4 ms·

I am of the belief that the government should not be saying who is and isn't married. Marriage is a religious institution, and should be used for the religions

I am of the belief that the government should not be saying who is and isn't married. Marriage is a religious institution, and should be used for the religions that use that. That would also mean if a 'Church of Reformed Satanism' had a marriage, is to let them. The problem is we have a system that looks towards 'ordained' religious positions for our tax record. So this country mixes up person rights with religious gunk. The legal question then, after removing religious stuff: do GLBT people have the right to have a relationship respected for tax and governmental reasons? I see no justification for taking rights away because of their brain chemistry.

cookiecaper 14y ago
Marriage is not a right and it is not a default state. (Legal) marriage can only exist when a government explicitly defines the relationship and then issues privileges based on that definition. Marriage is a positive action. There is nothing to take away; gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone, they're asking that we explicitly expand our definition to include their relationships. As above, it is not a forgone conclusion that the incentives for encouraging the citizenry to engage in permanent heterosexual relationships are applicable to homosexual relationships. It is a matter that must be considered separately. Suppose I offer friend X twenty dollars. Now suppose friend Y also demands twenty dollars, and accuses me of violating my offer when I refuse it. That is what is happening here -- heterosexual and homosexual relationships are DIFFERENT and deserve independent consideration. Most communities have decided they want to offer an incentive for permanent heterosexual coupling; the same reasoning can NOT necessarily automatically be extrapolated and applied to homosexual coupling, just as I may offer friend X some money because he is poor or I owe him one or something like that, but that reasoning doesn't always automatically include friend Y. No right is being denied here. Furthermore, no punishment is made due to "brain chemistry"; we are not testing individuals and discarding them based on the presence of certain biological markers (either externally or internally visible) that exist through no personal or direct fault. We are simply choosing that we do not want to incentivize, endorse, or equalize permanent homosexual coupling as we do with permanent heterosexual coupling. Such coupling is an independent affirmative action that does not involve one's brain chemistry.
- jlarocco 14y ago
  I don't see why government should define marriage at all. If anything, it seems we could do with a little discouraging of heterosexual relationships. If your religion wants to define marriage, cool. If a gay person's religion defines marriage, then that's cool, too. But if you want special privileges from the government (like tax breaks) for your religious status, then you need to accept everybody's definition of marriage.
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    >I don't see why government should define marriage at all. If anything, it seems we could do with a little discouraging of heterosexual relationships. Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense. >But if you want special privileges from the government (like tax breaks) for your religious status, then you need to accept everybody's definition of marriage. wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism". Further, from the referenda that keep saying "no" to gay marriage, I think "everybody's definition of marriage" may be better aligned with the predominant religious view anyway...
    - jlarocco 14y ago
      >Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense. You know what, I'm not sure I see the downside there? The concept that certain people should get special privileges from the government is a concept that should be destroyed, IMO. > wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism". You've got it backwards. Marriage started out as a religious thing, dating back thousands of years. Only recently has the government stepped in and had anything to do with it. So if the government wants to be involved in the religious matter of marriage, they need to be more accepting of other religions that may define marriage differently.

cookiecaper 14y ago

Marriage is not a right and it is not a default state. (Legal) marriage can only exist when a government explicitly defines the relationship and then issues privileges based on that definition. Marriage is a positive action. There is nothing to take away; gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone, they're asking that we explicitly expand our definition to include their relationships. As above, it is not a forgone conclusion that the incentives for encouraging the citizenry to engage in permanent heterosexual relationships are applicable to homosexual relationships. It is a matter that must be considered separately. Suppose I offer friend X twenty dollars. Now suppose friend Y also demands twenty dollars, and accuses me of violating my offer when I refuse it. That is what is happening here -- heterosexual and homosexual relationships are DIFFERENT and deserve independent consideration. Most communities have decided they want to offer an incentive for permanent heterosexual coupling; the same reasoning can NOT necessarily automatically be extrapolated and applied to homosexual coupling, just as I may offer friend X some money because he is poor or I owe him one or something like that, but that reasoning doesn't always automatically include friend Y. No right is being denied here. Furthermore, no punishment is made due to "brain chemistry"; we are not testing individuals and discarding them based on the presence of certain biological markers (either externally or internally visible) that exist through no personal or direct fault. We are simply choosing that we do not want to incentivize, endorse, or equalize permanent homosexual coupling as we do with permanent heterosexual coupling. Such coupling is an independent affirmative action that does not involve one's brain chemistry.

jlarocco 14y ago
I don't see why government should define marriage at all. If anything, it seems we could do with a little discouraging of heterosexual relationships. If your religion wants to define marriage, cool. If a gay person's religion defines marriage, then that's cool, too. But if you want special privileges from the government (like tax breaks) for your religious status, then you need to accept everybody's definition of marriage.
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  >I don't see why government should define marriage at all. If anything, it seems we could do with a little discouraging of heterosexual relationships. Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense. >But if you want special privileges from the government (like tax breaks) for your religious status, then you need to accept everybody's definition of marriage. wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism". Further, from the referenda that keep saying "no" to gay marriage, I think "everybody's definition of marriage" may be better aligned with the predominant religious view anyway...
  - jlarocco 14y ago
    >Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense. You know what, I'm not sure I see the downside there? The concept that certain people should get special privileges from the government is a concept that should be destroyed, IMO. > wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism". You've got it backwards. Marriage started out as a religious thing, dating back thousands of years. Only recently has the government stepped in and had anything to do with it. So if the government wants to be involved in the religious matter of marriage, they need to be more accepting of other religions that may define marriage differently.