Financial reasons and two people who actually desire to be together forever. Raise a family (adoption, using those vialed sperms)

Also want to point out there are such things as gay Christians. Gay Christians actually believe that God will not turn away from them and they can continue their lifestyle and marry. Since these people are religious, doesn't that mean they should be able to marry?

For the government perks and other legal matters that come with marriage, perhaps. In the U.S., if you aren't married, then there are a lot of things you can't do just because you've been dating for a decade.

So what if its very religious? Does that suggest that gay people can't be religious because their religion wont let them marry?

Some homosexuals, I suppose, may not want to get married for that reason. The vast majority, however, would like the tax benefits. Why should others stop them? Gay marriage (or civil unions, or whatever you want to call them) don't harm anyone.



Exactly. And who's to say that your religion is the only correct one? What if there is a religion that says heterosexual marriages are forbidden? Separation of church and state -> churches should marry whomever they please.

lol I'm surprised no one mention that people will marry another person financial stability or a green card, this of course is a very small percentage of marriages.

Well not everyone is liberal; alot of people are conservative... And when asked directly only about half will allow it or deny it for whatever reason.

The separation of Church and State means the State can marry whomever they please. The Church can selectively marry according to whatever flawed doctrines they follow.

What does it mean to say one marries 'for love'. Extrapolate on that.

I always thought marriage was a way of formalizing the relationship. The couple already knows they are in love, marriage is just a way to show everyone else, to make it official, to celebrate it with their family and friends.

That's an opinion. I don't think marriage is defined as being particularly religious. Maybe it's just my experience or maybe it's a cultural difference between the US and NZ.

I'm AUS not NZ. And it is hardly an opinion. Marriage from practically all cultures can be traced back to religious roots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by_culture


Hmmm you may be right. It somewhat looks like that marriage was irreligious, and was later hijacked by religions. Well Jack, I bet you can't be too happy with that.

I edited my post. I left the tab open, sorry, forgot to refresh.

Edit: LOL@YOUR EDIT.

I suppose good things can come from error now and again.

I also edited my post to concede to your previous post.

I find that very interesting, because I had actually already alluded to the idea of marriage having religious roots. I guess I kinda always assumed it did. I'm gonna have to read that...

Exactly. The state shouldn't be involved at all.

Marriage, being religious, is the domain of the church, not the state. Churches should be able to marry whomever they please. If a church decides that they will marry a gay couple, so be it; the state may not agree, I may not agree, but it isn't my place or the state's place to interfere.


I should note that I'm talking about the classic western marriage, which definitely did have religious roots. Other cultures' marriages are probably different, but also aren't ingrained in OUR culture and laws.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2011, 11:38 pm by Jack.

Jack just entered a new link in the chain.

Just thought I'd reiterate this for the discussion on "why would anyone want to get married?" For better or worse, it is etched into our culture as a step forward in a relationship.

I should edit my post so that I can edit my edit in response to your response to his edited edit.

EDITS WITHIN EDITS WITHIN EDITS, YO

For histories, so people know what happened:

Read bottom up.

But Jack, you are only saying that the marriage is this or that because of your assumption that your religion is correct, everyone else is wrong, and we are all ruled over by a sky daddy.

I believe that marriage is a human construct, and therefore, by my beliefs, the state is very much allowed to marry whoever they want.

Maybe you just don't want to call what the state is doing 'marriage'. Or declare it as a false marriage by heretics. But that doesn't change the fact that the state can still do it. You only think marriage belongs to a 'domain' because of your religious beliefs. Beliefs which myself and many others know to be hopelessly wrong.

So, if you look at it from our POV, perhaps you can concede that the state can marry to. You just would not call it 'proper' marriage.

We may disagree on this point; HOWEVER I think we can both agree that western marriage was constructed by the church, governed by the church. Why should the state get involved with a church matter?

WRAUNG

I confuze. Where does it say that western marriage was not dominated by abrahamic religious groups and reasons?

Well on the wiki link (see prev post by me) I was looking at the part on Ancient Greece and how marriage had no religious connotations back then. Now, from this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture) we have this:

Historical records of western culture in its European geographical range begin with Ancient Greece, and then Ancient Rome, Christianization during the European Middle Ages, and reform and modernization starting by Renaissance, and globalized by successive European empires that spread the European ways of life and education between the sixteenth and twentieth centuries.

So, if you can agree with the following two premises:
1. Western culture evolved from Ancient Greek culture.
2. Ancient Greek culture had marriage without religious connotations.
Then you how do you disagree with the conclusion
3. Christianity did not construct western marriage.

Christianity did not construct western marriage. It only hijacked what the Ancient Greeks had, incorporated it into their belief system, and clouded what was a fairly-straightforward procedure with a bunch of religious nonsense.

Also I just read this again. WTH dude? What do you mean exactly? I am disagreeing with you. How does that quote reinforce the position that the state shouldn't be involved at all?

Ancient Greece section. You are also making a big leap from Christianity to Abrahamic religions. Before the flip from BCE to CE Judiasm was pretty much the only Abrahamic religion. Christianity amalgamated stuff from Judiasm and Islam further amalgamated stuff from Christianity.