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]

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.

Correct.

But you discount the fact that this is an arrangement they agree with.

Actually, I don't. I'm simply wondering how healthy the arrangement is, especially if children are involved. And it really isn't anyone's business unless there are significant social implications. If the neighbors down the street are polygamists and contribute to society in a positive way, that's cool with me.

Does anyone know why traditional marriage ended up getting whittled down to 2 people?

[Confused]

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.

Correct.

But you discount the fact that this is an arrangement they agree with.

Actually, I don't. I'm simply wondering how healthy the arrangement is, especially if children are involved. And it really isn't anyone's business unless there are significant social implications. If the neighbors down the street are polygamists and contribute to society in a positive way, that's cool with me.

Does anyone know why traditional marriage ended up getting whittled down to 2 people?

Well, it isn't like monogamists are doing the greatest job with their children either. Historically, monogamy was because of the NT.

[Arbela]

Well, it isn't like monogamists are doing the greatest job with their children either.

The same thought went through my head.

I fear I'm in no position to comment on the ramifications of polygamy. I'd love to hear from someone who has investigated it.

[Cephus]

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.

[Cephus]

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.

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.

[Cephus]

Actually, I don't. I'm simply wondering how healthy the arrangement is, especially if children are involved.

And I wonder how healthy religion is, the belief in imaginary friends that tell people what to do. But you know something, if someone wants to believe that, it's up to them.

Does anyone know why traditional marriage ended up getting whittled down to 2 people?

Mostly, marriage exists today for financial and familial reasons, it keeps track of who gets what inheritance and who is entitled to what money, that's it. That's really why we primarily have two-person marriages and religions have invented reasons to support such an arrangement, retroactively demanding "God says so".

[methylatedghosts]

And also for convenience. Som people marry because it is easier to immigrate to another country. Thats not to say they that's the only reason, but it can be one. My parents both wanted to immigrate to NZ from the netherlands, and it was easier to do so if they were married, rather than just as partners. They are still together.

[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

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

Wow, I had no idea it was that high

[Arbela]

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.

Hm. I think I responded to this already in earlier posts. I simply said a) it bugs me and b) gee, I wonder what the the ramifications of polygamy would be, if any.

Never said I would tell anyone what they can and cannot do based on only my opinion. In fact, I believe I stated that if there weren't serious social implications, then I really wouldn't care.

[Arbela]

Mostly, marriage exists today for financial and familial reasons, it keeps track of who gets what inheritance and who is entitled to what money, that's it. That's really why we primarily have two-person marriages and religions have invented reasons to support such an arrangement, retroactively demanding "God says so".

That makes sense.

I wonder how polygamists handle the "Where are we going for Thanksgiving dinner this year" question.