Religion is notorious 4 stealin established secular cultures n revamping them as tho original. Marriage is 1 of them. Its origins predate most religions. In European history, marriage was a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential. Ironically, Ruth in the Bible professes her luv to Naomi which is now used as the most popular xtian wedding vows today, but gay marriage isnt allowed?
I like how you think. If the government would think that way then someone would just create a new religion and gay people could be married at the church of that new religion. Who could then complain?
I think 'Should gay marriage be legal?' is the wrong question. The right one is: 'Why in the world *shouldn't* it?'
And, no, marriage is NOT a religious institution! There are so many legal aspects to it, so many rights that are automatically granted to wed couples that unwed ones would have to literally buy one by one to get the same level of security for each other!
Marriage is an all-in-one package of legal rights. And everyone has the same right to get this package if they want to have it.
I think you went partway there. Marriage is indeed a religious institution, and the government shouldn't be involved with it. But the government shouldn't have *anything* to do with it. If you want to be married, go to your church or make your own secular commitment.
The government interests are in things like finances and the raising of children. These interests can all be satisfied with civil contracts.
The answer to the gay marriage controversy? Make all marraiges civil unions.
liberos there are practical advantages to being married in the eyes of the state. if there were none i would expect the amount of atheist marriages to sharply decline. Also the point of the video is to say that marriage started as a religious practice and the constitution gives religious freedom; yet there are laws limiting marriage. And to enigmatically the government offered gay civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage but the gay community fought for equal rights
I think you made an error calling marriage only a religious institution. Does that mean when an atheist couple gets married by a judge they've participated in a religious ceremony that just happens to be recognized by the state? Or is it more likely that marriage is a state recognized legal contract that can sometimes be symbolically finalized (after the legal contract has been approved by the state) with a religious ceremony.
I'm sorry to disagree with you in this regard, but I don't think a marriage in judges chambers constitutes a religious ceremony. It's hardly a ceremony at all, more like a contract being finalized verbally.
You can hold the opinion that marriage is inherently religious, no one can fault you there, because historically it is. Maybe law school has made me cynical but, as far as the law is concerned, modern marriage is little more than a binding legal contract.
Absolutely, you are absolutely right on that point.
And for the same reason we should stop putting so much importance on marriage, however, we do need to maintain the established legal precedence of marriage if only for the tax benefit. We also need to extend the right of marriage to all people regardless of sexual orientation, in accordance to the equal protection clause.
Ideally, the government should get out of the marriage business and just allow civil unions between any two consenting adults. The word "marriage" has so many religious connotations, but civil unions are clear in their intent.
Gay people aren't pissed off over a particular religious group validating their union, they are pissed off because the government won't recognize same-sex unions but they do recognize heterosexual unions.
that recognition has serious financial and social impilciations
Unitarian Universalist, Presbyterian, some Quaker churches, most of Buddhism, and most Pagan and new age religions support gay marriage. Also several Jewish, Christian, Methodist... etc. sects do as well.
The problem is that there are a number of legal rights accorded to married couples. A consequence of your argument here would be that such recognition of marriage is unconstitutional.
The alternative is that the government can adopt the term marriage in the legal sense and discard all the religious based material from it, including man and woman clause (Puts me in the mind of the onions man and wolfman joke).
Either all should be recognised or none should be.
I have no objection to that. But it is the legal framework around these religious constructs that applies them to both religious and governmental institutions, and is the real crux of the debate, at least on the part of those who want homosexuals to have the same rights as everyone else.
As for religions that support gay marriage. I do believe that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is for it.
Religion has condoned incest, concubines, polygamy, and other things.
Keep religion our of marriage, oops, I mean "federal partnerships".
However, there are many churches, like Unitarian, that allow SSM. And probably temples for Shinto, Buddhist, Jainist, Hindu, and Neopagan religions.
Mectrixctic 10 months ago
the act of holy matrimony is a religious thing, marriage is NOT a religious thing
thasparkman 2 years ago
Maybe I should start my own religion, this gives another reason.
zendarx2 2 years ago
Religion is notorious 4 stealin established secular cultures n revamping them as tho original. Marriage is 1 of them. Its origins predate most religions. In European history, marriage was a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential. Ironically, Ruth in the Bible professes her luv to Naomi which is now used as the most popular xtian wedding vows today, but gay marriage isnt allowed?
themanuman 2 years ago 2
I like how you think. If the government would think that way then someone would just create a new religion and gay people could be married at the church of that new religion. Who could then complain?
WarmWeatherGuy 2 years ago
I think 'Should gay marriage be legal?' is the wrong question. The right one is: 'Why in the world *shouldn't* it?'
And, no, marriage is NOT a religious institution! There are so many legal aspects to it, so many rights that are automatically granted to wed couples that unwed ones would have to literally buy one by one to get the same level of security for each other!
Marriage is an all-in-one package of legal rights. And everyone has the same right to get this package if they want to have it.
janeyanna 2 years ago 3
Plus: There doesn't have to be a church ceremony involved in a marriage; religion is an entirely optional part. That's why Atheists can marry, too.
janeyanna 2 years ago
I think you went partway there. Marriage is indeed a religious institution, and the government shouldn't be involved with it. But the government shouldn't have *anything* to do with it. If you want to be married, go to your church or make your own secular commitment.
The government interests are in things like finances and the raising of children. These interests can all be satisfied with civil contracts.
The answer to the gay marriage controversy? Make all marraiges civil unions.
Naiant 2 years ago
guess its hard to define "establish" religion. what exactly counts as establish? since Scientology cults are now saying they are a religion.
ccaptorchen 2 years ago
liberos there are practical advantages to being married in the eyes of the state. if there were none i would expect the amount of atheist marriages to sharply decline. Also the point of the video is to say that marriage started as a religious practice and the constitution gives religious freedom; yet there are laws limiting marriage. And to enigmatically the government offered gay civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage but the gay community fought for equal rights
Scienceprevails 2 years ago
I think you made an error calling marriage only a religious institution. Does that mean when an atheist couple gets married by a judge they've participated in a religious ceremony that just happens to be recognized by the state? Or is it more likely that marriage is a state recognized legal contract that can sometimes be symbolically finalized (after the legal contract has been approved by the state) with a religious ceremony.
liberosveritas 2 years ago
Libero,
Marriage is a religious institution.
Even if atheists get married, yes, they are participating in a religious ritual.
That's why most atheists just live together until they need the government benefits that marriage brings.
Most atheists recognize it as such.
They usually try to avoid the ritualistic aspect though.
If I'm wrong, please correct me, but the information I've gathered from friends who are atheist and from online tells me this is true.
corthew 2 years ago
I'm sorry to disagree with you in this regard, but I don't think a marriage in judges chambers constitutes a religious ceremony. It's hardly a ceremony at all, more like a contract being finalized verbally.
You can hold the opinion that marriage is inherently religious, no one can fault you there, because historically it is. Maybe law school has made me cynical but, as far as the law is concerned, modern marriage is little more than a binding legal contract.
liberosveritas 2 years ago 2
And when we talk about the constitution we are talking about a legal document, literally a list of laws that serve to govern and/or protect.
liberosveritas 2 years ago
No argument there.
But you must admit that the significance we give to the act of marriage is based on religious dogma.
The importance of being married beyond the recognition of a bond between two people , is questionable.
I have known many perfectly happy couples who never married.
Religion defines marriage as necessary.
And because of that belief, many who would be happier otherwise, do end up getting married.
corthew 2 years ago
Absolutely, you are absolutely right on that point.
And for the same reason we should stop putting so much importance on marriage, however, we do need to maintain the established legal precedence of marriage if only for the tax benefit. We also need to extend the right of marriage to all people regardless of sexual orientation, in accordance to the equal protection clause.
liberosveritas 2 years ago
We are in agreement then. :)
corthew 2 years ago
nah as an athiest i cant say its just for the benefits i see marriage as an expreshen of love like embracing one anuther.
kind of like how birds and reptiles do mating rituals, just a little more complicated.
as for wich religions have no problem
pretty much the intire pagen comunity
and some people of jesus. religion is bull has no set standerds.
nezahualcoyotl85 2 years ago
Ideally, the government should get out of the marriage business and just allow civil unions between any two consenting adults. The word "marriage" has so many religious connotations, but civil unions are clear in their intent.
Gay people aren't pissed off over a particular religious group validating their union, they are pissed off because the government won't recognize same-sex unions but they do recognize heterosexual unions.
that recognition has serious financial and social impilciations
enigmatically 2 years ago 2
As long as they receive same benefits as married couples do i don't see what's the big deal.
denismul 2 years ago
Flying Spagetti Monster...I thought my son made that up.
:)
Thank's for the article. That was hilarious. LOL
I love the line, "the only union sanctioned in God's eyes is the union between a man and another man possessed by an ungodly lupine curse".
I love the Onion. Thanks. :)
corthew 2 years ago
I don't believe in any form of marriage.
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
i agree
camera31 2 years ago
Well, being a sweatytoothmadman, I would assume you don't get many proposals so it's not an issue for you. :)
corthew 2 years ago
Unitarian Universalist, Presbyterian, some Quaker churches, most of Buddhism, and most Pagan and new age religions support gay marriage. Also several Jewish, Christian, Methodist... etc. sects do as well.
MageGrayWolf 2 years ago
MageGrayWolf,
Thanks for the input.
corthew 2 years ago
The problem is that there are a number of legal rights accorded to married couples. A consequence of your argument here would be that such recognition of marriage is unconstitutional.
The alternative is that the government can adopt the term marriage in the legal sense and discard all the religious based material from it, including man and woman clause (Puts me in the mind of the onions man and wolfman joke).
Either all should be recognised or none should be.
GrouchyPickle 2 years ago
Ok...I'm unfamiliar with the onions man and wolfman joke.
I'll have to look that up.
On the point you brought up about the legal rights for married couples, I assume you're talking about the financial benifits.
That's a tough one.
The Government must have a definition of marriage to give benifits.
If it uses the religious definition it would have to adopt contradictory definitions.
Maybe legally all marriages should be called civil unions.
Let people call it what they will.
corthew 2 years ago
That way everyone can be equally pissed off. :)
corthew 2 years ago
I have no objection to that. But it is the legal framework around these religious constructs that applies them to both religious and governmental institutions, and is the real crux of the debate, at least on the part of those who want homosexuals to have the same rights as everyone else.
As for religions that support gay marriage. I do believe that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is for it.
Link to wolfman article sent in PM.
GrouchyPickle 2 years ago