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?

[Cephus]

But this question was directed toward Christians in a debating-Christians forum.

This is not a "debating-Christians forum", nor is it inhabited primarily by Christians. In fact, it's for debating Christianity and is open to all faiths and lack thereof.

If you want to go talk to Christians only, there are other forums for that. This ain't it.

[Confused]

The concept of marriage was perverted long before the issue of same sex marriages came along. Until recently, the concept of marriage was nothing of what you have given examples of. It has always been a civil union and always will. It has either been motivated by power, politics, or necessity (pregnancy). The use of love being grounds for it is an relatively new concept and despite how much you wish to deny history, it remains history.

But this question was directed toward Christians in a debating-Christians forum. The definition of marriage in the history of the Christian church has always involved love as part of the equation. I gave the examples of the Byzantine and Hellenistic cultures of the first century CE.

I realize that other cultures, and even Christianity, have had forced marriages, political marriages, and bounty marriages. I do not deny this, but you cannot tell me there has ever been a time in the Christian church's history where love has not been part of the equation. Has this definition been perverted by the church and kings and skewed for power, politics, and money? Yes! I can find examples of Christian kings selling their daughters to a rival king for lands. But for as long as the history of the Christian church has existed, love has been part of the definition of marriage. Remember, the Christian church did not interfere with marriages until approx. 10th century CE.

I can give you examples of how the Christian marriages have evolved over the centuries from the book "The History and Philosophy of Marriage":

The first Christians, while they were themselves scarcely tolerated, were not inclined to attempt a social revolution by opposing the established system of monogamy; but they attempted to oppose only its vices, and to remove them. They insisted, from the first, upon purity and chastity in men and women equally. They denounced prostitution, adultery, and frequent and capricious divorces, and did what they could to eradicate their practice. But before they attained any degree of civil or religious freedom, or were in any situation to introduce the purer system of polygamy, they had themselves become thoroughly Romanized.

Christianity was not fully tolerated in Europe till the time of the Emperor Constantine the Great, in the former part of the fourth century; and was not established by law as the religion of Rome, till the reign of Theodosius, in the very last part of that century.

At the council of Caesarea, A.D. 314, it was decided and decreed, in the first canon, that, if a priest should marry after his ordination, he must be deposed from office. The seventh canon forbids a priest to be present at the marriage of a bigamist.

At the first council of Carthage, A.D. 348, by the second canon, it was ordered that all Christians who had violated their vows of virginity by subsequent marriages should be excommunicated; and, if they were priests, they should be deposed from office. Siricius, Bishop of Rome, in 385 ordered that every priest and every deacon within his diocese who should marry a second wife, or a widow, should be deposed from office.

At the council of Toledo, in A.D. 400, it was ordered, by canon seventeenth, that every Christian that had both a wife and a concubine should be excommunicated; but he should not be excommunicated who had only a concubine without a wife. At the fourth council of Carthage, A.D. 401, it was ordered, by canon seventieth, that all bishops, priests, and deacons, who had wives, must repudiate them, and live in celibacy, under penalty of deposition from office.

As you know, the early Christian church was predominantly Byzantine or Hellentistic. So I pulled this quote from "Classical Greece and the Hellenistic World":

Greek marriages were arranged by the patriarchal household head, and husbands could divorce their wives at will. Women were restricted to certain portions of the household. Other cultural divisions were also based on social status.

And this quote from the Encyclopedia:

(Otto) negotiated unsuccessfully with the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus II Phocas (913?–69) for an alliance between the Byzantine and Holy Roman empires, but was able to arrange a marriage between his son Otto II and Theophano (955?–91), daughter of the Byzantine emperor Romanus II (939–63).

As J.H. Erickson points out in "The Challenge of Our Past", pp. 46-47, the ecclesiastic blessing of a marriage only became a canonical requirement in the tenth century. As Erickson points out on page 48, this canonical requirement changed marriage from "the capacity and commitment of the couple themselves" to a "required form".

You can see that the definition of marriage has changed throughout the centuries of the Christian church. But at no time during that history were "the capacity and commitment of the couple themselves" not a part of the definition.

First, I would know you are a Christian how??????????? It isn't listed in your profile, so this was a question directed towards a person in a debating forum. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, I loved you quotes on the evolution of marriage. But your assertion was:

The definition of marriage in the history of the Christian church has always involved love as part of the equation.

How do any of these references back this up? It doesn't. So once again, I have supported my assertion on the history of love and marriage and how a combination of the two have been a relatively new concept. You claim this is not so. How about giving me something to understand your position with.

[4gold]

But this question was directed toward Christians in a debating-Christians forum.

This is not a "debating-Christians forum", nor is it inhabited primarily by Christians. In fact, it's for debating Christianity and is open to all faiths and lack thereof.

If you want to go talk to Christians only, there are other forums for that. This ain't it.

If you look at the original post, the question was directed at Christians. I am sure the author is open to all other faiths, but Christianity was specifically mentioned.

[4gold]

First, I would know you are a Christian how??????????? It isn't listed in your profile, so this was a question directed towards a person in a debating forum. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, I loved you quotes on the evolution of marriage. But your assertion was:

The definition of marriage in the history of the Christian church has always involved love as part of the equation.

How do any of these references back this up? It doesn't. So once again, I have supported my assertion on the history of love and marriage and how a combination of the two have been a relatively new concept. You claim this is not so. How about giving me something to understand your position with.

Edward Moore (Ibid) notes that the Hellenistic marriages of the first century Christian church were the "immense respect for the uniqueness of both persons involved, and acknowledgment of the fact that the marriage bond must be instituted by the two persons in love, not by a presiding official, whether secular or ecclesiastic."

Describing the marriages that occured before the 10th century canonical requirement, Moore notes "This renders marriage opaque to the Church in so many ways. Except in situations of violence, utter apathy and neglect, or flagrant unfaithfulness and adultery, there is no way for the Church to know whether or not a couple is truly in love. Only the persons comprising the couple know. So we may say that the intentionality of the couple renders the union valid or invalid, not the external trappings of ecclesial form."

I hope this helps!

[Confused]

First, I would know you are a Christian how??????????? It isn't listed in your profile, so this was a question directed towards a person in a debating forum. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, I loved you quotes on the evolution of marriage. But your assertion was:

The definition of marriage in the history of the Christian church has always involved love as part of the equation.

How do any of these references back this up? It doesn't. So once again, I have supported my assertion on the history of love and marriage and how a combination of the two have been a relatively new concept. You claim this is not so. How about giving me something to understand your position with.

Edward Moore (Ibid) notes that the Hellenistic marriages of the first century Christian church were the "immense respect for the uniqueness of both persons involved, and acknowledgment of the fact that the marriage bond must be instituted by the two persons in love, not by a presiding official, whether secular or ecclesiastic."

Describing the marriages that occured before the 10th century canonical requirement, Moore notes "This renders marriage opaque to the Church in so many ways. Except in situations of violence, utter apathy and neglect, or flagrant unfaithfulness and adultery, there is no way for the Church to know whether or not a couple is truly in love. Only the persons comprising the couple know. So we may say that the intentionality of the couple renders the union valid or invalid, not the external trappings of ecclesial form."

I hope this helps!

I can't find anything Edward Moore. Edward Morris yes. But anything I look up about hellenesitic marriage (Athen, etc..) is consistent with what I have said.

[Goat]

The state licenses vehicle ownership, property ownership, business partnerships, professional accreditation and marriages. Each of these relationships imposes legal requirements on the registrant. The state has found it to be useful to document and register these things rather than always relying on common law to determine legal obligations. Is there some reason why you wish to exclude marriage but not any of the other relationships from state registration?

The state licenses those items you listed in order to establish property rights. The difference with marriage is that there are no property rights involved with your spouse. If another man lays claim to your wife and your wife agrees to it, there is nothing the state can do to stop him from taking her. Neither the wife nor the adulterer owes you any compensation or stipend, because no property was taken.

I feel licenses establish property rights. A spouse is not a property right that you have. The only thing that determines whether the two of you are married or not should be the capacity and commitment of both sides to love each other.

Yet, there are rights involved with marriage. Inheritance for one. THe ability to act as a guardian in case of medical issues for another. Then there are legalities when it comes to social security and pensions, as well as health benefits.

[Confused]

The state licenses vehicle ownership, property ownership, business partnerships, professional accreditation and marriages. Each of these relationships imposes legal requirements on the registrant. The state has found it to be useful to document and register these things rather than always relying on common law to determine legal obligations. Is there some reason why you wish to exclude marriage but not any of the other relationships from state registration?

The state licenses those items you listed in order to establish property rights. The difference with marriage is that there are no property rights involved with your spouse. If another man lays claim to your wife and your wife agrees to it, there is nothing the state can do to stop him from taking her. Neither the wife nor the adulterer owes you any compensation or stipend, because no property was taken.

I feel licenses establish property rights. A spouse is not a property right that you have. The only thing that determines whether the two of you are married or not should be the capacity and commitment of both sides to love each other.

Yet, there are rights involved with marriage. Inheritance for one. THe ability to act as a guardian in case of medical issues for another. Then there are legalities when it comes to social security and pensions, as well as health benefits.

True, but in medicine I see the children being listed as guardians, for inheritance, etc... in peoples living wills and power of attorneys.

[Goat]

The state licenses vehicle ownership, property ownership, business partnerships, professional accreditation and marriages. Each of these relationships imposes legal requirements on the registrant. The state has found it to be useful to document and register these things rather than always relying on common law to determine legal obligations. Is there some reason why you wish to exclude marriage but not any of the other relationships from state registration?

The state licenses those items you listed in order to establish property rights. The difference with marriage is that there are no property rights involved with your spouse. If another man lays claim to your wife and your wife agrees to it, there is nothing the state can do to stop him from taking her. Neither the wife nor the adulterer owes you any compensation or stipend, because no property was taken.

I feel licenses establish property rights. A spouse is not a property right that you have. The only thing that determines whether the two of you are married or not should be the capacity and commitment of both sides to love each other.

Yet, there are rights involved with marriage. Inheritance for one. THe ability to act as a guardian in case of medical issues for another. Then there are legalities when it comes to social security and pensions, as well as health benefits.

True, but in medicine I see the children being listed as guardians, for inheritance, etc... in peoples living wills and power of attorneys.

You then also will see that when it comes to gay couples, often powers of attorneys and wills are overriden by the courts. And that doesn't stop the inequities when it comes to pensions, social security, and health benefits.

You also have to take extra effort to set up guardians that are not spouses, and for living wills and power of attorney. Marriage makes those benefits easier.

[Confused]

The state licenses vehicle ownership, property ownership, business partnerships, professional accreditation and marriages. Each of these relationships imposes legal requirements on the registrant. The state has found it to be useful to document and register these things rather than always relying on common law to determine legal obligations. Is there some reason why you wish to exclude marriage but not any of the other relationships from state registration?

The state licenses those items you listed in order to establish property rights. The difference with marriage is that there are no property rights involved with your spouse. If another man lays claim to your wife and your wife agrees to it, there is nothing the state can do to stop him from taking her. Neither the wife nor the adulterer owes you any compensation or stipend, because no property was taken.

I feel licenses establish property rights. A spouse is not a property right that you have. The only thing that determines whether the two of you are married or not should be the capacity and commitment of both sides to love each other.

Yet, there are rights involved with marriage. Inheritance for one. THe ability to act as a guardian in case of medical issues for another. Then there are legalities when it comes to social security and pensions, as well as health benefits.

True, but in medicine I see the children being listed as guardians, for inheritance, etc... in peoples living wills and power of attorneys.

You then also will see that when it comes to gay couples, often powers of attorneys and wills are overriden by the courts. And that doesn't stop the inequities when it comes to pensions, social security, and health benefits.

You also have to take extra effort to set up guardians that are not spouses, and for living wills and power of attorney. Marriage makes those benefits easier.

No actually I don't see that. The last thing I see is the body tagged and bagged and on its way to the morgue. I don't see the legalities afterwards unless there is a lawsuit (which I haven't had yet, knock on wood 3 times and throw salt over my shoulder LOL).

[Goat]

The state licenses vehicle ownership, property ownership, business partnerships, professional accreditation and marriages. Each of these relationships imposes legal requirements on the registrant. The state has found it to be useful to document and register these things rather than always relying on common law to determine legal obligations. Is there some reason why you wish to exclude marriage but not any of the other relationships from state registration?

The state licenses those items you listed in order to establish property rights. The difference with marriage is that there are no property rights involved with your spouse. If another man lays claim to your wife and your wife agrees to it, there is nothing the state can do to stop him from taking her. Neither the wife nor the adulterer owes you any compensation or stipend, because no property was taken.

I feel licenses establish property rights. A spouse is not a property right that you have. The only thing that determines whether the two of you are married or not should be the capacity and commitment of both sides to love each other.

Yet, there are rights involved with marriage. Inheritance for one. THe ability to act as a guardian in case of medical issues for another. Then there are legalities when it comes to social security and pensions, as well as health benefits.

True, but in medicine I see the children being listed as guardians, for inheritance, etc... in peoples living wills and power of attorneys.

You then also will see that when it comes to gay couples, often powers of attorneys and wills are overriden by the courts. And that doesn't stop the inequities when it comes to pensions, social security, and health benefits.

You also have to take extra effort to set up guardians that are not spouses, and for living wills and power of attorney. Marriage makes those benefits easier.

No actually I don't see that. The last thing I see is the body tagged and bagged and on its way to the morgue. I don't see the legalities afterwards unless there is a lawsuit (which I haven't had yet, knock on wood 3 times and throw salt over my shoulder LOL).

What I HAVE seen is two people who lived togather have one die,and then because there was no will, the kids of the guy who died had the legal right to come in and take half of everything. Most of the posessions were hers, and she lost a lot of things that she paid for.