Marriage-a political or religious institution

[Confused]

I was watching the new this morning (on MTV so bare with me) when it was announced that New Jersey would no longer ban same sex marriages. As I sat there watching all the religious groups picketing outside the courthouse it got me wondering. What is it that religious groups oppose with same sex marriage. Now before you go ballistic, hear me out. The current Brittanica definition of marriage includes the following:

Main Entry: mar-riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross

Nowhere in this definition is their any mention of a religious rite. No religious leader is required to perform a marriage (a judge can) and no religous leader is required to negate a marriage. However, for a marriage to be legal, paperwork must be filed with the state. Therby negating the separation of church and state if the religious grounds for denying same sex marriage are based on religious reasons.

So my question for debate:

1) Do you oppose gay marriage because the term marriage is used and you consider that a religious term?

2) After your marriage, did you not file the proper forms for it to be recognized legally, thereby negating it being a religious union only.

3) Do you not feel that having to file papers with the state after the ceremony negates separation of church and state?

[Confused]

But then again, the same can be said for 51% of all heterosexual marriages too, right?

Really? That much? Or was that just your estimate

In the United States, 51% of all marriages end in divorce. Yes, really.

I honestly would have thought that statistic t be higher. I don't know anyone who hasn't been divorced at least once. Many twice, and most never remarried after the second divorce. They figured they would date him the rest of their life, but he keeps his place, she keeps hers, each carry their own financial independence, etc..

[methylatedghosts]

In NZ, the divorce rate in '98 (couldn't get anymore recent) was 12-13 per 1000 existing marriage. This was on a linear increase from about 11-12 in '86. If this is extrapolated, that makes it around 13-14 divorces per 1000 existing marriages this year.

[micatala]

But if it's not your life, what do you care? In a lot of Christian marriages, particularly fundamentalist Christian marriages, the wife is completely subservient. She is not viewed as equal by either her husband nor the Christian community. So should we outlaw those because you don't like that she's not equal?

In the end, if you don't like a polygamous marriage, don't have one. But you have no right whatsoever to tell other legal consenting adults what they can and cannot do based on your personal preferences.

I have heard the argument made that 'one man one woman' is what we should endorse because of Jesus words on marriage, for example in Matthew.

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

This is based on Genesis:

1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

2: 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

The idea is that since God endorsed the union of male and female, this is what marriage should be.


Those making this argument do usually ignore that polygamy is clearly condoned in both the OT and NT. This argument also engages in the fallacy that if one choice is the best (one male and one female), all the others are bad and should be prohibited. If people want to claim that the one man, one woman scenario is the 'best' or the 'most natural', that is fine. But I don't see that it follows from this that gay marriage should be illegal.

[Confused]

But if it's not your life, what do you care? In a lot of Christian marriages, particularly fundamentalist Christian marriages, the wife is completely subservient. She is not viewed as equal by either her husband nor the Christian community. So should we outlaw those because you don't like that she's not equal?

In the end, if you don't like a polygamous marriage, don't have one. But you have no right whatsoever to tell other legal consenting adults what they can and cannot do based on your personal preferences.

I have heard the argument made that 'one man one woman' is what we should endorse because of Jesus words on marriage, for example in Matthew.

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

This is based on Genesis:

1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

2: 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

The idea is that since God endorsed the union of male and female, this is what marriage should be.


Those making this argument do usually ignore that polygamy is clearly condoned in both the OT and NT. This argument also engages in the fallacy that if one choice is the best (one male and one female), all the others are bad and should be prohibited. If people want to claim that the one man, one woman scenario is the 'best' or the 'most natural', that is fine. But I don't see that it follows from this that gay marriage should be illegal.

But your opinion is based on marriage being a religious institution, not a political one. If one gets married by the justice of the peace (judge) then is it truly a religious rite. And if one must file papers to the government after being married by a priest etc... is it a religious institution. Only in the eyes of God right. So a polygamous marriage by a political institution shouldn't go against a religious context right?

[Cephus]

I honestly would have thought that statistic t be higher. I don't know anyone who hasn't been divorced at least once. Many twice, and most never remarried after the second divorce. They figured they would date him the rest of their life, but he keeps his place, she keeps hers, each carry their own financial independence, etc..

Well let's see, I've never been divorced, my wife's parents have never been divorced, my parents, before my father died, were never divorced. None of my grandparents were ever divorced, nor have my aunts and uncles or cousins. In fact, in my family at least, there's only one person who has ever been divorced.

So now you know of a lot of people who have never been divorced.

[Cephus]

I have heard the argument made that 'one man one woman' is what we should endorse because of Jesus words on marriage, for example in Matthew.

Sure, but we're talking about reality here, not religious fantasy. As we live in a secular society, what it says in the Bible is utterly irrelevant to setting public policy.

[Confused]

I honestly would have thought that statistic t be higher. I don't know anyone who hasn't been divorced at least once. Many twice, and most never remarried after the second divorce. They figured they would date him the rest of their life, but he keeps his place, she keeps hers, each carry their own financial independence, etc..

Well let's see, I've never been divorced, my wife's parents have never been divorced, my parents, before my father died, were never divorced. None of my grandparents were ever divorced, nor have my aunts and uncles or cousins. In fact, in my family at least, there's only one person who has ever been divorced.

So now you know of a lot of people who have never been divorced.

Gee, thanks, I feel like part of the family already. LOL

[McCulloch]

Well let's see, I've never been divorced, my wife's parents have never been divorced, my parents, before my father died, were never divorced. None of my grandparents were ever divorced, nor have my aunts and uncles or cousins. In fact, in my family at least, there's only one person who has ever been divorced.

I've never been divorced. Christian when wed, atheist now.
My parents were never divorced. Lapsed Christian.
My wife's parents were never divorced. Presbyterian.
My siblings have never been divorced. Two sisters and one brother. No Christians.
My wife's brother was never divorced. Atheist.
Of my aunts and uncles, 5 couples. One divorce. Methodist.
Of my wife's maternal aunts and uncles. 5 couples. Three divorces, Baptist, Salvation Army and Pentecostal. Two still together, liberal christian and Baptist.
Of my wife's paternal aunts and uncles. 7 couples no divorces. mostly lapsed or liberal christians.

Small and biased sample, but you get the picture.

[micatala]

Those making this argument do usually ignore that polygamy is clearly condoned in both the OT and NT. This argument also engages in the fallacy that if one choice is the best (one male and one female), all the others are bad and should be prohibited. If people want to claim that the one man, one woman scenario is the 'best' or the 'most natural', that is fine. But I don't see that it follows from this that gay marriage should be illegal.

But your opinion is based on marriage being a religious institution, not a political one. If one gets married by the justice of the peace (judge) then is it truly a religious rite. And if one must file papers to the government after being married by a priest etc... is it a religious institution. Only in the eyes of God right. So a polygamous marriage by a political institution shouldn't go against a religious context right?

Yes, my comments were addressing those who consider marriage a religious institution. My point is that even if one is of this opinion, and in particular views the Bible as authoritative on marriage, it is still not a foregone conclusions that other forms of marriage must be prohibited. Polygamy is clearly condoned in both OT and NT. There is enough ambiguity and translation problems in the NT passages on homosexuality, IMV, that even prohibiting gay marriage on Biblical grounds is not a 'slam dunk'.

Now, as you say, marriage is also a civil institution, at least in most countries. In this case, there is essentially no reason to prohibit gay marriage, IMV. Unless it can be shown that allowing gay marriage is likely to directly infringe on the rights of those not getting married or likely to produce some egregious societal harm, then there is no basis for passing into law what is essentially a discriminatory religious doctrine.

The laws we do have that are consistent with Biblical doctrines or commandments all have compelling rationale other than being Biblical. Prohibitions against murder, stealing, lieing at least in certain situations (in courts of law, libel, slander, etc.) all have been deemed essential to the functioning of a civil society.

The commandments against worshipping other Gods, not swearing, and even adultery and coveting have not been enacted into law. The first two clearly because there could be no other rationale other than the religious. The others because even though these behaviors might be less than desirable, we have not deemed them to cause harm to the extent that they require prohibition, although of course adultery was at one time illegal.

[Cephus]

The laws we do have that are consistent with Biblical doctrines or commandments all have compelling rationale other than being Biblical. Prohibitions against murder, stealing, lieing at least in certain situations (in courts of law, libel, slander, etc.) all have been deemed essential to the functioning of a civil society.

But those laws, while indeed found in the Bible, did not originate there, they were as necessary to a functioning society in Biblical times as they are today, and indeed, as they were for thousands of years before anyone ever heard of the Hebrews. We don't incorporate them into our current legal system because they were in the Bible, we do it because they are essential concepts for a working society.