The Sanctity of Marriage

[hive_king]

Often, when discussing gay marriage, the phrase "sanctity of marriage" is thrown around. Can someone please explain to me exactly how Bob and Steve getting married somehow has a negative effect on or makes less special their straight neighbors' marriage?

[eriador]

Well, if men could marry other men, then those campaigning against gay marriage might just be tempted to marry a man. In other words, the "Sanctity of Marriage" is just a phrase to cover up the insecurity that the opponents of gay marriage feel.

[hive_king]

Nice slur, Fetus, but I'm sure there's alot more to it than the sexual questioning of the opposition.

[Fish Tank]

Marriage is suppose to be a sacred thing between a man and a woman who in 5 years will decide they hate each other.


Ahhh sanctity.

[wizzard]

"The sanctity of marriage" means that to some people, the term marriage refers to a sacred, religious connection between a man and a woman. If you call Bob and Steve's relationship a marriage, it puts it on the same religious level, which is contradictory to certain religions.

At least, that's how I understand it.

[eriador]

Yes, but how does that detract from other marriages?

[Fish Tank]

They make other marriages look like a joke if you let two men or two women get married.

Why? It's already been said, because marriage is a sacred act between a man and a woman. Most religions look at homosexuality in a negative light. Therefore letting homosexuals get married somehow diminishes the act between a man and a woman.


From what I understand.

Personally I couldn't care less.

[LilBee91]

Yes, but how does that detract from other marriages?

It doesn't detract from other marriages. It degrades the ideal of sacred marriage between a man and woman. Calling union between two of the same sex "marriage" destroys the holy meaning many attach to the agreement. It's kind of like the reasoning behind not taking the Lord's name in vain. Using the term lightly and broadly decreases its significance. At least, that's how I understand it.

[luminousnerd]

"Marriage" was started by religious folk. It is something that has sort of transferred ownership, so that instead of a religious ceremony it is a bond between any two people, regardless of beliefs. But the word belongs to those who made it, I think.

If you are going to legalize gay marriage as it is defined today, do it by changing the word marriage to something else, ie Permanent Partnership (hah, that's a laugh) or something like that, and give them all the rights that married couples currently have.

I think that is fine and fair (though most of the people who oppose gay marriage do so because of their beliefs and would dislike this solution). Personally, I used to oppose gay partnerships, and on a moral level I still do. But I also think that religion is a personal choice, and in this nation, people should have the freedom to do as they pleace.

Still, the word marriage belongs to "us" (meaning the people who coined it). Marriage simply isn't between two men or two women. It's between a man and a woman, by original definition.

[anonshadow]

The US Constitution and government originally belonged to the white man.

Oh. Right. That hasn't changed.

Never mind. I was going to say something about how institutions change, and new definitions and privileges get added in as people stand up and demand equal rights, etc, etc. I was also going to say something about the legality of having something that is being defined as a religious institution as offering rights from the federal government. Silly me.

Sarcasm aside--

Please give me a source on marriage being started by religious people. Because, see, marriage was everywhere, and it was everywhere long before Christianity and Islam (who seem to have the biggest gripe with gay marriage) existed.

[Jayelle]

Not entirely on topic, but I'd just like to say... not all Christians disapprove of gay marriage. I'm a Christain, I work in a church and I am fine with gay marriage (by a justice of the peace).

[Sibyl]

Please give me a source on marriage being started by religious people. Because, see, marriage was everywhere, and it was everywhere long before Christianity and Islam (who seem to have the biggest gripe with gay marriage) existed.

Marriage has existed in all cultures, all religions and none.

But as far as Islam "having a gripe" with gay marriage, that's the understatement of the year. Any kind of homosexual act, forget marriage, if caught, gets the death penalty in countries where Islamic law prevails.

Many Christians, OTOH, have no problem with it. Those who do have a problem, still don't tend to want to execute gays.

[anonshadow]

Jayelle, Sibyl--

You're right. I totally stuck my foot in my mouth and my words came out very, very wrong. I know Christians who support gay marriage, and Christians who support civil unions instead. One of my closest friends is gay, very Christian, and supports gay marriage, and another very close friend (who is very Christian) supports civil unions in lieu of them.


As far as Islam goes--ehhh. Many Muslims I know in the States don't have an issue with it. According to a Muslim friend from Trinidad, many Muslims there don't have a problem with it, either. I'm not sure it's a Muslim thing as much as a Middle East Muslim thing. I'd need to look into it more, though.

[Firegirl]

"The sanctity of marriage" means that to some people, the term marriage refers to a sacred, religious connection between a man and a woman. If you call Bob and Steve's relationship a marriage, it puts it on the same religious level, which is contradictory to certain religions.

At least, that's how I understand it.

In some respects, I have to agree with wizzard's definition for the sanctity of marriage, however the big problem that people in this country and other countries have is not distinguishing between the idea that the state/federal government putting a legal stamp (contract) on a couple, then calling them married and the unions/marriages that religious organzations/churches proclaim between people. The only sanctity in a legal union deals with the signed paper witnessed by two people with a nominal fee. Which is not particularly sacred in any sense. Considering the wealth of possibilities for who and what can get married, the legal system has limited it to the requirements on marriage from the mainstream Judeo-Christian religions (kinda strange). On the Other hand, for Bob and Steve's relationship to be proclaimed a 'sanctified' marriage, they would would have choose a denomination or religion that accepts or tolerates their relationship, which can be hard to find sometimes.

[Wil]

As has been said, Marriage was and still basically is defined by religion as a bond between a man and a women. The government has offered homosexual couples something they called "Civil Unions" -- basically all the governmental perks of being married, tax breaks, power of attorney, etc. However, from what I understand, that did not go over very well and many homosexual couples did not like it. Why? I'm not really sure. Perhaps they were just stubborn and actually want the title "marriage".

As far as I am concerned, however, "marriage" is a religious term, and as so many want separation between church and state, the government can not force the church to change what marriage means. The church will have to be persuaded before the term is modified.

I personally have no problem with the "Civil Unions". My mother says to me "But, when I look at a ring on the left ring finger I want to assume that person is married to another person of the opposite gender" -- however I see it as so long as I get along with that person there are no problems. The only reasons I look at a ring is to see if a girl is married, and even then I do not care to whom.

[hive_king]

Civil Unions do NOT give all the benifits of marriage. They give some of them, but it isn't the full basket. Many homosexuals I know would be alright with full rights with a different title.

[Jebus]

Perhaps they were just stubborn and actually want the title "marriage".

I find this pretty funny.

As far as I am concerned, however, "marriage" is a religious term, and as so many want separation between church and state, the government can not force the church to change what marriage means.

Unfortunately though, marriage isn't only a religious term. Marriage is also a legal term and there are plenty of sinful atheists who get married as far from a church and God's various representatives on earth as they can get.

Marriage is already a term applied to the union of same-sex couples in many countries, yet still believers go on and on about the threat of ruining the sanctity of marriage. If it really does ruin it (which it doesn't, God's marriages are still between a man and woman and nothing can change that), then too late, it's ruined, get over it and go home, this topic is done and you're all wrong.

[anonshadow]

And, if the issue was solely about religion, I don't see why religious sects who are anti-gay marriage should take precedence over religious sects who are pro-gay marriage (and they do exist).

The moment the term "marriage" was incorporated into legal aspects of this country, those who laid claim to it in a religious sense relinguished that claim.

[eriador]

It's already been ruled in this country that the idea of "separate but equal" (which many think applies to 'Civil Unions') is not equal. Jebus has a good point that plenty of atheists get married outside of the church.

[Firegirl]

The quirky thing in the 'who can get married' debate (as more than just homosexuals are prevented from married in certain instances) is that the Government is more pliable than the people and many religions. Laws can be changed with some time, effort and determination (add funding, too). Peoples' mindsets are far harder to change. It's not that they cannot be changed, it's just that in the U. S., it usually takes something very drastic to alter the status quo.

[jotabe]

Furthermore, marriage is an institution whose religious origin didn't stress the couple of man and woman, but the couple as parents of a child: it was an institution meant to give the children a raising environment (matrimonium = mothership).

So, if churches want to be coherent, they should also oppose the marriage between steryle people, and between people who doesn't mean to raise a child.

[Matty]

Two cents: I'm of the opinion that rights are not natural or God-given. We have to create them one at a time. (Is universal primary education a right? Was it a right 200 years ago?) A new right is generally a good thing, unless there's some really obvious, practical reason that the new right is not a good idea. No argument I've heard against gay marriage satisfies that criterion, so gay marriage is good, a step forward in civilization.

Civil Unions do NOT give all the benifits of marriage. They give some of them, but it isn't the full basket. Many homosexuals I know would be alright with full rights with a different title.

Yup. In particular, gay couples who live in states with civil unions get benefits from the state, but not the federal government. The federal tax breaks and other benefits for married couples are pretty substantial, so it's not just semantics.

The quirky thing in the 'who can get married' debate (as more than just homosexuals are prevented from married in certain instances) is that the Government is more pliable than the people and many religions. Laws can be changed with some time, effort and determination (add funding, too). Peoples' mindsets are far harder to change. It's not that they cannot be changed, it's just that in the U. S., it usually takes something very drastic to alter the status quo.

Yes, and one of those drastic things is the government recognizing the new right. This comparison has been done to death, but during the civil rights movement, government action often preceded (and, in part, caused) the widespread acceptance of equality for all races.

[luminousnerd]

Yeah, the rights taken away from 'civil unions' are really unfair.

And while you make a point with the 'separate but equal' claim, the word marriage still belongs to religious folk. If atheists care to use it, that's fine, because the religious folk choose not to exclude them.

[eriador]

I thought we've already said that "marriage" does NOT 'belong' to religious people. Marriage is just as much a legal institution as a religious one. Marriage is not a church construct, taken over by the government, but rather something that is part of both the church AND government. I'm not claiming to be an expert in the field, but thinking of the dark ages, church and government were in some ways, identical. The way I see it, marriage has always been both religious AND governmental, and now that there is a greater distance between the two, it 'belongs' to both realms equally.

This probably isn't very clear, if you don't get it, tell me what you don't understand, and I'll elaborate. That also means that half of what I'm wrong about is probably just because of poor phrasing. I'll edit this to make more sense if I get the chance.

[luminousnerd]

You know, the word belongs to the church. I can't cite any source to prove that, it's just true. The same people who complain about the lack of separation of church and state are often the ones who demand for the church to share marriage with couples who are unacceptable in the eyes of God. I know you'll deny it, but the only thing you're doing is either twisting my words or coming up with a better explanation to fool everyone, maybe even yourself. But the fact is, you're being contradictory.

I wouldn't be too terribly offended if marriage was extended to gay couples. They deserve the freedom of being outside of God. It is their own choice, and it is not for me or anyone else to judge them. In this life, they deserve that freedom. The thing that gets to me is when people insist on one thing, then when it benefits them, they change to another way of thinking and back the change up with lies and bullcrap. That's the uncool thing.

[jotabe]

Luminous, where is that law that gives the religious leaders the power to decided what is marriage and what isn't?

[luminousnerd]

Luminous, where is that law that gives the religious leaders the power to decided what is marriage and what isn't?

I can't cite any source to prove that, it's just true.

I know you'll deny it, but the only thing you're doing is either twisting my words or coming up with a better explanation to fool everyone, maybe even yourself.

[eriador]

Wow. You used the tried an true method of proving somebody wrong when you have no evidence: ignoring them.

As I said before, marriage is both a religious and legal term. It started in both realms, and both have a hold on it. Nobody owns "marriage". And why the HELL should we concede that you're "right" even though your evidence is "I told you so." Now, to avoid hypocracy, here's evidence: marriage is legally defined. It is both legal (legal benefits, performed by a justice of the peace) and religious (it can be performed by a priest). There are religious definitions too, which confirms that marriage is partly religious. Perhaps in your life marriage is primarily a religious institution, but in our country and culture, marriage is both. So how about you give me some reasoning, instead of unfounded assertion?

[jotabe]

luminousnerd wrote:

And while you make a point with the 'separate but equal' claim, the word marriage still belongs to religious folk.

my dad often says:

because of the mouth, the fish dies

[luminousnerd]

Wow. You used the tried an true method of proving somebody wrong when you have no evidence: ignoring them.

As I said before, marriage is both a religious and legal term. It started in both realms, and both have a hold on it. Nobody owns "marriage". And why the HELL should we concede that you're "right" even though your evidence is "I told you so."

First off, I never really asked you to concede that I'm right. In fact I made it very evident that I didn't have any evidence, I didn't know how to prove it, it was just what I thought. You make an excellent example of what I said would happen: you are twisting my words around. If I knew it was going to happen why am I so angry right now? Who knows.

Now, to avoid hypocracy, here's evidence: marriage is legally defined.

That's not evidence at all. The only thing that proves is that America stole a term from religion and then said, "leave well enough alone, Christians, it's our word now".

It is both legal (legal benefits, performed by a justice of the peace) and religious (it can be performed by a priest).

Correction, it MUST be performed by a priest in order to be legally binding. Pathetic, isn't it, how even after they steal the word they still need the help of the religions. But when it comes to decisions on what the word means, no sir. That's for atheists, agnostics, and the government to decide!!!

So how about you give me some reasoning, instead of unfounded assertion?

Okay, I was willing to admit that I had no proof. But I certainly had reasoning, and my assertion was definitely founded. If you think otherwise, you're not even bothering to read my posts, or you are and you are lying to prove your point. But if you had read them and had an IQ above 2 you would realize that my statements, while unbacked by facts, have plenty of reasoning and plenty of foundation.

[eriador]

Uh. I know plenty of people who have been married without a priest in sight. So on that point, you're dead wrong.

The fact remains that marriage is not exclusively religious in nature.


However, I'm willing to let that change. I say that the government should give up on marriage, and let the church be in charge of marriages. However, these church marriage would have no legal standing. Instead, I think that all legal unions should be "civil unions". It would be these that would carry all of the legal benefits that marriage currently has. In actuality, this would be a very minor change from the current system. Essentially, the government(s) would have to change the laws to say "civil union" instead of marriage and they would have to disallow priests marrying people. This would make a system where "marriage" in the church separate from "civil unions" from the government. This is just like it is now, just with "civil unions" replacing marriage (and priests not being able to create a legal bond). At least it would clear up the terminology issues.

[anonshadow]

And while you make a point with the 'separate but equal' claim, the word marriage still belongs to religious folk. If atheists care to use it, that's fine, because the religious folk choose not to exclude them.

You still haven't answered my question.

Why do the religious folk who don't want to "share the word" with gay people get precedence over those who do?

I still want to see you cite something that says that marriage originated in a religious context.

[luminousnerd]

Uh. I know plenty of people who have been married without a priest in sight. So on that point, you're dead wrong.

Ordained Minister, or something. Maybe not a priest, per se. I'm not up on the terms. The law says that for a couple to be married there has to be some sort of religious leader present. Wish you wouldn't call me dead wrong without looking into the matter.

The fact remains that marriage is not exclusively religious in nature.

So what? It was stolen.

However, I'm willing to let that change. I say that the government should give up on marriage, and let the church be in charge of marriages. However, these church marriage would have no legal standing. Instead, I think that all legal unions should be "civil unions". It would be these that would carry all of the legal benefits that marriage currently has. In actuality, this would be a very minor change from the current system. Essentially, the government(s) would have to change the laws to say "civil union" instead of marriage and they would have to disallow priests marrying people. This would make a system where "marriage" in the church separate from "civil unions" from the government. This is just like it is now, just with "civil unions" replacing marriage (and priests not being able to create a legal bond). At least it would clear up the terminology issues.

Sounds great to me. Except for the bit where you say that a priest CAN'T marry people. That's an extreme change, contrary to what you said. You can't disallow them. That's discrimination and completely uncalled for. For some, it is very important to be bonded by a minister (regardless of whether it's called civil union or marriage). But other than that your plan sounds fine by me.

[Sibyl]

Uh. I know plenty of people who have been married without a priest in sight. So on that point, you're dead wrong.

Ordained Minister, or something. Maybe not a priest, per se. I'm not up on the terms. The law says that for a couple to be married there has to be some sort of religious leader present. Wish you wouldn't call me dead wrong without looking into the matter.

Funny, when I got married it was a judge who did the honors, two secretaries from the courthouse for witnesses. Justices of the Peace can do it, places where they have them, and I think ship captains. Any religion or none.

[luminousnerd]

Uh. I know plenty of people who have been married without a priest in sight. So on that point, you're dead wrong.

Ordained Minister, or something. Maybe not a priest, per se. I'm not up on the terms. The law says that for a couple to be married there has to be some sort of religious leader present. Wish you wouldn't call me dead wrong without looking into the matter.

Funny, when I got married it was a judge who did the honors, two secretaries from the courthouse for witnesses. Justices of the Peace can do it, places where they have them, and I think ship captains. Any religion or none.

Like I said, I'm not up on the terms. There are requirements that someone with certain licenses has to be there, and I believe all ministers have that. Example, head over to Las Vegas and there are people who become ordained for the sole purpose of conducting marriages. Doesn't mean they practice what they preach, so to speak.