromise. However, most people will not explicitly admit this (even if it's true) because it sounds ridiculous (because it is), or they are simply anti-gay (which they also won't admit explicitly) -- so that compromise will never be made.
But the important thing to note (as the Judge did in his ruling) is that every single argument against gay marriage (which also leaves the current state-recognized version of heterosexual marriage intact) completely falls apart when examined through this lens (that is, there is not one single secular argument to be made that is simultaneously
against
gay marriage and
pro
heterosexual marriage, at least not one that I've heard, except that 'a majority of the voters don't want it' -- well a majority of voters didn't always want to end slavery or grant women's suffrage either. Luckily,
rights
are not subject to simple majority desire).
This means that there is no argument whatsoever against gay marriage that can be made, in a legal sense, without also attacking the current marriage which affords you tax cuts and everything else. From a legal standpoint, this is important, because it means that even if 99% of the voters wanted to make it illegal for gays to marry, they
can't
, unless they also remove state recognition of heterosexual marriage altogether (which they would never do, were it put up for a vote, although it's still worth discussion).
So, in my opinion, if the effort to stop gay marriage continues to be a solely religious effort, it will fail a Constitutional test
every
time -- eventually gay marriage will be legal everywhere. This doesn't mean that the Government is going to force
churches
to let gays marry, although it could eventually mean that discrimination against gays by churches would result in removal of their tax exempt status. But tax exemption is a
privilege
, not a right, and if an organization is not willing to follow the rules of the privilege, then they have to pay taxes just like everyone else (if a church chooses to change its principles rather than pay taxes, those principles probably weren't all that strong to begin with). To give them special treatment or respect or exemption
simply
because they are a religious institution would, again, be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Post by
Squishalot
My point is simply that if everyone who is against "gay marriage" will acknowledge that they are simply against the word choice, then changing the word (for everyone) is a valid compromise.
As trivial as it sounds, it sets a horribly bad precedent for every single other word in the Bible. Or any other religious book, for that matter. Such a compromise isn't valid, if you ask me.
there is not one single secular argument to be made that is simultaneously against gay marriage and pro heterosexual marriage
Fully agree. I'm fine with the fact that the ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. I'm not making any argument about that. I'm putting forth the point that there shouldn't be an any argument over the validity (or whether they should, generally) of the government to regulate marriage at all in the first place, which is what MyTie and Hyper are arguing.
This doesn't mean that the Government is going to force churches to let gays marry, although it could eventually mean that discrimination against gays by churches would result in removal of their tax exempt status.
This here is a very interesting point. I actually read the same question being applied in local politics, with the point being that churches that get involved in political advertising (the Catholic Church issued a statement condemning the Australian Greens Party) should face their tax exemption status being removed.
Having said that, many churches that I know will already discriminate against people not of their denomination / religion. How is that any different?
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The clergy has proven to be the most parasitic and bigoted entity in history-- they're the last people that should be dictating who can marry who.LOL
Yeah. I agree. God should be the decider, not the 'clergy'. I don't even know what 'the clergy' is.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Here is an interesting queston I've heard recently to do with this topic:
Scientists discover what causes people to be homosexual and create an injection which when given to small children prevents them from being homosexual when they are adults.
Would this be morally ethical, should it be mandatory?
Hmmm... good question. Since I consider homosexuality to be morally wrong, then it might be a possibility, like any other unmoral attribute. Like a shot that prevented assaultive behavor, or selfishness, or gluttony, or drunkeness... etc... Then again I don't know that I would trust such a shot.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
kattib
Yeah. I agree. God should be the decider, not the 'clergy'.
Alright then, you get your god to come down and tell us whats right. I mean he sort of hasnt talked to us for a while. If stopping homosexuality is so important to him why doesnt he do something?
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
kattib
Its the type of question that show religion and this all powerful God to be something that is a non-factor
Post by
Squishalot
MyTie - did you have any response to my thoughts?
Post by
Monday
and had a group of zealots running smear ads and campaigns against it.
I resent this sentence ^.
And as for the ruling, I honestly don't care whether gay couples can get married or not. I just think it is stupid that a single judge could make that decision (I know people consider banning gay marriage to be unconstitutional, but I still don't think one person should have the power to overturn a majority ruling).
Edit:
Alright then, you get your god to come down and tell us whats right.
I mean he sort of hasnt talked to us for a while
. If stopping homosexuality is so important to him why doesnt he do something?
Yes He has. Maybe not to you, but you don't sound like a person He'd talk to, now do you?
Why dosnt he do something about terrorists, why dosnt he do something about wars, why dosnt he do something about diseases.
People ask this question over and over. Simple, life is a test. Why should he print the answers on the back?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.