Gay marriage

[QuantumT]

snip

To be fair, the first historical records of marriage date back to Hammurabi's code, i.e. ~1760 BC. And back then it was much more of a business affair than a religious one, as theloconate stated. It wasn't really until Christianity got going that marriage became a religious affair.

In your defense though, his post was pretty scattered.

[Belthus]

If all a couple cares about is being married in the eyes of their church, then they can skip the state marriage license and just do the religious ceremony. Also, a church doesn't have to marry anyone they don't want to.

As for using a different word -- "civil union" instead of "marriage" -- why bother? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... If the point is to create a second-class arrangement with fewer rights, then just say so, and we can argue about that. But if the two would have exactly the same legal status, then why use different language? Of course, you are free to use whatever word you please in your own conversation. You are also free to express your opinion about other groups with whatever language you please.

[Uppercut]

(P.S. And don't pretend that government grants the right to love one another--if you truly think that, you apparently don't understand love very well.)

  I don't think a state can grant you any rights technically. Laws don't exist to make sure you can do things, they're there to specify what things you can't do.

[theloconate]

How is marriage a religious thing. Does that mean that atheists can't get married too? And why do you have a problem with it being labeled marriage when two gay guys/gals marry. Because its religious?!! Marriage was originally used to make ties between families, not because of religion. Granted they would probably be marrying someone of the same religion but that doesn't make it religious.

This is pretty paradoxically written.  First, you start by off-handedly asserting that religion is not a basis of marriage and never was.  In your bizarro world, then, governing bodies one day for no apparent reason decided they were going to start issuing licenses for something nobody was doing already, and granting legal and financial incentives to get people to do this totally new thing which they termed "marriage."  On the face of it, this is pretty laughable.

wait. what? how the hell is that what I ever said. I never said any of that except for my assertion that it wasn't originally a religious thing. It wasn't, go look it up. If that's how you interpret what I said then I can interpret what you said as "In your bizzaro world religious people randomly started getting married and the government then, also quite randomly, handing out licences for this and granting tax breaks. On the face of it this is pretty laughable". However I wouldn't interpret your position like that because I'm honest and I don't like to put words in other people's mouths.

Then you tangentially go on to ask the rhetorical question about whether atheists can or cannot get married.  It's as if you haven't made up your mind--if marriage has no religious basis, then how did this question come to mind?   Then you seemed flummoxed that the nice people in governmental (and certainly NOT religious) circles got the idea that marriage was an exclusively heterosexual affair when obviously it was never intended for such purposes.   Marriage, after all, was devised by governments to grant hospital visitation rights and for legal remedies for property transfers and adoption proceedings (though, amazingly, marriage somehow came to exist before the advent of hospitals as we know them or even of widespread land ownership.)

Yes I asked that because under his logic it would imply that atheists couldn't' get married (and by the way there are religious gays so saying it's religious has no bearing on whether gays can marry or not). Also there is a difference between origin and basis. Nowadays, marriage, in most cases, has a religious basis, but you don't have to get married religiously. Look up secular marriage. Also, the next sentence is rather hard to understand because sarcasm doesn't work well over text. If i'm understanding correctly you are simply mocking a straw man my position (although i may not be understanding fully)

Finally, you come to the conclusion that while marriage has historically been about promoting family unity and overwhelmingly occurs between men and women of the same religion, there's no reason to call it a religious custom.  All those religions that hold marriage as a religious rite or religious sacrament obviously had it wrong all these years.  I wonder why all those people celebrate them in religious buildings then, with religious ministers at them?

Wait, dude, you seem to be reading into the post a bit. Religions do have and preform marriage, but how the hell does that make them wrong? Its possible to have a religious custom that has roots elsewhere.

You seem to have never considered that marriage was always a religious arrangement that modern governments began to co-opt since the people being governed were already organized in this fashion.  The government added things to what a married couple could do under their laws that had very little to do or at least was not central to the original religious arrangement.  It seems it is these late additions to the marriage game that have people all aflutter in the gay marriage debate.  It seems these are the things most sought after by same sex proponents, since they don't seem to be knocking down the doors of the religious institutions to get married in religious buildings by religious ministers.

Yes I have considered it. It seems as though you didn't even try to do any research on this subject and simply assumed that because religions have marriage they must be the origin of it.

It is on this basis that many will find it objectionable to call these legal arrangements equivalent to what has been known as marriage for millenia.  If you want legal rights, then get legal rights.   Just don't waste your efforts trying to rewrite history, religious or otherwise.

(P.S. And don't pretend that government grants the right to love one another--if you truly think that, you apparently don't understand love very well.)

/off soapbox

How the hell am I rewriting history? and what's the problem with changing tradition? And if you're gonna allow the same financial benefit to a couple of gays as married couples then why not just call it marriage? Also perhaps next time you could write more clearly, I found some things hard to understand (English isn't my first language)

[Boingo]

snip

To be fair, the first historical records of marriage date back to Hammurabi's code, i.e. ~1760 BC. And back then it was much more of a business affair than a religious one, as theloconate stated. It wasn't really until Christianity got going that marriage became a religious affair.

1. Marriage was religious before Jesus.  Do I really need to reference this?  Just look at Judaic tradition as one example.

2. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi): Hammurabi (ruled ca. 1796 BCE – 1750 BCE) said he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people. In the preface to the law code, he states, "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land.

Sure, not everyone who claims to be chosen by the gods is actually chosen by the gods (Moses and Muhammed also claimed similar credentials) but this seems to me to say that yes, indeed, the first known records referring to marriage had religious origins.  If this is not evidence that religion was important in the institution of his code, why would he claim the gods chose him for this?  Importantly, let's not forget that religious and political power were essentially one and the same for a very long time.

3. If you actually read Hammurabi's code (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM) you'll note that every law pertaining to marriage refers to heterosexual pairing.

[theloconate]

3. If you actually read Hammurabi's code (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM) you'll note that every law pertaining to marriage refers to heterosexual pairing.

While you were refuting what someone else (not me) said i'd just like to ask what relevance does this last sentence have

[Boingo]

3. If you actually read Hammurabi's code (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM) you'll note that every law pertaining to marriage refers to heterosexual pairing.

While you were refuting what someone else (not me) said i'd just like to ask what relevance does this last sentence have

You and others have purported that the notion of marriage being reserved for heterosexual pairing is the result of Christian tradition, that somehow it is the "fault" of Christianity that we ever came to believe marriage was supposed to be between men and women and not same-sex couples.  The relevance of this third statement is to point out that all evidence from the earliest records of marriage support the idea of "traditional" marriage--that marriage is a religious arrangement involving 2 people: one man and one woman.  Hammurabi's code refutes your assertions (the "traditional" marriage idea predates Christianity and much (if not all) of the Bible) and solidifies the fact that marriage is a religious entity. 

I want to know your position on gay marriage. Legal or Illegal?
If you want to know my position on it I find it sad that it's even an issue (I think it should be legal). Most of the opposition to gay marriage is purely religious, backed by Christian fundamentalists. What I find somewhat amusing is that even though the bible does say that you shouldn't lie with another man, it also says you can't eat lobsters (and various other things) in Leviticus 11:9 to 11:12. yet many of those fundamentalists have no problem eating lobster. There are a few non religious people who think gay marriage should be illegal, and to them I say this: there is no secular argument against gay marriage that can't also be applied to straight marriage (unless of course you think you can prove me wrong)

You have to acknowledge that you have a bias in that you would like things to be otherwise, but that isn't going to change the facts.   Marriage has its origins in religious traditions.  Marriage is between one man and one woman.  Of course we could change the meaning of the word "marriage" to mean something else just as we could change the meaning of many other words.  It would take a very long time for everyone to agree to this new meaning, and I doubt it would ever be totally successful.  Another option, and remarkably more pragmatic in my opinion, is to simply work for what you really want--legal status for same-sex couples recognizing special financial benefits afforded married couples (+hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, etc.)

[QuantumT]

You and others have purported that the notion of marriage being reserved for heterosexual pairing is the result of Christian tradition, that somehow it is the "fault" of Christianity that we ever came to believe marriage was supposed to be between men and women and not same-sex couples.  The relevance of this third statement is to point out that all evidence from the earliest records of marriage support the idea of "traditional" marriage--that marriage is a religious arrangement involving 2 people: one man and one woman.  Hammurabi's code refutes your assertions (the "traditional" marriage idea predates Christianity and much (if not all) of the Bible) and solidifies the fact that marriage is a religious entity.

Hammurabi's code says no such thing. All that:

Hammurabi (ruled ca. 1796 BCE – 1750 BCE) said he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people

indicates is that Hammurabi was a religious person. There is a distinct difference between setting up a legal system that acknowledges marriage and setting up marriage as a religious tradition.

By your definition of religious, basically everything ever was religious because it was done by religious people.

Additionally, all that Hammurabi's code referring to traditional couples really means is that was the norm, nothing more.

However, it's not the fault of christianity either. Biological function is what established that norm. However, I'd like to think that humans are intelligent enough that not everything has to be about biological function anymore.

I want to know your position on gay marriage. Legal or Illegal?
If you want to know my position on it I find it sad that it's even an issue (I think it should be legal). Most of the opposition to gay marriage is purely religious, backed by Christian fundamentalists. What I find somewhat amusing is that even though the bible does say that you shouldn't lie with another man, it also says you can't eat lobsters (and various other things) in Leviticus 11:9 to 11:12. yet many of those fundamentalists have no problem eating lobster. There are a few non religious people who think gay marriage should be illegal, and to them I say this: there is no secular argument against gay marriage that can't also be applied to straight marriage (unless of course you think you can prove me wrong)

You have to acknowledge that you have a bias in that you would like things to be otherwise, but that isn't going to change the facts.   Marriage has its origins in religious traditions.  Marriage is between one man and one woman.  Of course we could change the meaning of the word "marriage" to mean something else just as we could change the meaning of many other words.  It would take a very long time for everyone to agree to this new meaning, and I doubt it would ever be totally successful.  Another option, and remarkably more pragmatic in my opinion, is to simply work for what you really want--legal status for same-sex couples recognizing special financial benefits afforded married couples (+hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, etc.)

Parts of this echo my opinion on the subject. As I've stated before, I think the government should get out of the business of marriage entirely, and instead deal only in civil unions, regardless of the respective genders involved.

Part of what theloconate's point was in his original post was that the bible is the general source for the antihomosexuality view, but christians willingly ignore parts of the bible anyway, so strictly sticking to the bible clearly isn't very important.

[Boingo]

Hammurabi's code says no such thing. All that:

Hammurabi (ruled ca. 1796 BCE – 1750 BCE) said he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people

indicates is that Hammurabi was a religious person. There is a distinct difference between setting up a legal system that acknowledges marriage and setting up marriage as a religious tradition.

By your definition of religious, basically everything ever was religious because it was done by religious people.

Additionally, all that Hammurabi's code referring to traditional couples really means is that was the norm, nothing more.

First off, I am not claiming that everything ever done was religious because it was done by religious people.  That is an unfair characterization.  In this specific instance, in the preamble to the code he sets forth, Hammurabi clearly states this code was given to him by a divine source.  It is for that reason I believe this makes it a religious.  If this is not the case, then explain to me why when Moses or Muhammed claim a divine source gives them laws, it is religious, but when Hammurabi does it, it fails to be religious.

For those who would advocate for the liberalization of marriage to something other than a special status between one man and one woman, what should the new definition be?  Specifically, should it be limited to 2 people?  Do they have to be sexually involved?  What obligations do the married persons have to each other/anyone else?

[theloconate]

3. If you actually read Hammurabi's code (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM) you'll note that every law pertaining to marriage refers to heterosexual pairing.

While you were refuting what someone else (not me) said i'd just like to ask what relevance does this last sentence have

You and others have purported that the notion of marriage being reserved for heterosexual pairing is the result of Christian tradition, that somehow it is the "fault" of Christianity that we ever came to believe marriage was supposed to be between men and women and not same-sex couples.  The relevance of this third statement is to point out that all evidence from the earliest records of marriage support the idea of "traditional" marriage--that marriage is a religious arrangement involving 2 people: one man and one woman.  Hammurabi's code refutes your assertions (the "traditional" marriage idea predates Christianity and much (if not all) of the Bible) and solidifies the fact that marriage is a religious entity. 

Please tell me when i said this, I did say that Christians are currently the main opponents to gay marriage in the developed world, but i never said any of the rest. The Bible doesn't solidify anything about whether or not it's religious (and whether it is or not is unimportant), the bible says stuff about religion. Please tell me how you get from the bible says this therefore it's origin is religious. At this point I have to wonder if you've even spent the time to do any research on this. Just type in the words origins of marriage into google, you'll find that marriage actually predates recorded history

I want to know your position on gay marriage. Legal or Illegal?
If you want to know my position on it I find it sad that it's even an issue (I think it should be legal). Most of the opposition to gay marriage is purely religious, backed by Christian fundamentalists. What I find somewhat amusing is that even though the bible does say that you shouldn't lie with another man, it also says you can't eat lobsters (and various other things) in Leviticus 11:9 to 11:12. yet many of those fundamentalists have no problem eating lobster. There are a few non religious people who think gay marriage should be illegal, and to them I say this: there is no secular argument against gay marriage that can't also be applied to straight marriage (unless of course you think you can prove me wrong)

You have to acknowledge that you have a bias in that you would like things to be otherwise, but that isn't going to change the facts.   Marriage has its origins in religious traditions.  Marriage is between one man and one woman.  Of course we could change the meaning of the word "marriage" to mean something else just as we could change the meaning of many other words.  It would take a very long time for everyone to agree to this new meaning, and I doubt it would ever be totally successful.  Another option, and remarkably more pragmatic in my opinion, is to simply work for what you really want--legal status for same-sex couples recognizing special financial benefits afforded married couples (+hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, etc.)

Im not entirely sure what "You have to acknowledge that you have a bias in that you would like things to be otherwise, but that isn't going to change the facts" that is supposed to be responding too. Also marriage is not between a man and a woman, there are men who are married in several countries of the world. Here's the definition of marriage seeing as you're too lazy to look it up in a dictionary:
1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
yes, you're right it's impossible to accept that marriage also includes same sex relationships, it's not like several countries around the world already have (sarcasm).

You also seem to have this obsession about whether or not it is religious in origin. Why does that matter? You think religions can never change or that gay's can't just start a new denomination that accepts them (although they don't have too because there are several that already do)

[theloconate]

i'm also rather confused as too why you [boingo] have posted new rebuttals and arguments without have responded to my previous rebuttals of yours or at least having acknowledged that those points you made were flawed (if you can't respond to the refutation)

[Kazawrath]

If you're not homophobic same sex marrage will not be a problem and not allowing homosexuals to marry is just another way for people to try to segregate homosexuals from society.Yes the government is there to keep the country running the best it can but they should not be able to decide if your love is legitimate or not.