Returning marriage to the religions.

[juliod]

This is an idea that I came up with several years ago, and I've been meaning to post it here for some time. I'd like to have some debate on whether this is a viable/practicable solution to the "gay marriage" problem.

In short, I seek to return authority over marriage to the religions, where I believe it belongs. In my view it is erroneous for religions to defer to the secular government on the question of marriage, and that it is this error that leads to the issue of "gay marriage". In my view, secualr marriage serves no useful function and there will be several tangible benefits to returning it to the religions.

Below are some specifics of the plan.

1) The plan would be to strip marriage out of the secular legal system and give the various churches freedom to define, manage, and adjudicate marital issues as deemed proper by their doctrine. There are few cases where marriage is relevant in out modern system, and in those cases the issues end up in court anyway when there is any controversy. The status of marriage fails to simplify anything.

2) Tax: The main use of marriage is in the tax code. We should just do away with this, simplifying the tax code and having each person pay tax on their income without bias. Exemptions for dependants would remain the same.

3) Inheritance: Marriage would cease to be counted for inheritance. The default would be by strict blood relation. It would be essential to establish wills, but then it is already essential. In any case, regardless of wills, marriage, or other arrangements, if there is a dispute it ends up in court. The only change would be that spouses would not automatically inherit. It is my view that one of the services provided by the churches would be to prepare legal wills for the marrying couple along the lines of their official doctrine. Some churches may want to enforce male-line inheritance, and this would be a meas to do so.

4) Living wills: This would be handled the same way as inheritance. Power over medical decisions and power-of-attorney would be determined by legal documents with a default of blood-relation. Churches could at this stage pre-empt decisions that my violate doctrine (such as euthenasia).

5) Divorce/annulment: This is one area where major change would come. These issues would be adjudicated by church authorities. Each church would specify it's doctrine on divorce, would establish the procedures, and would have the power to enforce the rulings. These powers would be established by the doctrinal statements signed by the marrying couple at the outset. If the religion has a no-divorce policy, then there would be no divorce option available.

6) Enforcement: The churches could not physically force people to remain in the family home. But they would have the power to garnish wages and seize property. So for example, if a man were to leave his wife and kids, the church authorities could take 100% of his income, and his car and any other assets he tries to take with him, and deliver them for the use of his family. This would not require any court procedings since the power to do this would have been established at marriage. This is a benefit that we can never have in our secular system with it's ponderous court procedures.

7) Child welfare: In the case of divorce, churches would have suthority over child custody, etc. They can settle these issues as determined by their doctrine. As for child welfare in the home, churches can be pro-active where secular government can not be. As with divorce, churches would be empowered to investigate and adjudicate on these issues. If there is a suspicion that abuse is taking place the church would have full authority to investigate, to remove the child or other persons from the home, or to place monitors in the home to support the interests of the family.

8 ) Definition of marriage: Without the need for a secular government to heed special interest groups like homosexuals, religions would be free to exclude them from marriage.

9) Recognition of marriage: No church would be required to accept or recognize the marriages performed by other churches. They could negotiate among themselves as to mutual recognition. But any marriage offensive to a church doctrine (for example a hindu marriage to a christian church) would not be recognized. One complication is that when a family moves from one location to another there would need to be a change in authority over the marriage from one church to another, as agreed by the chruches and the family. This would only be a problem for small churches that don't recognize other marriage doctrines.

There are many other issues that we can deal with as they come up. In short, this program give religions the authority over marriage that they seek, and simplifies our tax codes and government. As an atheist support this fully. Why should my taxes go to subsidize the administration of religious ceremony?

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

Quote:
hough I have no doubt about the ulterior motive of this thread

Perhaps you culd let me know what it is. I think I've written pretty fairly and openly about it.

I see trouble ahead, I hear a problem in the making and I smell a rat. You're up to something. I view much of the homosexual agenda as nothing more than myth and religion running counter to observable facts. No different than you see Christianty. I do believe that "it" should be a religioun. Then we could eliminate it from the schools as nothing more than what it is; a proselytizing group looking for converts.

Quote:
I have stated many times that homosexuals should found their own "religion."

So then you support my plan? People who support homosexual marriage could form their own churches and perform their own marriages.

I do agree that homosexualism is a religion.

Your church would not be required to acknowledge these marriages.

And . . . could continue to fight the cultic and heretical reliogion of homosexualism; as Christian apologistst do other religions.

The government would not acknowledge or legitimize these marriages either.

The Christian band Newsboys has a song that goes Woo hoo wooo-hoo woo-who-hoo woo hoo!

At the same time your chruch would regain the power to adjudicate over marriage that it has lost to the government. Good idea, right?

I couldn't care less about government recognizing marriage of any kind.
What God has joined together let no man break up. And of course this would eliminate the need to cower in fear awaiting a hate crimes lawsuit from Gay/Lesbian avtivists.

Quote:
My only concern is that same-sex marriage outlaws Christianity AND normalizes homosexuality as just another branch of "OK-ness."

That's an absurdity within an absurdity.

Oh how I wish it were all a nightmare!

Cover Story
The Battle Over Gay Teens
What happens when you come out as a kid? How gay youths are challenging the right--and the left
By JOHN CLOUD

1997 there were approximately 100 gay-straight alliances (GSAs)--clubs for gay and gay-friendly kids--on U.S. high school campuses. Today there are at least 3,000 GSAs--nearly 1 in 10 high schools has one--according to the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN, say "glisten"), which registers and advises GSAs. In the 2004-05 academic year, GSAs were established at U.S. schools at the rate of three per day.

But in any case, doesn't my plan solve the problem? The problem is that marriage is defined by the government, not your church. My plan is to return this power to you and your church. Good idea, right?

As long as "marriage" is defined as a "whatever" between "a man and a woman," then I would feel good about voting again. Homosexualism can practice whatever religious rights it ses fit. And of course like Islam and atheism, Christians could preach the truth without fear of reprisal.

Quote:
There will be LGBT and GLSEN sex clubs in pre-schools.

Again, it's all about sex for you, isn't it? These bizzarre paranoid fantasies do not help the discussion of any topic, you know.

I make it clear that ANYONE teaching children aberrant and deviant sexuality in schools (or anywhere I guess) is a concern about pederasty or pedophila that any decent parent should be concerned about. Please re-read the "gay clubs" popping up on "school grounds" like weeds in a nice garden.

Q

uote:
You thread topic just proves my point that virtually every issue facing society today revolves around either forcing homosexuality on society or celebrating sexual deviance as a civil right.

No, my plan does the opposite.

I swear I smell cheese.

It allows serious religious groups to define and regulate marriage as they see fit according to their doctrine.

I like the term "serious religious groups."

They would then have the power to deny homosexuals and sexual deviants the right to marriage.

No church "denies" homosexual marriage. It has "never" existed.

Currently, by defering to the government, your religion lacks this power.

By deferring to goverment in a democracy is in keeping with the way our country is run. When the MTV children, in just a couple of years, get to vote, then the homosexual agenda will find the vidtory they have been grooming for soo long. All it took was the death of family to create a new and far more perverse concept to take root.

[juliod]

I see trouble ahead, I hear a problem in the making and I smell a rat. You're up to something.

That's called paranoia. I don't do "up to something". I say what I mean and mean what I say.

I view much of the homosexual agenda...

I'm not homosexual, nor am I working on their behalf.

could continue to fight the cultic and heretical reliogion of homosexualism; as Christian apologistst do other religions.

As you are free to do.

The Christian band Newsboys has a song that goes Woo hoo wooo-hoo woo-who-hoo woo hoo!

Is that supposed to be an insult to my reasoning abilities?

I couldn't care less about government recognizing marriage of any kind.

Then why does your church defer to the secular government on marriage? Do you support that?

If we could remove the government from administration of marriage it would solve your problem with "gay marriage" wouldn't it?

No church "denies" homosexual marriage. It has "never" existed.

There are anmy gay couples who claim to be married. Unless you accept that, then you have denied them. Marriage is a secular, not a religious, matter in the current situation.

By deferring to goverment in a democracy is in keeping with the way our country is run.

No it isn't. It's the opposite of democracy.

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

Quote:
I see trouble ahead, I hear a problem in the making and I smell a rat. You're up to something.

That's called paranoia. I don't do "up to something". I say what I mean and mean what I say.

We'll see. Please, when did you get a license to practice psychiatry? I just feel that you are manipulating this topic to fit your obviously well-known liberalism. I have NEVER met an Atheist that wasn't a dyed in the wool leftist. That is not an insult, just a fact.

Quote:
I view much of the homosexual agenda...

I'm not homosexual, nor am I working on their behalf.

From my perspective as a Christian you certainly are.

Quote:
could continue to fight the cultic and heretical reliogion of homosexualism; as Christian apologisst do other religions.

As you are free to do.

We both know that hate crimes legislation is aimed at silencing Bible-believing Churches.

Quote:
The Christian band Newsboys has a song that goes Woo hoo wooo-hoo woo-who-hoo woo hoo!

Is that supposed to be an insult to my reasoning abilities?

It is from a song of happiness. I liked what you were "saying" and was celebrating. Nothing more.

Quote:
I couldn't care less about government recognizing marriage of any kind.

Then why does your church defer to the secular government on marriage? Do you support that?

Votes does not deferring make. It is just keeping sanity in place and protecting children from the madness of relativism. That is the only thing driving the Christian conservative vote.

If we could remove the government from administration of marriage it would solve your problem with "gay marriage" wouldn't it?

How? The homosexual agenda is demanding that this deviant lifestyle take equality with normality? They ain't gonna stop no matter what.

Quote:
No church "denies" homosexual marriage. It has "never" existed.

There are army of gay couples who claim to be married. Unless you accept that, then you have denied them. Marriage is a secular, not a religious, matter in the current situation.

I'm thinking that your true point if view is becoming easier to see. Christians see marriage as "holy matrimony." No Christian can vote to sanction and celebrate a mariage that is unGodly.

Quote:
By deferring to goverment in a democracy is in keeping with the way our country is run.

No it isn't. It's the opposite of democracy.

"Really?" Voting is not "democracy?"

Like I said, the woeful shoe will be on our Christian foot when the misguided and brain-washed MTV children are at voting age. I failed to mentioned the legion of zombies poisoned by the New York Times, US, People, Vanity Fair, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox network, HBO, Showtime, blah, blah, blah . . ., etc., etc., etc. You know, the agenda that doesn't exist.

If I was truly paranoid, then I could take a pill, wake up and find out that same-sex marriage was just a psychotic episode and not being debated on little wbsites and front page news. But, unfortunately, reality is all too real. I was kind of hoping that Sodom and Gomorrah were more allegorical. But, alas, the reality is all to Five O'Clock news.

Please try to get your religio-sexual deviance law passed ASAP.

[Excel]

We'll see. Please, when did you get a license to practice psychiatry? I just feel that you are manipulating this topic to fit your obviously well-known liberalism. I have NEVER met an Atheist that wasn't a dyed in the wool leftist. That is not an insult, just a fact.

Hello. I am an atheist and a libertarian.

We both know that hate crimes legislation is aimed at silencing Bible-believing Churches

Was I left out of the loop? I though hate crime legislation was meant to protect minority groups form bigotry and intolerance.

How? The homosexual agenda is demanding that this deviant lifestyle take equality with normality? They ain't gonna stop no matter what.

And why shouldn't it? What possible harm will there be to society?

I do agree that homosexualism is a religion.

What is religious about being gay? Does being a homosexual mean you have a set belief system? An idea about the supernatural? So being a homosexual means more then just being attracted to the same sex?

And . . . could continue to fight the cultic and heretical reliogion of homosexualism; as Christian apologistst do other religions.

Wait, so now being gay means that you are part of a cult? Does this cult have some sort of satanic leader? Is it related to the ACLU?

And of course this would eliminate the need to cower in fear awaiting a hate crimes lawsuit from Gay/Lesbian avtivists.

Do the crime, pay the time. If Christians want to harass gay people then they should be sued. If they were inoccent what's to fear?

My only concern is that same-sex marriage outlaws Christianity AND normalizes homosexuality as just another branch of "OK-ness."

Could you explain the link between same sex marriage and the outlawing of Christianity? I see it like this:

same-sex marriage -> people of the same sex get married

Please re-read the "gay clubs" popping up on "school grounds" like weeds in a nice garden.

So children who are openly gay shouldn't be allowed to have support groups? Should they be allowed to suffer at the hands of some less than kind peers?

deviant sexuality

What do you mean by this term? I assume you mean homosexuality. But what else? Anything but the missionary position? Anal and oral sex? I don't see what that has to do with pederasty. Should children be taught nothing about their own autonomy?

How? The homosexual agenda is demanding that this deviant lifestyle take equality with normality? They ain't gonna stop no matter what.

So gays should be treated like some sort of sub-human class?

[bernee51]

We'll see. Please, when did you get a license to practice psychiatry? I just feel that you are manipulating this topic to fit your obviously well-known liberalism. I have NEVER met an Atheist that wasn't a dyed in the wool leftist. That is not an insult, just a fact.

Hello. I am an atheist and a libertarian.

+++Avant thee satan's spawn+++


Welcome Excel. I too am an atheist.

You know that if you are an atheist you must also be a pinko-commie, tree-hugging, chardonnay swilling deviant hell bent on destroying all that is good and christian about society. But don't let that put you off.

As to the rest of your questions to Al. I suggest you look at virtually any thread on this board to which he has contributed and you will find the answers.

[Cephus]

We'll see. Please, when did you get a license to practice psychiatry? I just feel that you are manipulating this topic to fit your obviously well-known liberalism. I have NEVER met an Atheist that wasn't a dyed in the wool leftist. That is not an insult, just a fact.

Then your experiences are ridiculously limited. I'm an atheist and I'm a lifelong Republican and a moderate with serious conservative leanings.

So much for your facts.

[Woody]

Hi group,

Great topic. My take disagrees somewhat with the original poster. Marriage should be neither a province of government OR religion.

As the true religious experience is wholly a matter of personal experience. So it is with marriage. Marriage is entirely a human institution and is a function of private personal positive decision making.

The insititutional eccelsiastical religious authority structure is a total sham. When men (man) becomes involved in any group institutional structure, they invariably seek to control it. And so it goes with the institutional church (any). Man has set himself up as authority figure early on claiming to be put in this position and power by God.....and the sheeple follow (their own fault for agreeing to be followers).

The scene of divorce is proof in itself that God is not selecting or joining anyone in marriage. I would offer the statement here that if God puts two things together, nobody, much less human mortal beings, will be able to take them apart.

A simple and sense-making situation has prevailed on our world in the past, may still prevail now in certain places, and will widely prevail again, is that marriage will consist soley of two persons making a positive decision that they love each other so much that they decide to be with each other as a permanent pair, and perhaps will be further fortunate enough to have children together....and hence the older and noble societal institution of the home is perpetuated.

You don't need no stinkin' rings, you don't need no piece of paper or any permission from the county courthouse.....and you certainly don't need no ritual ceremony from any priest.

Two people declare their love for each other. Their "wedding day" is merely the day they begin to cohabitate.

If their families and friends want to throw them a party....go for it.

Such is further witnessed by modern day "common law marriages". These two individuals "shack up" and stay together.....voila' a factual marriage. Whether or not any other persons, governments or religious instituions would or do official recognize such unions is secular sophistry and cosmic reality-irrelevant.

For your consideration

Woody

[ST88]

Isn't this assigning the church a legal status and responsibility for which there is only precedent in pre-colonial times? In effect, you are turning churches (individual churches) into individual post-governmental administrative areas.

No, that's not my intent. The idea is that legally there would be no recognition of marriage. When two people go to court over some issue (property, children) it would not matter at all whether they were married.

Call me a whack-job, but I'm starting to like this idea. If there were no civic benefits to marriage, then there would be no reason for it except as it pertains to religion.

The biggest benefit/effect (depending on how you look at it) I can see to marriage now is that ownership of capital resources (including debts) is defaulted to both parties even when only one party is the listed (contracted) owner. Socially, the matter is virtually arbitrary -- it means what we say it means.

And then there is the whole civic marriage issue. Is there a benefit to governments from their citizens marrying? I answered yes on a previous thread, but now I'm not so sure. At its best, it encourages the partners to concentrate on their productivity rather then on whether or not they require a partner (and what kind, where to get one, etc.). At its worst, it encourages possessiveness and leads to violence (although informal relationships do that also).

I still foresee problems with child issues. There are so many things that the government does "because of the children", and there would be a whole new sub-class of children slotted into religious/non-religious. Schools notwithstanding, what you seem to be saying is that the government only has jurisdiction over the non-religious children.

How does the state define what a church is? Branch Dividians? Heaven's Gate? I would think one of the purposes of government is to help those who can't help themselves -- and children fall into this category. What about your plan wouldn't effectively make them wards of the church?

I don't see why you think there would be a difference here. Parents already can decide where to send their children to school. Under my pan they would not be exempted from this. They might be required to send their kids to a religious school if it specifies that in their marriage doctrine contract.

Parents can decide where their children go to school only if they have enough money to do so. This includes transporting their children to different schools if they so choose. Aren't you making this a test of available cash rather than a test of church attendance?

By overhauled, I don't mean shifting piles of money from one column to another, I mean changing eligibility and monetary assignment rules such that the nature of these institutions change on a basic level

Right. As I understand it, the current plans will take the Social Security money and give it to the rich and then... well, that's about it. So the issue is moot.

My point here was that you were arguing simplicity, which is not quite within reach.

[AlAyeti]

From Bernee:

You know that if you are an atheist you must also be a pinko-commie, tree-hugging, chardonnay swilling deviant hell bent on destroying all that is good and christian about society. But don't let that put you off.

Let it not be said that Al and Bernee cannot find points to agree on.

///

We'll see. Please, when did you get a license to practice psychiatry? I just feel that you are manipulating this topic to fit your obviously well-known liberalism. I have NEVER met an Atheist that wasn't a dyed in the wool leftist. That is not an insult, just a fact.

Hello. I am an atheist and a libertarian.

Quote:
We both know that hate crimes legislation is aimed at silencing Bible-believing Churches

Was I left out of the loop? I though hate crime legislation was meant to protect minority groups form bigotry and intolerance.

Then why the use by GLSEN and LGBT activists? In fact where and when are any homosexuals harrassed? MTV? or, ABC, CBS, NBC, HBO, Bravo, Showtime, Los Angeles Time, New York Times, anywhere in California or Massachusetts (or any state), Time, Newsweek, US, People, Vanity Fair, etc., etc., etc. . . . . . .?

How? The homosexual agenda is demanding that this deviant lifestyle take equality with normality? They ain't gonna stop no matter what.

And why shouldn't it? What possible harm will there be to society?

Try your own experiment and run down to any juvenile hall, youth mental institution, group home, drug rehab clinic, (yada, yada) and see how many children come from "nuclear families?" It will dawn on you if you take your calculator, just how important mothers and fathers, married to each other and raising their own children in their own houses REALLY IS.

I do agree that homosexualism is a religion.

What is religious about being gay?

It is a faith-based belief system. Science makes no difference to the people that choose to believe in myths, fairy tales, doctrines and dogma.

Does being a homosexual mean you have a set belief system?

That's is a joke right?

An idea about the supernatural?

Homosexual behavior goes against observable science. Please reference the human anatomy, physiology and biology books in any high school.

So being a homosexual means more then just being attracted to the same sex?

Please look up Sappho.

And . . . could continue to fight the cultic and heretical reliogion of homosexualism; as Christian apologistst do other religions.

Wait, so now being gay means that you are part of a cult? Does this cult have some sort of satanic leader? Is it related to the ACLU?

The ACLU? So you do you something about the homosexual religion and those that fight for it.

And of course this would eliminate the need to cower in fear awaiting a hate crimes lawsuit from Gay/Lesbian avtivists.

Do the crime, pay the time. If Christians want to harass gay people then they should be sued. If they were inoccent what's to fear?

Would this include the Christians that believe the Bible and preach and teach against sexual reprobates and sexual abominations? Is that a crime? No harrassing of any homosexual that doesn't listen to Biblical truth but it sure seems that Christians are targeted.

My only concern is that same-sex marriage outlaws Christianity AND normalizes homosexuality as just another branch of "OK-ness."

Could you explain the link between same sex marriage and the outlawing of Christianity? I see it like this:

same-sex marriage -> people of the same sex get married

OK I'll admit, same-sex marriage is not my only concern about the homosexual agenda. But there is no compatibility between the Bible and homosexual marriage. Zip! Every Christian that believes in Jesus would have a hard time proving their support for same-sex marriage. No where from the Bible can it find support. Homosexualists see this as harrassment. Do the math.

Please re-read the "gay clubs" popping up on "school grounds" like weeds in a nice garden.

So children who are openly gay shouldn't be allowed to have support groups? Should they be allowed to suffer at the hands of some less than kind peers?

Anyone teaching sexuality in the education setting that "deviates" from the human anatomy, physiology and biology should find a cameraman following them everywhere they go. This would certainly eliminate pedophiles from sneaking into places where they can find innocent victims.

deviant sexuality

What do you mean by this term? I assume you mean homosexuality. But what else? Anything but the missionary position? Anal and oral sex? I don't see what that has to do with pederasty. Should children be taught nothing about their own autonomy?

Should sexual deviants be teaching these autonomous "children?" The term "children" and "autonomy" is a coupling that I find very alarming. Especially when it comes to the fact that children are seldom "autonomous" where sexual deviance is present.

How? The homosexual agenda is demanding that this deviant lifestyle take equality with normality? They ain't gonna stop no matter what.

So gays should be treated like some sort of sub-human class

Only the Bonobos, becuae they're apes. Human beings should be fairly judged by their choices and actions. Genitalia points to sexual orientation. That is a scientific fact.

[AlAyeti]

As to the rest of your questions to Al. I suggest you look at virtually any thread on this board to which he has contributed and you will find the answers.

Bernee,

Other than Islam and the secular/atheist drive to wipe away Christianity from having any voice in society, the homosexual agenda is the greatest threat to the freedoms of Christians.

Christians that oppose same-sex marriage attacking the concept of family and decency are only agreeing with history. But, they are treated as intolerant bigots OR worse.