Should the state grant/register/define marriages? Why or why not?
What level of involvement should the state be in regards to marriages?
Should the state be involved in marriages?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #61
Hmm...this seems to be starting to get out of hand. Let's review:
Gandalf, you seem to state that your essential reasoning for your views is faith. E.g.:
Perhaps we can read between the lines, and guess that when you say
In short, I agree with McCulloch that you have yet to explain your reasoning behind your views. You may think you have, but--to me, at least--you have used a shorthand that I don't understand. I'll need more expansive English.
I assume, Gandalf, that you make the assumption that many of us do: that the way we think is common, if not universal, and that others have the same basic understanding of things. As a teacher of science, I find that this is one of the most difficult things to overcome. Things that are "obvious" to me are not at all obvious to my students. Similarly, things that are "obvious" to you (or to McCulloch) may not be at all obvious to anyone else.
I suggest that we have gone off onto a tangent, talking at cross-purposes, thinking the others know what we are saying. It is probably a better starting point to assume that no one knows what we are saying, and to explain our points in more detail.
One of the problems in this discussion, I think, is the difference in standards, or yardsticks, by which we measure the world. It appears that Gandalf believes that an essential, if the the single most important yardstick is a particular set of religious rules. From some of McCulloch's statements, it appears that he believes that no pre-designated rules are sufficient--probably because (pardon me for putting words into your mouth; this is my view, really) no pre-designated rules are capable of handling the complexity of the actual world in which we live.
-----
Having said all of the above, I will ask my own questions:
Now, if memory serves me correctly, I understand that people were getting married in non-Christian societies for millenia before a particular group of desert nomads wrote down what we now call the bible. Non-Christian societies still get married without reference to the bible. On the other hand, members of the Church of Jesus Christ (which sounds Christian to me) seem to think that among god's laws is the requirement to take as many wives as possible, at as young an age as possible, and thus maximize the number of offspring born to god. Is this appropriate? Is this what the church should be doing? Current state and national law forbids it, but since god's law is said to be more important, this is what happens. Don't you think it would be better for these women if the state really were in the business of regulating marriage?
And, of course, the state is too entangled in marriage to get out. Our tax laws,inheritance laws, and many others are based on relationships by marriage as well as genetics. Would you undo all of this? How would you replace the legal institutions that would be invalidated?
I would argue that your logic is backward. A number of countries, and some states and cities, have tried to honor this "love" you speak of. Only after they did so, did the self-proclaimed loving Christians jump into the fray and politicize this--with the anti-gay-marriage resolutions, etc. My recollection is that it wasn't particularly political before that.
Gandalf, you seem to state that your essential reasoning for your views is faith. E.g.:
Frankly, this tells us very little. At least, it tells me very little. You've basically said you believe in something, but you really haven't told us what. Nor have you told us why this particular belief causes you to come to the conclusions that you do. Even if you say, as you do, that this means you have faith in god and in his wisdom and power and of course his law, this is nearly meaningless in view of the fact that thousands of people use the same holy book as you, but come to different conclusions. Simply stating that you have faith reveals nothing about the characteristics of your particular version of faith.Gandalf wrote: I CAN tell you that I live by something very valuable in human life ... FAITH! It is rather important for not only a Christian but anyone from any religion to have faith in what they believe. And I obviously have faith in God and in His Wisdom and Power and of course His Law.
------
For FAITH is MY weapon of choice in the battle against all that is against God and His Law.
------
I had told you why I believe what I do, and HOW I can continue what I believe what I do. FAITH!
Perhaps we can read between the lines, and guess that when you say
you seem to exclude Catholicism from Christianity. In my view, this is unjustifiable--and suggests to me that you may be highly biased concerning a particular version of biblical interpretation, and consider others to be in error. You need to realize, if you don't already, that to those of us outside of your religion, the only way to distinguish different types of Christians is by which other Christians they fight against. Usually, it seems to me that the more passionate fight the loudest against the others, and exclude them from Christianity.Gandalf wrote:...Catholics and Christians...
In short, I agree with McCulloch that you have yet to explain your reasoning behind your views. You may think you have, but--to me, at least--you have used a shorthand that I don't understand. I'll need more expansive English.
I think, McCulloch, that Gandalf believes he has answered your questions. (Gandalf, please correct me if I am wrong.) Unfortunately, McCulloch, you face the same difficulty I do--that the world contains so many different "faiths" that it's hard to tell what anyone means when they say their reasoning is "faith" (even if "faith" is capitalized). In the context of the rules of Gandalf's faith, your (and my)inability to follow the logic does, indeed, flow from a lack of understanding. We don't know those rules.McCulloch wrote: You chose to post a position. I pointed out that there are some moral, logical and practical difficulties with your position. You have now repeatedly refused my request for you to honour the rules set out on this site by providing evidence, logic and reasoned argument in support of your views. ... Your position remains unsupported by anything but faith.
------
You have made the assertion that marriage should be the exclusive domain of the christian church. You have provided no logic or evidence to back up your claim. I have provided some moral, ethical and practical problems with your viewpoint. You have provided no answers to those problems. ... Do please try to stay on topic. I have asked a number of questions. You could at least shine some light on my ignorance by answering them instead of trying to find some fault with my lack of understanding.
I assume, Gandalf, that you make the assumption that many of us do: that the way we think is common, if not universal, and that others have the same basic understanding of things. As a teacher of science, I find that this is one of the most difficult things to overcome. Things that are "obvious" to me are not at all obvious to my students. Similarly, things that are "obvious" to you (or to McCulloch) may not be at all obvious to anyone else.
I suggest that we have gone off onto a tangent, talking at cross-purposes, thinking the others know what we are saying. It is probably a better starting point to assume that no one knows what we are saying, and to explain our points in more detail.
One of the problems in this discussion, I think, is the difference in standards, or yardsticks, by which we measure the world. It appears that Gandalf believes that an essential, if the the single most important yardstick is a particular set of religious rules. From some of McCulloch's statements, it appears that he believes that no pre-designated rules are sufficient--probably because (pardon me for putting words into your mouth; this is my view, really) no pre-designated rules are capable of handling the complexity of the actual world in which we live.
-----
Having said all of the above, I will ask my own questions:
Does love prevail in the church? From the increasing numbers of the "godly" who beat up gays, I'd say love does not prevail there. Rather, it appears that hatred-of-others prevails. There are churches where marriage is allowed among those who love one another, but there seems to be a strong political movement by others to prevent this in some cases. Why does the loving church believe it is the sole repository of knowledge about human anatomy and neurobiology? Why must it define "male" or "female" based solely on the external plumbing? I realize that the bible tells us to oppress women and to forbid a man lying with a man, but does the bible define male and female adequately?Gandalf wrote: The global society should give the entire marriage situation back to the church ... the CHRISTIAN church. And leave the government out of it. Marriage is based solely on God's Law, His Will for a couple (that being a man and a woman), and above all else, love. The global society, including the governments around the world, have turned precious love into a political debate. HOW ROMANTIC! Keep it in the church, where love prevails.
Now, if memory serves me correctly, I understand that people were getting married in non-Christian societies for millenia before a particular group of desert nomads wrote down what we now call the bible. Non-Christian societies still get married without reference to the bible. On the other hand, members of the Church of Jesus Christ (which sounds Christian to me) seem to think that among god's laws is the requirement to take as many wives as possible, at as young an age as possible, and thus maximize the number of offspring born to god. Is this appropriate? Is this what the church should be doing? Current state and national law forbids it, but since god's law is said to be more important, this is what happens. Don't you think it would be better for these women if the state really were in the business of regulating marriage?
And, of course, the state is too entangled in marriage to get out. Our tax laws,inheritance laws, and many others are based on relationships by marriage as well as genetics. Would you undo all of this? How would you replace the legal institutions that would be invalidated?
I would argue that your logic is backward. A number of countries, and some states and cities, have tried to honor this "love" you speak of. Only after they did so, did the self-proclaimed loving Christians jump into the fray and politicize this--with the anti-gay-marriage resolutions, etc. My recollection is that it wasn't particularly political before that.
Panza llena, corazon contento
