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?

[Arbela]

Some argue (not me) that if you redefine marriage based on "equal rights," this will pave the way for polygamists to say, "Hey, you can't discriminate against US either!" If you can have marriage between 2 men or 2 women, why not 4 men? 4 women?

Personally I don't think the argument would get very far.

[methylatedghosts]

Some argue (not me) that if you redefine marriage based on "equal rights," this will pave the way for polygamists to say, "Hey, you can't discriminate against US either!" If you can have marriage between 2 men or 2 women, why not 4 men? 4 women?

Personally I don't think the argument would get very far.

I can agree with that argument, but personally wouldn't do that. I also don't think it would get very far, mainly because too many people would object. Not in this lifetime anyway, who knows - might change though.....

I don't actually see anything "wrong" with it either.

[Cephus]

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

I don't oppose gay marriage in any way, shape or form, but then again, I'm not remotely religious. However, I also do not view marriage as a religious institution, except ceremonially. Certainly in the past it might have been primarily religious, but in the modern world, marriage is an essentially secular institution. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, unless you have that piece of paper from the state, you're not married.

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.

I had a purely secular marriage, not even remotely close to a church or other religious trappings.

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

Not at all because marriage isn't religious. If you choose to get married by a justice of the peace, as two friends of mine did today, in fact, you are married without ever having anything to do with religion. The simple fact is that just having a religious ceremony doesn't make you married, it only celebrates it. It's a show for public consumption. It is not the act of being married, it's just an extravaganza for an audience. You're married when you get that paper from the state and not until.

[Cephus]

Some argue (not me) that if you redefine marriage based on "equal rights," this will pave the way for polygamists to say, "Hey, you can't discriminate against US either!" If you can have marriage between 2 men or 2 women, why not 4 men? 4 women?

Why not? I personally see nothing wrong with having a 10-way polygamous marriage if that's what they want, what business is it of yours what they want to do? Of course, I really think that the concept of marriage as a lifelong commitment between two (or more) people has been destroyed, now that divorce is so ridiculously easy to obtain and socially acceptable, no one has any reason to make sure they're marrying the right person or any impetus to keep a marriage together when it has problems. Just get a divorce and move on to the next marriage and the next and the next.

Most people I've seen in a polygamous relationship just don't stick around that long anyhow, it's usually a bunch of people who drift in and out of each other's beds, there simply isn't anything resembling a marriage commitment.

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

[methylatedghosts]

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

[bernee51]

Some argue (not me) that if you redefine marriage based on "equal rights," this will pave the way for polygamists to say, "Hey, you can't discriminate against US either!" If you can have marriage between 2 men or 2 women, why not 4 men? 4 women?

Personally I don't think the argument would get very far.

It is known as a slippery slope fallacy.

[McCulloch]

Some argue (not me) that if you redefine marriage based on "equal rights," this will pave the way for polygamists to say, "Hey, you can't discriminate against US either!" If you can have marriage between 2 men or 2 women, why not 4 men? 4 women?

I personally enjoy the irony of people who oppose gay marriage on these grounds. Essentially their argument is, if you allow gay marriage, something which is explicitly condemned as a sin in our holy books, it might pave the way to allowing polygamy, something that has numerous examples in our holy books and is not explicitly condemned.

[Arbela]

Cephus, you asked "Why not?"

I've thought about it. I realize my initial aversion to it is due to the fact that it's unfamiliar to me. Naturally, this is not a good enough reason to disregard it.

Here is also what bugs me. In a 2 person marriage, the influence each person has in the relationship is equal, split down the middle. (Ideally, anyway.) Once you introduce a 3rd, 4th or 5th person into the relationship, influence is divided. If you have one woman and 3 men, the woman has 50% of the power and influence in the marriage, but each man has his influence reduced to 1/3 of 50%. Each man's value in the relationship is reduced. I'm not sure how healthy that is, mentally or socially.

Just some thoughts though.

[McCulloch]

Here is also what bugs me. In a 2 person marriage, the influence each person has in the relationship is equal, split down the middle. (Ideally, anyway.) Once you introduce a 3rd, 4th or 5th person into the relationship, influence is divided. If you have one woman and 3 men, the woman has 50% of the power and influence in the marriage, but each man has his influence reduced to 1/3 of 50%. Each man's value in the relationship is reduced. I'm not sure how healthy that is, mentally or socially.

You've sold me. I am going to stay with my one wife. Twenty-four years so far.
However, since you state that you are not sure how healthy that is, mentally or socially, you really don't have any basis to outlaw it.

[Confused]

Cephus, you asked "Why not?"

I've thought about it. I realize my initial aversion to it is due to the fact that it's unfamiliar to me. Naturally, this is not a good enough reason to disregard it.

Here is also what bugs me. In a 2 person marriage, the influence each person has in the relationship is equal, split down the middle. (Ideally, anyway.) Once you introduce a 3rd, 4th or 5th person into the relationship, influence is divided. If you have one woman and 3 men, the woman has 50% of the power and influence in the marriage, but each man has his influence reduced to 1/3 of 50%. Each man's value in the relationship is reduced. I'm not sure how healthy that is, mentally or socially.

Just some thoughts though.

But you discount the fact that this is an arrangement they agree with. However much influence is divided and whether it is equal or not is no different than a couple. In some areas the female carries more weight, in others the male does. Regardless, if all parties in the relationship agree to it, whose business is it?