NationStates Jolt Archive

Marriage is important because it gives society structure. If people simply had children with whomever they pleased as often as they wanted, women would be left with the children while men go off and find another mate..

Government (whose life normally lasts longer then lives of its current people) depend on the future (children). The more structure we enjoy the better growing conditions for children.

Government makes marriage an institition because it gives structure.. and thus propgates it through the allowances of extra rights (tax exemption and inheritance) But like any instition it is only as strong as the legitimacy it holds in the eyes of the people. Agnostics and Atheists see marriage only as important as the rights an individual gets through it. But those religious people see it as a sanctimonious reltionship established by god, and thus these people give the notion of marriage its legitimacy. If you allow gay marriage, you tarnish the sancity of marriage in the eyes of those religious belifs and you reduce the legitimacy marriage requires. If the legitmacy of an insitution is too greatly degraded the insititon collapses and this is the risk marriage faces. The government can't have this insititon collapse since it is the foundaiton of the faimly unit and the foundation of societal structure. So its in the governments interest to protect the legitimacy of marriage which is supplied by those religious people.

The whole issue could be side steped if a seporate insitution was made (which civil unions provide) and awarded people excluded from marriage the same rights married people enjoy. So all they have to do is give civil unions the same ights as marriage gets and equality can be acheived.

As long as religoius belifs maintain that the sancity of marriage is tarnshied by gay relationships, gay marraige can never be. And as non-secular as anyone would want the government to be.. it cannot ignore the reality that this institution is empowered by religion and it needs this insitition to maintain structure.

that is the best rationalization i could think of to explain how i see it.. tell me how you think.

Your point is indeed legit, but I think it's a wee bit authoritarian

Kinda sorta. First, any religious thing like marriage is rendered beuracratically useless, so it gives you no rights at all. If you want one- get one, the government does not care. However, any two conscenting adults may get a civil union, not to be confused with marriage, which gives them the rights and things. That properly separates church and state.

This hypothetical sanctity of marriage has already been "tarnished": my wife and I were quite easily married without the involvement of any religious institution.

Consider this: if marriage has any sanctity associated with it, it is only so granted by the institution in which the marriage takes place. So if I had been married in a Christian church, you could say that I had a properly sanctified Christian wedding.. Therefore, allowing gay marriage has no effect on the sanctity of Christian marriages IF the Christian church refuses to perform them.

To put it another way: if the church exercises its right not to perform gay marriages, the fact that they might exist elsewhere can necessarily have no more adverse impact upon the Christian marriage than we have in the current situation.

How exactly can a few gay marriages tarnish the sanctity of a religious marriage?

I get the feeling that those who oppose gay people marrying are afraid that it will become compulsory to be gay in order to get married :P

Marriage is not wholly a religious concept, civil unions are every bit as legitimate as religious ones, it just depends on your beliefs (or lack of belief).
Why should a gay couple be denied the same rights as a hetero couple?
The only ones who will ever be affected in any major way by gay marriage are homophobic bigots and quite honestly the more these kind of people are annoyed or put out the better!

I think there should be a strong push to come up with a new term. If its done with religious backing, then have it called a Marriage. If its done under the state, call it a Civil Union.

It keeps people from crying Seperation, because it keeps the state out of it. Both should entitle the same structure, same rights, and such. The USA is built around everyone being equal, and thats the way it should be, though I see as both sides of the fence feel their way is the better way of doing.

If a church wishes to marry the gay, then thats their choice, no one can tell another they are wrong, they can only show how they are wrong by their terms. A person must change on themselves, or they never have changed at all.

Marriage is important because it gives society structure. If people simply had children with whomever they pleased as often as they wanted, women would be left with the children while men go off and find another mate. Not necessarily. Look to the animal kingdom. There are plenty of sepcies where the male runs off but they female and the kin still survive. Just because the man runs off does not mean that the society will collapse. It just means that women have to be less dependent on men during and after pregnancy.

Government (whose life normally lasts longer then lives of its current people) depend on the future (children). The more structure we enjoy the better growing conditions for children. True

Government makes marriage an institition because it gives structure.. and thus propgates it through the allowances of extra rights (tax exemption and inheritance)
No, not really. Anarchies have huge amount of personal rights. And no structure.

But like any instition it is only as strong as the legitimacy it holds in the eyes of the people. Agnostics and Atheists see marriage only as important as the rights an individual gets through it. But those religious people see it as a sanctimonious reltionship established by god, and thus these people give the notion of marriage its legitimacy. If you allow gay marriage, you tarnish the sancity of marriage in the eyes of those religious belifs and you reduce the legitimacy marriage requires.
I dunno about that. Slavery was not legitamite in the eyes of many southerners, but that tradition lasted for quite a while. Incest also doesn't really have any legitimacy but it still occurs. Murder happens on a daily basis. Just about any crime you want to list lacks legitimacy but enough people find it "right" enough to commit. So, saying allowing gay marriage will reduce legitimacy of marriage is pretty much a null point. People will still get married because its tradition. Now, its just that the marriage after yours may be with two men.

If the legitmacy of an insitution is too greatly degraded the insititon collapses and this is the risk marriage faces. The government can't have this insititon collapse since it is the foundaiton of the faimly unit and the foundation of societal structure. So its in the governments interest to protect the legitimacy of marriage which is supplied by those religious people. No, not really. Again, animals - they have family units but no marriage. Marriage is not the basis of the family unit. Kids are. If marriage was the basis, why would old people who can't reproduce and otherwise disabled people marry? They would never have a family unit to experience. It is also not the foundation of societal structure. Government provides the stability for society to exist and government won't collapse if gays are allowed to marry. Example? massachusettes, Sweden, Denmark. All doing just fine.

The whole issue could be side steped if a seporate insitution was made (which civil unions provide) and awarded people excluded from marriage the same rights married people enjoy. So all they have to do is give civil unions the same ights as marriage gets and equality can be acheived.[quote]
yes, because seperate but equal worked real well with the civil rights movment. Are we going to install 'gay only bathrooms' How about 'gay only schools'?

[quote]As long as religoius belifs maintain that the sancity of marriage is tarnshied by gay relationships, gay marraige can never be. And as non-secular as anyone would want the government to be.. it cannot ignore the reality that this institution is empowered by religion and it needs this insitition to maintain structure. And as soon as faith dies out completely we can all go back to actually making process with society. And I think I would prefer an etheistic government. We don't need to worry about foolish things like faith-based initatives and funding only for abstiance programs.

that is the best rationalization i could think of to explain how i see it.. tell me how you think.

Do better if you want to ban gay marriage. You need to keep religion out of it because religion cannot be used.

Kinda sorta. First, any religious thing like marriage is rendered beuracratically useless, so it gives you no rights at all. If you want one- get one, the government does not care. However, any two conscenting adults may get a civil union, not to be confused with marriage, which gives them the rights and things. That properly separates church and state.

Not everything you say is true.. ive esablished why marriage is important to government and how their interest in the matter is great. Also civil unions are not the same as marriages because the rights aloted to married people are far greater then those within civil unions. This is common knowledge and the reason why gays do not accept civil unions. My proposal was that you must simply allot all the civil rights a married couple receives to civil unions.. and you acheive equality without havin to redefine marraige for all parties involved.

This hypothetical sanctity of marriage has already been "tarnished": my wife and I were quite easily married without the involvement of any religious institution.

Consider this: if marriage has any sanctity associated with it, it is only so granted by the institution in which the marriage takes place. So if I had been married in a Christian church, you could say that I had a properly sanctified Christian wedding.. Therefore, allowing gay marriage has no effect on the sanctity of Christian marriages IF the Christian church refuses to perform them.

To put it another way: if the church exercises its right not to perform gay marriages, the fact that they might exist elsewhere can necessarily have no more adverse impact upon the Christian marriage than we have in the current situation.

those who belive in god do not see sancity granted by religious institutions.. but rather by god.. God makes the union sacrid. And god acts as a global influence. the problem is the use of the word marriage.. because marriage is a universal term used for any union within the system of monogamy transending all religions. By government redefining who is allowed to partake in this idea of "marriage" you retroactivly redefine marriage for all parties involved.. and if you attribute marraige with this idea of sancitity it dosn't take a large step to see something like homosexuality (offensive in the eyes of god) diminising the sancity of marriage (a union under god). Weather it is clear to your or not.. this is how religion people infer it.

As well it is religious people who provide the legitmacy to this insistition of marriage.. and thus government cannot ignore this reality. If the legimiacy of what a marriage is, is diminished or extinguished.. the institution collapses.

How exactly can a few gay marriages tarnish the sanctity of a religious marriage?

my argument infers the answer to this question.. marriage is a universal term.. transending all religions.. through all relgioins marriage is seen as a union blessed by god.. the advent of homosexuality is a divergence of what god says to be right. by having a union called marriage for people in a relationship seen as deviating form gods path.. you tarnish the sancity of marriage ....

fact of the matter is.. legitmacy is given to religion only or primarly from relgioins institutions and people beliving in religion or god.. those athiests and agnostics see marriage only or primarly in terms of the rights they recieve. Also the majority of people within the country and the world consider themselves religious people (in that they belive in some god and what that god desigantes to be right). religious people see the nature of marriage far differently then that of agnostics and atheists.. while allowing gay marriage may not effect agnostics and atheists.. it vastly changes the way in which religious people see marriage.. and lessens the legitmacy of the insititution.

Not necessarily. Look to the animal kingdom. There are plenty of sepcies where the male runs off but they female and the kin still survive. Just because the man runs off does not mean that the society will collapse. It just means that women have to be less dependent on men during and after pregnancy.
True


No, not really. Anarchies have huge amount of personal rights. And no structure.


I dunno about that. Slavery was not legitamite in the eyes of many southerners, but that tradition lasted for quite a while. Incest also doesn't really have any legitimacy but it still occurs. Murder happens on a daily basis. Just about any crime you want to list lacks legitimacy but enough people find it "right" enough to commit. So, saying allowing gay marriage will reduce legitimacy of marriage is pretty much a null point. People will still get married because its tradition. Now, its just that the marriage after yours may be with two men.

No, not really. Again, animals - they have family units but no marriage. Marriage is not the basis of the family unit. Kids are. If marriage was the basis, why would old people who can't reproduce and otherwise disabled people marry? They would never have a family unit to experience. It is also not the foundation of societal structure. Government provides the stability for society to exist and government won't collapse if gays are allowed to marry. Example? massachusettes, Sweden, Denmark. All doing just fine.

[quote]The whole issue could be side steped if a seporate insitution was made (which civil unions provide) and awarded people excluded from marriage the same rights married people enjoy. So all they have to do is give civil unions the same ights as marriage gets and equality can be acheived.[quote]
yes, because seperate but equal worked real well with the civil rights movment. Are we going to install 'gay only bathrooms' How about 'gay only schools'?

And as soon as faith dies out completely we can all go back to actually making process with society. And I think I would prefer an etheistic government. We don't need to worry about foolish things like faith-based initatives and funding only for abstiance programs.



Do better if you want to ban gay marriage. You need to keep religion out of it because religion cannot be used.
[/QOUTE]
... hmm you seem to be misunderstanding and misconstruing the definition of many terms..

Anarchies are by definition the absense of government.. government is structure.. marriage better provides structure. Also there are no true anarchic states to speak of to make reference to.

an institution is "A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society"

to this definition.. incest in our society and every western society is not an insititution. Nor is murder.. they are simply occurances.. they are not important to society.. infact they are detremental

Aswell i suggest you do some research on what the faimly unit is.. our society is based on monogmay.. there is no true species of animals other then ours which engages in such relationships. so you cannot compare faimly units of other animal species to ours.. because ours is unique.

And to the issue of seporate but equal.. the reason it did not work in education was because resources were needed inorder to continue the function of those processes.. and those resources were limited.. marriage does not require resources to be expended inorder for it to be carried out.. so if civil unions and marriages were alloted the same rights.. how can it be that they are not equal ?

Not everything you say is true.. ive esablished why marriage is important to government and how their interest in the matter is great. Also civil unions are not the same as marriages because the rights aloted to married people are far greater then those within civil unions. This is common knowledge and the reason why gays do not accept civil unions. My proposal was that you must simply allot all the civil rights a married couple receives to civil unions.. and you acheive equality without havin to redefine marraige for all parties involved.
Not really. Look in my post and you'll see that marriage is not necessary for society to survive and even thrive. You get the point on civil unions though, they aren't equal now and will never be as long as they have another name. After all 'white' schools and 'black' school were different, and unequal.



those who belive in god do not see sancity granted by religious institutions.. but rather by god.. God makes the union sacrid. And god acts as a global influence. the problem is the use of the word marriage.. because marriage is a universal term used for any union within the system of monogamy ittransends all religions. By government redefining who is allowed to partake in this idea of "marriage" you retroactivly redefine marriage for all parties involved.. and if you attribute marraige with this idea of sancitity it dosn't take a large step to see something like homosexuality (offensive in the eyes of god) diminising the sancity of marriage (a union under god). Weather it is clear to your or not.. this is how religion people infer it. Retroactivly redfining? Oh, you mean like the Christians did when they said gays can't marry and neither can preists. I understand. No one can do that except Christians.

As well it is religious people who provide the legitmacy to this insistition of marriage.. and thus government cannot ignore this reality. If the legimiacy of what a marriage is, is diminished or extinguished.. the institution collapses. No it isn't. the only providing legitimacy is the governmental marriage certificate. Government can ignore it all it wants because religion is not a government issue. And again with the collapsing. It doesn't happen. Massachusettes, Denmark, Sweden.

my argument infers the answer to this question.. marriage is a universal term.. transending all religions.. through all relgioins marriage is seen as a union blessed by god.. the advent of homosexuality is a divergence of what god says to be right. by having a union called marriage for people in a relationship seen as deviating form gods path.. you tarnish the sancity of marriage .... How do you know what god thinks is right? Are you privy to his thoughts? Or are you going off a book that some guy said was inspired by god. I can write one of those and say that being gay is okay. Will you follow that? By the way - the sanctity of marriage is exactly what white people said to try and stop interracial marriage. Get off of it, all it does is make you look bigoted.

fact of the matter is.. legitmacy is given to religion only or primarly from relgioins institutions and people beliving in religion or god.. those athiests and agnostics see marriage only or primarly in terms of the rights they recieve. Also the majority of people within the country and the world consider themselves religious people (in that they belive in some god and what that god desigantes to be right). religious people see the nature of marriage far differently then that of agnostics and atheists.. while allowing gay marriage may not effect agnostics and atheists.. it vastly changes the way in which religious people see marriage.. and lessens the legitmacy of the insititution.
Coughcoughgovernmentalmarriagecertificatecoughcough. Are you so sure about the religious types vs the atheists/agnostics? I'm pretty sure they all see marriage as a binding union between two people. And so do gays.

I can't belive i had to explain that anarchy is the absense of government and that things like incest are not institituions O.o >.> ...

BLARGistania can i just ask how old are u ?

... hmm you seem to be misunderstanding and misconstruing the definition of many terms..

Anarchies are by definition the absense of government.. government is structure.. marriage better provides structure. Also there are no true anarchic states to speak of to make reference to. Given. We can move onto a libretarian state then. No infrignement on personal rights. At all. There are also no true capitalist states, no true communist states, not even true democratic states. All there are are dictatorships and republics.

an institution is "A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society"

to this definition.. incest in our society and every western society is not an insititution. Nor is murder.. they are simply occurances.. they are not important to society.. infact they are detremental
According to that definition, I would argue is murder is an institution. Its a behavioral pattern that affects communities and the world. You could also say war is an institution.

As well i suggest you do some research on what the faimly unit is.. our society is based on monogmay.. there is no true species of animals other then ours which engages in such relationships. so you cannot compare faimly units of other animal species to ours.. because ours is unique.
How do you think our society is based on monogomy. I would say its based on civil liberties and a republic style of government. Nothing more, nothing less. And yes I can compare animals to humans. Monkeys, wolves, dogs, cats, dolphins, whales - they all form 'family units' without marriage.

And to the issue of seporate but equal.. the reason it did not work in education was because resources were needed inorder to continue the function of those processes.. and those resources were limited.. marriage does not require resources to be expended inorder for it to be carried out.. so if civil unions and marriages were alloted the same rights.. how can it be that they are not equal ?
It won't work period. And its not allotment of resources that is the problem. Its the idea of seperate but equal. Anything seperate cannot be equal because it is seperate. In someone's eyes, that seperate will always mean inferior. Unless you can make it the same, the difference will translate into inequality across the board.

I'm 17. And anarchy is a classification of governmental structure. And incest is an instituion in some parts of the U.S. as well as the world. It was also an instituion in the royal families of Europe when they actually had royal families with power.

those who belive in god do not see sancity granted by religious institutions.. but rather by god.. God makes the union sacrid. And god acts as a global influence. the problem is the use of the word marriage.. because marriage is a universal term used for any union within the system of monogamy transending all religions. By government redefining who is allowed to partake in this idea of "marriage" you retroactivly redefine marriage for all parties involved.. and if you attribute marraige with this idea of sancitity it dosn't take a large step to see something like homosexuality (offensive in the eyes of god) diminising the sancity of marriage (a union under god). Weather it is clear to your or not.. this is how religion people infer it.
Yes: as you say yourself, 'marriage' is a universal term. It does not imply any sort of divine sanction. Any such sanction is derived from the religion under whose auspices it takes place.

The marriage between my wife and I was different to the marriage of my Christian neighbours. Ours was a civil ceremony involving our commitment to one another, and various legal things. Theirs was all of that and a affirmation under God. The fact that we use the same two syllables - 'marriage' - to refer to our respective unions cannot impact the religious component of their specific ceremony. You could ban the term 'marriage' and replace it with 'flipsybobble' and their declaration before God remains absolutely the same and undiminished. Do you honestly, truly believe that God cares which letters of the alphabet are used to describe it?

People can have a Christian marriage, a Muslim marriage, a Satanist marriage, a Pagan marriage, a Humanist marriage, a Sikh marriage, a civil marriage or one of any other variety you can think of. Only one of these things is endowed with the Christian God's blessing. So do you also contend that these things somehow lessen the Christian marriage? And if you do, should they be similarly disallowed?

BLARGistania .. do u know what the concept of legitmacy is ? please research it before you try to argue me. take a governmental class.. and a womens studies class.. then you will learn about two things.. legitmacy.. and the importance of the faimly unit and an explanation of it..

BLARGistania .. do u know what the concept of legitmacy is ? please research it before you try to argue me. take a governmental class.. and a womens studies class.. then you will learn about two things.. legitmacy.. and the importance of the faimly unit and an explanation of it..
Do you understand the concept of secular government? Do you understand the way the animal kingdom forms their own family units? I understand the term liegitimacy and most of its applications. I also understand the family unit and why it is important to society. I just don't think its anywhere near as critical as you think it is. Are you going to go back to refuting points or are you going to sit back and attempt to feel superior as you attempt to insult my schooling and intelligence?

Calricstan my argument is not to say that all marriages are dependent on this idea of sancity.. but that people of religoin attribute marriage to sancity. and if you redfine marriage.. as it is a global term.. it effects them.. they give the institution of marriage legitmacy because they attribute sancity to it.. so while sancity has nothing to do with how you precieve your marraige a religious person does.. the legitmacy a religoius person allots to marriage is based on this idea of sancity.. and if they see it defiled.. they will recind the legimacy of the institution.. which will directly efftect the government.

ALl im arguing is that most of the legitmacy if not all which is allote to marriage by the people is central to people who engage in religoius belifs.. and while gay marriage may not alter the way YOU see marriage because you are NOT religoius.. for those who are.. their viewpoints are GREATLY altered.. an occurance the government cannot afford

If you understood what legitmacy was.. you would not be trying to argue that it is the marriage certificate which gives marriage legitmacy.. and if you understood what the faimly unit is within our system of monogmay you would understand how it is central to the development and social structure of all of the western culture.. western culture is based on monogamy and marriage is central to monogmay and the faimly unit.. because it defines how the faimly is formed.. a faimly is not a faimly only with the existance of children

I understand the concept of the secular government.. i also happen to belive we do not live in one.. however a secular government can identifiy the important role religion plays in the viewpoints of its people without establishing religion in the government

im not degrading your education.. but i am questioning it when you argue incest and murder are institutions.. because you show you clearly dont understand the definitions of the terms im using

Calricstan my argument is not to say that all marriages are dependent on this idea of sancity.. but that people of religoin attribute marriage to sancity. and if you redfine marriage.. as it is a global term.. it effects them.. they give the institution of marriage legitmacy because they attribute sancity to it.. so while sancity has nothing to do with how you precieve your marraige a religious person does.. the legitmacy a religoius person allots to marriage is based on this idea of sancity.. and if they see it defiled.. they will recind the legimacy of the institution.. which will directly efftect the government.

ALl im arguing is that most of the legitmacy if not all which is allote to marriage by the people is central to people who engage in religoius belifs.. and while gay marriage may not alter the way YOU see marriage because you are NOT religoius.. for those who are.. their viewpoints are GREATLY altered.. an occurance the government cannot afford
Yes, I do understand what you mean. My own point is that religious people quite reasonably attribute sanctity to their own marriage. This sanctity comes from God, via their religious institution. The legal bits and pieces surely cannot possibly have a bearing upon this sanctity - if it did, my own civil, Godless marriage would have them up in arms. And let's not even think about Satanist marriages.

So if the religious component is the issue, you can surely open the civil institution up to man and dolphin and religious sanctity wouldn't be affected (unless the church condoned and participated in dolphin weddings).

To put it simply: surely the only thing relevant to people undergoing a religious marriage is the people allowed to marry within that religion. If it was suggested that the Christian church should be forced to marry gay people I would wholeheartedly disagree.

Well Calricstan the argument im trying to make is you can't seporate the civil sense of marriage from the religoius sense of marraige.. this is because religious people do not identify with ONLY the sancity in their own marraige.. but in all marriages.. even if those who are not religoius do not recognize it.. so your required to have a seporate insititution to facilite this civil marraige.. being civil union.. if civil unions are given the same rights as marraiges.. you achieve the euqality your lookin for.. [without losing the legitmacy of marriage]

Not everything you say is true.. ive esablished why marriage is important to government and how their interest in the matter is great. Also civil unions are not the same as marriages because the rights aloted to married people are far greater then those within civil unions. This is common knowledge and the reason why gays do not accept civil unions. My proposal was that you must simply allot all the civil rights a married couple receives to civil unions.. and you acheive equality without havin to redefine marraige for all parties involved.

Maybe I did not make myself clear.
Just for the purpose of convenience:
Kinda sorta. First, any religious thing like marriage is rendered beuracratically useless, so it gives you no rights at all. If you want one- get one, the government does not care. However, any two conscenting adults may get a civil union, not to be confused with marriage, which gives them the rights and things. That properly separates church and state.

I say that this whole "marriage" thing be taken as a random religious ritual, with no power due to separation of church and state. The Civil Union, a secular bond between two consenting adults, would matter instead of something done in a place of religion. Clear on what I meant now?

And by the way, before asking someone for their age, don't use your spellings. It makes you look bad.

Well Calricstan the argument im trying to make is you can't seporate the civil sense of marriage from the religoius sense of marraige.. this is because religious people do not identify with ONLY the sancity in their own marraige.. but in all marriages.. even if those who are not religoius do not recognize it.. so your required to have a seporate insititution to facilite this civil marraige.. being civil union.. if civil unions are given the same rights as marraiges.. you achieve the euqality your lookin for..
How can religious people identify with the sanctity in other people's marriages? Let's use my Satanism example again: I really don't see how you can argue that Christians derive spiritual satisfaction from a marriage conducted under the auspices of the Devil. Yes, that's an extreme example, but you could just as well substitute Buddhism or other religions - marriages which take place in the sight of a deity who is specifically not the Christian God. By your argument, such marriages must destroy the sanctity of Christian marriages...

Really, why are we arguing over who gets to use the word 'marriage'? If a 'civil union' is exactly the same identical thing as a 'marriage', why does it matter which combination of letters we use to denote that state? And if gay people in Canada can already have a marriage, what further damage can be done in the US by using the same term? I doubt that God cares about national boundaries.

I hate to say it, because you seem like a nice person, but you seem to be suggesting that the word 'marriage' should be denied to gays because it would make some religious people feel comfortable for no logical reason. Do you really feel that that's a valid basis for legislation?

The fact that his argument involves religion, negates all its legitimacy..

The fact of the matter is that in the United states.. the vast majoirty of people relate to a relgious organization or relgious belifs. I am quite sure this is not the case in Canada.. though i admit i have little knowledge of the demographic layout of Canada. Also in America we have identified something of a crisis in the institution of marriage as we aproach or linger around 50% divorce rates.. which again maynot be the case in Canada.. given these circumstances the populous of the United States of America are in a far different situation then canadians.

And in fact i would say this issue of marriage is simply a weakness of langauge.. and that yes.. marriage as a word in a society struggeling to define its secular nature (being secular or non secular) cannot be so fiviously delt with.. if the democratic or republican parties were to rename themselves the "natzi party".. while wishing to have no affliations with what the natzi party actually stands for.. one cannot resonably say the word will have no dfinintive impact.

I am trying to argue that marriage and civil unions are greatly difficult because marriage maintains a relgious conotation while civil union enjoys the luxury of being seporated from this connotation.

The issue is more then just making some religious people uncomforatble.. but the way those religious people in a largely religious country precieve something so vital to our society as the institution of marriage.

Im not arguing that the government will collapse is some gay people will get married.. please to take my words to extremes.. im simply saying the government has an interest to maintain the status qou especailly in the face of society oppostion to the notion of gay marriage.

And gays do themselves no favors trying to side step the will of the people through the judiciary.. then encourage the type of action which is occuring now (states amending their constitutions to ban it)

and the incorporation of religion in my argument goes only so far to reference the realities religion plays in society and the preception a semi-non-secular government may hold.. i say semi cause its quite clear the united states government is anything but a non-secular government. So by merely referencing the effects religion has on the issue deletimizies it ?

And gays do themselves no favors trying to side step the will of the people through the judiciary.. then encourage the type of action which is occuring now (states amending their constitutions to ban it)


Ah, classic "She deserved to get raped for wearing such revealing clothing" argument.

on the contrary.. i think they deserve all the rights married people have.. simply not in the context of the insitutition of marraige..

There is such a thing as building "political will" and "public support".
Blacks did it through the civil rights process.. women did it through the suffrage movement.

It is simply reality im putting forth.. If there is no political will nor public support.. when you use activist judiciaries to put forth radical injunctions forcing the government into action it may not like, while also seeming to be sidesteping the will of the people... you essentially set up the perfect conditions for these type of radical constitutional state amendments..

Now to overcome these new obsticals, activists for gay rights will have to persue even more lofty goals such as a federal constitutional amendment of their own.. or overturn each state amendment individually.. and anylists already agree the situation will worsen before it imporves.. in that more states will be passing similar amendments beyond the first 11.

You missed my point. Your statement that gays deserve a backlash against them for pressing for marriage rights is as perposterous as saying a woman derseves to be raped because she wore a short skirt.

Im sorry my comment is preceived that way then.. its not that i think they deserve it.. but that they could expect nothing but the backlash...

any other comments on this point against gay marriage.. legitmate or no ?

There is such a thing as building "political will" and "public support".Blacks did it through the civil rights process.. women did it through the suffrage movement.

Hmm, I don't think we have a shortage of gay rights movements these days, and support does seem to be building. I'd imagine disapproving folks saw the actions of those other minority groups as being innapropriate in those days, as well.

It is simply reality im putting forth.. If there is no political will nor public support.. when you use activist judiciaries to put forth radical injunctions forcing the government into action it may not like, while also seeming to be sidesteping the will of the people... you essentially set up the perfect conditions for these type of radical constitutional state amendments.

Oh, stow the "activist judges" line. The judiciary is doing nothing different than they've always done - they're ruling on the constitutionality of laws. Just because their decisions are not what you'd like them to be in no way makes them unusual or innapropriate. Courts do not rule based on public opinion, and unless you can show me a case in which a judge struck down a law as unconstitutional that was not, I don't want to hear whining about activist judges.

Quite frankly, I've seen no legitimate argument against gay marriage, just the usual rehashing of the usual. Government marriages get their power from the government, symbolized by a certificate (as was pointed out), and can be completely separate from religious marriage. Whether you change the term or not does not have any great bearing on that. I think they may as well, but I don't think it vital, and I think it can't work unless the new term applies to marriages of all stripes. Quite frankly, invidentia, most of your points seem to be unsubstantiated claims strung together. It is based in the idea that change only can lead to degradation and destruction, which is obviously false.

Im sorry my comment is preceived that way then.. its not that i think they deserve it.. but that they could expect nothing but the backlash...
Which is something that shouldn't count as a point against them, but as a point against the agressor. Obviously the problem is bigots marrying. Therefore bigots should not be allowed to marry. ;)

Your point was that gay marriage degrades the sanctity of a religious marriage where the religion in question holds that homosexuality is immoral, because it makes them view their own marraige as something less than sacred because the institution would no longer be exclusively "moral". This could be true. Even if it were, it is not the responsibility of the government to make people feel good about their relationships. It is not the place of government to establish religious sanctity. Government in the US is supposed to be a minimalist institution with limited authority. The individual rights and freedoms ordained by the Constitution are meant to ensure this, which is why gay marriage is argued for on the basis of civil rights.
Any argument in any legal battle which uses religious ideals to substatiate it is thus rendered null and void. :fluffle:

how minimal is minimalist.. the articles of confederation was suppose to make the federal government a minimialist government.. and it failed.. its clear the consitution was made to give the federal government far more power and authority.. if your a liberal you regularly believe the government should take a more active stance in domestic issues.. whild concervatives belive the federal government should play the minimalist role.. oddly enough roles are reveresed on this issue .. Liberals want the government out of the bed room while concervatives want the status qou..

you argue that its not the governments interest what individuals feel about their own relationships, however, if this efects the legitmacy which is given to the institution of marriage .. is it then then in the governments interest seeing the importance marriage plays in society ?? perhaps allowing gay marriages will not directly destroy the legitmacy of marriage itself.. but it certianly is a step in that direction.. on the side of religious advocats.. and rember... they represent the majorty of the populous.. which is clearly reflective in the referdums passed to ban gay marriages nation wide.

Of course these are all infrances and base less assumptions.. because no one can know the long term effects.. but they are issues which the government clearly is taking into consideration.

and as i stated before.. i think its so clear that the united states is anything but a non-secular government.. nor has it ever been.. religion in some shape or form has always played some role in our government.. currency, judiciary, congress, laws ... there are elements scattered throughout.. much to the dismay of every atheist out there :\

Before I get into this I'm going to define the word secular for you. Secular means non-religious, so if the US government is "anything but non-secular", then it must be a blatantly non-religious establishment. Since I'm pretty sure this isn't what you meant, I'm going to try to respond to the spirit of your argument instead of crowing an unearned victory.
Secondly, don't try to use the "liberal stance" on another random issue against my arguments here unless I've said something clearly hypocritical.

You seem to be advocating a totalitarian government with the authority to regulate any issue where politicians percieve themselves to be in a position to know what's best. The government is "interested" in basically everything under the sun, but that doesn't mean they can have the ultimate say in everything. Even the power of the "will of the majority" is limited by law and the Constitution. Legislation can't be justified by popularity if it is on an issue where they didn't have the authority to legislate.
Do you have any idea how many times the Supreme Court has slapped down Congress and the Executive Branch for trying to exceed their constitutional authority?

I will now join the few, the proud, and the bold by using this :sniper: smiley and this :fluffle: smiley in the same post. Please work on your grammer, attempting to decipher your post gave me a headache.

Marriage is important because it gives society structure. If people simply had children with whomever they pleased as often as they wanted, women would be left with the children while men go off and find another mate..

Two reasons out of many.

Government (whose life normally lasts longer then lives of its current people) depend on the future (children). The more structure we enjoy the better growing conditions for children.

By the argument as stated, a completely structured totalitarian government is best. Do you honestly think so?

Government makes marriage an institition because it gives structure.. and thus propgates it through the allowances of extra rights (tax exemption and inheritance)

Incorrect. Government does not make marriages. It recognizes the existing institution (see common law marriages).

But like any instition it is only as strong as the legitimacy it holds in the eyes of the people.

Rightly so.

Agnostics and Atheists see marriage only as important as the rights an individual gets through it.

Incorrect. Or do you belive that only the religious belive in civil society?

But those religious people see it as a sanctimonious reltionship established by god, and thus these people give the notion of marriage its legitimacy.

I seriously doubt many religious people (aside from Discordians) would find marriage a sanctimonious (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sanctimonious) reltionship (sic).

If you allow gay marriage, you tarnish the sancity of marriage in the eyes of those religious belifs and you reduce the legitimacy marriage requires. If the legitmacy of an insitution is too greatly degraded the insititon collapses and this is the risk marriage faces.

So your argument boils down to this: stop some people (gays) from marrying, or no one will get married. Patently false.

The government can't have this insititon collapse since it is the foundaiton of the faimly unit and the foundation of societal structure. So its in the governments interest to protect the legitimacy of marriage which is supplied by those religious people.

Again, incorrect. The government has no business medeling in religious affairs. (And if you believe it does, that opens a whole different can of worms that you sure don't want!)

The whole issue could be side steped if a seporate insitution was made (which civil unions provide) and awarded people excluded from marriage the same rights married people enjoy. So all they have to do is give civil unions the same ights as marriage gets and equality can be acheived.

So you simply want to double the marriage laws. To protect the ability of the government to meddle in religion. Bad idea.

As long as religoius belifs maintain that the sancity of marriage is tarnshied by gay relationships, gay marraige can never be.

So what do we do with religions that sanctify gay marriages (United Church of Canada, Unitarian Universalist churches, some Reform synagogues, Quaker congregations, as well as some Presbytarian, Methodist, Episcopalian, and other churces)?

And as non-secular as anyone would want the government to be.. it cannot ignore the reality that this institution is empowered by religion and it needs this insitition to maintain structure.

Welcome to the slippery slope.

that is the best rationalization i could think of to explain how i see it.. tell me how you think.

Poorly thought out and poorly argued.

Marriage is important because it gives society structure. If people simply had children with whomever they pleased as often as they wanted, women would be left with the children while men go off and find another mate..

a problem which only exists if women depend on men for support. it also presumes that the man can find a new mate but the woman cannot. it also overlooks extended family structure and the support of close friends.


Government (whose life normally lasts longer then lives of its current people) depend on the future (children). The more structure we enjoy the better growing conditions for children.

arguable. i think more STABILITY in their lives will help children grow, but psychology has long since established that it is possible to have way too much structure in a child's life. authoritarian parenting, the most structured situation, is even less successful than overly-permissive parenting, in fact.


Government makes marriage an institition because it gives structure.. and thus propgates it through the allowances of extra rights (tax exemption and inheritance) But like any instition it is only as strong as the legitimacy it holds in the eyes of the people. Agnostics and Atheists see marriage only as important as the rights an individual gets through it.

wow, how insulting can you be? you think that agnostics and atheists see their marriage as only as important as the rights they get? clearly you have no concept of love or union or honor, if you really believe that. strike one.


But those religious people see it as a sanctimonious reltionship established by god, and thus these people give the notion of marriage its legitimacy.

so marriage is made legitimate by the fact that some people believe their God likes it? which God? any God? so belief in any God at all will make marriage legitimate, even though none of those Gods may actually exist? so the legitimacy of a union between two human beings is determined by how sure they are of unprovable beings? wow, strike two...big time.


If you allow gay marriage, you tarnish the sancity of marriage in the eyes of those religious belifs and you reduce the legitimacy marriage requires.

and divorce didn't do that? the same argument was made when blacks and whites were allowed to intermarry, as it was also made when women were allowed to retain their own property rights after they wed. if you wish to return marriage to it's fully "sanctified" form according to the Christian majority, then you had better be prepared to go the whole nine yards.


If the legitmacy of an insitution is too greatly degraded the insititon collapses and this is the risk marriage faces. The government can't have this insititon collapse since it is the foundaiton of the faimly unit and the foundation of societal structure. So its in the governments interest to protect the legitimacy of marriage which is supplied by those religious people.

it is not the government's job to tell us who to love. promoting the institution of marriage by making it possible for all citizens to choose whom they will wed is in the best interests of the government, because it will increase the number of stable family units that can contribute to society as a whole. if there are people who will allow their marriage to fall apart simply because the government allows Bill and Frank to marry, then those people didn't have a marriage to begin with.

besides, i thought all those people viewed marriage as important because of their God's approval, not because of the rights associated with it...if that's the case, they shouldn't care whether the government allows gays to wed legally, because they will be secure in their knowledge that the evil homos will burn in hell. are their marriages so worthless and baseless that they define their union based on what other people do? is it possible that they are more concerned with appearances and the specific word "marriage" than they are with the meaning and depth of their own relationships? do they really think that God's blessing will be guided by human laws, so that if the government legalizes something then God will change his mind about it?

if the answer to any of these is "yes," then their marriage is worthless already so nobody should care if it falls apart.


The whole issue could be side steped if a seporate insitution was made (which civil unions provide) and awarded people excluded from marriage the same rights married people enjoy. So all they have to do is give civil unions the same ights as marriage gets and equality can be acheived.

yeah, like how making blacks drink at seperate fountains helped white folk continue to feel special and important. after all, having white folks feel special and important was valuable to the government because it preserved order...the disorder from the Civil Rights movement adversely effected stability, which is bad for children, and it decreased productivity, which is bad for the economy. i guess we should have kept those seperate fountains, after all.

definitely a strike three.


As long as religoius belifs maintain that the sancity of marriage is tarnshied by gay relationships, gay marraige can never be. And as non-secular as anyone would want the government to be.. it cannot ignore the reality that this institution is empowered by religion and it needs this insitition to maintain structure.


funny, my folks have been married for 30 years (this July), and religion has never played a part in their union. just because some people cannot love and honor without some God telling them to doesn't mean that all people are so handicapped. marriage has existed for thousands of years before any of our current religions, and it will hopefully long outlast them all. marriage is about the union of people, not about God or religion, and a true marriage will endure without religious backing of any sort.

incidently, did you know that the HIGHEST divorce rates in the country are found among people who self report as "extremely religious"? Born-Again-Christians have among the highest divorce rates, as well, and Bible Belt states are well above the national average for divorces. Meanwhile, Massachusetts (the first state to legalize gay marriage) has the lowest divorce rate of any state in the Union.


that is the best rationalization i could think of to explain how i see it.. tell me how you think.
i give it a poor to fair rating...better thought out than most anti-gay statements, but still so obviously flawed that it isn't really worth serious consideration. it's also full of a variety of blind prejudices and flatly false claims, none of which you even attempt to support with facts or references, and that weakens it even further.

I think there should be a strong push to come up with a new term. If its done with religious backing, then have it called a Marriage. If its done under the state, call it a Civil Union.


I don't see why we should mess with language just to keep from upsetting a few religious zealots. I mean, I'm an atheist but I hope that one day I'll decide to tie the knot. And "hey, guess what Mom? I'm getting unionised" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Marriage is important because it gives society structure. If people simply had children with whomever they pleased as often as they wanted, women would be left with the children while men go off and find another mate..

Government (whose life normally lasts longer then lives of its current people) depend on the future (children). The more structure we enjoy the better growing conditions for children.

Government makes marriage an institition because it gives structure.. and thus propgates it through the allowances of extra rights (tax exemption and inheritance) But like any instition it is only as strong as the legitimacy it holds in the eyes of the people. Agnostics and Atheists see marriage only as important as the rights an individual gets through it. But those religious people see it as a sanctimonious reltionship established by god, and thus these people give the notion of marriage its legitimacy. If you allow gay marriage, you tarnish the sancity of marriage in the eyes of those religious belifs and you reduce the legitimacy marriage requires. If the legitmacy of an insitution is too greatly degraded the insititon collapses and this is the risk marriage faces. The government can't have this insititon collapse since it is the foundaiton of the faimly unit and the foundation of societal structure. So its in the governments interest to protect the legitimacy of marriage which is supplied by those religious people.

The whole issue could be side steped if a seporate insitution was made (which civil unions provide) and awarded people excluded from marriage the same rights married people enjoy. So all they have to do is give civil unions the same ights as marriage gets and equality can be acheived.

As long as religoius belifs maintain that the sancity of marriage is tarnshied by gay relationships, gay marraige can never be. And as non-secular as anyone would want the government to be.. it cannot ignore the reality that this institution is empowered by religion and it needs this insitition to maintain structure.

that is the best rationalization i could think of to explain how i see it.. tell me how you think.

Good point, BUT: If you look at it that way, then you could also make a point against civil unions, which are not a big deal with fundamenalists against Gay Marriage.