• 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!

Marriage is a Legal Term

maquiscat said:
I have more than made the case and provided many examples of the distinctions between the various types of marriage.
Click to expand...
Well if your confident in your apologetics than write me off as unreasonable. But you haven't made a distinction as far as I'm concerned. And insisting otherwise is just pigheaded. You either try a different way to make your case or you walk away.

Again, your lack of acceptance does not negate their existence.
Click to expand...
No ****. The lack of existence negates existence. You haven't made a distinction. You insist you have but you refuse to make a better case. Don't blame me.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well if your confident in your apologetics than write me off as unreasonable. But you haven't made a distinction as far as I'm concerned. And insisting otherwise is just pigheaded. You either try a different way to make your case or you walk away.

No ****. The lack of existence negates existence. You haven't made a distinction. You insist you have but you refuse to make a better case. Don't blame me.
Click to expand...
This isn't rocket surgery.

The law doesn't care if any church, synagogue, coven, whatever does not recognize the marriage it recorded. It doesn't care if everyone in the whole of the country does not recognize it. It's on record, and thus a legal marriage.

The coven doesn't care if you have a piece of paper from the government. It doesn't care that the church or synagogue doesn't recognize your marriage. It doesn't care whether every other person in the country does not recognize your marriage. You married under their religious definition of marriage. You are in a religious marriage. Any grouping name (church, synagogue, etc) can be substituted for coven.

Your friends and family don't care that you never got that piece of paper from the government. They don't care you are atheist and never went before a religious leader. You two are dedicated to each other and are making a life together, calling each other spouses, and that is how they refer to you as well. Your marriage is social in nature.

The best way to tell how people hold social/religious marriage separate from legal marriage is to ask them if they would still consider the person they are with their husband/wife if all legal marriage suddenly went away. 99% will still view their spouse as their spouse even if the law didn't recognize it. That would be social and/or religious marriage.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
JPUK said:
The state should not make laws for religious groups. Marriage is of course a religious institution, and the government should have no involvement in that, it is up to churches etc. to decide what institutions, ceremonies etc. they want to conduct.

But marriage is also, and has long been, a legal term. If we accept that state and religion are completely separate, then this has nothing to do with religion. The legal term 'marriage' allows for legal recognition, rights and privileges.

There should be no confusion between the two. Of course any couple should be entitled to legal marriage, but this should have no impact whatsoever on religious institutions, who should be able to allow or refuse religious marriage to whoever they want.

This distinction between legal and religious should not be difficult or confusing. Lots of things are legal that certain religions do not allow. The idea that the state ever has, or should be, defining religious marriage is a bad idea for everyone, religious or not.
Click to expand...

The only reason for the government to be involved in marriage is to have control over the people instead of serving the people.
 
maquiscat said:
This isn't rocket surgery.

The law doesn't care if any church, synagogue, coven, whatever does not recognize the marriage it recorded. It doesn't care if everyone in the whole of the country does not recognize it. It's on record, and thus a legal marriage.

The coven doesn't care if you have a piece of paper from the government. It doesn't care that the church or synagogue doesn't recognize your marriage. It doesn't care whether every other person in the country does not recognize your marriage. You married under their religious definition of marriage. You are in a religious marriage. Any grouping name (church, synagogue, etc) can be substituted for coven.

Your friends and family don't care that you never got that piece of paper from the government. They don't care you are atheist and never went before a religious leader. You two are dedicated to each other and are making a life together, calling each other spouses, and that is how they refer to you as well. Your marriage is social in nature.

The best way to tell how people hold social/religious marriage separate from legal marriage is to ask them if they would still consider the person they are with their husband/wife if all legal marriage suddenly went away. 99% will still view their spouse as their spouse even if the law didn't recognize it. That would be social and/or religious marriage.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You didn't say anything about a distinction between social and religious marriage. It was social and legal marriage.

I'm sorry you wasted all your time yammering about nonsense but I told you multiple times it's not relevant.
 
CLAX1911 said:
You didn't say anything about a distinction between social and religious marriage. It was social and legal marriage.

I'm sorry you wasted all your time yammering about nonsense but I told you multiple times it's not relevant.
Click to expand...
Highlighting the differences between religious and social, and religious and legal, helps to highlight the difference between social and legal.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
JPUK said:
I apologise if my initial post was less than clear.

Marriage is a legal term. It has been for a long time. This has nothing to do with religious marriage. The government should not be making rules on religious marriage and religion should not be defining legal marriage.

Religious marriage and legal marriage are, and have long been, distinct and separate. They are both long established institutions.

A civil marriage certificate awarded by the state, with no religious ceremony, has no religious significance. A religious ceremony with no legal certificate, has no legal significance.

My point is that this distinction is very straightforward and is in the interests of religious and non-religious people alike. (Unless you're arguing for a total theocracy, and want to replace the constitution/laws with the Bible/Quran/etc)
Click to expand...

Marriage evolved as a contract between families relating to inheritance and succession. It was only for the rich elite, since only they had sufficient property to be concerned about inheritance. later, the church inserted itself in the process, as much to gain power and control, as enrichment from "benefactors". Religion should not be a mask for bigotry.
All religious marriage celebrants in the UK must also be registered legally before they can perform marriages.
 
maquiscat said:
Highlighting the differences between religious and social, and religious and legal, helps to highlight the difference between social and legal.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No it doesn't I understand the distinction between religious and legal marriage. All I can gather is that you insist that there is a distinction for some inexplicable reason.
 
dixon01767 said:
And yet, legal marriage in all 50 states still cling to the old testament prohibition against closely related couples marrying.
Click to expand...

Actually, depends on how closely related as to how much the laws actually "cling" to that (which was not originally any sort of religious prohibition, since many different cultures with many different religious beliefs, even ones predating any Abrahamic religion), had those same prohibitions and they have flexed even throughout Christianity's history on what is "too close". That is about birth defects and genetic diseases being passed on, legitimate medical concern.
 
dixon01767 said:
Just pointing out that legal marriage still contains one old testament prohibitions. And the Council of Trent's limitation of just one spouse per customer.
Click to expand...

Logisitically, our laws can only allow for one legal spouse, however on a personal level, you can have as many personal/religious spouses as you and they agree to, so long as you are not legally trying to claim them as your spouse (in the vast majority of states and those that would prohibit it otherwise may face a losing court battle to try if the people are not trying to legally claim each other).
 
maquiscat said:
Actually there really isn't a reason for limiting legal marriage based on relatedness. There is more justification in limiting breeding than marriage itself. Legally, marriage does not require love, sex or children. And while we can account for the children with relations to marriage, they are not the basis nor limitation of it. This is before we look at the fact that many such laws do not limit themselves to blood relatedness.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In some cases, such as when it is immediate family, such a thing is redundant to do, since most of those things that your spouse gains (note the most, because I realize there are some things that are only spousal things) when it comes to legal marriage, your immediate family (siblings, parents) already has in the absence of a spouse (some remain even with a spouse).
 
CLAX1911 said:
so can I assume that your contention is that marriage has nothing to do with building a family?
Click to expand...

As soon as you marry someone (regardless of whether you do, can or want to have children), you are building a family. Not only do you and spouse become legal family to each other, but you also gain their family as yours and they gain yours as theirs, hence the term "in-laws".
 
dixon01767 said:
When a state wide referendum is held, inserting into the constitution a limitation of marriage to a man and a woman by popular vote, and a federal judge imposes on the state that they make marriage available to gay couples, society lags the law.
Click to expand...

There were many states that had prohibitions on interracial marriage in their state constitutions (including 2 into the 90s/2000s). Federal judge imposed a change because like popular votes to restrict based on gender/sex, restrictions based on race violate the US Constitution which supersedes state constitutions.
 
dixon01767 said:
No one claimed it did. The biology that dictates that only a man and a woman can create a child and the biology that closely related people breeding can produce genetic defects is universal across history and the human race.
Click to expand...

But you don't need marriage to create a child and almost 20% of marriages do not result in children.
 
roguenuke said:
There were many states that had prohibitions on interracial marriage in their state constitutions (including 2 into the 90s/2000s). Federal judge imposed a change because like popular votes to restrict based on gender/sex, restrictions based on race violate the US Constitution which supersedes state constitutions.
Click to expand...

Another example where society lags the law. Which was my point.
 
dixon01767 said:
No one claimed it did. The biology that dictates that only a man and a woman can create a child and the biology that closely related people breeding can produce genetic defects is universal across history and the human race.
Click to expand...

roguenuke said:
But you don't need marriage to create a child and almost 20% of marriages do not result in children.
Click to expand...

No one claimed otherwise.
 
roguenuke said:
As soon as you marry someone (regardless of whether you do, can or want to have children), you are building a family. Not only do you and spouse become legal family to each other, but you also gain their family as yours and they gain yours as theirs, hence the term "in-laws".
Click to expand...

I agree. And if you do decide to have children it's more likely that your household will be more stable with parents that are committed to each other.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I agree. And if you do decide to have children it's more likely that your household will be more stable with parents that are committed to each other.
Click to expand...

Well they will be if they marry the other parent of the child.
 
dixon01767 said:
Well they will be if they marry the other parent of the child.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence to support that this is the case always, especially if the two parents are only marrying because of a child. In fact, that is not going to stabilize a relationship, in all likelihood, at all, but rather just make that relationship worse because the only thing keeping them together would be the child. You can raise a child together without being in a romantic/intimate relationship, allowing for each parent to actually find a healthy, happy relationship for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom