Poll: Who truly owns the right to the word "marriage"?

[Valiance]

A strange poll. The only way to answer truthfully is to not answer at all.

 

[13lackfriday]

You can talk up all its religious overtones as much as you want, but once it becomes a legal institution, it has to abide by the law and the Constitution.

That said, I voted "Webster."

Edit:

Damn, double-ninja'd.

Webster's dictionary.

Noah Webster.

...and a half.

^ Oxford

 

[Alex_P]

I'm curious. Has anyone ever heard a purely secular argument against gay marriage?

Here's one that purports to be [http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp?pg=1]. Of course, it doesn't make a lick of sense, but, hey, you know...

TL;DR summary:
Men want to rape everything that moves. Only ironclad tradition and amazing willpower can keep our wild lusts in check for even a single day. If you are a woman or a child, then any man who manages to not rape you or abandon you is a Big Damn Hero.

This is actually way worse than most of the religious arguments.

-- Alex

 

[BonsaiK]

I think the OP really means the "act", not the "word" in a literal sense.

It varies from country to country. If you want to know the real answer, study the Universal Life Church, who are a multi-denominational church that will accept anyone into their ministry as a reverend, it takes 10 seconds and you can do it over the internet. Once you become a member, you are legally allowed to perform marriages in some countries, because the ULC is a religious body. However this is not recognised in countries with a lot of state control over the marriage process. Any country that allows the ULC to operate fully without legal interference (such as the US and UK) will fall on the "church" side, other countries such as Australia who do not recognise the ULC will definitely fall on the "state" side. In Australia a marriage certificate issued even by a recognised church isn't even a legal document for identity purposes, you need a marriage certificate issued from a government body for proof of ID. That's a pretty good indicator that the church in Australia doesn't really "own" the legal side of the "marriage process".

 

[Knonsense]

It's not something that really should be institutionalized either way, ideally.

Marriage should obviously be open to secular people, and the government should by no means be large or intrusive enough to care about it.

 

[Bat Vader]

Nobody.

It's just a word.

The Dictionary owns the word marriage.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

I've seen a secular argument against gay marriage that has something to do with the economy, something about having more tax breaks for couples. Of course, this turns to shit once you realise you're putting peoples' rights on a lower position than the economy (this is a Bad Thing). It also turns to shit when you realise that gay people would spend money on marriages and weddings, putting money into the economy.

It's funny, people say that civil unions are a compromise that most people can deal with. Come on. Besides the issues I laid out earlier in the thread, do people really think that the noise about homosexuality would stop when a compromise is reached? Do you have that much faith in humanity? People would still whine whenever gay people are granted any right that the rest of society has. Some people won't stop making noise until homosexuality is made illegal! Making compromises only legitimises these peoples' viewpoints.

Ultimately, legalising gay marriage harms no-one, and helps many people achieve more happiness. Therefore, it is my theory that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage opposes it because they don't want gay people to have the same cultural status as straight people.

edit:
every non-religious argument has been an argument about words, how things used to be done (the appeal-to-tradition fallacy), or dodging the issue by saying "well the government shouldn't be involved in marriage". UH, HELLO? The government will always be involved in marriage, and as long as that is the case, marriage should be extended to gay people too.

Saying that the government shouldn't be involved is a completely different issue, dodging the real issue that right now there are sections of society that have fewer rights.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

The Church fights tooth and nail for the sanctity of it. The State has a set of legal rights and a contract named after it.

First amendment of the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

If "marriage" is a religious institution, then it would be logical to let the Church have it, but there are legal items tied to the word as well which are governed by the State.

Since it is just a word, who gets it? I voted Church.

Marriage is a religious institution although the state also ha something they call marriage. The thing is also there are some states that have domestic partner law identical to marriage just without the religious union.

 

[Turismo]

In my opinion, marriage is a religious ordinance from the beginning that should not be regulated via the government, which unfortunately works both for and against the new people looking to claim the term marriage for their own.

Ah, but marriage (or the lack thereof) affects taxes, work-related benefits, next-of-kin questions, and probably several other things I can't think of off the top of me gulliver.
An entire class of people runs into problems with these things because of the unjustifiable beliefs of others.
Not to mention the second-class-citizen implications.

The church has plenty of rituals: baptism, christenings, brisses, bar/bat mitzvahs, et cetera. Marriage affects lives out here in the real world.

You get tax benefits for having kids and owning a home, too. But you don't see people up in arms because they don't have a kid and don't have a house just for those benefits. The tax and regulation are irrelevant when it comes to marriage, because that's not what marriage is about. It's an ordinance that was raped into becoming a state issue.

We're talking about what marriage is, and where it came from. It very clearly did not come from the state and it had always been a religious ceremony and covenant with the religion's respective god and/or gods. It's a shame this world is so scared about offending that they offer up the most sacred things of religions to quiet the squeaky wheels.

Marriage isn't a right, it's earned. That's why you see so many divorces. The covenants and meanings have left the word and people don't take it as seriously as it once was. It's sad that it's looked down upon to appreciate the true meaning of the word in the pro-western world. People give it a free pass to redefine and ignore it's meaning, masking their argument in "rights".

 

[Lazarus Long]

TL;DR summary:
Men want to rape everything that moves. Only ironclad tradition and amazing willpower can keep our wild lusts in check for even a single day. If you are a woman or a child, then any man who manages to not rape you or abandon you is a Big Damn Hero.

This is actually way worse than most of the religious arguments.

-- Alex

Wow. Just when I thought my faith in humanity couldn't be chipped any more. That was amazing. It somehow manages to be even less rational than "Some patriarchal Iron Age fantasist said it was bad."

That said, I love his description at the end of the "heroic" struggle of the quaintly archaic taboo against premarital sex. His little scene of the brave straight man trudging resignedly down the aisle (even though here in the West the groom just kind of stands there while the bride gets the Armageddon walk) to his doom - priceless.

 

[Lazarus Long]

You get tax benefits for having kids and owning a home, too. But you don't see people up in arms because they don't have a kid and don't have a house just for those benefits. The tax and regulation are irrelevant when it comes to marriage, because that's not what marriage is about. It's an ordinance that was raped into becoming a state issue.

Because it affects people's day-to-day lives in tangible ways. Regardless of any traditional origins, marriage is society and the government legitimizing the relationship of a couple. Two individuals become a single legal entity. Not the most romantic sentiment in history, but it's painful when something like that is withheld for no good reason. I brought up the practical ramifications just to illustrate that. Like it or not, marriage is a secular institution now, with a lot more to do with courts than chapels.

We're talking about what marriage is, and where it came from. It very clearly did not come from the state and it had always been a religious ceremony and covenant with the religion's respective god and/or gods. It's a shame this world is so scared about offending that they offer up the most sacred things of religions to quiet the squeaky wheels.

I believe that's called progress. It's why we don't stone heretics and adulterers, or keep slaves. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2021:20;&version=65;]

Marriage isn't a right, it's earned. That's why you see so many divorces. The covenants and meanings have left the word and people don't take it as seriously as it once was. It's sad that it's looked down upon to appreciate the true meaning of the word in the pro-western world. People give it a free pass to redefine and ignore it's meaning, masking their argument in "rights".

How exactly are you supposed to "earn" marriage? The divorce rate is high because either people are more impulsive these days, or just not as afraid of being branded a divorcee. Religion is the only field of study where progress is considered tragic. No one laments the perversion of traditional medieval medicine.

Yes, marriage (the modern, secular version) is a right, at least in America. You might even go so far as to call it an "inalienable right." Any straight couple (not too closely related, not already married, of age, etc.) can get married. An entire class of people is denied that based solely on factors they cannot control. You might as well say that ginger couples can't marry, for all the sense that makes.

 

[Jerious1154]

A marriage is a religious ceremony in which a religious leader formally commits two peoples lives together in the eyes of god.

A civil union is a set of laws that define two partners (traditionally this would've only been married people, hence the term being interchangable.) with regards to taxes and other polices.

And I don't see why homosexuals are fighting tooth and nail to use a, as we are so often reminded, meaningless title that wouldn't really apply to them anyway.

The church has marriage, the state has the right to recognize any two people they see as partners. But Being married is the religious aspect of it.

But since different laws apply if you're married, this interpretation means religious discrimination on the part of the government. By your definition, an atheist cannot be married, which denies an entire group of people civil rights based on their beliefs.

Which is why I've stated several times in this thread that civil unions should have the same legal rights as marriage. But that doesn't change the fact that a marriage is a religious ceremony.

If marriage is a religious ceremony, shouldn't that mean that the government has no right to say who can and who cannot be married?

That's exactly my point. The government has no place forcing the church to marry people. Or giving them a religious title.

My point is that currently the law in most states prohibits religious institutions from marrying same-sex couples. There are many reform-minded churches, synagogues etc that would happily marry same-sex couples if not for state law. I believe that since it is a religious matter, it should be up to the religious institutions, not up to the government.

Making it legal is not the same thing as requiring it.

 

[Alex_P]

That's exactly my point. The government has no place forcing the church to marry people. Or giving them a religious title.

Nobody's forcing "the church" to marry anyone.

There's no "the church" anyway. There are churches, numerous and varied. Here are some illustrative examples:

1. The Westboro Baptist Church.

Fred Phelps and his whole nutbag church/family are the gay-hating-est gay-haters around. They still get to practice their rabid bigotry as "religion". The government hasn't trampled upon their freedom of speech or forced them to do anything they don't want to do.

Is your church nuttier than Phelps'? No? Then clearly nothing bad's going to happen to your church as the result of the legalization of same-sex marriage. (That "rainbow coalition" against thunderstorms and same-sex marriage was just lying to you! Surprise!)

2. The United Church of Christ.

I'm pretty sure that these folks will happily solemnize a same-sex marriage.

The UCC traces its time in America all the way back to Pilgrim congregationalists. The groups that later became the UCC were also deeply involves in anti-slavery, anti-sexist, and anti-racist movements long before that stuff was cool. Given all that, I think they probably have a better understanding of "freedom of religion" than someone like James Dobson does. Let's go ask them whether legal same-sex marriage threatens religious freedoms, shall we?

-- Alex

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

A marriage is a religious ceremony in which a religious leader formally commits two peoples lives together in the eyes of god.

A civil union is a set of laws that define two partners (traditionally this would've only been married people, hence the term being interchangable.) with regards to taxes and other polices.

And I don't see why homosexuals are fighting tooth and nail to use a, as we are so often reminded, meaningless title that wouldn't really apply to them anyway.

The church has marriage, the state has the right to recognize any two people they see as partners. But Being married is the religious aspect of it.

But since different laws apply if you're married, this interpretation means religious discrimination on the part of the government. By your definition, an atheist cannot be married, which denies an entire group of people civil rights based on their beliefs.

Which is why I've stated several times in this thread that civil unions should have the same legal rights as marriage. But that doesn't change the fact that a marriage is a religious ceremony.

If marriage is a religious ceremony, shouldn't that mean that the government has no right to say who can and who cannot be married?

That's exactly my point. The government has no place forcing the church to marry people. Or giving them a religious title.

My point is that currently the law in most states prohibits religious institutions from marrying same-sex couples. There are many reform-minded churches, synagogues etc that would happily marry same-sex couples if not for state law. I believe that since it is a religious matter, it should be up to the religious institutions, not up to the government.

Making it legal is not the same thing as requiring it.

There are many churches that won't marry straight people, like a Catholic church refusing to marry divorced people. Many fundamentalist churches will also not marry people who aren't Christian. The government doesn't force them to go against their beliefs for straight people, so what makes you think the government would force the church to marry same-sex couples?

The irony is, there are many churches that will happily marry me to another woman, and call it a marriage even. The one thing I cannot do is is go to my completely secular courthouse and get a completely secular marriage license.

 

[BLOONINJA 503]

Nobody. But if I had to pick from those two then it would have to be the state.

Nobody. You heard it here first!

Actually we heard it there first.

LOL

There always is 'that one' guy in every thread isn't there.....