8 ms·

We effectively already have that. A legal marriage is obtained completely independently from a religious marriage. The simple fact that the legal construct is c

by imgabe 14y ago

We effectively already have that. A legal marriage is obtained completely independently from a religious marriage. The simple fact that the legal construct is called "marriage" seems to throw the religious types into a fervor, because they somehow think that changing the legal construct has some effect on their own religious use of the word. I guess the fact that words can have multiple meanings and be used in different ways is not taught in Sunday school. There's no reason to change the name of the legal agreement known as "marriage" to "civil union" other than to pacify the superstitious.

learc83 14y ago
Culturally we make no distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. The majority of people aren't even really aware of the difference. So long as this is the case there will be opposition to any legally allowed civil marriage that doesn't follow the traditional definition. Do you want to have this fight every time a new type of union wants the legal protections of marriage? My solution is a compromise, the alternative is to have this fight for the next few years, and then a few years later start it all over again for poly-marriages. >There's no reason to change the name of the legal agreement known as "marriage" to "civil union" other than to pacify the superstitious. Since the "superstitious" make up a large percent of the country you might want to find a way to "pacify" them. If we can compromise so that the majority of people are happy and no one's rights are violated, where's the problem? Unless you just don't want to "pacify" the "superstitious" out of spite.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > Culturally we make no distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. The majority of people aren't even really aware of the difference. Yet there it is, in black and white, in every statutory code in the country.
- imgabe 14y ago
  So, we write our laws based on reason and justice, unless some religious group threatens to make a really big stink then we just do whatever they want? Is that a reasonable way to run a country? The statistics I was able to Google up show support for gay marriage at 43% of the US and against 47%. So it's not like it's some tiny percentage who are for it, and it's not even a majority who are against it. Personally, no, I don't want to have this fight. I also don't want to have to fight about evolution being taught in schools. Unfortunately some members of the population render this a necessity.
  - learc83 14y ago
    >So, we write our laws based on reason and justice, unless some religious group threatens to make a really big stink then we just do whatever they want? No, we write our laws based on reason and justice, but there is nothing wrong with taking people's preferences into account as long as those preferences don't violate the rights of other people. Assuming you were for a single payer healthcare system. Would you object to a president pushing for a single payer socialized healthcare system, but calling it something else in order to appease people who hate the word "socialized"?
    - imgabe 14y ago
      Your preferences are only relevant insofar as they relate to your life. Your preferences for how other people live their lives do not matter. What about the preferences of gay couples who wish to identify their relationship as a marriage? Why does your preference about what to call their relationship matter more than theirs?
      - learc83 14y ago
        You do understand that the compromise is that everyone is free to call their relationship marriage, and that gay and straight couples would both enter into a civil contract that has a different name than marriage? A word only has a meaning insofar as a culture decides to use that meaning. So yes, the preferences of individual members of the culture taken collectively are by definition relevant to the debate. So hopefully we can agree that the current definition of a word is solely about preference. We are having a problem coming to a consensus over the meaning of the word "marriage." Group A says it means "one man and one woman" Group B says it means "two people" Group C says it means "any group of consenting adults" If you are in Group A, using the word marriage in a legal document, in the context of "any two people", means you think the government sides with the preferences of Group B, and vice versa. Two (or more) sides disagree, so a compromise is proposed--we don't use the contested word, we create a new word that everyone can agree on. Imagine if 2 groups argued about the definition of the word "planet." Group A says a planet "is spherical" Group B says a planet "must clear its neighborhood" The governments starts using the Group B definition, but almost half of the people still use the Group A definition. In order to avoid a huge fight we compromise and come up with a new word that includes objects that fit both definition, solely for use in legal documents.
Loic 14y ago
The real problem here in most of Europe is that if you allow same sex marriage, you give the couple all the rights of a married couple. These rights include adoption. This is the main driving force against same sex marriage in most of Europe. Same sex couples adopting is a very sensitive issue, I am lucky to have friends who adopted (in Germany we have less than 10 men couples having adopted), the boy is now a bit less than 2 year old and I am still wondering if this is a good thing or not. This is why I completely understand that the general population can react strongly as even me, being able to play on the floor with the little boy, being a rational kind of person and seeing the little boy smiling and happy, can still have some doubts.
- imgabe 14y ago
  Why exactly might it not be a good thing for a child to be raised by a same sex couple?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - Loic 14y ago
    I personally don't know. From my experience as son and now as father, what I really think is important is to have two parents with different characters and way of thinking. Because a kid will never think like you and react like you, being two with different ways to see the world is helping wonderfully to better understand your kid and help him/her to grow and develop him/herself. Can these differences be found within a same sex couple? Most likely, also not in the same way as woman/man. Is it better 2 loving fathers instead of living alone in an institution, definitely. Non exceptional same sex couples with children is a fundamental change in the society, we need to accept that it will take time for this change to become accepted.
- ralfn 14y ago
  I think all the adoption regulation is completely bullshit, and likely against every nations constitution. Every one is allowed to have a baby. But, oh dear, if somebody wants to take care of a kid that has no parents. Personally, i dont think religious people are fit parents. Should i now campaign against religious people taking care of children? Or maybe, just maybe, people should just give the freedom to others they expect for themselves. I have no moral authority over any one, nor does any one have a moral authority over me. Why is it that fascism is allowed to flourish, as long as the fascists call it a religion. And how is that fair towards the 1% of religious folk that are actually religious? ( actually religious == using religion to guide your own lifechoices, instead of using it judge/oppress others and play god)
bmj 14y ago
Some conservatives and religious types understand the construct of marriage to serve certain social purposes as well--primarily procreation and the raising of a family. I'm not advocating that perspective (history shows this isn't always the case), just merely pointing out the conservative argument isn't always "the Bible says so[1]"--it is also an argument that society functions at its best within the "traditional" concept of marriage. [1] It is worth noting that while there are passages in the Hebrew/Christian bible that advocated "one man, one woman" marriages, there are plenty of examples of "Biblical heroes" who had multiple wives (David and Solomon come to mind).
- rsanchez1 14y ago
  This is used as justification for polygamous marriages by some religious groups, but more than not being acknowledged legally, this type of marriage is outright criminalized.
slurgfest 14y ago
Pacifying the superstitious is a very good reason, a perfect reason. Because it is creating a huge fight over nothing that will never end. There is no reason for the state to name anything "marriage" or give any special recognition to the concept.
dpeck 14y ago
Sadly a legal marriage and and religious marriage are not independent. Thanks to fear of white women going off and marrying black men we have the legacy of marriage licenses to deal with, and at least in my state it is illegal for for a minister to perform a religious marriage without a civil license/contract. Realizing that this affords some protections for those cluelessly love struck who could be left with no legal recourse should the relationship dissolve, it still pisses me off quite a bit that I need permission of any sort from the government to practice a religious rite.

by imgabe 14y ago

learc83 14y ago

Culturally we make no distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. The majority of people aren't even really aware of the difference. So long as this is the case there will be opposition to any legally allowed civil marriage that doesn't follow the traditional definition. Do you want to have this fight every time a new type of union wants the legal protections of marriage? My solution is a compromise, the alternative is to have this fight for the next few years, and then a few years later start it all over again for poly-marriages. >There's no reason to change the name of the legal agreement known as "marriage" to "civil union" other than to pacify the superstitious. Since the "superstitious" make up a large percent of the country you might want to find a way to "pacify" them. If we can compromise so that the majority of people are happy and no one's rights are violated, where's the problem? Unless you just don't want to "pacify" the "superstitious" out of spite.

rayiner 14y ago
> Culturally we make no distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. The majority of people aren't even really aware of the difference. Yet there it is, in black and white, in every statutory code in the country.
imgabe 14y ago
So, we write our laws based on reason and justice, unless some religious group threatens to make a really big stink then we just do whatever they want? Is that a reasonable way to run a country? The statistics I was able to Google up show support for gay marriage at 43% of the US and against 47%. So it's not like it's some tiny percentage who are for it, and it's not even a majority who are against it. Personally, no, I don't want to have this fight. I also don't want to have to fight about evolution being taught in schools. Unfortunately some members of the population render this a necessity.
- learc83 14y ago
  >So, we write our laws based on reason and justice, unless some religious group threatens to make a really big stink then we just do whatever they want? No, we write our laws based on reason and justice, but there is nothing wrong with taking people's preferences into account as long as those preferences don't violate the rights of other people. Assuming you were for a single payer healthcare system. Would you object to a president pushing for a single payer socialized healthcare system, but calling it something else in order to appease people who hate the word "socialized"?
  - imgabe 14y ago
    Your preferences are only relevant insofar as they relate to your life. Your preferences for how other people live their lives do not matter. What about the preferences of gay couples who wish to identify their relationship as a marriage? Why does your preference about what to call their relationship matter more than theirs?
    - learc83 14y ago
      You do understand that the compromise is that everyone is free to call their relationship marriage, and that gay and straight couples would both enter into a civil contract that has a different name than marriage? A word only has a meaning insofar as a culture decides to use that meaning. So yes, the preferences of individual members of the culture taken collectively are by definition relevant to the debate. So hopefully we can agree that the current definition of a word is solely about preference. We are having a problem coming to a consensus over the meaning of the word "marriage." Group A says it means "one man and one woman" Group B says it means "two people" Group C says it means "any group of consenting adults" If you are in Group A, using the word marriage in a legal document, in the context of "any two people", means you think the government sides with the preferences of Group B, and vice versa. Two (or more) sides disagree, so a compromise is proposed--we don't use the contested word, we create a new word that everyone can agree on. Imagine if 2 groups argued about the definition of the word "planet." Group A says a planet "is spherical" Group B says a planet "must clear its neighborhood" The governments starts using the Group B definition, but almost half of the people still use the Group A definition. In order to avoid a huge fight we compromise and come up with a new word that includes objects that fit both definition, solely for use in legal documents.

Loic 14y ago

The real problem here in most of Europe is that if you allow same sex marriage, you give the couple all the rights of a married couple. These rights include adoption. This is the main driving force against same sex marriage in most of Europe. Same sex couples adopting is a very sensitive issue, I am lucky to have friends who adopted (in Germany we have less than 10 men couples having adopted), the boy is now a bit less than 2 year old and I am still wondering if this is a good thing or not. This is why I completely understand that the general population can react strongly as even me, being able to play on the floor with the little boy, being a rational kind of person and seeing the little boy smiling and happy, can still have some doubts.

imgabe 14y ago
Why exactly might it not be a good thing for a child to be raised by a same sex couple?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Loic 14y ago
  I personally don't know. From my experience as son and now as father, what I really think is important is to have two parents with different characters and way of thinking. Because a kid will never think like you and react like you, being two with different ways to see the world is helping wonderfully to better understand your kid and help him/her to grow and develop him/herself. Can these differences be found within a same sex couple? Most likely, also not in the same way as woman/man. Is it better 2 loving fathers instead of living alone in an institution, definitely. Non exceptional same sex couples with children is a fundamental change in the society, we need to accept that it will take time for this change to become accepted.
ralfn 14y ago
I think all the adoption regulation is completely bullshit, and likely against every nations constitution. Every one is allowed to have a baby. But, oh dear, if somebody wants to take care of a kid that has no parents. Personally, i dont think religious people are fit parents. Should i now campaign against religious people taking care of children? Or maybe, just maybe, people should just give the freedom to others they expect for themselves. I have no moral authority over any one, nor does any one have a moral authority over me. Why is it that fascism is allowed to flourish, as long as the fascists call it a religion. And how is that fair towards the 1% of religious folk that are actually religious? ( actually religious == using religion to guide your own lifechoices, instead of using it judge/oppress others and play god)

bmj 14y ago

Some conservatives and religious types understand the construct of marriage to serve certain social purposes as well--primarily procreation and the raising of a family. I'm not advocating that perspective (history shows this isn't always the case), just merely pointing out the conservative argument isn't always "the Bible says so[1]"--it is also an argument that society functions at its best within the "traditional" concept of marriage. [1] It is worth noting that while there are passages in the Hebrew/Christian bible that advocated "one man, one woman" marriages, there are plenty of examples of "Biblical heroes" who had multiple wives (David and Solomon come to mind).

rsanchez1 14y ago
This is used as justification for polygamous marriages by some religious groups, but more than not being acknowledged legally, this type of marriage is outright criminalized.

slurgfest 14y ago

Pacifying the superstitious is a very good reason, a perfect reason. Because it is creating a huge fight over nothing that will never end. There is no reason for the state to name anything "marriage" or give any special recognition to the concept.

dpeck 14y ago

Sadly a legal marriage and and religious marriage are not independent. Thanks to fear of white women going off and marrying black men we have the legacy of marriage licenses to deal with, and at least in my state it is illegal for for a minister to perform a religious marriage without a civil license/contract. Realizing that this affords some protections for those cluelessly love struck who could be left with no legal recourse should the relationship dissolve, it still pisses me off quite a bit that I need permission of any sort from the government to practice a religious rite.