NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm for changing the definition of the institution of marriage from a man and a woman to two adults (allowing gay marriage). However I do not think that the government should force gay marriages to be recognized religiously if it is against the religion, like some people do. Do you agree? And a more importantly, should I add a pole?

I'm for changing the definition of the institution of marriage from a man and a woman to two adults (allowing gay marriage). However I do not think that the government should force gay marriages to be recognized religiously if it is against the religion, like some people do. Do you agree? And a more importantly, should I add a pole?
Er...no.

You can add a pole if you like, but a poll might be more productive.

No. It should be the religion's prerogative. The government can only make sure it is legal. Otherwise, it is intervening where it should not.

I don't see why they should have too.

Nein.

I'm for changing the definition of the institution of marriage from a man and a woman to two adults (allowing gay marriage). However I do not think that the government should force gay marriages to be recognized religiously if it is against the religion, like some people do. Do you agree? And a more importantly, should I add a pole?

The problem is that Religion is trying to claim ownership of the concept of marriage(speaking for the US).

Forcing states is not a good way to put it. I'm all for gay marriage, there's no problem in my eye and reality. It's just a bunch of disillusioned idiots who still think they should listen to a burning bush.

I couldn't give a rat's ass what religions want. Gaymarriage is law in Holland.

No. As long as the government recognizes it, religions can denounce it as much as they want. Religious organizations should just stay out of the law making process.

No, they shouldn't be forced to recognize it.

At first I was in favor of leaving it up to states. But it doesn't seem like many states will allow it, especially down south and out west (the undeveloped ares). Religion can't hide from the fact that homosexuals exist. They can't denie that times are changing.

No. As long as the government recognizes it, religions can denounce it as much as they want. Religious organizations should just stay out of the law making process.
The OP means should religions be forced to recognise religious weddings for homosexual couples, to which I bluntly object. In legal terms the union is valid, so whether or not the religion recognises is irrelevant.

Er...no.

You can add a pole if you like, but a poll might be more productive.

No as in you disagree with me, or as in you do?

Also you didn't need to quote me lol, you were the first post!

Nein. No. Nie.

But lets do it to the mormons to piss them off.

The OP means should religions be forced to recognise religious weddings for homosexual couples, to which I bluntly object. In legal terms the union is valid, so whether or not the religion recognises is irrelevant.
I agree with you on that. No religion should be forced by law to change its beliefs/doctrines.

No as in you disagree with me, or as in you do?
You give me two options there, both of which, as far as I can tell, are the same thing.

But no, religions shouldn't be forced to carry them out.

Also you didn't need to quote me lol, you were the first post!
I'm not psychic. I didn't know I was going to be the first post.

I'm not psychic. I didn't know I was going to be the first post.

You should be! I am.

You should be! I am.
Then why did you need to ask me what I thought?

Then why did you need to ask me what I thought?

To test my ability.

Well I think that unless you want to be a theocracy government shouldn't dictate to relgion and relgion shouldn't dictate to government, but that might just be me.

Nope. Seperation of Church and State. Ultus Historium.

No, religion should not be forced by the state to accept anything and vice versa.

As an aside, you should really do a spellcheck before you post:rolleyes:

Nope. That has to do with the government not the religions.

Out of interest, if you voted 'No' on the poll would you have voted against forcing churches to recognise mixed race marriage as well? Just curious.

No, religion should not be forced by the state to accept anything and vice versa.

As an aside, you should really do a spellcheck before you post:rolleyes:

*cough* ego boost alert *cough*.

Government should get out of the marriage business all together. Marriage should be solely in the realm of religion. Let the various religions marry who they wish. If someone get's married in a church, the state should have nothing to do with it.

Any benifits that used to be part of marriage should instead be confered in civil unions between any 2 people. (Polygamy is for another thread). Heterosexual couples want to get married in a church? That's fine. But if they want any of the 'traditional' benifits (inheritance, next of kin medical decisions, etc.) then they should have to get a civil union *as well* so as to be recognized by the state.

Leave marriage to the church, leave the contract between people to the state. And never the twain should meet.

*edit - added the "as well" because I don't feel they should be mutually exclusive and I didn' want it to come across that way*

Out of interest, if you voted 'No' on the poll would you have voted against forcing churches to recognise mixed race marriage as well? Just curious.

Well, i suppose so.

Government should get out of the marriage business all together. Marriage should be solely in the realm of religion. Let the various religions marry who they wish. If someone get's married in a church, the state should have nothing to do with it.

Any benifits that used to be part of marriage should instead be confered in civil unions between any 2 people. (Polygamy is for another thread). Heterosexual couples want to get married in a church? That's fine. But if they want any of the 'traditional' benifits (inheritance, next of kin medical decisions, etc.) then they should have to get a civil union so as to be recognized by the state.

Leave marriage to the church, leave the contract between people to the state. And never the twain should meet.
Agreed.

Tough call, weddings stopped being a purely religious institution a long time ago - they have become civic institutions that serve a social and not merely a religious purpose and so in this sense I support gay marriage. I also think it's worth mentioning that contemporary churches do not seem to have any trouble with the idea of two atheists getting married so why should it be any different for any other two individuals who do not subscribe to all aspects of the bible.

That said I support the separation of church and state and certainly do not feel that it should be the place of government to be regulating religious practice or indeed imposing its own ideology upon a private sphere of life regarding what is, and what is not acceptable.

Very tough call.

SNIP...Religious organizations should just stay out of the law making process.

The key word here is SHOULD, correct?

keep your religion out of my government, and I'll keep my government out of your religion.

in other words, no. No they shouldn't. As long as the state recognizes it, its enough.

Government should get out of the marriage business all together. Marriage should be solely in the realm of religion. Let the various religions marry who they wish. If someone get's married in a church, the state should have nothing to do with it.

Any benifits that used to be part of marriage should instead be confered in civil unions between any 2 people. (Polygamy is for another thread). Heterosexual couples want to get married in a church? That's fine. But if they want any of the 'traditional' benifits (inheritance, next of kin medical decisions, etc.) then they should have to get a civil union *as well* so as to be recognized by the state.

Leave marriage to the church, leave the contract between people to the state. And never the twain should meet.

*edit - added the "as well" because I don't feel they should be mutually exclusive and I didn' want it to come across that way*

Marriave was civil before it was religious. Religions should get out of marriage.

Marriave was civil before it was religious. Religions should get out of marriage.
No, that's not the question at hand... the question is should religions be forced to accept something that is against their teachings.

My solution could solve that problem without having to force anyone to do something against their wills, yours just continues to inflame the issue.

No, that's not the question at hand... the question is should religions be forced to accept something that is against their teachings.

My solution could solve that problem without having to force anyone to do something against their wills, yours just continues to inflame the issue.
Why don't you yell at the two posters who just said that marriage was a religious institution and the government should get out of it then? That's what I was responding to.

Why don't you yell at the two posters who just said that marriage was a religious institution and the government should get out of it then? That's what I was responding to.
Well wait just a second. For all intents and purposes these days, marriage is both religious and civil. While we can't force religious people out of marriage ceremonies (they do so by choice that is protected as religious freedom), why can't we re-evaluate the government's role in marriage? Is it because we've always had the state involved in marriage, because I don't buy the "it's tradition" argument for this any more than I do for anything else. The fact that this time it's a liberal cause doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

Sort of hypocritical to force someone to accept homosexuality when many and most religions typically find it morally wrong.

Christianity..
islam...
Catholicism...

Sort of hypocritical to force someone to accept homosexuality when many and most religions typically find it morally wrong.

Christianity..
islam...
Catholicism...
Not to mention that there's very little precedent. Heck, the Catholic church still won't ordain women, and no one is talking about passing a law to force them to. Why would we force them to do anything else?

You can't force someone to change their beliefs. It's inherently impossible. Religion is a part of personal beliefs, so you can't force a religion to change. The GOVERNMENT, on the otherhand, should have to recognize gay marriages, but it shouldn't be able to force any religions to recognize them.

Personally, I think that the government should only give civil unions. These civil unions would be for any two consenting adults who want a civil union, regardless of the genders involved. Marriage is too religious now - so the term "married" should remain in the church and government should have its own thing, which would be equal and based upon law, not belief.

I'm for changing the definition of the institution of marriage from a man and a woman to two adults (allowing gay marriage). However I do not think that the government should force gay marriages to be recognized religiously if it is against the religion, like some people do. Do you agree? And a more importantly, should I add a pole?
Just out of curiosity, who are these "some people" who want to force religions to recognize same-sex marriages? Methinks I smell a straw man, and he's a-burning something fierce.

Same sex marriage is fine, but forcing a religion to recognize it isn't right if they don't believe in it in the first place.

Just out of curiosity, who are these "some people" who want to force religions to recognize same-sex marriages? Methinks I smell a straw man, and he's a-burning something fierce.

Perhaps so, but at any rate, doing something such as this would be an egregious violation of the First Amendment (not applicable in Britain, I know, but I'm assuming this is in reference to the United States). "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." If we violate that in order to mandate acceptance of same-sex marriages, it is just as out of place as adding a constitutional ban to same-sex marriages.

My point is that we shouldn't just pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we want to apply to what. I'm for same-sex marriage, and so is most of my church, but how the hell are you going to force Southern Baptists to marry gay couples? They just won't do it.

It is a simple no, forcing them to recognize gay marrage is as bad as religions trying to ban it in a secular setting.

This is one point which makes things interesting, the government here can do weddings and the like, completely free of religious overtones. What makes it interesting is that the religious side tries to make it a religious thing and claiming to protect marrage when it can be done completely secular.

Same sex marriage is fine, but forcing a religion to recognize it isn't right if they don't believe in it in the first place.
Agreed, but I don't see anyone standing up and hollering that churches ought to be forced to do so. Most of the comments here and elsewhere seem to be along the lines of "separation of church and state," which is actually the best reason not to force the issue. (Funny how some of those same people love to pull out the whole "the US was founded on christian ideals" argument when it suits them, though.)

What I think really bothers some of the "christians" out there--and what causes them to light this strawman on fire so quickly--is that they know that even if the US did something drastic like say "we're out of the marriage business--it's all civil unions and religions can do their own thing," there would be a number of churches out there that would "sanctify" same sex marriages, and that just makes them break out in the screaming heebie-jeebies.

Frankly, I think government should get out of marriage altogether; however, since that is not likely or even possible now the government should provide civil marriages to two adults regardless of their sexual preference or the gender of their partner.

However, government forcing religion to recognize gay marriage is as equally unjust and anti-freedom as religion forcing government to outlaw gay marriage.

No.

No, separation of church and state works both ways. The church should not interfere in governmental affairs, and the government should not interfere in church affairs, except in cases like child abuse and stuff.

The real power behind the anti-gay marriage isn't religion it's economic. As with most of the things the right are putting through they get the marching orders from big business then wrap it in the emotion of religion and sell it to the less educated.

There is no need today to get married in a religious setting. In every state you can go to a judge, justice of the peace, or cruise ship captain. No church is required to recognize these heterosexual marriages. And several churches don't recognize them. Couples need to get remarried "in the church" in order to belong.

The real power is health care costs especially with AIDS being so costly. Along with this is Social Security. Should one of the couple die the other can collect off of the payments of the dead spouce. Then there's income tax deduction. It becomes greater if one is making far more than the other.

The list goes on because of benefits payed for a spouce but not a shack-up.

The real power behind the anti-gay marriage isn't religion it's economic. As with most of the things the right are putting through they get the marching orders from big business then wrap it in the emotion of religion and sell it to the less educated.

There is no need today to get married in a religious setting. In every state you can go to a judge, justice of the peace, or cruise ship captain. No church is required to recognize these heterosexual marriages. And several churches don't recognize them. Couples need to get remarried "in the church" in order to belong.

The real power is health care costs especially with AIDS being so costly. Along with this is Social Security. Should one of the couple die the other can collect off of the payments of the dead spouce. Then there's income tax deduction. It becomes greater if one is making far more than the other.

The list goes on because of benefits payed for a spouce but not a shack-up.
Why would big business care exactly? I mean, they can choose to cut benefits pretty much whenever they want, so if it's as big a cost as you say, why wouldn't they just scale back their benefits for everyone?

Why would big business care exactly? I mean, they can choose to cut benefits pretty much whenever they want, so if it's as big a cost as you say, why wouldn't they just scale back their benefits for everyone?
Because they don't want to lose employees to the competition but don't want to increase costs either. Health insurance is based on risk. Hetrosexuals have less risk of AIDS. So the cost of insurance is less if the business keeps the risk down. They cover the homosexual employee of course but to cover their mate will double the risk.

I'm for changing the definition of the institution of marriage from a man and a woman to two adults (allowing gay marriage). However I do not think that the government should force gay marriages to be recognized religiously if it is against the religion, like some people do. Do you agree? And a more importantly, should I add a pole?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....


The US government cannot force a religion to accept gay marriages.

Government should get out of the marriage business all together. Marriage should be solely in the realm of religion.

So the atheists should all "live in sin"? :p

No people have the right to believe what they want as long as they dont let thoes beliefs restrict the rights of others

Because they don't want to lose employees to the competition but don't want to increase costs either. Health insurance is based on risk. Hetrosexuals have less risk of AIDS. So the cost of insurance is less if the business keeps the risk down. They cover the homosexual employee of course but to cover their mate will double the risk.
So instead of spending money to cover spouses, these businesses instead spend it to lobby churches and politicians? I just don't see it happening. Besides, many businesses score points with consumers by being on the leading edge of social responsibility. Ben and Jerry's ice cream is one of the best examples of social responsibility and its effect on a company. Truthfully, as long as the average person cares about the rights of others, it will be to the advantage of business to care about the rights of others as well.

In the USA you can't force religions to accept a type of marriage because it violates Church-State seperation. And I couldn't care less if gay mariages are made legal. Hell, why not?

At the same time, what is the government doing in the business of sanctioning marriage to begin with? Marriage is a religous/social establishment. Leave government out of it. Two people don't need a piece of paper to live together. I say get the govt out of the business of sanctioning marriage altogether and leave that to religion.