NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking the other day about gay marriage, which lead me to think about marriage in general. And I was wondering about other people's views on it, these are mine about how marriage should be:

The legal institution of marriage should be abolished completely. Marriage is religion. The government should have no right to say whether two people are married or not. This means that any two people should be able to get married, if their religion allows them to do so.

For two people to become legally "married", for lack of a better term, the government should issue a license, and that's it. No ceremony, no nothing. Any government-granted rights(power of attorney, adoption, etc.) or benefits(tax breaks) that apply to "married" people, should apply to anyone with that particular license, there could be no discrimination there. It would apply to two men, two women, two blacks, two whites, anyone. As long as it is two consenting adults.

Hence two people could be married, but not legally "married"; or two people could be legally "married", but not married.

I was thinking the other day about gay marriage, which lead me to think about marriage in general. And I was wondering about other people's views on it, these are mine about how marriage should be:

The legal institution of marriage should be abolished completely. Marriage is religion. The government should have no right to say whether two people are married or not. This means that any two people should be able to get married, if their religion allows them to do so.

For two people to become legally "married", for lack of a better term, the government should issue a license, and that's it. No ceremony, no nothing. Any government-granted rights(power of attorney, adoption, etc.) or benefits(tax breaks) that apply to "married" people, should apply to anyone with that particular license, there could be no discrimination there. It would apply to two men, two women, two blacks, two whites, anyone. As long as it is two consenting adults.

Hence two people could be married, but not legally "married"; or two people could be legally "married", but not married.


The way I see it is that marriage has been going on for many, many thousands of years...long before certain religions began claiming it as uniquely their's, and I'm rather certain that gay marriages have been around just as long. If certain Churches and other religious institutions don't want to allow it, fine. They don't have to perform the ceremony, or allow those people into their congregations (Though I would definitely call that discrimination). The government has no place in saying that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, nor relegate it to the title of a "civil union".

Marriage isn't religious in my opinion, really, but more of a cultural idea that is more or less omnipresent in human socities. I think that after the idea of marriage was developed, it became religious.

You already have to get a license for marriage (which I think is a bit ridiculous), but you can forgo all the pomp and circumstance of the ceremonies, and get married before a justice of the peace.

Marriage was a civil institution before it was a religious one.

I am all for different gender couples and same gender couples getting a license for "domestic union" or "civil union" or whatever you might want to call it...

...and leaving religious ceremonies with the title of 'marriage', allowing each religion to decide who, under their guidelines, is allowed to be married.

Thus the civil contract protecting property rights, and the religious ceremony sealing two persons together in holy matrimony, would be kept completely separate. If one WANTED to, and one's religion allowed for their choice of partner, then one could go through both ceremonies.

I'm all for abolishing it entirely. It's ridiculous.

I'm for the complete abolishment of any government intervention in marriage. No advantages and no disadvantages. That will get rid of the whining about gay marriage, divorce, marriage taxation, everything.

If a gay couple wants to get married and can find a religion that will marry them...have at it. If a religion wants to only allow heterosexual marriage...have at it.

No fuss, no muss.

I like the way it's handled in most European nations. A marriage here is lawful only if it is a secular marriage, approved by government official. There's no big ceremony, just signing a piece of paper, two witnesess and the government official signing it and that's it.
You can have a religious wedding ceremony if you wish, but it is not required in order to make the marriage legal. And religious ceremony alone is meaningless in terms of law.
Some countries have long legalised gay marriage, others are in the process of doing so.

Marriage was a civil institution before it was a religious one.Ah, a voice of reason, so many people overlook that there are many of us out there who are legally married and no church had anything to do with it.

I never stepped in a church and my vows were administered by a civil servent.

And my divorce of course is also being handled outside of religion.

Which begs the question of all those who argue that marraige is a religious institution...

How come the dissolution of one is handled solely outside of any church?

Ah, a voice of reason, so many people overlook that there are many of us out there who are legally married and no church had anything to do with it.

I never stepped in a church and my vows were administered by a civil servent.

And my divorce of course is also being handled outside of religion.

Which begs the question of all those who argue that marraige is a religious institution...

How come the dissolution of one is handled solely outside of any church?


Religions claim absolute truths, so everything they sanctify has to be absolute as well, I guess.
Some religions won't recognise the dissolution of marriages at all, that is to say they regard you as married until the day either you or your partner dies (some even beyond that), despite a legal divorce.
For example, if you had a Catholic wedding, then get a divorce and want to marry again, you can do so only legally, not religiously. In the eyes of the Catholic church, you are still married.
On the other hand, other religions such as Islam or the Jewish religion, allow for divorce. There you can religiously dissolve a marriage.

For two people to become legally "married", for lack of a better term, the government should issue a license, and that's it. No ceremony, no nothing. Any government-granted rights(power of attorney, adoption, etc.) or benefits(tax breaks) that apply to "married" people, should apply to anyone with that particular license, there could be no discrimination there. It would apply to two men, two women, two blacks, two whites, anyone. As long as it is two consenting adults.

i agree with your non-discrimination points there, but, as far as i understand, what you describe is how civil marriges are done in the UK anyway (don't know about the US). you have your own party or whatever, head down the register's office and sign some kinda contract... well i may be hazy on the details (never been to a marriage) but i'm pretty sure there's no official civil ceremony.

but that's beside the main point. you assume that marriage can only be a purely religious affair. so, as the lost planet pointed out... what about those who are not religious?
which means more - the religious values & ceremony of marriage in church, or legal recognition? evidently for you it is the former, but for non-religious people like me, the latter is definatley what i would call marriage. don't enforce your religious viewpoint on us - us non-religious types have just as much right to marry as you do. i say the current system works pretty well

Mawidge...mawidge is what bwings us togewer today...
Mawidge, the bwessed awwangement, that dweam wiffim a dweam...
Ven wuv, twoo wuv, wiw fowwow you fowever..

*coff*

sorry.

Mawidge...mawidge is what bwings us togewer today...
Mawidge, the bwessed awwangement, that dweam wiffim a dweam...
Ven wuv, twoo wuv, wiw fowwow you fowever..

*coff*

sorry.

You should be. You beat me to it. ;)

My sister is getting married in about 6 months...She's gonna have that said at the wedding :)

Mawidge...mawidge is what bwings us togewer today...
Mawidge, the bwessed awwangement, that dweam wiffim a dweam...
Ven wuv, twoo wuv, wiw fowwow you fowever..

*coff*

sorry.

hmmm....
Love and Marriage, Love and Marriage,
Go together like a horse and carriage,
This I tell ya brother, you can't have one without the other.

Love and Marriage, Love and Marriage,
It's an institute you can't disparage,
Ask the local gentry, and they will say is element'ry.

Try, try, try to separate them,
It's an illusion.
Try, try, try and you will only come
to this conclusion.

Love and Marriage, Love and Marriage,
Go together like a horse and carriage,
Dad was told by mother
You can't have one
You can't have none
You can't have one without the other.

...PEG!!!!...


uhh yeah flashback sitcom anyone?

You should be. You beat me to it. ;)

My sister is getting married in about 6 months...She's gonna have that said at the wedding :)Now that ought to be a fun wedding to attend... just to see the looks on the faces of those who don't get it....

I'm all for abolishing it entirely. It's ridiculous. Eh? Why? I mean, obviously there are people who don't want to get married, and that's fine and good, but why's the whole idea ridiculous?

Now that ought to be a fun wedding to attend... just to see the looks one the faces of those who don't get it....

In a union of two nerds, who hang out with nerds, and have nerds for parents...Most people will get it I'd wager ;)

For some reason I am reminded of the time I went to a nudist wedding. I was a bit late, but I was within an inch of being the best man.

For some reason I am reminded of the time I went to a nudist wedding. I was a bit late, but I was within an inch of being the best man.

OMG! That has to be the worst pun I've seen on this forum yet. Thanks for making me giggle ... uncontrollably ... a lot.

Congrats to the sister on her wedding, btw.

So some people wish to abolish marriage?

So you wish to remove choice, therefore you wish to control? Hmmm, very thoughtful idea. Shall we then abolish all but one church?

Here's an idea, speaking as a Christian..LEAVE IT ALONE! YOU ARE NOT THE JUDGE! CONCERN YOURSELF WITH YOUR MARRIAGE (if that occurs) AND NOT THAT OF OTHERS.

God knows what he is doing. If you are a believer of God, then you would not be asking this question. For those who don't believe, fine, you can just ignore this post.

NO!! If two people want to get married they should be allowed to.

I was thinking the other day about gay marriage, which lead me to think about marriage in general. And I was wondering about other people's views on it, these are mine about how marriage should be:

The legal institution of marriage should be abolished completely. Marriage is religion. The government should have no right to say whether two people are married or not. This means that any two people should be able to get married, if their religion allows them to do so.

For two people to become legally "married", for lack of a better term, the government should issue a license, and that's it. No ceremony, no nothing. Any government-granted rights(power of attorney, adoption, etc.) or benefits(tax breaks) that apply to "married" people, should apply to anyone with that particular license, there could be no discrimination there. It would apply to two men, two women, two blacks, two whites, anyone. As long as it is two consenting adults.

Hence two people could be married, but not legally "married"; or two people could be legally "married", but not married.

Is there any actual point to "abolishing marriage"? I mean, what is so bad about it that it needs abolishing? There's a lot of good with it, so why abolish it?

My thoughts exactly. It's about to people loving each other and want to spend the rest of their lives with each other.

Is there any actual point to "abolishing marriage"? I mean, what is so bad about it that it needs abolishing? There's a lot of good with it, so why abolish it?

I don't see any reason to abolish it. If people want to do it, why not?
Personally, I think you should be able to aquire the rights a married couple has at the moment without calling it marriage and hving to go through a hell of a legal process when you wish these rights removed again. I really don't consider marriage as necessary for anything, but I won't tell others what to do

The legal institution of marriage should be abolished completely. Marriage is religion. The government should have no right to say whether two people are married or not. This means that any two people should be able to get married, if their religion allows them to do so.

For two people to become legally "married", for lack of a better term, the government should issue a license, and that's it. No ceremony, no nothing. Any government-granted rights(power of attorney, adoption, etc.) or benefits(tax breaks) that apply to "married" people, should apply to anyone with that particular license, there could be no discrimination there. It would apply to two men, two women, two blacks, two whites, anyone. As long as it is two consenting adults.

Hence two people could be married, but not legally "married"; or two people could be legally "married", but not married.

You have generalised. Marriage means different things to different people.
Marriage is NOT necessarily about religion. I'm married, and neither my husband nor I are remotely religious. The ceremony had meaning for us nonetheless. It was an opportunity to declare in front of family and friends that we were in love and plan to stay together, and to celebrate that fact.
It's not up to you to tell people they can't have a marriage ceremony if they want to, as well as getting the licence. There's nothing discriminatory about having a ceremony.

Fundamentally, there are two issues bound up together, what several people are suggesting is separating those issues out.

The first is the issue of an officially recognised spouse who can be your next of kin, take power of attorney, inherit your goods, be a parent to your children, visit you in hospital, collect your insurance and all the other rights that a married couple currently have. That should be available to any two people who choose to enter into such a contract - and that's all it need be, a simple legal contract recognised in the same way as any other contract would be.

The second is the religious ceremony of marriage, be it protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever. And that should be available to any member of those faiths (or persons joining them) subject to their established rules. That should have no recognition in law without the former part, but nobody should make any attempt to prevent anyone having this part if that's what their personal faith dictates they should do.

The first section, as a legal contract, can be dissolved in the normal way that any legal contract is dissolved. The second, remains subject to its own rules, but still has no bearing on law, so speaking from a Jewish perspective, by way of example, even if you were unable to obtain a get (a Jewish divorce) as far as the law is concerned you are divorced if you dissolve your legal contract - the squaring of your own position within your faith is your problem and there's, not the state's.

You have generalised. Marriage means different things to different people.
Marriage is NOT necessarily about religion. I'm married, and neither my husband nor I are remotely religious. The ceremony had meaning for us nonetheless. It was an opportunity to declare in front of family and friends that we were in love and plan to stay together, and to celebrate that fact.
It's not up to you to tell people they can't have a marriage ceremony if they want to, as well as getting the licence. There's nothing discriminatory about having a ceremony.

But there is, surely, something slightly hypocritical about vows made before a God in which you don't believe? Or was this a civil proceeding? In which case the original post doesn't in any way challenge it.

My view (and how it is done in most western nations):

-Marriage: stateaffair, done by an official of the state. Religion is not involved, but a ceremony is very much possible. Marriage gives you benefits like taxcuts, power of attorney over your partner etc.
- Holy matrimony: bonding before God. Done in the traditions of a religion of your choice. Not recognised by the state on its own; you need to have a marriage for that.

The first is what "gay marriage" would fall under. The definition of the second strongly depends on your religion; if it does not allow gay marriage that is too bad for the gay couple.
Technically one could choose to call the first "civil union" and the second "marriage" - but that would mean that everyone (including straight couples) who did not have a religious marriage would suddenly be "unioned" - while a ceremony done by the sect of the flying turd would have the same status as for instance christian marriage. I doubt this would make many people happy.

You assume it was a religious ceremony, even though the poster has said nothing of the sort.

Why?

You should not call people hypocrites based on information you do not have.

You assume it was a religious ceremony, even though the poster has said nothing of the sort.

Why?

You should not call people hypocrites based on information you do not have.

Try reading what I wrote: "But there is, surely, something slightly hypocritical about vows made before a God in which you don't believe? Or was this a civil proceeding? In which case the original post doesn't in any way challenge it."

I said IF it was a religious ceremony it was hypocritical if you don't believe in God.

... The definition of the second strongly depends on your religion; if it does not allow gay marriage that is too bad for the gay couple ...

I agree with this. I think you have a right to equality in the law, so gay marriages or unions or whatever they end up being called should be recognised. You do not have a right to equality within a faith, you have rules which you must obey or you are not a proper member of that faith. So, the state should very much recognise gay unions, but nobody should compel any church or religion to do anything of the sort if that runs counter to their creed.

So what do you do if you fall in love with someone religious?
I'm a radical atheist but if my partner was religious and had always dreamt of a church wedding I wouldn't deny her that.

You'd get the legal document and, if you chose, a religious wedding. If you have no problem swearing before a God you don't believe in and you can convince the priest, minister, rabbi, imam that you DO believe that's for your conscience and nothing to do with me.

So what do you do if you fall in love with someone religious?
I'm a radical atheist but if my partner was religious and had always dreamt of a church wedding I wouldn't deny her that.

That depends on the church in question. If it refuses to matrimony a follower and a heretic/infidel you will have to make do with the statemarriage with a very churchlike ceremony, or convert.
However, the choice to matrimony you or not is up to the church.

Nonesense. I have several friends who are atheist and who have married devoutly catholic wives, in a catholic ceremony, in a catholic church by a vicar who has known the woman in question all her life.
I also have atheist friends who have married in protestant churches.
To me to say 'Swear before god' is the same as saying, 'I swear'. Swearing an oath to yourself and your partner is more powerful than swearing to an imaginary creature.

Nonesense. I have several friends who are atheist and who have married devoutly catholic wives, in a catholic ceremony, in a catholic church by a vicar who has known the woman in question all her life.
I also have atheist friends who have married in protestant churches.
To me to say 'Swear before god' is the same as saying, 'I swear'. Swearing an oath to yourself and your partner is more powerful than swearing to an imaginary creature.

Are you directing that at me? If so, I still don't see how what I've said contradicts you.

Nope, the The Alma Mater.

But to contradict you, how would I find it difficult to swear to something that doesn't exist? I have no fear of being 'gotten' by a figment of the imagination.

I'd have a clear conscience because I'd be happy that I'd help bring about the happiest day of my partner's, and my life.

Nope, the The Alma Mater.

But to contradict you, how would I find it difficult to swear to something that doesn't exist? I have no fear of being 'gotten' by a figment of the imagination.

I'd have a clear conscience because I'd be happy that I'd help bring about the happiest day of my partner's, and my life.

You're still not contradicting me. If you have no problem swearing before a God you don't believe in, then fine. If you have no problem passing yourself off as Catholic or whatever (or converting in name only) then also fine. You're not hurting me.

Of course, I could wish you'd said "a God I don't believe exists" instead of the absolutes and the "figment" part; there's no reason to belittle others' beliefs just because you don't share them.

I'm afraid I am contradicting you, because I am not swearing before a god I don't believe in. I am swearing to the people present, and referring to a mythical creature. Because god doesn't exist the reference is a NULL comment.
You are assuming that god exists, I am assuming it doesn't. That's a completely different stand point.
I haven't belittled your beliefs, you just didn't think of the situation from an atheist's perspective.

You're not contradicting me. By agreeing to marry in a church and a religious ceremony, you're taking part in a religion to which you do not subscribe. You're playing by their rules, even if you don't acknowledge them within yourself, therefore you are sweearing before their God.

You've not belittled my beliefs, I don't care if you believe in God or not, I was simply suggesting that you could have phrased things more diplomatically. There's no need to tell other people what they believe is false, I won't try to convence ytou God exists and I wont try to convert you to my beliefs, all I ask is the same respect in return.

Ah, no I'm not contradicting your general point.
The bit I was contradicting was that to your POV there is an additional witness to the ceremony and that is the god in question (depends upon the faith of my hyperthetical partner to be), who may feel a bit peeved that I was taking it's name in vain.
To my POV the only witnesses are the people present, and only the priest would be unaware that I didn't prescribe to his view of reality.

When I state, 'god' or call it a mythical creature, that is showing you no less respect as a believer than when you state 'God' and assume it's real to me as an atheist.

When I state, 'god' or call it a mythical creature, that is showing you no less respect as a believer than when you state 'God' and assume it's real to me as an atheist.

My assumption cannot cause offence because it's a private one. Your assertion that God is a "figment" of my imagination, could.

My assumption cannot cause offence because it's a private one. Your assertion that God is a "figment" of my imagination, could.
Nonsense. I'm stating my POV, you are stating yours. Any insult you take is your own making.

I was thinking the other day about gay marriage, which lead me to think about marriage in general. And I was wondering about other people's views on it, these are mine about how marriage should be:

The legal institution of marriage should be abolished completely. Marriage is religion. The government should have no right to say whether two people are married or not. This means that any two people should be able to get married, if their religion allows them to do so.

For two people to become legally "married", for lack of a better term, the government should issue a license, and that's it. No ceremony, no nothing. Any government-granted rights(power of attorney, adoption, etc.) or benefits(tax breaks) that apply to "married" people, should apply to anyone with that particular license, there could be no discrimination there. It would apply to two men, two women, two blacks, two whites, anyone. As long as it is two consenting adults.

Hence two people could be married, but not legally "married"; or two people could be legally "married", but not married.


I'm sure someone has already pointed this out, but you do realize that this is already how it works. You can be legally married with no ceremony and you can be religiously married with no license. The only problem is that right now the government is denying gay couples the licenses--they already have ceremonies from certain religious organizations that will perform their marriages, or they can have a completely non-religious ceremony.

Nonsense. I'm stating my POV, you are stating yours. Any insult you take is your own making.

This isn't the thread for it, but I have to disagree, I've made no assertion about the existence of God, only you did that. You've effectively told me (without knowing what they are) that my beliefs are wrong, whereas I have acknowledged yours wuite happily.

Incorrect, you stated that: -
"If you have no problem swearing before a God you don't believe in"
Which infers that the 'God' exists but that I don't aknowledge that existance.
That is your assertion for the existance of a god. I assert that it doesn't exist. You don't believe me, I don't believe you. This still should cause no offense.
Why would me stating 'there is no god' be offensive to you? It's my 'belief'. I take no offense at you asserting the existance of your god.

Nonesense. I have several friends who are atheist and who have married devoutly catholic wives, in a catholic ceremony, in a catholic church by a vicar who has known the woman in question all her life.
I also have atheist friends who have married in protestant churches.

Which means the church in question has decided to allow it - which in no way conflicts with my statement ;) Other churches/religions can be far more strict - and that is their right.

To me to say 'Swear before god' is the same as saying, 'I swear'. Swearing an oath to yourself and your partner is more powerful than swearing to an imaginary creature.

To you, yes. But if the church in question disagrees with you: tough luck for you. Their ceremony, their rules. That is also why state and churchmarriage must be seperated.

Yes, absolutely. Church and state marriages should be separated. Although I have no problem with the religious marriage also being the legal marriage. I'm quite happy about the religious head also having a legal standing too.

I personally prefer state marriages, the ones I have been to have taken place in stately homes near where I live. The settings are beautiful, the ceremony is short and sweet, but still full of conviction.
But I've been to religious marriages where one or neither party actually believe in the religion. That's up to the strictness of the church in question.

The legal institution of marriage should be abolished completely.
*agrees wholeheartedly*

Marriage suits me and my wife fine.

Although, its divorce that should be outlawed. You should have to renew your marriage license every 4 years-if you dont, it expires and you're no longer married.
And if you abuse your marriage privileges, the license can be revoked or suspended.

Incorrect, you stated that: -
"If you have no problem swearing before a God you don't believe in"
Which infers that the 'God' exists but that I don't aknowledge that existance.
That is your assertion for the existance of a god. I assert that it doesn't exist. You don't believe me, I don't believe you. This still should cause no offense.
Why would me stating 'there is no god' be offensive to you? It's my 'belief'. I take no offense at you asserting the existance of your god.

Except that I made no such assertions. I implied nothing about my belief in the statement you quote, you chose to infer something that wasn't there and to dismiss a belief you don't even know I hold. You're the only one making assertions.

I'm afraid I am contradicting you, because I am not swearing before a god I don't believe in. I am swearing to the people present, and referring to a mythical creature. Because god doesn't exist the reference is a NULL comment.
You are assuming that god exists, I am assuming it doesn't. That's a completely different stand point.
I haven't belittled your beliefs, you just didn't think of the situation from an atheist's perspective.

There is still the possibility of this being a bit hypocritical. You don't believe in God, and yet - in most religious ceremonies, you profess such a belief and swear before that entity (figment or not).

Would you not consider it a bit hypocritcal for an atheist to go through Catechism and get confirmed, for instance? It is professing a belief that they do not actually hold and, to a point, belittling the true belief of those around them.

Note that I don't think participation in an religious ceremony is necessarily hypocritical for an atheist. I have taken my boyfriend to church and he has participated. I would not, however, expect him to take part in any ceremony that asked him to profess belief.

Marriage suits me and my wife fine.

Although, its divorce that should be outlawed. You should have to renew your marriage license every 4 years-if you dont, it expires and you're no longer married.
And if you abuse your marriage privileges, the license can be revoked or suspended.

That's an interesting thought - but it would really be impossible for the government. The reason that divorce proceedings are necessary is that the possessions which previously belonged to both people as a single entity have to be split up between the two. If we had a license that "ran out", the divorce proceedings would still have to happen, as the contract would still be broken and those items would still have to be broken up.

Here's an idea, speaking as a Christian..LEAVE IT ALONE! YOU ARE NOT THE JUDGE! CONCERN YOURSELF WITH YOUR MARRIAGE (if that occurs) AND NOT THAT OF OTHERS.

Leaving it alone would be bad, as that means that the more extreme Christian churches keep asserting their own personal religous views upon the government - keeping it from offering equal protection to all citizens.

As a Christian, I think that is a very bad thing.

Interestingly enough, the State doesn't recognise religious marriages unless there is a State issued marriage license or a State recognised common law .... so the whole idea of "religious" marriage is completely moot.

All marriages are civil unions. All of them.

:fluffle: If gay marriage is legalized then why should the government remove all discrimination with marriage such as pedophilia and polygamy?

It is in the interest of any society to invest in the future. The government gives benefits to institutions that benefit society. The main benefit marriage brings to government is children. (Before anyone says so, I know not all marriages produce children and children are produced outside of marriage. My wife and I have not yet produced any offspring.) Native born children are what keep the economy, military, and other professions going. In order for a society to out live its mortality it must reproduce.

Secondly marriage benefits the government by parenting and providing for the children until they can fend for themselves. Research after research has shown that children do better with two biological parents in almost every single facet. Parents help, lower the crime rate, poverty rate, unwed mother rate, and so on. This is good for society and government.

Thirdly, marriage increases the stability of society. Divorce and adultery do more damage to the children than they could ever do to the parents.

Homosexuality, first, is contrary to nature. The Spartans endorsed pedophilia in order to produce an army that would die for its lovers. When it came time for the soldiers to marry they had to be taught how to be aroused by a woman. The Spartans never believed that one was born homosexual. Most people still don't.

That being said, in the United States, homosexuality has yet to be proved a beneficial lifestyle, much less deserving of a government endorsement. 80% percent of lesbians have been sexually abused. 90% of child molesters are homosexual men. Children raised by homosexual parents are 90% more likely to be promiscuous. 2/3 of child molesters have been molested themselves.
Why should the government endorse a behavior that is so destructive?

The United States government should continue to endorse traditional marriage. It is traditional. The Jews, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, all have at one time or another endorsed homosexuality, but have never endorsed it as marriage. One man and one woman is not just the religious view, but the view that has survived history.

Lastly, here in Virginia a lesbian couple went to Vermont to be joined into a civil union. Vermont law says that civil unions can not be performed on any citizen of a state that does not recognize the union. Virginia does not. One of the couple was artificially inseminated. She converted to some form of Christianity and became a heterosexual. Now our two states are duking it out over whether or not the other partner has rights to the child.
The debate over gay marriage and marriage in general is not about the willing participants, but about the unwilling.

The Spartans endorsed pedophilia in order to produce an army that would die for its lovers.

erm dont u mean homosexuality, not pedophillia? or r u trying 2 say sumthing here?

Personnally, i think that if 2 ppl love each other that much, then they should b able to say to the world "we commit to each other" in a public ceremony and b legally recognised, regardless of the sex of the partners.

:fluffle: If gay marriage is legalized then why should the government remove all discrimination with marriage such as pedophilia and polygamy?

Marriage requires consent. As long as children (and animals before the bestiality argument is used) are considered imcapable of consenting, they cannot be married. There is no discrimination here.

Polygamy is a different question. It depends on what the government views as the goal of a marriage: profession of love, taking care of offspring, forming a legal unit to make taxing easier, giving power of attorney to someone you are not biologically related to etc. Of the ones I mentioned only the last one could be considered a problem (lots of children are raised by a family, not just the parents for instance) since the partners could disagree after all. Then again; if you just consider all partners together as one legal person and let majority decide this problem is gone. So there is no real argument against polygamy.

It is in the interest of any society to invest in the future. The government gives benefits to institutions that benefit society. The main benefit marriage brings to government is children.
(Before anyone says so, I know not all marriages produce children and children are produced outside of marriage. My wife and I have not yet produced any offspring.)

With which you have just proven your argument to be false ;) And if the main purpose of marriage was producing and raising children only already pregnant couples should be allowed to marry - which is directly opposite to what churches preach ;)

Native born children are what keep the economy, military, and other professions going. In order for a society to out live its mortality it must reproduce.

True - but as you yourself said: that can be done outside marriage. And also inside gay and polygamist marriages. Medical technology and adoption are options in the gay case, polygamists may not even need that.

Secondly marriage benefits the government by parenting and providing for the children until they can fend for themselves.

Which both a polygamist "family" and a married gay couple can do.

Research after research has shown that children do better with two biological parents in almost every single facet. Parents help, lower the crime rate, poverty rate, unwed mother rate, and so on. This is good for society and government.

Sources ;) ?

Thirdly, marriage increases the stability of society. Divorce and adultery do more damage to the children than they could ever do to the parents.
Yep. No problem with gay and polygamist marriages there either ;)

Homosexuality, first, is contrary to nature.
Define "is contrary to nature". It occurs amongst animals after all..
Second: why does that matter ? Wearing clothes and going to church are contrary to nature too. Eating your partner after sex on the other hand happens quite a lot in nature. Being natural is not the same as being good.


That being said, in the United States, homosexuality has yet to be proved a beneficial lifestyle, much less deserving of a government endorsement. 80% percent of lesbians have been sexually abused. 90% of child molesters are homosexual men. Children raised by homosexual parents are 90% more likely to be promiscuous. 2/3 of child molesters have been molested themselves.
Why should the government endorse a behavior that is so destructive?

Sources ;) ?

The United States government should continue to endorse traditional marriage. It is traditional. The Jews, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, all have at one time or another endorsed homosexuality, but have never endorsed it as marriage. One man and one woman is not just the religious view, but the view that has survived history.

They also all endorsed slavery and inequality of men and women. That something is traditional does not make it good.

erm dont u mean homosexuality, not pedophillia? or r u trying 2 say sumthing here?

Personnally, i think that if 2 ppl love each other that much, then they should b able to say to the world "we commit to each other" in a public ceremony and b legally recognised, regardless of the sex of the partners.


I meant pedophilia. I was just trying to show the lack of distinction between sexual preferences. The Spartan mothers would send their seven year old boys to join the military. They would become lovers of the older men. This practice is both homosexuality and pedophilia. Also I was trying to illustrate that this practice was taught not innate.

The government does not endorse marriage, because of love or commitment. It does so, because it is beneficial to society. Love and commitment are not required on a marriage license.

Sources ;) ?

touche on all accounts, I will reply when I get my sources. This was from memory. Good arguements, wrong, but good arguements.

I meant pedophilia. I was just trying to show the lack of distinction between sexual preferences. The Spartan mothers would send their seven year old boys to join the military. They would become lovers of the older men.

ok. i didnt know bout that but i still believe that homosexuality (and bisexuality) is not a choice u make. sometimes it can be forced on a person if they believe that they must b a certain way 2 survive but i also believe that that is wrong. a person should b allowed to b what ever they want so long as it doesnt demene (sp?) or hurt others.

That being said, in the United States, homosexuality has yet to be proved a beneficial lifestyle, much less deserving of a government endorsement. 80% percent of lesbians have been sexually abused. 90% of child molesters are homosexual men. Children raised by homosexual parents are 90% more likely to be promiscuous. 2/3 of child molesters have been molested themselves.
Why should the government endorse a behavior that is so destructive?


BS, sources?
(The child molestors having been molested themselfs I have heard of being high percentage) but as far as the homosexual men or homosexual parents statistics, this sort of BS is clamed ALL the time but has NEVER been proven

You made the claim now back it up

I'm for the complete abolishment of any government intervention in marriage. No advantages and no disadvantages. That will get rid of the whining about gay marriage, divorce, marriage taxation, everything.

If a gay couple wants to get married and can find a religion that will marry them...have at it. If a religion wants to only allow heterosexual marriage...have at it.

No fuss, no muss.
The only problem is that there needs to be some way to transfer next of kin status, power of attorney, and the like. Come form ov civil contract would be required. We could call it a secular union license, but that sounds horrible.

*snip*

You completely leave out the foremost reason that the government recognizes marriage - its own convenience. The main reason that government recognizes marriage is property - plain and simple. The government has to know who owns what, how to tax them, and who owes what debt. This is the main purpose of civil marriage.

You completely leave out the foremost reason that the government recognizes marriage - its own convenience. The main reason that government recognizes marriage is property - plain and simple. The government has to know who owns what, how to tax them, and who owes what debt. This is the main purpose of civil marriage.

hmmm, that does kind make sense in a way.

touche on all accounts, I will reply when I get my sources. This was from memory. Good arguements, wrong, but good arguements.

Considering that much of what was in that post was out and out lies, I don't think you actually have sources.

For instance, studies with children raised by homosexual parents have found that the only difference is that those children tend to be more tolerant of alternate sexualities (surprise surprise). They had no more tendencies towards homosexuality or promiscuity.

All lesbians were not abused, although I would guess that about 3/4 were, as were about 3/4 of heterosexual women. It happens more often than many think, even in "traditional" families.

As for your "homosexuality/bisexuality is against nature" argument, it is completely false. It may be against your nature, but is certainly not against the nature of the homosexual person.

Nor is it against the nature of the homosexual or bisexual penguin, flamingo, woodpecker, swan, goose, squirrel, rat, guinea pig, dolphin, giraffe, elephant, whale, walrus, cat, dog, cow, goat, ..., or ape.

But there is, surely, something slightly hypocritical about vows made before a God in which you don't believe? Or was this a civil proceeding? In which case the original post doesn't in any way challenge it.
We did not make vows before God. The ceremony was performed by a celebrant, not a priest. It is, however, still a marriage, not a 'civil union', or whatever.

The original post said that marriage was necessarily about religion, which is untrue, as mine was not. It also said that people shouldn't get to have a ceremony, and frankly anyone who tells me I can't celebrate important occasions in my life can piss off, leaving more beer for the rest of us.

You'd get the legal document and, if you chose, a religious wedding. If you have no problem swearing before a God you don't believe in and you can convince the priest, minister, rabbi, imam that you DO believe that's for your conscience and nothing to do with me.

Are the laws different in the US? I ask because here in Australia you can already marry without 'swearing before a God you don't believe in'. The religious part is optional. Only the legal part (precence of a legal celebrant, signing of the papers before 2 witnesses) is mandatory for it to be called a marriage.

We did not make vows before God. The ceremony was performed by a celebrant, not a priest. It is, however, still a marriage, not a 'civil union', or whatever.

The original post said that marriage was necessarily about religion, which is untrue, as mine was not. It also said that people shouldn't get to have a ceremony, and frankly anyone who tells me I can't celebrate important occasions in my life can piss off, leaving more beer for the rest of us.
I'm with you. Anybody who claims marriage is a religious matter should sit down with my parents...they've got over a quarter century of marriage, neither has been so much as engaged to anybody else before, and God has never had a place in their union. They weren't even happy with the UNITARIAN minister they first interviewed to officiate their wedding, so they went with a Justice of the Peace.

Are the laws different in the US? I ask because here in Australia you can already marry without 'swearing before a God you don't believe in'. The religious part is optional. Only the legal part (precence of a legal celebrant, signing of the papers before 2 witnesses) is mandatory for it to be called a marriage.
In America, you absolutely do NOT need any religious component to your marital union. You can get married by Elvis, for crying out loud. A legal marriage in the US does not in any way require religion, God, spirits, gnomes, or fairy dust.

I agree that legal marriage should be abolished. My view is that it is two people who make marriage sacred, by their vows. There should be no church, no family, no other people involved, just the two making vows.

I agree that legal marriage should be abolished. My view is that it is two people who make marriage sacred, by their vows. There should be no church, no family, no other people involved, just the two making vows.
I agree. If marriage was abolished there would probably be a privatization of "marriage" contract services, anyhow...lawyers and firms would offer pre-designed contracts for "marriage" unions, so couples wouldn't have to go through the process of getting all the current couple rights (next of kin, survivor status, custody stuff, etc) individually.

I agree that legal marriage should be abolished. My view is that it is two people who make marriage sacred, by their vows. There should be no church, no family, no other people involved, just the two making vows.
But what if you *want* family, friends etc. involved? Surely that's up to the individual couple?

But what if you *want* family, friends etc. involved? Surely that's up to the individual couple?
That's called "the reception," where others receive the knowledge of your marriage, and bless it with their good cheer.

If certain Churches and other religious institutions don't want to allow it, fine. They don't have to perform the ceremony, or allow those people into their congregations (Though I would definitely call that discrimination).
I think you might be seeing that from only one side. If a country club were to have a rule that no ball caps can be worn by members, that's their choice as a private organization. It's not discriminitory, it's just a requirement for membership. Letting Homosexuals into religions that condem homosexuality would be like letting girls into the boy scouts, yeah it could be done but is it really worth that much trouble to let people join a religion that condems the way they live anyway. (I know if I was gay I wouldn't want to be a member of a church, mosque or whatever...)

I like the way it's handled in most European nations. A marriage here is lawful only if it is a secular marriage, approved by government official. There's no big ceremony, just signing a piece of paper, two witnesess and the government official signing it and that's it.
You can have a religious wedding ceremony if you wish, but it is not required in order to make the marriage legal. And religious ceremony alone is meaningless in terms of law.


That's the way it's handled in the US too. The church service is completely optional.

Just a license spelling out the legal issues, (Like what we have now.), whether it be hetero or homo. Having a church wedding can be up to the individual. (The way it is now.)

I think leaving everything as is, would be fine, except include homosexuals as well.

if you had a Catholic wedding, then get a divorce and want to marry again, you can do so only legally, not religiously. In the eyes of the Catholic church, you are still married.

Except -- difficult as it is -- you can get the marriage annulled. Then, in the eyes of the Catholic church, it never happened, and you can get married in the church again.

That's called "the reception," where others receive the knowledge of your marriage, and bless it with their good cheer.

No, I'm talking about involving them in the ceremony itself. I wanted my friends and family to witness, and in the case of at least some of them, actually take part in the ceremony.

The guests stood in a circle, with the groom, the best man (his best friend), and his brothers and his parents stood in the middle. My parents, my little nieces (gleefully throwing handfuls of flower petals), my attendant (my best friend was a guy, and didn't want to be reffered to as a 'bridesmaid') came to meet them there, symbolising the coming together of our two families. The groom's brother and a very dear friend of mine gave a reading. I know not everyone wants that kind of fuss, but my man and I did, and that was our choice.

The point is, if people want to involve their friends and family in the ceremony it's not up to you to tell them they can't.

I think you might be seeing that from only one side. If a country club were to have a rule that no ball caps can be worn by members, that's their choice as a private organization. It's not discriminitory, it's just a requirement for membership. Letting Homosexuals into religions that condem homosexuality would be like letting girls into the boy scouts, yeah it could be done but is it really worth that much trouble to let people join a religion that condems the way they live anyway. (I know if I was gay I wouldn't want to be a member of a church, mosque or whatever...)

I know this is off the topic, but girls *are* allowed in the boy scouts, at least over here there are.

I agree that legal marriage should be abolished. My view is that it is two people who make marriage sacred, by their vows. There should be no church, no family, no other people involved, just the two making vows.

To take it down to brass tacks, you don't even need the vows. Just two people and someone willing and legally able to sign a State issued license.

Would certainly speed things up.

Erm, Flesh Eatin Zombies, a few posts back there you've quoted me a couple of times and I think you may have misunderstood entirely what I said.

I would never dream of enforcing religion on you, I said that if an atheist swore a vow in church before God it would be hypocritical

And I also said you should be entitled to full rights of marriage in law without any necessity for a religious component.

You somehow seem to have arrived at the conclusion that I said the exact opposite of what I actually said.

80% percent of lesbians have been sexually abused. 90% of child molesters are homosexual men. Children raised by homosexual parents are 90% more likely to be promiscuous. 2/3 of child molesters have been molested themselves.

1) Source for these percentages, please.

2) What does "2/3 of child molesters have been molested themselves" have to do with your assertion about gay marriage?

Erm, Flesh Eatin Zombies, a few posts back there you've quoted me a couple of times and I think you may have misunderstood entirely what I said.

I would never dream of enforcing religion on you, I said that if an atheist swore a vow in church before God it would be hypocritical

And I also said you should be entitled to full rights of marriage in law without any necessity for a religious component.

You somehow seem to have arrived at the conclusion that I said the exact opposite of what I actually said.

Nope, I didn't think you were 'enforcing religion on me'.
I was simply pointing out that here in Australia (and Bottle says also in the US) people already HAVE 'full marriage rights' without a religious component.
There's no point insisting that we should when it's already the case.

Also for some reason some people on this thread, including you, seem to have made a strange leap from saying that the ceremonial part is unnecessary to saying that it should be abolished. If people want it, you don't get to tell them they can't have it.

Also for some reason some people on this thread, including you, seem to have made a strange leap from saying that the ceremonial part is unnecessary to saying that it should be abolished. If people want it, you don't get to tell them they can't have it.

No, I certainly have not. In all my posts I've said that you can feel free to be married in any church or faith you choose, but you won't be considered legally married without the legal paperwork too. I certainly did not advocate abolishing the ceremonial.

And in insisting that the state grant all rights, I think you'll find I was actually talking about homosexual unions which are currently denied rights. I'm perfectly well aware of what the law is concerning heterosexual marriage.

No, I'm talking about involving them in the ceremony itself. I wanted my friends and family to witness, and in the case of at least some of them, actually take part in the ceremony.

The guests stood in a circle, with the groom, the best man (his best friend), and his brothers and his parents stood in the middle. My parents, my little nieces (gleefully throwing handfuls of flower petals), my attendant (my best friend was a guy, and didn't want to be reffered to as a 'bridesmaid') came to meet them there, symbolising the coming together of our two families. The groom's brother and a very dear friend of mine gave a reading. I know not everyone wants that kind of fuss, but my man and I did, and that was our choice.

The point is, if people want to involve their friends and family in the ceremony it's not up to you to tell them they can't.
If you are witness to each other's love, why do you need more to witness?

What part would they play in taking vows? That should be personal, between you two.

They gave you a reading? Cool! So they're some sort of divinators?

People involved in the happiness is fine, but the actual marriage is simply the exchange of vows.

No, I certainly have not. In all my posts I've said that you can feel free to be married in any church or faith you choose, but you won't be considered legally married without the legal paperwork too. I certainly did not advocate abolishing the ceremonial.

And in insisting that the state grant all rights, I think you'll find I was actually talking about homosexual unions which are currently denied rights. I'm perfectly well aware of what the law is concerning heterosexual marriage.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but you did say 'marriage is religion'. That statement is false.

You also said
'the government should issue a license, and that's it. No ceremony, no nothing. '
While I don't think a ceremony should be a mandatory part of the proceedings (and legally it's not) you seemed to be saying that marriage ceremonies shouldn't be allowed, which seemed silly to me, since I think anyone who wants a ceremony should be allowed to have one.

If you are witness to each other's love, why do you need more to witness?

What part would they play in taking vows? That should be personal, between you two.

They gave you a reading? Cool! So they're some sort of divinators?

People involved in the happiness is fine, but the actual marriage is simply the exchange of vows.

I understand that you think it's unnecessary for more people to involved, but that you think something's unnecessary isn't a good enough reason to abolish it. Personally, I think women shaving their legs is unnecessary. I don't tell any other women they shouldn't, it's up to them, it's just not something I want to do. If you want a wedding with only two people, that's fine, but not everyone will want that. It's up to the couple in question.

Sorry, I haven't been able to show up to reply to this before now.

I re-read my post and realized that I was making the assumption of marriage being religious.

I didn't mean that it was, I just meant that there would be no legal definition of marriage. You could have your ceremony, and it would still mean the same thing, but in order for you to be "married" in the eyes of the law, you would only that license.

You'd basically just get the papers finalized and then you'd be legally "married". After(or before, whatever you wish) you could have a ceremony that made you married on your terms.

(I hope everyone realizes that "married" and married, do not mean the same thing. The quotations are there to separate it because I could not come up with a better term to replace marriage in the legal sense)

Except -- difficult as it is -- you can get the marriage annulled. Then, in the eyes of the Catholic church, it never happened, and you can get married in the church again.

Yes, but a divorce and an anullement are not the same thing. To get an anullement you have to prove that the marriage was never consumed or that one of the partners was seriously lying when speaking the vows.
You can also get an anullement from the state, your marriage will then be regarded as nonexistant. A divorce is the dissolvement of an existing marriage.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but you did say 'marriage is religion'. That statement is false.

You also said
'the government should issue a license, and that's it. No ceremony, no nothing. '
While I don't think a ceremony should be a mandatory part of the proceedings (and legally it's not) you seemed to be saying that marriage ceremonies shouldn't be allowed, which seemed silly to me, since I think anyone who wants a ceremony should be allowed to have one.

My apologies, I was confusing you with Barlibgil because you questioned my first post.

Marriage suits me and my wife fine.

Although, its divorce that should be outlawed. You should have to renew your marriage license every 4 years-if you dont, it expires and you're no longer married.
And if you abuse your marriage privileges, the license can be revoked or suspended.

Huh? When I married I vowed "till death do us part", not "for the next four years." I meant "till death do us part" not "for the next four years." I'd consider it an insult to be forced to renew those vows every four years...

This may have already been said, but perhaps not.

A lot of people here are stuck on the fact that marriage was a secular institution before it was a religious one. The major problem with this line of reasoning is that secular WAS religious for a long, long period of time. Some argue that a degree of it still is.

A professor in favor of secular marriages pointed out to our class that marriage was most likely begun as a way to keep track of who the legitimate heir of a father was; the son of your wife (or wives... or maybe just the son of your favorite wife) would be your son, and the others were just bastards.

To keep the secular concept of marriage alive today would be to redefine it, either away from its religious connotations or away from its patriarchal and hereditary underpinnings (fathers must still pay child support, even if there is no marriage).

If two people love each other and wish to pledge their lives to each other, why does the government need to bear witness? Is it not enough that the two of you live your lives openly together, with everyone around you bearing witness? Is there "more" of a witnessing when the state is involved; is it more sacred? Considering that most of the people in favor of easy secular marriages are also in favor of easy secular divorce, I would say not.

Religious folk (such as myself, as you may be able to tell) who make a pledge before God and the church community--and value that union--do so for reasons of faith, beliefs of blessings and support.

Secular folk who make a pledge on paper in front of some beaurecrat--and value that union for reasons other than tax purposes--are holding fast to a tradition after they have long evolved beyond it.

For example, if you had a Catholic wedding, then get a divorce and want to marry again, you can do so only legally, not religiously. In the eyes of the Catholic church, you are still married.

*buzzer* Sorry, that's a lie. The Catholic Church does allow for a divorce.

The way I see it is that marriage has been going on for many, many thousands of years...


That's a total fallacy though - marriage has only existed for a few hundred years. For most of our history, people have not had elaborate marriage ceremonies and publicly stated committments - instead, people just moved in together.

Marriage was restricted to the very wealthy and powerful, and used as a political tool to form unions with neighbouring powers. Marriage was like a trade - "I won't invade your kingdom, and to prove my loyalty to you, I'm sending you my oldest daughter to be married to your oldest son" Common people - your peasants and serf, did not marry. The Roman Catholic Church (which was the only Christian religion in town for a long time) simply did not bother to perform marriage ceremonies for mere commoners. It wasn't until the Roman Catholic Church was strapped for cash that they saw a reason to bother to marry the peasants - you could charge them for the service!

Pagan religions did have marriage ceremonies, but frequently these unions only lasted a few years - averaging about 7 years. The marriange ceremonies weren't a big deal - they were held once a year in the spring, and joined together all the couples that wanted to participate. You frequently had people who were previously 'married' to each other participating for a second or third time, couples who where already cohabitating, and people who where re-marrying other partners. Basically it was a small part of the larger spring celebrations. African tribes have similar mass marriage ceremonies, where everyone gets married, and the marriage itself isn't a big deal. You're still free to have sex with whomever you want, because to keep your wife or husband all to yourself would be greedy.

Marriage wasn't a big deal until somone saw a way to take advantage of it.

*buzzer* Sorry, that's a lie. The Catholic Church does allow for a divorce.
*buzzer* sorry that is false they only allow anulment in special occurances not a general alowance for devorce

Religious folk (such as myself, as you may be able to tell) who make a pledge before God and the church community--and value that union--do so for reasons of faith, beliefs of blessings and support.

Secular folk who make a pledge on paper in front of some beaurecrat--and value that union for reasons other than tax purposes--are holding fast to a tradition after they have long evolved beyond it.
I disagree strongly. Most secular people who have marriage ceremonies (like my parents, for instance) are not "holding fast to a tradition after they have long evolved beyond it."

My parents' wedding was anything but traditional, yet they had a public ceremony because they felt the whole point of a wedding was to have your union witnessed formally by friends and family. They considered themselves already pledged to one another before they said the "I do's" in front of the crowd, so from their perspective the marriage had already begun, but the wedding was an opportunity to share their joy with loved ones. It's sort of like how a funeral isn't for the dead person's benefit, but rather is for the benefit of the family and friends...it's kind of about helping the significance of the event sink in, and letting people get out some of their emotions about it. It's also often about the two peoples' individual families and friends getting to celebrate together, to symbolize the new bond between the families and friends.

To suggest that a secular couple has no practical use for a public union ceremony is simply untrue. That would be like saying that the Fourth of July serves no purpose for Americans because it's not a religious holiday; things don't need to be spiritual to be deeply meaningful, and they don't need God to be sources of sincere and joyful celebration.

And if you were taking things a step beyond, to say that secularists have no need for marriage at all...well, frankly, I don't believe that a union which involves God is worthwhile or honorable, but I would never presume to tell religious people that their unions aren't meaningful to THEM. Just because I think religious marriages are deplorable doesn't mean that I undervalue their significance to those who enter into them, nor do I try to claim that there is "no real reason" for religious marriages just because they serve none of the purposes I consider important.

Marriage was a civil institution before it was a religious one.

not so

not so
Actually, yes so. Feel free to provide sources for your claim, though :).

Just because I think religious marriages are deplorable Why is everyone being so OTT on this topic? Not just you, Potaria saying marriage should be abolished… are you sure "deplorable" is the right word?

My parents' wedding was anything but traditional, yet they had a public ceremony because they felt the whole point of a wedding was to have your union witnessed formally by friends and family. They considered themselves already pledged to one another before they said the "I do's" in front of the crowd, so from their perspective the marriage had already begun, but the wedding was an opportunity to share their joy with loved ones...

See? Even with that statement you acknowledge that the ceremony does not have any meaning so far as the marriage is concerned; it is only "an opportunity to share their joy with loved ones." This is not a marriage; from your point of view "the marriage had already begun". It's not a ceremony but a party of a pre-established fact that was only added on for a bit of fun, as opposed to something particularly sacred.

To suggest that a secular couple has no practical use for a public union ceremony is simply untrue. That would be like saying that the Fourth of July serves no purpose for Americans because it's not a religious holiday; things don't need to be spiritual to be deeply meaningful, and they don't need God to be sources of sincere and joyful celebration.

I'd actually argue that, for most people, the Fourth of July has little meaning above shooting off fireworks or gathering with the family. But, even so, there is a key difference: Independence Day is a holiday (celebration of past event) while a marriage is a union (actual new event).

And if you were taking things a step beyond, to say that secularists have no need for marriage at all...well, frankly, I don't believe that a union which involves God is worthwhile or honorable, but I would never presume to tell religious people that their unions aren't meaningful to THEM. Just because I think religious marriages are deplorable doesn't mean that I undervalue their significance to those who enter into them, nor do I try to claim that there is "no real reason" for religious marriages just because they serve none of the purposes I consider important.

I am sure that secular marriage is meaningful for those who undergo it, but I believe the reason it is meaningful is because people still hold the religious underpinnings that go along with it. As we see in your example, the couple considered their marriage party important. As we also see, however, they did not consider it critical; it was a fun appendage.

See? Even with that statement you acknowledge that the ceremony does not have any meaning so far as the marriage is concerned; it is only "an opportunity to share their joy with loved ones." This is not a marriage; from your point of view "the marriage had already begun". It's not a ceremony but a party of a pre-established fact that was only added on for a bit of fun, as opposed to something particularly sacred.

I'd actually argue that, for most people, the Fourth of July has little meaning above shooting off fireworks or gathering with the family. But, even so, there is a key difference: Independence Day is a holiday (celebration of past event) while a marriage is a union (actual new event).

I am sure that secular marriage is meaningful for those who undergo it, but I believe the reason it is meaningful is because people still hold the religious underpinnings that go along with it. As we see in your example, the couple considered their marriage party important. As we also see, however, they did not consider it critical; it was a fun appendage.

Maybe you should try reading what Bottle wrote, instead of what you want to see in it.

Why does importance have to be sacred?

Did you miss the distinction between wedding and marriage?

Did you miss the very clear description of why the ceremony was seen as important?

Do you always dismiss rituals that others find important as nothing but a "fun appendage" to make your point? And did you miss the fact that most religions don't think the ceremony is critical, but that the union is the most important part?

I just don't see the point of marriage anymore, aside from maybe the tax breaks you might get. And in my opinion those should be done away with anyhow.

You want to live with someone, live with them.
You want to sleep with someone, sleep with them.

At one time, marriage was a commitment that one person had for another.
That just isn't the case anymore.

Married people having affairs is probably the highest its ever been.
The divorce numbers are higher then they have ever been...

What is the point anymore ?

I just don't see the point of marriage anymore, aside from maybe the tax breaks you might get. And in my opinion those should be done away with anyhow.

You want to live with someone, live with them.
You want to sleep with someone, sleep with them.

At one time, marriage was a commitment that one person had for another.
That just isn't the case anymore.

Married people having affairs is probably the highest its ever been.
The divorce numbers are higher then they have ever been...

What is the point anymore ? Well, I'm not entirely sure why your post was in couplets, but anyway…
My advice would be: do not give up. There are still loads of people who are happily married all their lives.

See? Even with that statement you acknowledge that the ceremony does not have any meaning so far as the marriage is concerned; it is only "an opportunity to share their joy with loved ones." This is not a marriage; from your point of view "the marriage had already begun". It's not a ceremony but a party of a pre-established fact that was only added on for a bit of fun, as opposed to something particularly sacred.

Wrong. To my parents, they had already committed their lives to one another. But a marriage is about more than being privately pledged. Marriage includes the acknowledgement of the community, because the union of two members of a community is significant to the community as a whole. The union of two people is usually very important to their families, which are then united through the couple's bond and the bond of any children that may result. The couple's friends are bonded, similarly. A marriage is not simply the joining of a couple, it is a joining of two people and their individual lives. They do not stop being two individuals when they marry, and their individual families and friends do not suddenly disappear or magically fuse into a cohesive unit, so the wedding ceremony can be an acknowledgement of the joining of the two distinct parts of the whole.


I'd actually argue that, for most people, the Fourth of July has little meaning above shooting off fireworks or gathering with the family. But, even so, there is a key difference: Independence Day is a holiday (celebration of past event) while a marriage is a union (actual new event).

So the first Independence Day was not a day of celebration? Do we not celebrate aniversaries of a wedding? Forgive me, but I find your theory flimsy, at best.


I am sure that secular marriage is meaningful for those who undergo it, but I believe the reason it is meaningful is because people still hold the religious underpinnings that go along with it.

I can assure you, that has never been the case with my parents, and it will never be the case with me. I personally believe that the religious history of marriage is shameful and disgusting, and represents the worst possible form of pair-bonding that humans have ever invented. God and religion will never have a place in my union, because that would be an insult to me, my partner, and my marriage.

That said, I know religion does play a strong part in other peoples' unions, and that is their choice to make. I would never choose as they do, but I will still recognize and respect their union and their choice in how to celebrate it.


As we see in your example, the couple considered their marriage party important. As we also see, however, they did not consider it critical; it was a fun appendage.
Again, totally wrong. Just because they considered themselves already pledged before the ceremony does not mean it was "a fun appendage." The ceremony was crucial. To use the example of a funeral again, the "guest of honor" is already dead, and the funeral isn't the point at which they become dead, but does that mean the ceremony is "a fun appendage"?

Why is everyone being so OTT on this topic? Not just you, Potaria saying marriage should be abolished… are you sure "deplorable" is the right word?
I do believe the government should have no part in any marriages whatsoever. I also believe that allowing religion, God, or gods to have a part in your union is dishonorable and deplorable. The two are not really related, since the reasons for each are totally separate.

Maybe you should try reading what Bottle wrote, instead of what you want to see in it.

Why does importance have to be sacred?

Did you miss the distinction between wedding and marriage?

Did you miss the very clear description of why the ceremony was seen as important?

Do you always dismiss rituals that others find important as nothing but a "fun appendage" to make your point? And did you miss the fact that most religions don't think the ceremony is critical, but that the union is the most important part?
Glad somebody else understood what I wrote...from his response, I was starting to wonder if I wasn't typing in English or something...

Marriage includes the acknowledgement of the community, because the union of two members of a community is significant to the community as a whole.

I do believe the government should have no part in any marriages whatsoever.

*Is intruiged*. Do these statements not contradict eachother, seeing as the government is supposed to lead and represent the community ?

*Is intruiged*. Do these statements not contradict eachother, seeing as the government is supposed to lead and represent the community ?
I don't believe the government should be leading or representing the community in the way you imply. I believe the government's only duty should be to ensure maximal equal liberties for all citizens...the "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" philosophy, to oversimplify it grossly.

I just don't see the point of marriage anymore, aside from maybe the tax breaks you might get. And in my opinion those should be done away with anyhow.

You want to live with someone, live with them.
You want to sleep with someone, sleep with them.

At one time, marriage was a commitment that one person had for another.
That just isn't the case anymore.

Married people having affairs is probably the highest its ever been.
The divorce numbers are higher then they have ever been...

What is the point anymore ?

Er, my marriage is a committment that one person (me) has for another (my husband) and vice versa.
The divorce rate doesn't change that. That many people later change their minds doesn't mean they didn't mean their vows in the first place, let alone that nobody means their vows.

I don't know why I feel the need to keep justifying myself to you guys. I suppose it just annoys me the way people keep attacking marriage. If you don't want to marry, don't, but please don't insult those who still value marriage.

Er, my marriage is a committment that one person (me) has for another (my husband) and vice versa.
The divorce rate doesn't change that. That many people later change their minds doesn't mean they didn't mean their vows in the first place, let alone that nobody means their vows.

I don't know why I feel the need to keep justifying myself to you guys. I suppose it just annoys me the way people keep attacking marriage. If you don't want to marry, don't, but please don't insult those who still value marriage.

You want to commit to your husband, and vice versa.. that is great...
but why do you need the institution of marriage to do so ?

The whole point of a marriage vow was to be with the other person through good or bad.. through its ups and downs.
It seems that most people are out for the fun and happy times but when the going gets though, its see ya.

There is no actual sacrifice anymore, which is what a marriage entails...everyone is out there wanting more and more for themselves.

You want to commit to your husband, and vice versa.. that is great...
but why do you need the institution of marriage to do so ?

The whole point of a marriage vow was to be with the other person through good or bad.. through its ups and downs.
It seems that most people are out for the fun and happy times but when the going gets though, its see ya.

There is no actual sacrifice anymore, which is what a marriage entails...everyone is out there wanting more and more for themselves. Oh, it's not all like that. It's not as bad as you'd think. People need to be more tolerant though.

I do believe the government should have no part in any marriages whatsoever. I also believe that allowing religion, God, or gods to have a part in your union is dishonorable and deplorable. The two are not really related, since the reasons for each are totally separate. Again, why is it dishonourable and deplorable? Foolish and futile I can understand, but the reason for your choice of words escapes me, I must confess.

You want to commit to your husband, and vice versa.. that is great...
but why do you need the institution of marriage to do so ?

The whole point of a marriage vow was to be with the other person through good or bad.. through its ups and downs.
It seems that most people are out for the fun and happy times but when the going gets though, its see ya.

There is no actual sacrifice anymore, which is what a marriage entails...everyone is out there wanting more and more for themselves.

Your question is answered in the next paragraph. Why do you assume that the person you were replying to does not see their marriage vows that way?

Stop making generalizations. Many people see marriage in the way you have described. Many still see it as being through good and bad - and as a bond requiring sacrifice.

Again, why is it dishonourable and deplorable? Foolish and futile I can understand, but the reason for your choice of words escapes me, I must confess.
It's kind of a side-issue, really, since it has to do with my perspective on superstition as a whole. I'm not trying to be coy about this, I just don't want to hijack this topic...suffice it to say, for the purposes of this discussion, that I do mean what I say :).

Er, my marriage is a committment that one person (me) has for another (my husband) and vice versa.
The divorce rate doesn't change that. That many people later change their minds doesn't mean they didn't mean their vows in the first place, let alone that nobody means their vows.

Actually, I think it means just what I bolded. When you vow something you've given up the right to change your mind. I can't change my mind about being married; I promised it. I made my bed, now I must lie in it.

If he abuses me, is unfaithful to me etc... he has already broken the vow and I am free to leave. (Of course, it goes the other way, too. If I'm unfaithful or abusive, I've broken the covenant and he's free to leave.)

Otherwise, I can't leave. That's exactly what a vow is. As a government, we've made both marriage and divorce too easy. As a society we've encouraged marriage and accepted divorce. We've made it permissible for people to enter into the contract of marriage without being fully committed or without proper thought.

However, I don't believe that all marriages are entered by people who don't mean their vows. Fifty-percent of marriages succeed, so at least fifty percent took their vows seriously...

If he abuses me, is unfaithful to me etc... he has already broken the vow and I am free to leave. (Of course, it goes the other way, too. If I'm unfaithful or abusive, I've broken the covenant and he's free to leave.)

However, I don't believe that all marriages are entered by people who don't mean their vows. Fifty-percent of marriages succeed, so at least fifty percent took their vows seriously...By your own definition, that is untrue...abusive marriages are actually less likely to end in divorce than the national average (probably because one party is not free to leave), so you can't use divorce rates as a measure of how many people take their vows seriously. Many marriages continue despite the fact that one or both of the participants utterly fails to uphold the vows. Conversely, many divorces are not the result of both people breaking the vows, so you can't extrapolate that only 50% of people take vows seriously because 50% of those who enter marriage stay married.

EDIT: Also, please remember that many people don't have a "til death do us part" vow included when they marry, so getting a divorce would NOT constitute a breach of the vows. My folks had no such component to their vows, though they had (and still have) every intention of remaining together for life. I was at a wedding a month ago at which there was no vow of "forever and ever" or "until death do us part." Not everybody uses the cookie-cutter Christian ceremony :).

Wrong. To my parents, they had already committed their lives to one another. But a marriage is about more than being privately pledged. Marriage includes the acknowledgement of the community, because the union of two members of a community is significant to the community as a whole. The union of two people is usually very important to their families, which are then united through the couple's bond and the bond of any children that may result. The couple's friends are bonded, similarly. A marriage is not simply the joining of a couple, it is a joining of two people and their individual lives. They do not stop being two individuals when they marry, and their individual families and friends do not suddenly disappear or magically fuse into a cohesive unit, so the wedding ceremony can be an acknowledgement of the joining of the two distinct parts of the whole.

Okay, I agree with you that openness and community involvement are key aspects. I apologize for somehow missing that you were arguing in favor of community, as opposed to the government's acknowledgment. What were the couple's feelings on the role of the government in the process?


So the first Independence Day was not a day of celebration? Do we not celebrate aniversaries of a wedding? Forgive me, but I find your theory flimsy, at best.

I would say that the first (actual) Independence Day was both a decisive event and a celebration. Afterwards, like the anniversaries, it is a celebration.


Again, totally wrong. Just because they considered themselves already pledged before the ceremony does not mean it was "a fun appendage." The ceremony was crucial. To use the example of a funeral again, the "guest of honor" is already dead, and the funeral isn't the point at which they become dead, but does that mean the ceremony is "a fun appendage"?

Unless you are praying for the dead (which only a few folk believe in), I would also say that a funeral is one of those "appendages", albeit with a bit less of the "fun". As you say, the person is already dead.

Why does importance have to be sacred?

Replace "sacred" with "critical" or "key", if you prefer.

Did you miss the distinction between wedding and marriage?

Did you miss the very clear description of why the ceremony was seen as important?

I believe the wedding was defined as, more or less, an invitation to the community to take part in the pre-existing marriage. And yes, I did miss that part, but I see it now.

Do you always dismiss rituals that others find important as nothing but a "fun appendage" to make your point? And did you miss the fact that most religions don't think the ceremony is critical, but that the union is the most important part?

Both the union and the ceremony are critical, as any deception or such in the beginning can have negative consequences in the end.

The point about community-sanctioned marriage is important, I yield. However, this has no effect on whether the governing body of a nation recognizes marriages. Just like religious communities would be free to marry whomever they deem capable and ready, neighborhoods and other secular communities would have the same right. While Bottle does make an important point that I missed about community, it still does not strike against the argument of this thread's starter.

Actually, I think it means just what I bolded. When you vow something you've given up the right to change your mind. I can't change my mind about being married; I promised it. I made my bed, now I must lie in it.

If he abuses me, is unfaithful to me etc... he has already broken the vow and I am free to leave. (Of course, it goes the other way, too. If I'm unfaithful or abusive, I've broken the covenant and he's free to leave.)

Otherwise, I can't leave. That's exactly what a vow is. As a government, we've made both marriage and divorce too easy. As a society we've encouraged marriage and accepted divorce. We've made it permissible for people to enter into the contract of marriage without being fully committed or without proper thought.

However, I don't believe that all marriages are entered by people who don't mean their vows. Fifty-percent of marriages succeed, so at least fifty percent took their vows seriously...

Exactly.

That's a total fallacy though - marriage has only existed for a few hundred years. For most of our history, people have not had elaborate marriage ceremonies and publicly stated committments - instead, people just moved in together.

Is that all true? I mean, the Bible is not the only document that refers to marriage in a universal sense; that would seem to indicate that it at least existed.

There weren't even small, private ceremonies?

By your own definition, that is untrue

I'm not sure what was by my own definition, but...

Conversely, many divorces are not the result of both people breaking the vows, so you can't extrapolate that only 50% of people take vows seriously because 50% of those who enter marriage stay married.

And that's why I used the term "at least". However, at least in most places, a divorce cannot happen without both partners' consent. Meaning he can't divorce me unless I agree to it. So, we could theoretically remain married forever despite his desire to divorce. (Note: That's hypothetical. We're happily married and neither of us is interested in a divorce.)

EDIT: Also, please remember that many people don't have a "til death do us part" vow included when they marry, so getting a divorce would NOT constitute a breach of the vows. My folks had no such component to their vows, though they had (and still have) every intention of remaining together for life. I was at a wedding a month ago at which there was no vow of "forever and ever" or "until death do us part." Not everybody uses the cookie-cutter Christian ceremony :).

Actually, I didn't know a marriage could be legal in the US if it did not include a "forever" clause. I know not everyone uses a "cookie-cutter Christian ceremony" (your own words which could be offensive, you might want to tone it down), but I was mistakenly under the impression that legal marriage was an implied contract for the rest of one's life. Point taken.

You want to commit to your husband, and vice versa.. that is great...
but why do you need the institution of marriage to do so ?

The whole point of a marriage vow was to be with the other person through good or bad.. through its ups and downs.
It seems that most people are out for the fun and happy times but when the going gets though, its see ya.

There is no actual sacrifice anymore, which is what a marriage entails...everyone is out there wanting more and more for themselves.

I didn't say I *needed* the institution of marriage. I didn't *need* to marry, I *wanted* to. I have my reasons for doing so, what's it to you? If you're just curious I'm happy to answer, but your tone was not so much curious as confrontational.

I fully intend to be with my man through the good or bad and ups and downs, thankyou. You seem to be assuming for some reason that making our relationship official implies less commitment than not doing so, which seems very odd to me. Please don't make assumptions about other people's relationships when you know nothing about them.

I didn't say I *needed* the institution of marriage. I didn't *need* to marry, I *wanted* to. I have my reasons for doing so, what's it to you? If you're just curious I'm happy to answer, but your tone was not so much curious as confrontational.

I fully intend to be with my man through the good or bad and ups and downs, thankyou. You seem to be assuming for some reason that making our relationship official implies less commitment than not doing so, which seems very odd to me. Please don't make assumptions about other people's relationships when you know nothing about them.

I didnt' mean to offend you, or even sound confrontational.
I wasn't being specifc actually, but more speaking in generalizations.
I mean, we are talking about marriage in general, not yours, not mine or anyone elses.

I'm talking about society in general here. And really about society in the West, where I live.

To me, I see no importance in marriage. The importance is more on one night stands, having multiple partners, promescuity (sp) both in the marriage and outside of the marriage. Lust has become Love.

So my question is what the heck is the importance of marriage anymore ????

I'm not sure what was by my own definition, but...



And that's why I used the term "at least". However, at least in most places, a divorce cannot happen without both partners' consent. Meaning he can't divorce me unless I agree to it. So, we could theoretically remain married forever despite his desire to divorce. (Note: That's hypothetical. We're happily married and neither of us is interested in a divorce.)



Actually, I didn't know a marriage could be legal in the US if it did not include a "forever" clause. I know not everyone uses a "cookie-cutter Christian ceremony" (your own words which could be offensive, you might want to tone it down), but I was mistakenly under the impression that legal marriage was an implied contract for the rest of one's life. Point taken.

I'm not sure about US law, but here I think the marriage just has to be entered into 'in good faith' (ie. if it turns out that you were doing it for a very short time just to get citizenship or to be declared legally indepenant from your parents or whatever you can get into trouble). I know the vows my husband and I used didn't say anything about 'forever', although that is our intention.

So my question is what the heck is the importance of marriage anymore ????

You say "importance of marriage" as if the particular significance will be universal. You also seem to think that importance to the individual entering into the marriage is irrelevant.

There are those who, as you say, see no real value in marriage. Many take the whole thing for granted. Many exploit it for gain (see idiotic TV shows).

However, many still view marriage in the same way that you are saying has been lost. To those of us who view it that way, the importance is the same as it has always been.

You say "importance of marriage" as if the particular significance will be universal. You also seem to think that importance to the individual entering into the marriage is irrelevant.

There are those who, as you say, see no real value in marriage. Many take the whole thing for granted. Many exploit it for gain (see idiotic TV shows).

However, many still view marriage in the same way that you are saying has been lost. To those of us who view it that way, the importance is the same as it has always been.

That's basically what I was trying to say a couple of minutes ago when the NS server wouldn't let me submit. You put it better anyway.

It's different for everyone. Some people want to marry. Isn't wanting to enough of a 'point' to it?

I just dont' believe that anymore.. i've seen too many instances of people in 'love' etc... fast forward 2 years.. and they are divorced... just dont' see it anymore.

I just dont' believe that anymore.. i've seen too many instances of people in 'love' etc... fast forward 2 years.. and they are divorced... just dont' see it anymore.

Your cynical attitude is very, very sad.

I sincerely hope that you will find someone with whom you truly want to spend the rest of your life, and your views will change.

Meanwhile, simply being in love does not make a marriage. This is what people need to realize. Being in love does not make everything perfect - a marriage is still something you have to work at and keep going, as is any relationship worth a damn.

Your cynical attitude is very, very sad.

I sincerely hope that you will find someone with whom you truly want to spend the rest of your life, and your views will change.

Meanwhile, simply being in love does not make a marriage. This is what people need to realize. Being in love does not make everything perfect - a marriage is still something you have to work at and keep going, as is any relationship worth a damn. This is annoying, I keep agreeing with you.

Maybe he has a reason for his cynicism… do you, Masood? Trust me, there *are* still marriages that work, quite a few of them really, through effort and willingness on both sides. Rest assured they do exist.

There is still the possibility of this being a bit hypocritical. You don't believe in God, and yet - in most religious ceremonies, you profess such a belief and swear before that entity (figment or not).

Would you not consider it a bit hypocritcal for an atheist to go through Catechism and get confirmed, for instance? It is professing a belief that they do not actually hold and, to a point, belittling the true belief of those around them.

Note that I don't think participation in an religious ceremony is necessarily hypocritical for an atheist. I have taken my boyfriend to church and he has participated. I would not, however, expect him to take part in any ceremony that asked him to profess belief.
Sorry, not looked at this thread for a while...
Yes it's hypocritical, as an atheist it would grate, I would be screaming inside "but you're talking utter bollocks" but that's not the point. The point is this getting married in church would make my partner VERY happy, I could easily live with being a hypocrit if it makes her happy. And as an atheist (and I still don't think you believers actually get this yet), from an atheist POV, you are performing the ceremony in front of your friends and family ONLY. An atheist cannot swear before a figmentary(?) god, because by definitition it doesn't exist, references to a god are just empty words. I believe swearing to yourself is more profound.