OK. I don't remember where I said I would discuss this, so I am starting another thread... I apologize if it causes confusion to anyone.

If I may be so bold, may I ask for a couple of suggestions in this thread.

1. No name calling or stereotying. There are a lot of good thinkers in this forum, and I would love to have you all interact with my thought process here.

2. No lefty/Righty stuff. I really want an open discussion....PLEASE??
_________________________________________

Why am I against legal Gay marriage?

Premise: It violates my freedom of religion whereas "civil unions" does not violate my freedom of religion.


To begin, we need to define what and where the idea of "marriage" came from.

Many cultures have a social contract where a man and woman come together and form a legal unit. The social contract based on civil code of society. As a result, the civil contract may be changed as society changes.

Christianity does not believe that a union of man and woman is a civil contract. We believe that it is a covenant between man/woman and God. How is that different from other religions? Most other religions do not hold the union as a covenant. Even Judaism (Closest relative of Christianity), while holding that God is involved in the union, sees it primary as a civil union (Ketubah see definition here. To my recollection, outside of Christianity, only Seihkism (or was it Jainism.. I don't remember) holds a definition of union close to Christianity.

Thus, the idea of a union of man and wife is universal, but the idea of a covenant agreement between man, woman, and God, is specific to Christianity. There is therefore, a distinction between unions and marriage.

Then why is there only one word in english... marriage?

The answer is found in history. All the gov'ts in Europe where influenced by the Roman Catholic church, which held hedgemony over culture (I think we all know and agree to this, so I will fast forward through it). As a result, they all held the SAME view of union, making the state and church unions synonymous... and thus, marriage and civil union synonymous.

The result-- is one word to describe all legally recognized unions, regardless of sex. Marriage.

However, the word and idea of "marriage" (not social contracts) is still a Christian institution. As such, no govt. should have ANY authority over marriage, INCLUDING issuing marriage licenses and determining tax laws.

Marriage, being a christian (and possibly Seihkist(?) instituion... I really should look up which religion that is... but am just too lazy tonight)should remain the SOLE authority of the church to engage in.

The federal govt. should ONLY be allowed to produce documents for civil unions. All tax laws should be based off of civil unions. All insurance, right of survivorship, etc. laws should be based on civil unions.


However, when I am being told that my RELIGIOUS covenant called marriage is being reinterpreted by the state, when the state is specifically ruling against the involvement of religion in the state... I feel that my freedom of religion is being denied, because the state is telling me how part of my belief system (marriage and marriage covenant) must be defined.


So I say, CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL.

If you want a marriage... Go to a church.

If a man and a woman are not Christian, can their union still be called a marriage?

Great post, Preach. I agree 100%

I agree 100%. Get ready for the onslaught.

quote:

Originally posted by Preacher:
As such, no govt. should have ANY authority over marriage, INCLUDING issuing marriage licenses and determining tax laws.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's....."

Basically I think the defense of marriage is way, way down the line of things we need to worry about. Hard to believe that some people think homosexuality is based on choice. Sure some people are freaks, but that 10% does not mean the other 90% are faking it. Too many gay people in this world for it to be a matter of distorted genes. In that vein, I say let them have their unions and every benefit that comes with it.

Preacher, I totally get what you are saying...but here is the glitch.

The recognition of gay 'marriage' is ONLY a legal issue...as there are already plenty of Christian churches that are willing to perform the ceremonies. I know these are 'gay' churches for the most part, but they are Christian just the same. So, unless the Christian church as a whole has excommunicated these parishes, they would be seen as condoning the practice of gay marriage.

As for the GOVERNMENT recognizing gay 'marriage'. I don't care if they call it a union or marriage. It all adds up to a 'couple' either receiving governmental benefits or not...and that is the purvue of the government. But basically we are just dealing with semantics here.

So, if you don't agree with gay 'marriage', I think it is incumbant on you (especially considering your profession) to petition the Christian church to take action against the churches that perform and recognize these marriages. Let the government decide how/if it wants to recognize any marriage/union of the same sex variety.

I have to disagree here Preacher. Why are you so concerned about what word the government uses? If your only concern is differentiation between the government's involvement and the Church's, why not just use a new word? Jesus wasnt speaking English, so "marriage" never crossed his lips.

Preacher, I don't think there's anything to this argument.

The question of gay marriage simply has nothing to do with Christian marriage, or any religious marriage ceremony. As far as the state is concerned, the term "marriage" has no religious meaning - it's simply the bundle of rights and privileges bestowed on to the two people who agree to enter into the marriage.

Nor is marriage a Christian institution. Jews can marry other Jews, atheists can marry Muslims, Scientologists can marry Hindus. You seem to think that if the two people involved don't believe that the marriage involves a convenant with a Christian God it's not marriage. That's simply not true, at least as far as the state is concerned. And that's not the position of any church I'm aware of. And I would imagine it's not really your position either. I could be wrong. Are you really saying that any of the pairings I just listed above aren't marriages? If you're not two Christians entering into a covenant with God it's not a marriage, just a civil union?

Or look at it the other way: if it's true, as you say, that Christians don't look at marriage as a civil contract, but only a religious one, why do you bother with all of that paperwork? Well, because Christians always want the civil benefits that come with marriage as well as the religious ones. And that's all we're talking about here - the civil benefits of marriage. Again, no one is saying that your church has to perform gay marriages. You can keep your idea of "the sanctity of marriage" if you like. The state doesn't sanctify anything anyway; churches do that.

I've never heard anyone make the argument you're making here - that marriage is a Christian institution, and anyone who isn't Christian isn't really getting married, they're just entering into a union. That's nonsense.

I don't believe my marriage was a covenant between me and my wife and a Christian God. Am I married, according to you?

But there is one interesting thing to add on here, and it's that the California decision does agree with you, although in a different way. They said the state can stop calling it marriage if they want, and can leave that term to the churches. They could start issuing "civil unions for all" as you say. They simply said that if the state is going to contnue to use the word "marriage" to describe the institution - as they do now, no matter what religious affiliation the two people claim - marriage must be available to all Californians, regardless of their sexual orientation.

And if you decide to call what the state does "civil unions" it has to be available to all Californians as well.

But back to your original point - that gay marriage violates your freedom of religion - that's simply not true. You're free to practice any religion you want. Nobody has violated that freedom here simply by using the term "marriage." Your religion is still free to define it as they wish.

quote:

Actually Toop, one might ask the exact same question to those who support the idea.
No?
WSS

No. We arent going to unravel government sanctioned heterosexual marriage anytime soon, so we have to deal with the reality of the situation. Preacher's suggestion of "CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL" implies no discrimination between straight or gay. Since straight marriage is going to be called "marriage" for the foreseeable future, "those who support the idea" want equal treatment, and equal treatment means use of the word "marriage". It is so ingrained in society now that Preacher doesnt have the option of turning the clock back 500 years to reclaim it.

And, even with that said, I dont see where the word "marriage" is a strictly Christian one. I dont see it claimed as such in the Bible. If it is, I will gladly reevaluate my position, although the fact that the NT was largely written in Greek makes me doubt that it would be impossible to find a comparable translation for whatever word it is that Preacher is valuing so highly. For example, if Christians think the joining of man and woman to become one flesh is a covenant deeper than that recognized by other religions, then why not call it a covenant?

I'll mention also that this is coming from a devout Christian.

However, the word and idea of "marriage" (not social contracts) is still a Christian institution. As such, no govt. should have ANY authority over marriage, INCLUDING issuing marriage licenses and determining tax laws.

Marriage, being a christian (and possibly Seihkist(?) instituion... I really should look up which religion that is... but am just too lazy tonight)should remain the SOLE authority of the church to engage in.

The idea of marriage IS NOT A CHRISTIAN INSTITUTION YOUR RELIGION IS LESS THAN 3000 YEARS OLD.

the actual word itself and its origin again is not christian in its sole implication.

Synonyms 3. matrimony. Marriage, wedding, nuptials are terms for the ceremony uniting couples in wedlock. Marriage is the simple and usual term, without implications as to circumstances and without emotional connotations: to announce the marriage of a daughter. Wedding has rather strong emotional, even sentimental, connotations, and suggests the accompanying festivities, whether elaborate or simple: a beautiful wedding; a reception after the wedding. Nuptials is a formal and lofty word applied to the ceremony and attendant social events; it does not have emotional connotations but strongly implies surroundings characteristic of wealth, rank, pomp, and grandeur: royal nuptials. It appears frequently on newspaper society pages chiefly as a result of the attempt to avoid continual repetition of marriage and wedding. 5. alliance, confederation; weld, junction.

You are getting caught up in the importance of a word that defines an event and it relevance toward official government recognition. The concept of unions between biological mother and fathers was one that has no religous foundings. The concept of alliance's between two humans to share rescources in order to increase the chance of survival of their offspring is one that many animals share and practice.

The definition of the process has been one that actually started THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE CHRISTIANITY IN SUMERIA. The oldest known actual "civilization" that obviously were not christians.

NO church especially the christian church has ANY authority or ownership of the idea of unions between humans. Unbiased history and biology as well as social anthropology has proven the concept of biological as well as communal alliances to raise offspring by sharing rescources is much older than ANY ORGANIZED SYSTEM OF BELIEFS.

I do agree with you preacher that if your religion wants to place a "christian authority on a christian ceremony by its private members" it can obviouosly do so. The idea that ANY RELIGION has any historical authority on the concept is completely wrong and not based on any truth what so ever.

I needed to edit my last paragraph because after reading it I realized I was wrong.

As our government and tax/state laws treat marriage as a business entity that shares rescources and ownership in income and assets. This basically is a financial partnership with specific rights associated with this government recognized entity.

The freedom of religion also means that certain views that certain religions have are not legally allowed to be forced on non members of that religion. I think that a majority of people who back same sex civil unions are fighting for the legal tax/asset recognition along with the rights afforded to each partner for rescource pooling. They are not petitioning your church to recognize that (I know there is a fight within your religion about that, but that is not my concern). Your religion has no ownership of the concept of what defines a "marriage" therefore it has no rights to "own" the concept and try to basically copyright the word.

quote:

All I meant to ask is that IF the word isn't the important thing here then why wouldn't a civil union that included the legal "rights" be acceptable?
WSS

I think I answered that. The word becomes important when it is a point of government differentiation between straight or gay couples. This isnt a perfect example, but imagine if black people were treated exactly the same under law as white people, except that they were called "residents" instead of "citizens". It makes no legal difference, but it would be a social disaster.

One other take on the issue:


Top 12 Reasons Why Homosexuals Shouldn't Be Allowed to Marry

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like left handedness.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile
couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs
more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed,
since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at
all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the
majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the
rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the
values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have
only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal
standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at
home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer
lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a
different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is
always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as
well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

That is the dispute right there, but it also sort of answers its own question.

If the word "marriage" isn't the important thing, why would you need to create a separate institution? Why not just make it available to all citizens? You'd want to create a separate institution if the word "marriage" was important, or meant something specific.

And while it might in the religious sense, or in some religions anyway, we're talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

I think the counter argument is that the term "marriage" is important, not that it isn't. And I'd agree that it is important.

quote:

but imagine if black people were treated exactly the same under law as white people, except that they were called "residents" instead of "citizens".

Your comparing race to sexual preference. This argument does not work.

quote:

The idea of marriage IS NOT A CHRISTIAN INSTITUTION YOUR RELIGION IS LESS THAN 3000 YEARS OLD.

I think you are missing the point of his argument. He doesnt deny that people everywhere throughout history, of all religions, have joined men and women to become spouses and start families. He is saying that Christianity treats it in a specific way, and that treatment is identified by the word "marriage".

I just dont understand how he concludes that the word is a specifically Christian one, or that it is so important that it makes it difficult for Christians to explain the importance of the marriage covenant if it is used publicly.

Tupa, it almost seems like you ...agree with the California decision. Is that right?