• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Privatize Marriage:

CLAX1911 said:
It's those government backed benefits us lgbt want, to strip them from everybody because some people want to claim marriage as a church thing, fine we can call it civil union, that is all marriage legally ifs anyway. I can side step that silly bit of semantics. Still going to call my civilly United partner my husband. religious people can freak out all they want.
Click to expand...

I frankly think that this would be the better solution anyway. I would have absolutely no problem with disassociating religious notions of "marriage" from the government apparatus entirely and simply treating the whole affair as a secular civil contract, regardless of the sexual orientations of the individuals involved.

However, I would still say that this is highly unlikely to ever happen. The ideological leadership on both sides of the issue seems to be dead set on making this a "winner take all" conflict.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I frankly think that this would be the better solution anyway. I would have absolutely no problem with disassociating religious notions of "marriage" from the government apparatus entirely and simply treating the whole affair as a secular civil contract, regardless of the sexual orientations of the individuals involved.
Click to expand...
That is how it is now, religious crap is completely arbitrary to the civil document.


Gathomas88 said:
However, I would still say that this is highly unlikely to ever happen. The ideological leadership on both sides of the issue seems to be dead set on making this a "winner take all" conflict.
Click to expand...
Shame, it could be easier with the silly appeasement
 
Amadeus said:
That was a patently stupid article, and a complete waste of my time.
Click to expand...

Those accustomed to the nanny state and it's being in control of nearly everything find it difficult to conceive of individuals defining their own marriages without the government's destructive hands all over it.

Here's a gem from this fellow's cerebrum:

"And once gays can get married in same-sex unions, why can't heterosexuals? And if my friend can marry her friend to get spousal benefits, why can't I do the same thing for my widowed mother? Or my sick, unemployed brother?"

At least he didn't mention farm animals, like most anti-gay advocates do.
Click to expand...

Good point, he didn't.
 
Aquila said:
That's your opinion. Not mine. :)
Click to expand...

Cut the comment down to size for practical purposes

Ok.

I too am a Christian, and I don't think, like many others, that it is unreasonable to go to the civic office and sign a piece of paper to legislate your marriage. In fact, it seems like common sense. And while it is true, for centuries, this wasn't the case. You know what else wasn't the case for centuries? Secularism.

If you want to keep marriage in a secular state, you need to take it away from the religious institutions and incorporate it into the governmental ones. Religious laws should have no influence on government laws and so you can't expect for your marriage to be recognized LEGALLY if it is done in an institutions whose laws don't matter. The fact that you have to sign a piece of paper has no bearing on what so ever on who the state allows you to marry or not. You can marry whomever you want. Honestly. The clerk over at the civic office won't deny you to marry whomever you want. This is liberty in a civilized way. there is also liberty in a barbaric way, but we moved on from that one a long time ago. The state isn't involved in dictating who you can marry and who you can't, it's just there to observe and put on paper the fact that you are married. That's it.

If you want to have a society where the religious laws dominate your life, go live in one of them islamic republics. Over there, the word of islam is the law. Or go live in the Vatican if you want a Christian theocracy... though it can be kind of hard to become a citizen of the Vatican. In our world, the west, secularism exists for a reason and in a secular society, you solve your legal activities through the state. And in a civilized society you do the same, you don't sort it our yourself.

Your arguments about the "quaker vows" or whatever are not justifiable in any way. Just because you announce something to be so, doesn't make it so. You can say you're married to someone as much as you want, in legal terms, you aren't. Maybe in the USA, this is permitted still in some states, i can't say for sure. I'll tell you for sure where that isn't the case, the rest of the western world.

As for married in the eyes of God. Yes. I agree to that. Weddings in a Church are about being married in the eyes of God. Same for marriages done in all religions, it's to make the union of people valid in the eyes of their respective gods. Sure. Nobody is denying you to get married in a church and have a priest officiate it. But it has no legal value. None. And while I can't speak on the part of your grandparents, since I don't know the whole story, it seemed rather silly that they wouldn't get a paper from the civic office. And yes, its required. It's pretty much mandatory if you want to be married properly. Again.

Paper from the government for marriage = mandatory if you want it to be legal ; This is why agnostics and atheists can get married.
A religious ceremony = optional if you want it, and even more, it varies according to each persons' religion.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Civilly, yes, religiously who cares, who am i to have an opinion?

If the state is going to give out benefits then they need to do it equally.
Click to expand...

This is the section for discussing the religious aspects of politics is it not??? So, if a couple stands before their fire place and declares themselves husband and wife... do you believe a church should recognize their union, even though they don't want the state involved?
 
Rainman05 said:
Cut the comment down to size for practical purposes

Ok.

I too am a Christian, and I don't think, like many others, that it is unreasonable to go to the civic office and sign a piece of paper to legislate your marriage. In fact, it seems like common sense. And while it is true, for centuries, this wasn't the case. You know what else wasn't the case for centuries? Secularism.

If you want to keep marriage in a secular state, you need to take it away from the religious institutions and incorporate it into the governmental ones. Religious laws should have no influence on government laws and so you can't expect for your marriage to be recognized LEGALLY if it is done in an institutions whose laws don't matter. The fact that you have to sign a piece of paper has no bearing on what so ever on who the state allows you to marry or not. You can marry whomever you want. Honestly. The clerk over at the civic office won't deny you to marry whomever you want. This is liberty in a civilized way. there is also liberty in a barbaric way, but we moved on from that one a long time ago. The state isn't involved in dictating who you can marry and who you can't, it's just there to observe and put on paper the fact that you are married. That's it.

If you want to have a society where the religious laws dominate your life, go live in one of them islamic republics. Over there, the word of islam is the law. Or go live in the Vatican if you want a Christian theocracy... though it can be kind of hard to become a citizen of the Vatican. In our world, the west, secularism exists for a reason and in a secular society, you solve your legal activities through the state. And in a civilized society you do the same, you don't sort it our yourself.

Your arguments about the "quaker vows" or whatever are not justifiable in any way. Just because you announce something to be so, doesn't make it so. You can say you're married to someone as much as you want, in legal terms, you aren't. Maybe in the USA, this is permitted still in some states, i can't say for sure. I'll tell you for sure where that isn't the case, the rest of the western world.

As for married in the eyes of God. Yes. I agree to that. Weddings in a Church are about being married in the eyes of God. Same for marriages done in all religions, it's to make the union of people valid in the eyes of their respective gods. Sure. Nobody is denying you to get married in a church and have a priest officiate it. But it has no legal value. None. And while I can't speak on the part of your grandparents, since I don't know the whole story, it seemed rather silly that they wouldn't get a paper from the civic office. And yes, its required. It's pretty much mandatory if you want to be married properly. Again.

Paper from the government for marriage = mandatory if you want it to be legal ; This is why agnostics and atheists can get married.
A religious ceremony = optional if you want it, and even more, it varies according to each persons' religion.
Click to expand...
The church can still kick you out for whatever reason they want. This changes nothing.
 
CLAX1911 said:
That is how it is now, religious crap is completely arbitrary to the civil document.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. The ceremony, language, and ideas permeating the legal institution of "marriage" are all pretty explicitly grounded in Christian religious ideas.

If you were to remove the term "marriage" from the issue entirely and make the whole process as simple as merely signing your name on the dotted line, most people wouldn't care who did it. From a strictly religious standpoint, "marriage" is something which should be recognised in the eyes of God anyway, not the state.
 
Rainman05 said:
Cut the comment down to size for practical purposes

Ok.

I too am a Christian, and I don't think, like many others, that it is unreasonable to go to the civic office and sign a piece of paper to legislate your marriage. In fact, it seems like common sense. And while it is true, for centuries, this wasn't the case. You know what else wasn't the case for centuries? Secularism.

If you want to keep marriage in a secular state, you need to take it away from the religious institutions and incorporate it into the governmental ones. Religious laws should have no influence on government laws and so you can't expect for your marriage to be recognized LEGALLY if it is done in an institutions whose laws don't matter. The fact that you have to sign a piece of paper has no bearing on what so ever on who the state allows you to marry or not. You can marry whomever you want. Honestly. The clerk over at the civic office won't deny you to marry whomever you want. This is liberty in a civilized way. there is also liberty in a barbaric way, but we moved on from that one a long time ago. The state isn't involved in dictating who you can marry and who you can't, it's just there to observe and put on paper the fact that you are married. That's it.

If you want to have a society where the religious laws dominate your life, go live in one of them islamic republics. Over there, the word of islam is the law. Or go live in the Vatican if you want a Christian theocracy... though it can be kind of hard to become a citizen of the Vatican. In our world, the west, secularism exists for a reason and in a secular society, you solve your legal activities through the state. And in a civilized society you do the same, you don't sort it our yourself.

Your arguments about the "quaker vows" or whatever are not justifiable in any way. Just because you announce something to be so, doesn't make it so. You can say you're married to someone as much as you want, in legal terms, you aren't. Maybe in the USA, this is permitted still in some states, i can't say for sure. I'll tell you for sure where that isn't the case, the rest of the western world.

As for married in the eyes of God. Yes. I agree to that. Weddings in a Church are about being married in the eyes of God. Same for marriages done in all religions, it's to make the union of people valid in the eyes of their respective gods. Sure. Nobody is denying you to get married in a church and have a priest officiate it. But it has no legal value. None. And while I can't speak on the part of your grandparents, since I don't know the whole story, it seemed rather silly that they wouldn't get a paper from the civic office. And yes, its required. It's pretty much mandatory if you want to be married properly. Again.

Paper from the government for marriage = mandatory if you want it to be legal ; This is why agnostics and atheists can get married.
A religious ceremony = optional if you want it, and even more, it varies according to each persons' religion.
Click to expand...

In my state it is illegal for a "licensed minister" (agent of the state) to marry a couple in anything but a "civil marriage" complete with government licensing. He or she could lose their state minister's licensing. I believe it is like this in most states. (More GOVERNMENT power intruding on private matters of church and family.)

Why can't a couple "get married in the eyes of God" in their own home in a self-officiated fashion? That used to be recognized. This is the origin of most Common Law Marriage laws.
 
Aquila said:
Statist Thinking: Government is the final authority on marriage and can redefine and regulate it as desired. (One size must fit all.)

Libertarian Thinking: Marriage is a private relationship and association. Government shouldn't be involved. Each marriage should be defined by the individual couple in accordance to private contractural agreement. (Marriage is managed in accordance to the couple's convictions per contract).

For example, a Catholic couple could have a private marriage contract that states that the union cannot be dissolved.

A Protestant couple could have a private marriage contract stating that the marriage can only be dissolved on the grounds of adultery or abandonment.

A secular couple could allow for "no fault divorce" in accordance to their marital contract or any other stipulation.

Any breaches in contract could go before arbitration and perhaps end up in court. However, if a couple abides by their contract with regards to the marriage and/or dissolution of the marriage, no court needs to be involved. Everything handled according to contractural agreement.

Don't argue prenups... they get thrown out all the time.
Click to expand...

Also known as:

Secular, civilized thinking: Marriage is a social contract and since the union between 2 people is the foundation for society, it is something that we, the society, would like to encourage in a healthy manner and have some oversight over it to know how things are going. You know, like a civilized society that actually cares about its building blocks and doesn't want to leave them to chance.

And there also is:
the theocratic and/or primitive thinking: well, lets just let people do whatever they wanna do. If 2 people go on say that they're married, they're married. Because you know Cleetus, we live in a world where people do whatever the hell they want, live by the laws they want and can make stuff up as they go along.

But no, I'm being unfair in the fact that I am not portraying this correctly. Hey Cleetus, do you know that there's this religion called Izlem and it got some stuff in it that you can marry a whole lot of wooomen? Hell yeah, you can make a whole harreem or something like that. Lets go to the izlem and make go get 10 wives. One for the cooking. One for the cleaning. One for the ironing. One for the... ugh... ugh... the cooking. And then one more the cleaning... how many is that? 9? I think I'm forgetting something.... cooking, cleaning... ironing, ah yeah, one for the dish washing. Yeah huh huh. that outta cover it all.

And yes, I may have been a bit unfair. After all Christianity has sprung a whole series of religions that do the same. Mormonism... and one more... anyway, who cares. The point is, this idea is primitive and since we live in a secular society, Religious laws have no bearing on society and actual laws... that people NEED to follow. So it makes sense that religion goes under the perogative of us, the people, hence, the government.
 
This question is directed to those who define themselves as being "Christian" and who perhaps attend a church body:

If a couple were attending your church and identified themselves as husband and wife... yet they opted out of having a "civil marriage" because they felt it violated their religious principles... would you or your church accept them as husband and wife? Or... would you disfellowship them if they refused to get a "civil marriage"?
 
Aquila said:
In my state it is illegal for a "licensed minister" (agent of the state) to marry a couple in anything but a "civil marriage" complete with government licensing. He or she could lose their state minister's licensing. I believe it is like this in most states. (More GOVERNMENT power intruding on private matters of church and family.)

Why can't a couple "get married in the eyes of God" in their own home in a self-officiated fashion? That used to be recognized. This is the origin of most Common Law Marriage laws.
Click to expand...

Agreed, It's the origin of what we perceive as marriage. I am not contesting that our version of marriage comes from Christianity. That is 100% true. Many laws from the penal code and the civic code also come from Christianity.

But just like those laws, from the penal and civic code come from Christianity, they are not enforced by the Church, are they? They are enforced by the Police and the judicial system. If you do a murder, you don't get the priest to try you, you get a judge.

Just like those things, marriage is a big part of society. And just like those things, it falls under the juristiction of the government to install the mechanism for marriage, taken at times wholesale from Christianity, but put under govt authority. for the same reason as the judge one.
 
Aquila said:
Those accustomed to the nanny state and it's being in control of nearly everything find it difficult to conceive of individuals defining their own marriages without the government's destructive hands all over it.
Click to expand...

If you hate the American government, why do you live in America? You're a free man. Move to a Libertarian country. America will never be a Libertarian bastion.
 
Aquila said:
This question is directed to those who define themselves as being "Christians" and who perhaps attend a church body:

If a couple were attending your church and identified themselves as husband and wife... yet they opted out of having a "civil marriage" because they felt it violated their religious principles... would you or your church accept them as husband and wife? Or... would you disfellowship them if they refused to get a "civil marriage"?
Click to expand...
They would have to complete all the same classes and requirements as any other couple before becoming a member of the church. Choosing not to comply is choosing not to belong...and why would you want to belong if you found such rules objectionable?
 
Aquila said:
This question is directed to those who define themselves as being "Christian" and who perhaps attend a church body:

If a couple were attending your church and identified themselves as husband and wife... yet they opted out of having a "civil marriage" because they felt it violated their religious principles... would you or your church accept them as husband and wife? Or... would you disfellowship them if they refused to get a "civil marriage"?
Click to expand...

I am a Christian (Orthodox) and I would tell them that they are idiots. But I wouldn't be at all outraged if the following thing happened:

a) if they would go to the bank as husband and wife, they couldn't take a loan on low interest on themselves as married people can.
b) if the name of the apartment would be on one of them, and he died, the other one wouldn't inherit it. Why? Because they weren't married. The state can't recognize them as married since they didn't sign the piece of paper.
c) their children wouldn't be recognized, LEGALLY, as THEIR children, but rather, as HER child by him. He would be, in fact, raising bastards.

etc.

however, its not an issue. Nowhere in the world do you see Christianity, and by this is I mean the major ones, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, calling for the abolition of civic marriage and accept the informal ceremonial role that they perform. Why? Because that's the god damned law that's why. Now as for evangelicals and all those born again Christians and the cults and whatver, I wouldn't be surprised about anything that they promote, if there are indeed cults who promote NOT getting married in a civic office.

and I know for a fact, a real fact, that in my religion, the priesthood encourages and can even arrange the whole government paper signing part to be as easy as possible. Often times the clerk would go there and in a seemingly inconspicious fashion, he slips them the papers, they sign them and that's that. They don't even have to go to the civic office to sign them because that is not quite romantic. Ofc, it varies from city to city, but in my city, this happens.
 
Jerry said:
The church can still kick you out for whatever reason they want. This changes nothing.
Click to expand...

In the 3 variables equation:
the govt <-> the married couple <-> the Church <-> the govt

The Church matters the least. It actually matters none at all. And no reasonable Church would kick you out because you signed the civic papers to legalize, LEGALIZE, your union. And if there is such a Church, such a religion, it can only be one of the weird ones that is not worth following.
 
Rainman05 said:
In the 3 variables equation:
the govt <-> the married couple <-> the Church <-> the govt

The Church matters the least. It actually matters none at all. And no reasonable Church would kick you out because you signed the civic papers to legalize, LEGALIZE, your union. And if there is such a Church, such a religion, it can only be one of the weird ones that is not worth following.
Click to expand...
Most churches have you sign a membership contract. Brake it and they can kick you out. If you don't like the church's rules, don't join, or in OP's case, leave.

In any event, good luck calling the cops and having them force the church to accept you as a member, that too is illegal.
 
Aquila said:
I'm a devout Christian and I've been following the marriage/gay marriage debate and I've come to a conclusion that is rather libertarian. The problem is that "marriage" has been taken over by government...

I believe that the governments hijacking of marriage is the problem... not gay marriage. I believe that marriage should return to the common law realm and be considered a private relationship or association.



Click to expand...

Marriage has been treated like a political football long enough. Judges want the same rights for unions as for marriages. Gays want exactness (socialism).

Take the word marriage out of tax legislation requirements, altogether. Use union instead.

Sidenote: states like Washington, Oregon, Nevada and California have union rights and responsibilities that are EQUAL to marriage rights and responsibilites. Just recently, Colorado also created legislation for unions that is equal to marriage.
All the rights of marriage are there for the taking... now. Create legislation that gives unions all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. That would be the Occam's Razor kinda answer. Instead of marriage being 'punted' by the judiciary and the gay community.
 
Jerry said:
Most churches have you sign a membership contract. Brake it and they can kick you out. If you don't like the church's rules, don't join, or in OP's case, leave.

In any event, good luck calling the cops and having them force the church to accept you as a member, that too is illegal.
Click to expand...

yes... the churches that make you sign a contract are false churches.

In neither of the proper ones, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, the "contract" you sign is your baptism. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. everything else including your degree of involvement in the Church and religion, is entirely optional.

And if a Church kicks you out, good riddance. It must have been the wrong one for you. Also, your religion doesn't require a church. Just faith. And faith doesn't require an institution.
 
Rainman05 said:
yes... the churches that make you sign a contract are false churches.
Click to expand...
If you think so, don't join them, I know I wouldn't join a church I thought to be false. Go join what you consider to be a true church.

Rainman05 said:
In neither of the proper ones, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, the "contract" you sign is your baptism. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. everything else including your degree of involvement in the Church and religion, is entirely optional.
Click to expand...
No there's a literal piece of paper you sign with a lot of them.

Rainman05 said:
And if a Church kicks you out, good riddance. It must have been the wrong one for you. Also, your religion doesn't require a church. Just faith. And faith doesn't require an institution.
Click to expand...
Exactly, thank you. That's what I've been saying.
 
Rainman05 said:
Agreed, It's the origin of what we perceive as marriage. I am not contesting that our version of marriage comes from Christianity. That is 100% true. Many laws from the penal code and the civic code also come from Christianity.

But just like those laws, from the penal and civic code come from Christianity, they are not enforced by the Church, are they? They are enforced by the Police and the judicial system. If you do a murder, you don't get the priest to try you, you get a judge.

Just like those things, marriage is a big part of society. And just like those things, it falls under the juristiction of the government to install the mechanism for marriage, taken at times wholesale from Christianity, but put under govt authority. for the same reason as the judge one.
Click to expand...

Do you feel that your thought process is a bit statist?

Why does the GOVERNMENT need to know who I'm married to or even IF I'm married... IF I want that to be private and keep the government out of it???
 
Amadeus said:
If you hate the American government, why do you live in America? You're a free man. Move to a Libertarian country. America will never be a Libertarian bastion.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about "hate". I simply believe that government is overstepping it's bounds into our private lives more and more. And frankly, I don't believe that the government needs to meddle with marriage. For example, for nearly 200 years one needed grounds for divorce. However, almighty government changed the law to allow "no fault". Suddenly, EVERYBODY's marriage contract was changed from what it was originally. It's not the GOVERNMENT's call. What if the GOVERNMENT suddenly defined marriage as being the legal union between two people with blonde hair and blue eyes. Suddenly millions of couples would no longer be married??? I know that's an extreme example. However, my point is... marriage was historically a natural right under common law and governed by individuals and families... not the church... not the government.
 
Aquila said:
Do you feel that your thought process is a bit statist?

Why does the GOVERNMENT need to know who I'm married to or even IF I'm married... IF I want that to be private and keep the government out of it???
Click to expand...

Because marriage is a LEGAL act. You can't get married outside of the law and demand that it be recognized legally.

Why should it be recognized legally? For your own protection and for the protection of your children. Benefit from govt programs, insurance in case one dies, benefits for your children, etc.

If you want to keep it private, fine. Go do a "quaker marriage" or whatever that is. See if it makes it official. Go to a woman and say: now we are husband and wife. It won't make it anymore official than saying: I am allowed to park in a no parking zone. Or: I am free to drive without an auto license. It doesn't make it official.
Everything that is official needs to have a paper to register that it is official. Who gives the papers in a SECULAR, CIVILIZED society? The government.
If we were living in a theocracy, then fine, you would just go marry in a Church and be done with it. the rule of the Church would be the rule of the land.
 
Jerry said:
They would have to complete all the same classes and requirements as any other couple before becoming a member of the church. Choosing not to comply is choosing not to belong...and why would you want to belong if you found such rules objectionable?
Click to expand...

I don't think you guys are really grasping what I'm saying. I'm asking you a personal question. Would you, or your church, accept them as husband and wife?
 
Rainman05 said:
I am a Christian (Orthodox) and I would tell them that they are idiots. But I wouldn't be at all outraged if the following thing happened:

a) if they would go to the bank as husband and wife, they couldn't take a loan on low interest on themselves as married people can.
b) if the name of the apartment would be on one of them, and he died, the other one wouldn't inherit it. Why? Because they weren't married. The state can't recognize them as married since they didn't sign the piece of paper.
c) their children wouldn't be recognized, LEGALLY, as THEIR children, but rather, as HER child by him. He would be, in fact, raising bastards.

etc.

however, its not an issue. Nowhere in the world do you see Christianity, and by this is I mean the major ones, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, calling for the abolition of civic marriage and accept the informal ceremonial role that they perform. Why? Because that's the god damned law that's why. Now as for evangelicals and all those born again Christians and the cults and whatver, I wouldn't be surprised about anything that they promote, if there are indeed cults who promote NOT getting married in a civic office.

and I know for a fact, a real fact, that in my religion, the priesthood encourages and can even arrange the whole government paper signing part to be as easy as possible. Often times the clerk would go there and in a seemingly inconspicious fashion, he slips them the papers, they sign them and that's that. They don't even have to go to the civic office to sign them because that is not quite romantic. Ofc, it varies from city to city, but in my city, this happens.
Click to expand...

Big Government and Big Religion go hand in hand. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom