Originally posted by PsychoPawn . However, the government should not be taking on a definition of marriage that is primarily rooted in religion.[/b]
Interesting. So you would favor the courts rulings as to whether or not gays can or cannot get married as the wrong thing to do? Should the courts simply stay out of it and leave it up to religion?
Originally posted by whodey Interesting. So you would favor the courts rulings as to whether or not gays can or cannot get married as the wrong thing to do? Should the courts simply stay out of it and leave it up to religion?
I think religious entities can define "marriage" however they want - but they shouldn't get any specific benefits legally from it (i.e. tax benefits, the ability to use the spouse's work health insurance, etc).
If they get married legally (i.e. registered as a married couple with the gov't) then they get those benefits, but a gay couple should be equally eligible for a legal marriage.
I don't really get what you are asking. I think the courts shouldn't be ruling on morality either - the courts shouldn't be ruling whether gay people getting married is the "wrong" thing to do, nor whether it is the "right" thing to do.
However, gay people should be able to get married just like any other human being.
On a side note, marriage isn't really rooted in religion. At all. The church didn't really endorse marriage until the eleventh century; by that time people had been entering into legal marriages, administrated by whatever government or tribal authority, for over 3,000 years. The first marriage records we have are from Mesopotamia circa 2500 BCE and they're clearly legal contracts, outlining the agreement of marriage and the monetary provisions of that agreement. There doesn't seem to have been any explicit religious element.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn [b]I think religious entities can define "marriage" however they want - but they shouldn't get any specific benefits legally from it (i.e. tax benefits, the ability to use the spouse's work health insurance, etc).
Why should married folks not get tax benefits or any other benefits? Why is this moral judgment of yours "good"?
Originally posted by PsychoPawn If they get married legally (i.e. registered as a married couple with the gov't) then they get those benefits, but a gay couple should be equally eligible for a legal marriage.
Now you are confusing me. On the one hand you say that married folks should not benefit from being married on the other hand you say that gay marriages should recieve benefits that other married people receive even though, in your opinoin, they should not be?
I don't really get what you are asking. I think the courts shouldn't be ruling on morality either - the courts shouldn't be ruling whether gay people getting married is the "wrong" thing to do, nor whether it is the "right" thing to do.
However, gay people should be able to get married just like any other human being.[/b]
So now on the one hand government should not be getting involved in saying who should be getting married and who should not be, however, the right thing to do is to allow gays to marry? Are you saying that government should not be getting involved even though it is the "right thing" to do?
Originally posted by whodey Now you are confusing me. On the one hand you say that married folks should not benefit from being married on the other hand you say that gay marriages should recieve benefits that other married people receive even though, in your opinoin, they should not be?
There's a difference between the definition of marriage that the government has and the ones based on the church's law.
There isn't any contradiction.
The catholic church, for example, doesn't allow you to get married twice - the law does.
If you get divorced then the catholic church still considers you to be married. If you get divorced you should not enjoy the tax benefits of being married just because the catholic church still considers you to be.
It's the legal definition of whether you are married or not that counts, not the religious.
Originally posted by whodey So now on the one hand government should not be getting involved in saying who should be getting married and who should not be, however, the right thing to do is to allow gays to marry? Are you saying that government should not be getting involved even though it is the "right thing" to do?
The government needs to have a definition of marriage in order to determine who gets the tax benefits and other benefits from being married.
The government's definition is discriminatory IF it excludes homosexuals from getting married.
The government's definition should not be discriminatory and hence should include gay marriage.
If you want to maintain your religious beliefs that gay marriage isn't really marriage, that's your own problem. Just don't make the government legislate discriminatory laws just because you can't fathom two gay people loving eachother as much as straight people.
Originally posted by whodey It seems to me that you view suffering in terms of religion being involved in politics. I think your ideal world would be if there were no religion in the world whatsoever. Then we would enter into some type of utoipia or better world. I think we all have a devil or that which we think causes the world to run amock. It appears that God is your devil, no?
I don't believe god causes anything to run amok. I believe that all things that run amok have natural causes. People who pretend to 'know' the word of god are frequently that cause. So god is not my devil. You are.
But if god DID exist then he would necessarily be the cause of everything that runs amok. Nothing could run amok without his knowledge, his input, or his consent.
Originally posted by whodey So you are essentially saying that no one is fit for public office? I know of no one who represents ALL their constituents all the time nor do I know of anyone who has the ability to be impartial 100% of the time nor do I know of anyone who checks their morals at the door. The mere fact that you say one should disregard their religious beliefs and uphold t ...[text shortened]... tself. I guess so long as morals are devoid of the God equation then morals are OK to have, no?
Obviously nobody is perfect. But impartiality is the standard that should be aspired to for public servants.
Originally posted by whodey The right to refer to marriage as between a man and a woman would be infringed upon because it would no longer mean this particular union. In fact, I could marry my car if I so desired.
I define death as a particular state or the end of the life cycle of an organism. So when you Christians give the word a different meaning you are infringing on my rights. Should I be allowed to sue you? And why does your right to refer to marriage as between a man and a woman carry more weight than my right to refer to marriage as between a man and 5 women or a gay mans right to refer to marriage as between a man and another man? Who gave you sole mandate on the word?
I think it is merely a right to have terms have meaning and clarity rather than ambiguity That is a lie. That is not your reason at all. The term would have just as much meaning and clarity if it referred to a union between two people of what ever sex. In fact it would be rigorously and legally defined in proper legal speak leaving no room for doubt whatsoever.
Don't forget that you have the right to continue calling a couple whatever you like, the issue is what the government will use as the legal term. As pointed out by others, the church or an individual is free to refuse to acknowledge a marriage or a divorce. It is perfectly possible to get married in Church without any legal marriage whatsoever, or to get married legally without any church recognizing it.
Next you will be claiming that a relationship should not be called marriage unless it has been sanctified by God in a Church (your denomination only perhaps?).
24 Jan '08 19:261 edit
Martin Luther King Day
Back to Top