LadySkinsFan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 LoL! The concrete rule of law is something created in the mind of man. You say my religion is but a philosophy therefore I have just as much a right to try and enact my philosophy into law as you do yours. This is the hypocrisy of your position. Philosophy is not absolute either, and neither do your philosophical beliefs trump mine simply because you hold them. If what you say is true, do you agree then that those proponents of Sharia law can enact their philosophy into our laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Is it really that "out there"? People often wonder about the Catholic teaching of priestly celibacy....you just stated it. He is not talking about priests though. He is talking about everyone. Granted, he explains this by saying that the reason for his belief is because time is short. (In other words, Paul believes that Jesus' return is imminent). Paul clearly believes that if you are not already married or engaged, you should remain unmarried. He largely sees marriage as a place where people can safely express their sexual desires without falling into sexual immorality. It is almost completely utilitarian in his view. ---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 11:53 AM ---------- That is the nature of our Republic, and this same right is given to all. No, it is not. Fundamental rights cannot be altered by plebiscite. Christians could not make "Slandering the Bible" illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 In the US of A, marriage is a civil construct in that a couple has to get a state/government issued marriage license for the marriage to be legal. And that's true whether a couple has a religious ceremony or goes to the justice of the peace. That is fact. Only because when the founders divided the church and state they did not also remove marriage from the authority of the state and return it to the church where it existed before the union of church and state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 my true opnion on this is the word "marraige" should be stripped from every government record and replaced with civil union. Marriage, Katb el-Ketāb, Vivaaham, are all words for these civil unions (we tend to just say Islamic marriage, or Hindu marraige but they are actually a little different) based on traditional religious practices and therefore should have no part in our government. We should recognise all civil unions equally ( a benefit to the people and the government as civil unions create stability and play a large role in freeing the participants to pursue more risky livings. . .i.e. using your civil partners health insurance makes it easier for a person to start a small business etc.) or recognise none at all. Either way leaving us on equal footing. Should a person want any of the afor mentioned titles along with their civil union they need to take that up with the appropriate religious practitioner. A decidedly non-government issue.The word "marriage" has already been secularized. Adding "civil union" on top of it would just complicate things. People understand what it means to have a civil "marriage," and we're already allowing people of all religions (and non-religions) to be "married." I think it would make more sense for Christians and other religions to start calling their marriages something special. I think I like "holy matrimony." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 He is not talking about priests though. He is talking about everyone. Granted' date=' he explains this by saying that the reason for his belief is because time is short. (In other words, Paul believes that Jesus' return is imminent). Paul clearly believes that if you are not already married or engaged, you should remain unmarried. He largely sees marriage as a place where people can safely express their sexual desires without falling into sexual immorality. It is almost completely utilitarian in his view.[/quote']If you take this single passage as ALL that Paul ever said on the issue then I might agree. No, it is not. Fundamental rights cannot be altered by plebiscite. Christians could not make "Slandering the Bible" illegal. Sure they could, a Constitutional Amendment would do that very thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Only because when the founders divided the church and state they did not also remove marriage from the authority of the state and return it to the church where it existed before the union of church and state. I don't necessarily accept this. Romans got married. Pagans got married. Are you talking about "The Church" in the broadest sense of all religions? Or are you talking about "The Church" as Jewish and Christian institutions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I don't necessarily accept this. Romans got married. Pagans got married. Are you talking about "The Church" in the broadest sense of all religions? Or are you talking about "The Church" as Jewish and Christian institutions? In the broad terms, marriage is not a Christian invention, but it's association with religion is undeniable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 If you take this single passage as ALL that Paul ever said on the issue then I might agree. He's not inconsistent. In Ephisians 5, he gives specific instructions on how a marriage should be constructed, but he does not necessarily endorse marriage. What verses are you drawing from that I am missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick1796 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 The word "marriage" has already been secularized. Adding "civil union" on top of it would just complicate things. People understand what it means to have a civil "marriage," and we're already allowing people of all religions (and non-religions) to be "married." I think it would make more sense for Christians and other religions to start calling their marriages something special. I think I like "holy matrimony." I disagree, i hear people say marriage is a christian right all the time, they're wrong, but a lot of this battle is fighting perception. So change the perception. Civil union would be the only governmentally recognised binding between two people avaiable to any two people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 In the broad terms, marriage is not a Christian invention, but it's association with religion is undeniable. ---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 01:07 PM ---------- I disagree, i hear people say marriage is a christian right all the time, they're wrong, but a lot of this battle is fighting perception. So change the perception. Civil union would be the only governmentally recognised binding between two people avaiable to any two people.But we have been allowing Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, and Pastafarians to have "marriages" in this country for a long time. Christian marriage is a religious institution, but it certainly doesn't define everything that the state recognizes as a marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 In the broad terms, marriage is not a Christian invention, but it's association with religion is undeniable. only because religion likes to butt into every aspect of humanity and act like it was the cause of everything. cavemen probably hooked up and formed families regardless of whether or not they also invented silly rituals and superstitions to go along with them (which, no doubt, some did and some didn't). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 In the broad terms, marriage is not a Christian invention, but it's association with religion is undeniable. True. And it's association with the state is also undeniable. Rome had detailed marriage laws for centuries. Augustus wrote marriage laws that would have made Pat Robertson ecstatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 If what you say is true, do you agree then that those proponents of Sharia law can enact their philosophy into our laws? If what I say is true?! You were the one who reduced religion to philosophy, if they are the same then you should have no objection on the basis of the source of their ideas. You can disagree with the specifics of their ideas, but if religion is just a philosophy then to cite Sharia should be as irrelevant as citing Existentialism as a source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 In the broad terms, marriage is not a Christian invention, but it's association with religion is undeniable. Ok, so they have a long history but that doesn't given religion ownership of the concept. Good luck proving there was no marriage before religion came along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 By the way, has anyone ever attended a Hindu wedding? Pack a lunch and a sleeping bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Ya know, I don't even like the concept of marriage. It's a hold over from when women and children were considered property (even in ancient times before Abrahamic religions) and it was meant to solidify a man's property interests. And if same sex marriage goes the way of Loving v. Virginia, then I am highly unlikely to marry as I don't believe in it. Besides, I'll be leaving everything to my daughter anyway. Now I think we will all agree that the concept of marriage has evolved over the eons somewhat, except that property interests are still codified in marriage (taxes, real estate and so on). I also think that if there was no automatic granting of specific property issues and that if everyone had to craft a binding contract regarding those issues, we would have a better informed populace about what their legal rights are. Right now, when a straight couple marries, they get over 1,000 property issues including Federal granted to them outright. Depending upon the state, a same sex married couple gets state property issues granted but not Federal due to DOMA. ---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 01:14 PM ---------- If what I say is true?! You were the one who reduced religion to philosophy, if they are the same then you should have no objection on the basis of the source of their ideas. You can disagree with the specifics of their ideas, but if religion is just a philosophy then to cite Sharia should be as irrelevant as citing Existentialism as a source. Religion is philosophy. It's the proponents of religion who consider it something more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 True. And it's association with the state is also undeniable. Rome had detailed marriage laws for centuries. Augustus wrote marriage laws that would have made Pat Robertson ecstatic. Right' date=' but we're also talking about the union of State and Church, as such at best this argument is a chicken or the egg, but since governments used marriages etc for political reasons it should stand to reason that marriages predated governments, unless you want to argue that governments invented marriage...and to that I would ask why would they? ---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 01:15 PM ---------- Religion is philosophy. It's the proponents of religion who consider it something more. Then my religion is on equal standing with your philosophy, and thus every bit as relevant in this debate as your philosophy. You don't get to have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Then my religion is on equal standing with your philosophy, and thus every bit as relevant in this debate as your philosophy. You don't get to have it both ways. and neither have any bearing on our laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Ok, so they have a long history but that doesn't given religion ownership of the concept. Good luck proving there was no marriage before religion came along. Chicken or the egg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Then my religion is on equal standing with your philosophy, and thus every bit as relevant in this debate as your philosophy. You don't get to have it both ways. The problem is your religion is trying to dictate the relationships of other people who may not have the same beliefs. Their philosophy isn't attacking you, it's not telling you that you can't do anything. If your church doesn't want to host gay weddings once they're made legal (let's just face facts, the day is coming, maybe not this year but eventually) then that's fine, but trying to dictate policy with that religious belief is absurd. It's like outlawing graven images and going around and taking Vishnu statues away from people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 and neither have any bearing on our laws. Seriously? You're going to argue that secular philosophy is not being used by people in this very thread as an argument for law? She cited the rule of law...which is itself a philosophy, are you going to tell me that philosophy has no bearing on our law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 But we are talking about 2013 in the secular government US of A, where marriage is a legal construct. All this talk of ancient history is just that, talk. It has no relevance to the present, where we are governed by the rule of law and not the rule of theocratic principles. There is no religious component in the marriage legal construct. None, zero, zip, nada. Want to get legally married? Go to the courthouse and get a marriage license and pay a fee. Don't want to be legally married to your spouse? Go to the courthouse and file for a divorce and go through the legal procedures to obtain a divorce. No religion there at all. Here's a legal marriage ceremony: Couple obtains marriage license. Hires a state licensed officiant, gets witness(es). Stand before officiant, declare themselves married, officiant sign marriage license as do witnesses if required. A legal marriage is now in existence. No religion there at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 and neither have any bearing on our laws. they do on ones not protected by rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 The problem is your religion is trying to dictate the relationships of other people who may not have the same beliefs. Their philosophy isn't attacking you, it's not telling you that you can't do anything. If your church doesn't want to host gay weddings once they're made legal (let's just face facts, the day is coming, maybe not this year but eventually) then that's fine, but trying to dictate policy with that religious belief is absurd. It's like outlawing graven images and going around and taking Vishnu statues away from people. And the philosophy of others dictates the relationships of other people who may not have the same beliefs, and that philosophy is codified into law and is celebrated as a victory against pedophilia. And do not take that as "OMG he said homosexuality is pedophilia." The point is that we employ our philosophy in our laws all the time, and we dictate the appropriate terms of relationships between people all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Seriously? You're going to argue that secular philosophy is not being used by people in this very thread as an argument for law? She cited the rule of law...which is itself a philosophy, are you going to tell me that philosophy has no bearing on our law? A few comments ago, you made a reference to "reducing religion to a philosophy", yet now you're using philosophy as a brush so wide as to paint over everything. Your religion can NOT constitutionally influence our laws. It was one of the main reasons for our constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.