I think you are forgetting about adopting children. Why do people want to marry in a church anyways?

Marriage was used back in the day for two tribes to have a method of keeping peace between them and not killing each other by having a member of each specifically mate/live with a member from the other tribe. This occurred long before organized religion.

Sounds like we need to remove these benefits now. The world is too big as it is. Then again, that's a separate issue. On top of that, many gay couples still have children, just "half" theirs or adopted. I'd go so far as to say if gay couples could get married/wanted to get married, they would more than likely HAVE children.

Churches would NOT be obligated to marry homosexuals. It would be left up to the church (or probably the synod) entirely. If one church allowed a couple to get married, why should you care? It doesn't affect you at all, nor does it affect your church which doesn't allow gay marriages.

As a sidenote, I think it's selfish to have children currently, or at least more than 2.

I agree with what the original poster said.
Marriage isn't even biblical.
As much as I'd hate to say it, gays should be allowed to get married, it's just a civil affair.
If you disallow gays from getting married is that going to stop them from being gay?
I should think not. It would save a lot of problems to just allow it.
Note: I don't think it's OK to be gay. If it was up to me I'd have them shipped away to some remote place of the world then nuke them.

You misunderstand, or I do. Current marriage isn't really religious, since it's a combination of religion and law, and currently the religion aspect is steadily decreasing, what with more people divorcing/getting married frivolously. I want to keep marriage, just make it more religious, and less law.

I'm surprised you want all gay people to die, but you think they should have rights, hacksaw.

How strange I want marriage to be both less religious and less law. Since there are many religious and culture concepts to marriage how can one make it more religious? In Buddhism marriage is so "secular".

What's your source for this? I have reason to believe that organized religion has existed since the creation of mankind.


Yes it is. Genesis 2:24.

If there's little law or religion, what is there? Nothing? Sounds more like nihilism.

Marriage was born religious. Invented thousands of years ago before governments of any kind had a say in it.

Things change.


I would agree with most who have posted that marriage is quite ridiculous. On the contrary, I speak as a patriot of the united states to say that civil union should not be limited to man and woman; If everyone is created equal (HAH!) we should be able to switch things up. Also, I think that if a gay couple wishes to be wed that a pastor should be able to refuse, as it is against his principles. (a civil union can be conducted by a judge)

How is having children selfish? There are plenty of natural resources, and you are being completely ridiculous to think otherwise, giving up 20 years of your life to raising a child is probably one of the most selfless things you can do.

You guys are not very smart. THE Word MARRIAGE came from christianity... Yes people use to go together and be with each other but the christians made it into a ceromony and made it into what it is now "Marriage" Im not saying Gays shouldn't be able to be together but we need to separte church from state and make it something else Call it a "union of marriage" Thats all that i am saying, because its true Religion made marriage what it was today and we shouldn't take that away from them and make it less of a special thing to them. But we also need to make an opportunity to the people who don't believe in that. Without offending either side of the spectrum. I know someone will always be offended by somthing but we can focus on trying to make the majority not.

What the word marraige ment back in the day was When two people join together as one. See how it says as one now clearly that is a religious beliefs because when we say it according to the law we say they become a union, Which is more of an ally stance. The bible says when a man and a woman marrie they become one, not two people living together.

So all im saying is instead of changing Marriage to fit our laws, we should create a new union according to our laws, and our freedoms. Because we really do have the right to be with anyone we want, Some christians may say we don't but we do, and i think the christains that are saying that gays can't be together are not even christians because God says he gives all of his people complete free will, and if God told someone they couldn't be gay that wouldn't be Free will. It may not let them get into "heaven", But God does give you the free will to go to "Hell".

See what i think our problem is we are trying to make 1 common definition but that is always going to offend someone, We need to make two differnt definition one for church one for law.

Quote

What I propose is a separation of the current form of marriage, and split it into two--a religious aspect and legal aspect. Currently you can't have one without the other, which is why many are against gay marriage.

I just wanted to point out that this simply isn't true. You can be legally married (receive a marriage certificate) by doing as little as going to your County Records Office or designated location with your partner and signing a marriage certificate. You can also be married in a church by a religious official without being legally married.

Usually, people get married in a religious setting, becoming both married under their religion and legally married. But you don't have to, by any means.

Quote

and they need the extra help to raise children, something a gay couple would not do, hence marriage being withheld from them.

This has been said before, but gay couples also have children. I don't have statistics on hand, so I can't say they are as likely as heterosexual couples to have children, but they certainly do. Secondly, the legal benefits of marriage are not only for the purpose of raising children; they allow things like visitation rights in the hospital for two people who live together, etc.


While we could try to divorce the word "marriage" from this whole deal, and call the legal union something else, I think that it is really pointless and unfair. And just like "H1N1 influenza," it would not really change the word used by most people. You would still say "we got married" whether or not the legal document was called a "civil union" or a "marriage license." Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts found that civil unions offer an unequal second-class form of marriage, and that only an equal marriage guarantees equality.

Yes there is nothing. Why do you need religious marriages? What is wrong with nihilism just applied to marriage? You can apply the philosophical concept of "God is dead" towards marriage and things will still work out. Couples do not need religion to get married. Buddhist have been getting married for centuries and they work just like any other marriage. The problem is that western culture concepts make people think that they need religion for marriage.

(side note: I am taking a philosophy class right now and we are learning about nihilism. )


You know that Buddhism predates Christianity right? So people have been having secular weddings for hundreds of years and they turn out ok.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 11 2009, 7:22 pm by MasterJohnny.

Ok Ashamed it's not proveable that man has free will as far as I know.

And Johnny buddhism only comes first if you think pre-0 BC Israelites weren't Christians. While they didn't use that word, people since Adam have been waiting for Christ, and that sounds pretty Christian to me. They may have been called Israelites but being an Israelite WAS their religion, and that religion was focussed on Christ. Same with modern Christianity.

How far BCE are we talking about? If you go too far I think it falls under Judaism and not Christianity. Its generally accepted that Jesus was the start of Christianity at 1AD (yes I know some of you think its 4BC)

But this point is somewhat moot as it does not disregard the fact that people have been having secular weddings for hundreds of years.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 11 2009, 8:23 pm by MasterJohnny.

This was and still is used today often One tribe's chief's duaghter is married to an opposing tribe's Chief's son to help solidify or create peace between the two tribes. Although for this occuring before organized religion i'm not so sure about that. It would be hard to prove if religion arrived at marriage first or if people did.

The problem is Homosexuals want to be married just as much as Heterosexuals do becayse of the traditons and symbolism behind "marriage'. Most gays/leabians don't just want the legal benefits they also want to be married religiously. This is a problem for the church because a marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman.


While trying to avoid stepping on all their toes you will end up stepping on the person's toes behind you. In other words your going to affend someone somewhere just because you can't please everybody. Marriage throught written history has always been a religious ceremony. The traditions and symbolism behind marriage is what makes marriage marriage not the benefits provided by the state because you are married.

I totally agreed that part should have been seperated by our founding fathers and been called a civil union or whatever they came up with, but they missed it. Back then there wasn't a need to create civil unions because only men and women married the opposite sex.

To be honest i don't think there will be a resolution to the debate until the churches/religions change their views. Civil unions may fix the legal aspect and give benefits to those people who were wrongfully denied all these years, but the state/government will not go beyond that fight. Marriage is sacred and homosexuals want that sacred ceremony just as much as heterosexuals do.

I think a lot of people are confused about the status of marriage. Marriage, in America at least, is a legal status entitling a couple to certain privileges relating to taxation, visitation, children, etc. The so-called religious aspect is completely separate from the legal aspect of marriage. I can go to an office and get married without any religious ceremony involved, and I have the same marriage rights as someone who had a deeply religious marriage. The problem is that homosexuals cannot marry, legally, in many parts of the country. "Civil unions" do not always carry the same rights as marriages, and furthermore, homosexuals should not be forced into a separate category as if marriage was confined to heterosexuals only.

Thank you, I pulled that out of my ass, and it seemed incorrect, but I let it slide anyway.
Having children of one's own is one of the most marvelous things possible. The idea that children are a burden is absurd. You aren't giving up 20 years, you're gaining 20 years with your children. I suppose it's all in your outlook. Children are a blessing, and it's selfish to have them, due to the joy they bring to the family.

Obviously there is a limit to our natural resources. Will we reach it? That's debatable. I don't particularly understand how anyone can fathom that exponential growth can continue forever. Eventually there will be a limiting factor, at which point a great disaster will occur which wipes out much of the population. This ALWAYS HAPPENS. Some may say that through science we can continue to grow exponentially, but that's stupid in my opinion. We don't know what the future holds, and it's better to move cautiously than at full speed. Now, if we had kamina and simon on our side, things would be different, but alas, they are fictional characters with ridiculous sunglasses.

Most of the disasters you are citing are a direct result of too many people and too few resources. The biggest killers are famine and disease. One comes from overcrowding and the other from too little food.

When a disaster comes like that, that is when we reach the limit of our resources.

I would not say it is a bad thing, however, I would not say that it is selfish either. Why do so many couples not want to have kids now? Because they don't think they can handle it, they aren't willing to put themselves under possibly more stress in order to raise a child, it takes quite a bit of selflessness to do so.


Yes, however, the only reason they can "have" children at all is because of selfish couples who not only want no kids, but they still want to be able to have sex freely, if couples were willing to care for their own children, rather than put them up for adoption, you wouldn't be seeing gay couples with children, hence the laws being the way they are, because they were created when people were willing to take responsibility for their actions, specifically their sexual actions.
Also, from a non-religious standpoint, I agree that it's somewhat unfair to stop certain rights, and I think that there should be specific benefits for simply married couples, and others for those with children.


Yes, there is a limit, however, we are still far from the limit on our non-replenishable resources, and while people complain about food being such an issue, more people, more farms. We can easily create more food, we have plenty of land, and in most countries, there is actually a declining population, rather than a growing one.


Yes, that is the stance that many of the advertisements for gay-marriage laws being passed were taking, and while it seems logical that it should not be possible, with the screwed up court system we have, many things that seem ridiculous are completely possible, such as judges overuling laws to allow gay marriage, or forcing religious adoption agencies to allow gay adoptions. You ask why isn't there a separation of church and state? I ask the same thing.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 12 2009, 7:15 am by Falkoner.