|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: ...an attempt to redefine marriage [civil partnerships]
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence Spawn's comment about we heteros having devalued marriage already (I'm sure he had in mind the issue of divorce there).
My secondary point was that for marriage purposes the state should become separate from church. That would be easier to accomplish here in the U.S. than in the UK where you have a state church. The primary objection to gay marriage is due to religious reasons. Here we've passed the tipping point even on that issue with the majority polled now support gay marriage.
--------------------
"I have always felt that laughter in the face of reality is probably the finest sound there is and will last until the day when the game is called on account of darkness. In this world, a good time to laugh is any time you can." -Linda Ellerbee
Posts: 2324 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
^ And it's worth keeping in mind that in most countries the state and the church ARE separate when it comes to marriage. English-speaking countries are something of an anomaly in this respect, with a religious ceremony being allowed to count for a civil marriage. It isn't the case in most of continental Europe or the countries that inherited their legal systems from there.
Posts: 9687 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Here is an interesting article in today's "Indy".
One of the interesting things it highlights is the way lesbians seem to disappear from debates on this subject. Consider the first sentence of the article, suitably rewritten.
quote:
I don't know if I am in the majority of heterosexuals in this, but here goes: when I contemplate the idea of one [woman] having sex with another, I feel a certain unease.
This is plausible only if you think the sizable amount of lesbian pornography produced every year is consumed solely by lesbians. In short, a lot of the objections to same-sex marriage seem to be rooted in many men's (and some women's) unease at breaking down assigned gender roles.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence Spawn's comment about we heteros having devalued marriage already (I'm sure he had in mind the issue of divorce there).
My secondary point was that for marriage purposes the state should become separate from church. That would be easier to accomplish here in the U.S. than in the UK where you have a state church.
Yep. So easy it's already done.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 6736 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And it's worth keeping in mind that in most countries the state and the church ARE separate when it comes to marriage.
/tangent/ Don't forget that, even in Britain, there is a difference between denominations. CofE weddings count as legal ceremonies, however Nonconformists basically act as agents of the secular authorities and proceed just like Registry Office weddings (except for the inclusion of religious language). In fact it's not the presence of the Minister which validates the ceremony but the presence of the officially-authorised Registrar (usually a member of the church). So, in our church, it doesn't matter if I drop dead during a wedding, anyone else can read the service. But if my wife or the other Registrar were to drop dead, then everything would grind to a halt.
It's worth noting that if your church building is not registered for marriages then the couple have to get married at the Registry Office and the church wedding has no legal significance.
I don't know the legal status of RC churches in this - do they function like the CofE or like Nonconformists? /tangent ends/
[ 06. March 2012, 19:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 3372 | From: East of Greenwich | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
I hadn’t expected such a rash of replies to my post. My point to Marvin was to actually engage with what your opponents are saying rather than tilting at straw men. That tactic continues however in some of the points made in reply. But I don’t seriously expect to persuade any of you in Dead Horses because this is a place where arguments are doomed to be endlessly repeated for as long as the Ship sails.
So I’ll confine my reply to pointing out a couple of absurdities and making one further point.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think this is one of those situations where everyone wins, just for a change. I cannot see a downside to letting those gays who want to get married.
You’ve provided me with some amusement in your Pollyanna approach.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Thirdly, it evacuates marriage of its procreative element (thus the exception that proves the rule becomes the norm).
What I find most interesting about this point is the level of pure spite implicit in it. The idea is that the children of married couples benefit from the various legal benefits for marriage is commonplace, but that for some reason children being raised by same-sex couples should not so benefit. Visiting the sins of the parents on the children seems a little Old Testament for a modern society.
How does pointing to the procreative aspect marriage have anything to do with the point you make here? I wasn’t talking about legal benefits.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
In short your first two arguments boil down to "Someone might have a tantrum. I know because I'm about to." Your third boils down to making rules up. Your fourth is sexist. And your fifth is special pleading that that which is now is the only pattern. And then you sum up by saying you shouldn't be trusted with the definition of marriage. Right.
This is a bit of indication that there can’t be a civil conversation around this subject and that views are highly entrenched (incidentally it also proves Cranmer‘s Law). Thus, Justinian continues by essentially telling me to shut up.
So what will be achieved by gay marriage which wasn’t achieved by civil partnerships? Well, civility goes. Most importantly, equality suffers. The fact is that civil partnerships gave the same rights to homosexuals that married couples have. The campaign for same-sex ‘marriage’ will create glaringly new divisions and inequalities within the institution of marriage. It will give up civil ‘marriage’ to gays and continue to reserve religious marriage to heterosexuals. In fact, this new rite of so-called ‘marriage’ will be regarded as a deceit by some and will not be recognised by others. That is not an outcome that will give campaigners the sort of ‘equality’ they are seeking.
So, in my view, there is no Pollyanna-ish outcome to this. It’s not a win-win situation unless you do away with religious liberty.
Posts: 3267 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I've not read through the whole thread, and I see it's at least been hinted at - but what would be wrong with separating the state ceremony and the religious? So any couple that wishes to formalise their partnership in law may go ahead and do so; let's call this 'civil partnership'.
Then anyone who wishes their partnership to be recognised by their faith community can do that too. Christian faith communities might like to call this 'marriage'. Some Christian faith communities will only recognise a partnership between a woman and a man from within their community; while others will be less restrictive.
It's just another good reason to separate church from state, as far as I can tell...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 1727 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Shipmate
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
So, in my view, there is no Pollyanna-ish outcome to this. It’s not a win-win situation unless you do away with religious liberty.
I'll take Pollyanna over Cassandra any day.
And I have to presume you're serious with your last comment. Sorry, that's complete and utter arse. The only liberty you're being asked to give up is... no, actually there's nothing. Marriages between men and women will continue to be solemnised in churches up and down the land exactly as they are now.
Unless you mean the liberty to be beastly to The Gayz in this particularly mean-spirited way? Okay then. Yes. You'll have to give that up.
--------------------
This time it’s not a city of twenty-five million that needs rescuing: it’s the world ....
Posts: 3807 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The fact is that civil partnerships gave the same rights to homosexuals that married couples have. The campaign for same-sex ‘marriage’ will create glaringly new divisions and inequalities within the institution of marriage. It will give up civil ‘marriage’ to gays and continue to reserve religious marriage to heterosexuals. In fact, this new rite of so-called ‘marriage’ will be regarded as a deceit by some and will not be recognised by others. That is not an outcome that will give campaigners the sort of ‘equality’ they are seeking.
So, in my view, there is no Pollyanna-ish outcome to this. It’s not a win-win situation unless you do away with religious liberty.
I actually pretty much agree with you here. But to take the same point from a different angle, the entire purpose of 'civil partnerships' is to create an identical situation but to give it a different name just so that people who think it's "not marriage" can say to themselves (and to others who might listen) in a justified manner that 'you see? It's not really marriage'.
And I'm not sure that the State should be picking that side of the argument to be on. Because it ultimately has to pick a side. Either the State gives it a separate label and justifies the view that 'it's not really marriage', or the State gives it the same label and says 'from the State's perspective it's every bit as much marriage as any other marriage'.
The division actually exists either way. It's simply a question of which side of the division can claim support from the State and the law.
And that support gives one side or the other its oxygen. If the State definition of marriage changes, over time fewer and fewer people will cling to the notion that a marriage must be heterosexual. I don't ever imagine the view will fade away entirely, but it will diminish in strength if it no longer has the support of the law of the land.
I make no apology for wishing this to happen. As I've said before, the only ongoing basis for maintaining, in an age where marriage is no longer about a man selecting a woman to bear his children, that a marriage is heterosexual is a belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. A belief that is now inconsistent with the rest of the law, and a belief that I happen to think is based on a misinterpretation of Scripture. So I'm all for withdrawing oxygen for that view.
The most frustrating thing about the gay marriage debate is that most opponents of gay marriage won't actually come out and SAY they simply thing homosexuality is morally wrong, precisely because they know they've already lost that line of argument and will lose the marriage argument as well if they pursue it.
--------------------
The musical diary now has an entry in which I witter on endlessly about the band Gomez without telling you properly what I think of their music. Enjoy.
Posts: 9687 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I actually pretty much agree with you here. But to take the same point from a different angle, the entire purpose of 'civil partnerships' is to create an identical situation but to give it a different name just so that people who think it's "not marriage" can say to themselves (and to others who might listen) in a justified manner that 'you see? It's not really marriage'.
There wasn't a whole load of honesty at the time from campaigners. Civil Partnerships were presented as full equality with an assurance that the nature of marriage wasn't changing in order to get the change through. Stonewall at that time didn't have 'marriage' equality in its sights. At least, Peter Tatchell has always been completely clear and honest about his campaigning aims (including the reduction of the age of consent to 14). In my view, civil partnerships can be easily justified as different to marriage, in that equality needn't mean sameness.
quote:
The division actually exists either way. It's simply a question of which side of the division can claim support from the State and the law.
Well, what you mean by the state is essentially the government of the day. Governments are notoriously fickle and self-serving and increasingly distrusted. I wouldn't enlist the state too much on your side for seeking public approval.
quote:
And that support gives one side or the other its oxygen. If the State definition of marriage changes, over time fewer and fewer people will cling to the notion that a marriage must be heterosexual. I don't ever imagine the view will fade away entirely, but it will diminish in strength if it no longer has the support of the law of the land.
State disfavour for conservative forms of Christianity could have the effect of making these more popular.
quote:
I make no apology for wishing this to happen. As I've said before, the only ongoing basis for maintaining, in an age where marriage is no longer about a man selecting a woman to bear his children, that a marriage is heterosexual is a belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. A belief that is now inconsistent with the rest of the law, and a belief that I happen to think is based on a misinterpretation of Scripture. So I'm all for withdrawing oxygen for that view..
I find it slightly chilling the idea that the State has such a prominent role in the withdrawal of oxygen for 'traditional' or 'conservative' Christian views of sexuality. The Conservative MP for Hove has already suggested banning marriages for those churches which refuse to conduct civil partnerships.
You paint an idealised picture of the gentle and gradual marginalisation of views such as mine from society. Do you honestly think it will be quite as 'benign' as this?
quote:
The most frustrating thing about the gay marriage debate is that most opponents of gay marriage won't actually come out and SAY they simply thing homosexuality is morally wrong, precisely because they know they've already lost that line of argument and will lose the marriage argument as well if they pursue it.
Well there's still people who object to the definition of marriage changing who don't necessarily think that same-sex activity is immoral. But there's no hiding the fact that this underlies the conservative Christian moral objection to same-sex marriage.
Posts: 3267 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I actually pretty much agree with you here. But to take the same point from a different angle, the entire purpose of 'civil partnerships' is to create an identical situation but to give it a different name just so that people who think it's "not marriage" can say to themselves (and to others who might listen) in a justified manner that 'you see? It's not really marriage'.
There wasn't a whole load of honesty at the time from campaigners. Civil Partnerships were presented as full equality with an assurance that the nature of marriage wasn't changing in order to get the change through. Stonewall at that time didn't have 'marriage' equality in its sights. At least, Peter Tatchell has always been completely clear and honest about his campaigning aims (including the reduction of the age of consent to 14). In my view, civil partnerships can be easily justified as different to marriage, in that equality needn't mean sameness.
quote:
The division actually exists either way. It's simply a question of which side of the division can claim support from the State and the law.
Well, what you mean by the state is essentially the government of the day. Governments are notoriously fickle and self-serving and increasingly distrusted. I wouldn't enlist the state too much on your side for seeking public approval.
quote:
And that support gives one side or the other its oxygen. If the State definition of marriage changes, over time fewer and fewer people will cling to the notion that a marriage must be heterosexual. I don't ever imagine the view will fade away entirely, but it will diminish in strength if it no longer has the support of the law of the land.
State disfavour for conservative forms of Christianity could have the effect of making these more popular.
quote:
I make no apology for wishing this to happen. As I've said before, the only ongoing basis for maintaining, in an age where marriage is no longer about a man selecting a woman to bear his children, that a marriage is heterosexual is a belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. A belief that is now inconsistent with the rest of the law, and a belief that I happen to think is based on a misinterpretation of Scripture. So I'm all for withdrawing oxygen for that view..
I find it slightly chilling the idea that the State has such a prominent role in the withdrawal of oxygen for 'traditional' or 'conservative' Christian views of sexuality. The Conservative MP for Hove has already suggested banning marriages for those churches which refuse to conduct civil partnerships.
You paint an idealised picture of the gentle and gradual marginalisation of views such as mine from society. Do you honestly think it will be quite as 'benign' as this?
quote:
The most frustrating thing about the gay marriage debate is that most opponents of gay marriage won't actually come out and SAY they simply thing homosexuality is morally wrong, precisely because they know they've already lost that line of argument and will lose the marriage argument as well if they pursue it.
Well there's still people who object to the definition of marriage changing who don't necessarily think that same-sex activity is immoral. But there's no hiding the fact that this underlies the conservative Christian moral objection to same-sex marriage.
Sorry, I can't really do the whole moving in and out of quotes thing. Not when I'm tired anyway.
Governments aren't actually THAT fickle when it comes to changing laws. A lot of changes of law are never undone when the 'other side' gets into power.
I don't actually need the government for public approval, in that much of the public approval is already there. Quite often changes in the law lag behind the public, not the other way around. But what I am saying is that the law does have some influence on behaviour.
And I am really thinking of this simply as an example of the general way in which law affects behaviour, not a specific sinister example involving the quashing of religion. As I've said before on the Ship, I don't see why labelling a view as 'religious' creates some kind of different consideration, except to the extent that some other general human rights law requires it. A law requiring the wearing of seatbelts applies, on its face, to people who don't like wearing seatbelts for reasons of comfort or aesthetics or their particular belief about what happens in crashes just the same way it applies to someone who doesn't like wearing seatbelts because they think God is against seatbelts.
I do think the marginalisations will generally be gentle and gradual. I think the gradual marginalisation is already happening - one only needs to look at the difference in views on this sort of question between different age brackets. It's literally a case (as it is with so many other topics) of old views eventually dying out.
The parts of the law that might be less 'benign' are already in place, dealing with anti-discrimination. One silly hysterical MP might make the news but I don't think that's going to make the law.
[ 06. March 2012, 23:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
The musical diary now has an entry in which I witter on endlessly about the band Gomez without telling you properly what I think of their music. Enjoy.
Posts: 9687 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence Spawn's comment about we heteros having devalued marriage already (I'm sure he had in mind the issue of divorce there).
My secondary point was that for marriage purposes the state should become separate from church. That would be easier to accomplish here in the U.S. than in the UK where you have a state church.
Yep. So easy it's already done.
But not really. You were referring to civil partnerships. I was referring to legal marriages. States would be the issuer of legal marriage.
--------------------
"I have always felt that laughter in the face of reality is probably the finest sound there is and will last until the day when the game is called on account of darkness. In this world, a good time to laugh is any time you can." -Linda Ellerbee
Posts: 2324 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
In my view, civil partnerships can be easily justified as different to marriage, in that equality needn't mean sameness.
Usually it does in matters of human rights. Having "equal rights" is almost always taken to mean having the "same rights. In other words, to what extent is this distinction a semantic game (calling the same thing by different words) and to what extent is maintaining separate categories strategic (parallel legal structures means that one can later be weakened without affecting the other)?
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I find it slightly chilling the idea that the State has such a prominent role in the withdrawal of oxygen for 'traditional' or 'conservative' Christian views of sexuality.
I think that ship sailed when women got the vote.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
The most frustrating thing about the gay marriage debate is that most opponents of gay marriage won't actually come out and SAY they simply thing homosexuality is morally wrong, precisely because they know they've already lost that line of argument and will lose the marriage argument as well if they pursue it.
Well there's still people who object to the definition of marriage changing who don't necessarily think that same-sex activity is immoral. But there's no hiding the fact that this underlies the conservative Christian moral objection to same-sex marriage.
As I pointed out earlier there are a lot of different kinds of marriage that one religion or another considers immoral that are nonetheless recognized as legal by the state. The question is why your personal prejudice is so different that it should be enshrined in the law of the land?
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
My secondary point was that for marriage purposes the state should become separate from church. That would be easier to accomplish here in the U.S. than in the UK where you have a state church.
Yep. So easy it's already done.
But not really. You were referring to civil partnerships. I was referring to legal marriages. States would be the issuer of legal marriage.
No, I was referring to legal marriage. In the U.S., the states are the issuers of legal marriage and have been for over a century. For example, Warren Jeffs (to pick an obvious and extreme case) proclaims one of his henchmen and a twelve year old girl are married. The state disagrees. Guess which opinion holds up in a court of law?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 6736 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
A less extreme and less child-rapey story about whether it's the church or the state that makes a marriage legal in the U.S. comes from Fred Clark of Slacktivist. An excerpt.
quote:
Six weeks before the wedding we still didn’t have a marriage license. Our good friend Father Bert — the Episcopal priest who was to perform the ceremony — was getting worried.
“We may have to postpone the wedding,” he said.
“Don’t be silly,” I told him. The invitations had been mailed, relatives had made plans, and we’d already scheduled vacation time for the honeymoon. “Who cares about a little paperwork?”
“But without a marriage license, your marriage isn’t legal,” he said. “You can’t go on your honeymoon if the marriage isn’t legal.”
Just a short time before we’d sat with Father Bert as he explained to us about the sacrament of marriage. Now he was saying that he could only administer this holy sacrament of the church if he had written permission from the county clerk’s office.
“Who cares about the license?” I said. “That’s just for, like, taxes and stuff. We can get all that sorted out later if we need to, after we get back from the honeymoon.”
My friend looked at me like I had three heads. It took us quite a while to understand one another. Eventually I said this, “You’re going to pronounce us married in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit — do you really think that doesn’t matter unless you add the name of Gov. Casey?”
He wasn’t persuaded. There were rules and he wasn’t allowed to break them.
In short, just because some church says you're married doesn't necessarily make it legally so (in the U.S.).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 6736 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
This is a bit of indication that there can’t be a civil conversation around this subject and that views are highly entrenched (incidentally it also proves Cranmer‘s Law). Thus, Justinian continues by essentially telling me to shut up.
1: It confirms "Cranmer's Law" - a favoured Conservative defence against accusations of bigotry.
2: I took your semi-coherent screed apart line by line. If you have nothing better thought out than that to add, yes I would prefer it if you did shut up.
quote:
So what will be achieved by gay marriage which wasn’t achieved by civil partnerships? Well, civility goes.
Civility is long gone. Your side took it out behind the woodshed and shot it. The attempt to deny the relationships and loves of others is fundamentally uncivil. You just don't like it when people start firing back.
quote:
Most importantly, equality suffers. The fact is that civil partnerships gave the same rights to homosexuals that married couples have. The campaign for same-sex ‘marriage’ will create glaringly new divisions and inequalities within the institution of marriage.
How so? Equal is equal.
quote:
It will give up civil ‘marriage’ to gays and continue to reserve religious marriage to heterosexuals.
More incoherence. Religious marriage - why do you want to deny religions the freedom to marry those whom they choose? The Quakers already marry gay couples.
The point includes counting their religious freedom as well as yours.
And for the record the chance I am going to have a religious marriage whatever the outcome of this is is low. A civil heterosexual marriage on the other hand is entirely possible. So your claim that it will give up civil marriage is simply not true.
quote:
In fact, this new rite of so-called ‘marriage’ will be regarded as a deceit by some and will not be recognised by others. That is not an outcome that will give campaigners the sort of ‘equality’ they are seeking.
I know that you want to undermine the institution of marriage. But as far as I know, no one is moving that a simultaneous religious and secular marriage should be seen as invalid. At least no one who isn't a conservative homophobe. Your argument here is pure projection.
quote:
So, in my view, there is no Pollyanna-ish outcome to this. It’s not a win-win situation unless you do away with religious liberty.
And once again you are making up nonsense and calling it an argument. I'd call you Cassandra, but at least she was right. No one as far as I know is any more in favour of forcing conservative churches to marry gay couples than they are Catholic churches to marry divorcees.
You, however, are directly opposing religious liberty. If the Quakers want to marry a gay couple you oppose that. If the Unitarians want to marry a gay couple you oppose that. You directly oppose the freedom of any religious organisation to disagree with you. And you have the nerve to claim to be arguing in favour of religious freedom.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3345 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence Spawn's comment about we heteros having devalued marriage already (I'm sure he had in mind the issue of divorce there).
My secondary point was that for marriage purposes the state should become separate from church. That would be easier to accomplish here in the U.S. than in the UK where you have a state church.
Yep. So easy it's already done.
But as long as churches are involved in the process of legal state marriages the problem of religious interference and objection will exist. I am suggesting that church marriages be separate and not constitute legal state or federal marriage.
--------------------
"I have always felt that laughter in the face of reality is probably the finest sound there is and will last until the day when the game is called on account of darkness. In this world, a good time to laugh is any time you can." -Linda Ellerbee
Posts: 2324 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
But as long as churches are involved in the process of legal state marriages the problem of religious interference and objection will exist. I am suggesting that church marriages be separate and not constitute legal state or federal marriage.
It is separate and they don't constitute a legal marriage. A church marriage is not considered legal in the U.S. absent a state-issued marriage license. (The exception, noted in my linked post, is jurisdictions that recognize common law marriage which are willing to consider you legally married without either a state license or a religious ceremony.) Many jurisdictions consider clergy to be one type (among many) of witnesses considered acceptable to validate a couple's signing of the license, but to the best of my knowledge no state allows churches to issue such licenses.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 6736 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
But as long as churches are involved in the process of legal state marriages the problem of religious interference and objection will exist. I am suggesting that church marriages be separate and not constitute legal state or federal marriage.
It is separate and they don't constitute a legal marriage. A church marriage is not considered legal in the U.S. absent a state-issued marriage license. (The exception, noted in my linked post, is jurisdictions that recognize common law marriage which are willing to consider you legally married without either a state license or a religious ceremony.) Many jurisdictions consider clergy to be one type (among many) of witnesses considered acceptable to validate a couple's signing of the license, but to the best of my knowledge no state allows churches to issue such licenses.
The pastor must sign off on a state issued license for a church wedding. I would like to cut the church out completely. A pastor would not be a signatory on a state license.
--------------------
"I have always felt that laughter in the face of reality is probably the finest sound there is and will last until the day when the game is called on account of darkness. In this world, a good time to laugh is any time you can." -Linda Ellerbee
Posts: 2324 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Religious marriage - why do you want to deny religions the freedom to marry those whom they choose? The Quakers already marry gay couples.
This is rather a good point. It is a mistake to assume that all religions inevitably take the same view such that 'religious' marriage is inevitably heterosexual marriage.
I think that many Christians in English-speaking countries are so used to there being a correlation between their particular religious ceremony and a civilly recognised marriage that they can't comprehend that there is no inherent link. That is, there might be a historical link but there isn't a logical one, and hasn't been ever since church law and secular law became separate concepts. It is a coincidence that can easily be broken by either side.
--------------------
The musical diary now has an entry in which I witter on endlessly about the band Gomez without telling you properly what I think of their music. Enjoy.
Posts: 9687 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is a coincidence that can easily be broken by either side.
And the sooner we break it the better. I want that wall of separation to reach to the stars. The less the church and the state commingle, the better off it is for the church. Of course in the short run, if it's YOUR churchies who are making the rules, it seems to be in your favor. But that can't last. What we see now is the exact situation in which the people running things had a foot in each pie*, and are seeing that they might no longer be able to enforce their own religious rules through civil law. Oh noes! What they want is the privilege of keeping their religious fingers in the secular pie. When the Muslims do that they call it Sharia law and scream bloody murder. When they do it, it's just called business as usual.
____
*or something. it's late.
--------------------
Leontius, Hypatius, & Theodulus; and Osanna of Mantua
-- Saints of the Day (18 June) on The Onion Dome
Toffifay Is Too Good for Kids: a short short story
Posts: 53377 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Oh, and for the record re: "Cranmer's Law".
Godwin's Law states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
The reason "Cranmer's Law" is not remotely comparable to Godwin's Law is that there are very few actual Nazis. And Hitler comparisons are hyperbolic. On the other hand, there are a lot of conservative bigots.
I therefore propose Justinian's Corollary to Cranmer's Law: No matter how decent conservatives consider themselves to be, as an online discussion gets longer the probability that some conservative will reveal themselves to be a bigot approaches 1.
Cranmer's Law would only equate to Godwin's Law if goose-stepping and swastikas were encouraged by a significant proportion of the population rather than reviled by all.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3345 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My point to Marvin was to actually engage with what your opponents are saying rather than tilting at straw men.
Which I did, though you appear to have ignored it.
--------------------
Does the noise in my head bother you?
Posts: 24782 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
In reply to Orfeo. Yes, I think it's probably true from recent surveys that your side has a marginal advantage in terms of public approval. For many people there are no strong feelings about it. For significant minorities on both sides this is an issue which actually matters. I think the anti's probably have the advantage in these terms in terms of the numbers they can mobilise. Furthermore, opposition could just as easily grow as be gently squeezed out in the years-ahead. We could be looking at a 'culture war' at least as hostile and intractable as we see across the pond. In the US, at least there aren't the complications of an established church.
About the fickleness of government I'll make only one point that if there are any signs of electoral disadvantage to a government they'll find a way of kicking the proposal into touch.
Finally, you can't be expecting so-called 'social conservatives' to warm to your vision of a world in which we die off as mere inconveniences in the face of history's inexorable progress. I just don't think that's real life.
Posts: 3267 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Finally, you can't be expecting so-called 'social conservatives' to warm to your vision of a world in which we die off as mere inconveniences in the face of history's inexorable progress. I just don't think that's real life.
It's what's happened in the past. the abolition of slavery and women's lib are two examples that spring readily to mind - plenty objected at the time, but a generation of so down the line nobody seriously opposes them.
It will be the same with equal rights for homosexuals. We just have the bad luck to be the generation that has to live through the change.
--------------------
Does the noise in my head bother you?
Posts: 24782 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
For significant minorities on both sides this is an issue which actually matters.
For a significant minority on one side it actually matters for the way they live their life or for the way their friends and loved ones live their lives.
For the significant minority on the other side it matters because of some vague fears that it might for all we know have some unspecified effects on family make-up across society but which don't directly affect them.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 6792 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
2: I took your semi-coherent screed apart line by line. If you have nothing better thought out than that to add, yes I would prefer it if you did shut up.
Seriously, why the hostility?
quote:
Civility is long gone. Your side took it out behind the woodshed and shot it. The attempt to deny the relationships and loves of others is fundamentally uncivil. You just don't like it when people start firing back.
When did I deny relationships and loves to others? I don't have any desire to interfere with the private choices of others, nor do I have the power to do so. The dispute is over the public definition of marriage not the ability of gay couples to enter into relationships which are protected by law.
quote:
Equal is equal.
But the extension of civil marriage to homosexuals will not bring about equality. It will leave an even more glaring inequality within the institution of marriage itself because it will separate marriage into civil and religious and insulate the two from each other. That at any rate, is the way I see this playing out, based on the sort of things government ministers are saying about it.
quote:
The Quakers already marry gay couples.
No, they don't. (I don't know where you're from but not Quakers don't in Britain at any rate.)
quote:
I know that you want to undermine the institution of marriage. But as far as I know, no one is moving that a simultaneous religious and secular marriage should be seen as invalid. At least no one who isn't a conservative homophobe. Your argument here is pure projection.
Marriage is undermined by the very fact that it becomes an inevitably divided institution. It is not me who is pressing for this division.
And we have the confirmation of Cranmer's law again.
quote:
You, however, are directly opposing religious liberty. If the Quakers want to marry a gay couple you oppose that. If the Unitarians want to marry a gay couple you oppose that. You directly oppose the freedom of any religious organisation to disagree with you. And you have the nerve to claim to be arguing in favour of religious freedom.
That's one way of seeing things. I just don't think it's possible for same-sex couples to be 'married' no matter who does it. Even a law change won't do that.
Posts: 3267 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
But the extension of civil marriage to homosexuals will not bring about equality. It will leave an even more glaring inequality within the institution of marriage itself because it will separate marriage into civil and religious and insulate the two from each other.
No it won't.
Some religious people have a lot of catching up to do. But religious does not = anti gay, or anti gay marriage.
Thank God.
--------------------
365
Posts: 7943 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
There wasn't a whole load of honesty at the time from campaigners. Civil Partnerships were presented as full equality with an assurance that the nature of marriage wasn't changing in order to get the change through. Stonewall at that time didn't have 'marriage' equality in its sights. At least, Peter Tatchell has always been completely clear and honest about his campaigning aims (including the reduction of the age of consent to 14).
Exactly what evidence do you have for accusing the campaigners at the time of dishonesty?
Stonewall was criticised by other gay rights groups at the time for not seeking same-sex marriage. Less than two years ago Stonewall was still being criticised for not seeking same-sex marriage. There's no evidence that Stonewall was dishonest in not seeking same-sex marriage.
Maybe I have a nasty suspicious mind, but it appears to me that the purpose of your reference to Peter Tatchell was to disingenuously insinuate that all gay campaigning groups really want to lower the age of consent but only Tatchell is honest about it. Could you reassure me that your opinion is that only Tatchell actually wants to see that happen?
quote:
In my view, civil partnerships can be easily justified as different to marriage, in that equality needn't mean sameness.
1) Did you support the introductions at the time?
2) Have you changed your mind since then? If so why?
The Cardinal at least is honest in saying that he doesn't support civil partnerships as well.
For someone to say that people should be happy with civil partnerships rather then marriage when actually if they have their way people would not have civil partnerships either is at best disingenuous.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 6792 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My point to Marvin was to actually engage with what your opponents are saying rather than tilting at straw men.
Which I did, though you appear to have ignored it.
Sorry Marvin. I simply can't sustain the time and interest to respond to everything. As I've said I'm not discussing this under the illusion that I'll persuade anyone (I think we see things too differently) so I won't rehearse endlessly the arguments. I'm primarily interested in discussion on how this might all play out (which is why I've replied to Orfeo). I'm also only human and I can't resist responding to cantankerous and uncivil stuff.
Posts: 3267 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Finally, you can't be expecting so-called 'social conservatives' to warm to your vision of a world in which we die off as mere inconveniences in the face of history's inexorable progress. I just don't think that's real life.
I don't expect anyone to warm to it. I'm merely making an observation about reality. One generation is replaced with another with different attitudes. This has been going on for thousands of years, I don't see why it would stop now. It certainly won't stop for me as I see the ways in which 'Generation Y' people don't share my 'Generation X' values. For one thing, the little buggers are replacing real music albums with playlists that you download and shuffle.
--------------------
The musical diary now has an entry in which I witter on endlessly about the band Gomez without telling you properly what I think of their music. Enjoy.
Posts: 9687 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I'm primarily interested in discussion on how this might all play out
Well, I've said what I think about that as well ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
--------------------
Does the noise in my head bother you?
Posts: 24782 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
This whole thing is a bit boggling to me - probably because I live in one of those countries where religious and civil marriage are completely separate. The more I think about this, the more I believe it to be a Very Good Thing™.
The French State simply doesn't give a flying brief relationship who religious organisations marry or indeed refuse to marry - because the only marriage that counts in legal terms is the one that is carried out by the Mayor. I suppose if you really wanted to, you could have only a religious marriage and then go without the benefits that the State gives (tax breaks and the like) but I don't think anyone does. I think many religious people consider the civil wedding a hoop to be jumped through, with the religious wedding being the "real" one. Nonetheless, only the civil wedding has any legal value.
FWIW, the nearest French equivalent of a civil partnership, a pacte de solidarité or PACS* is available to both straight and gay couples. I have known straight people to get one because they are idealogically opposed to marriage but wanted some of the legal protections, for example ensuring that one partner wouldn't be left homeless if the other one died. Mariage (there are different régimes, AIUI according to whether the couple jointly own all their property or not) is only available to straight people, but I haven't heard anyone complaining about it.
Personally, I am conservative on homosexuality, but as long as churches are not being asked to carry out homosexual weddings against their will, what difference does it make to me? Homosexual couples are asking for their partnerships to be recognised in the eyes of the law, not in the eyes of religious institutions. Just because I or anyone else consider something immoral doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal. Example: adultery is not illegal. Before I get jumped on, I am not saying that adultery and homosexual are morally equivalent, but it is the most obvious example to me of something that many (most?) people consider immoral, but which is not banned by law.
Anyway, AFAIC, it's all evidence of the usefulness of separating civil and religious marriage. They aren't the same, nor do I think they should be.
*About a million years ago, Toujours Dan (I think) was asking why any two people couldn't get a marriage for legal advantage. When my housemate and I (we are both female and straight) were looking for an apartment, we had a running joke that we should get a PACS to make it easier (because landlords often prefer renting to a couple than to two housemates who are not romantically involved). We didn't do it for obvious reasons ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) but there would have been nothing stopping us. It is very, very unlikely that the State would have done any digging into the relationship between us.
--------------------
"Is she smooth or what? I mean, we are talking FRICTIONLESS BEARINGS here. If the beer here were that smooth, I'd be in the bar ALL DAY, dude, and I'm an AI construct, man!" - Demosthenes 0.9, brought to you by Eliab
Posts: 2450 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Exactly what evidence do you have for accusing the campaigners at the time of dishonesty?
There was an element of not wanting to scare the horses in the tactics employed at the time. It was a dishonest tactic.
quote:
Maybe I have a nasty suspicious mind, but it appears to me that the purpose of your reference to Peter Tatchell was to disingenuously insinuate that all gay campaigning groups really want to lower the age of consent but only Tatchell is honest about it. Could you reassure me that your opinion is that only Tatchell actually wants to see that happen?
No I don't think that Tatchell is the only one who wants to see the age of consent reduced to 14. I'd like to see more opposition to this suggestion. But you're right that it was a short-tempered cheap shot. I'm aware that though no community is perfect, there are a considerable range of views over such matters, and that the vast majority of homosexuals take issues of child protection very seriously. I'm sorry for the implication that they don't.
quote:
Did you support the introductions at the time?
2) Have you changed your mind since then? If so why?
I take a different view from the Cardinal. I don't see how there is any justice in the fact that two men or women who live together should be penalised on inheritance matters or should not be able to take key responsibilities for each other. At the time I supported the extension of civil partnership status to siblings etc who lived together. I've changed my mind on that. Though I would like to see other 'co-responsible' relationships given similar rights, I can see that the specific endorsement of civil partnerships for homosexuals has given many couples something important that a watered-down legal mechanism, wouldn't have given them.
I don't see it as a step towards marriage, but as an end in itself. But I do now understand it much more sympathetically as an equality which has been achieved for and by homosexuals after a hard struggle by many. In my view equality does not mean sameness - and the nature of marriage is such that it is orientated more towards procreation and the role of a mother and father in the rearing of children, than other relationships can possibly be.
Posts: 3267 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Justinian:
2: I took your semi-coherent screed apart line by line. If you have nothing better thought out than that to add, yes I would prefer it if you did shut up.
Seriously, why the hostility?[/quiote]
Because you are producing bald-faced lies.
quote:
When did I deny relationships and loves to others? I don't have any desire to interfere with the private choices of others, nor do I have the power to do so. The dispute is over the public definition of marriage not the ability of gay couples to enter into relationships which are protected by law.
And yet you claim this to be a "religious liberty" issue. You are denying that relationships and loves are equal.
quote:
But the extension of civil marriage to homosexuals will not bring about equality. It will leave an even more glaring inequality within the institution of marriage itself because it will separate marriage into civil and religious and insulate the two from each other.
Bald faced lie. If there is going to be a separation of marriage coming from this and an insulation it is because your side of the argument are going to try and take their ball and set fire to the field behind you.
Almost all straight secular people (and that's a category waaaay beyond actual atheists) aren't going to give a damn about whether gay marriages are legal. What matters is that they are married to the people they love.
Liberal Christians are also going to be perfectly happy with a marriage that is exactly the same as secular marriages. Believe it or not, most of the Christians I know believe in same sex marriage. (I'm well aware this isn't the same subset of the population you know).
So who is that going to leave with a split definition of marriage? Ah yes. The extreme Conservative Christians, flying their flag and flying it high. The people who are happy to be seen waving a banner saying "I want to declare my marriage to be exclusively religious because I don't want to share what I have with them."
The only inequality this will bring into marriage is between those happy to be married and those who don't want others to share what they have. And that can be ended by the individuals waving the "We don't want to share flag" putting the flag down - a world of difference from the current situation as the segragated group will be those who choose to segregate themselves rather than those forced into it.
quote:
That at any rate, is the way I see this playing out, based on the sort of things government ministers are saying about it.
[Citation Needed]
quote:
No, they don't. (I don't know where you're from but not Quakers don't in Britain at any rate.)
In Britain, a number of meetings of the Religious Society of Friends have celebrated Meeting for Commitment (i.e. a Quaker marriage service) for gay couples. You might know one that doesn't.
However what is unambiguously a matter of public record is that as of Britain Yearly Meeting 2009 "we are being led to treat same sex committed relationships in the same way as opposite sex marriages, reaffirming our central insight that marriage is the Lord’s work and we are but witnesses. The question of legal recognition by the state is secondary." The Religious Society of Friends is also lobbying as an organisation to legalise gay marriage rather than have the separate but equal of Civil Unions - further underlining the point that any difference between the two they see as the work of Man and something that should be changed.
Here I'm going with you being simply misinformed.
quote:
Marriage is undermined by the very fact that it becomes an inevitably divided institution. It is not me who is pressing for this division.
No it isn't. It's you who is trying to hold back the tide in your opposition to ending the division.
quote:
And we have the confirmation of Cranmer's law again.
Complete with the confirmation of Justinian's Corollary. Once more I repeat that Cranmer's Law would be comparable to Godwin's if and only if there were significant numbers of Nazis in the general population.
quote:
That's one way of seeing things. I just don't think it's possible for same-sex couples to be 'married' no matter who does it. Even a law change won't do that.
And here I'm calling woolly headed at best. Marriage is a legal institution. Not an exclusively religious one. What you think doesn't make the blindest bit of difference to whether my atheist friends are married but the law does.
Now if you mean "religiously married", as I've pointed out, the Religious Society of Friends disagrees - with you opposing their religious liberty.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3345 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
For many people there are no strong feelings about it. For significant minorities on both sides this is an issue which actually matters.
That's what I don't really get.
I understand that some people care deeply about whether or not they can claim to be legally married. That's easy. I care that my (hetereosexual) union is a legal marriage, so it's no great test of empathy to see that others feel the same.
What's strange to me is that people should care equally strongly that other people's legal unions can't (legally) be called marriages. They generally claim not to be homophobes. They claim not to mind that gay people can enjoy all the rights of civil partnerships. They mostly seem not to mind that the English word "marriage" (and marriage words like "husband" and "wife") are routinely used without qualification when discussing other cultures' polygamous or incestuous arrangements. I've yet to hear a conservative Christian object that Sarah wasn't "really" married to Abraham, for instance, and if they're prepared to use marriage words to describe a man fucking his sister they must admit to some flexibility in the definition. So why do they care so much?
I asked a non-Christian friend last night what he thought of the publicised clerical pronouncements on the subject. His comment was "I'd love to know what was number two on his ‘to do' list."
If you recognise (as you obviously do) that this issue matters deeply and personally to people who want to use the ordinary English word for a loving and commited life-partnership of their own relationships, if you see that this is important to them and essentially costs you nothing, what makes you care so much that you can be bothered to oppose it? Is it a case of taking a symbolic stand for God, or for ‘Christian values'? Or what? Why do you care?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 3182 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Exactly what evidence do you have for accusing the campaigners at the time of dishonesty?
There was an element of not wanting to scare the horses in the tactics employed at the time. It was a dishonest tactic.
I disagree on both points. As I recall it, it was a "What we can get".
And the "don't scare the horses" part was true. If gay marriage was such a catastrophe as the doomsayers were claiming then civil partnerships would demonstrate this. If gay marriage didn't turn out to be a bad thing then after seeing the effects of it people who were uncertain about change would stop opposing it.
quote:
No I don't think that Tatchell is the only one who wants to see the age of consent reduced to 14. I'd like to see more opposition to this suggestion.
If there were a serious possibility of Tatchell getting his way I'd be bothered enough to seriously oppose it. I can't be bothered to join the anti-kitten burning coalition. There's enough wrong with the world without worrying about never-will-bes.
quote:
In my view equality does not mean sameness - and the nature of marriage is such that it is orientated more towards procreation and the role of a mother and father in the rearing of children, than other relationships can possibly be.
Post-menopausal women never, of course, getting married.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3345 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
Justinian, I'm only going to deal with a factual thing in your post about the Quakers because there's no point for me in prolonging a discussion with someone who is labelling me a liar for merely taking a different view.
The Quakers in Britain do not marry gay couples. What would be the point in pressing for a change in the law if gay marriage were already permitted?
Posts: 3267 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Justinian, I'm only going to deal with a factual thing in your post about the Quakers because there's no point for me in prolonging a discussion with someone who is labelling me a liar for merely taking a different view.
The Quakers in Britain do not marry gay couples. What would be the point in pressing for a change in the law if gay marriage were already permitted?
I'm not proclaiming you a liar for taking a different view. I'm proclaiming you a liar because some of your arguments are lies. I have never proclaimed anyone a liar for saying that they do not believe that religious groups should be forced to marry couples they don't want to (I do however proclaim them irrelevant until the Roman Catholic Church is forced to marry divorcees).
As for whether the Quakers marry gay couples, you're in my opinion attempting to have and eat your cake. If what actually matters is the religious intent of marriage then they do marry gay couples. And I mean marry - it is not in any way separate theologically or by intent from any other marriage. If it's the legal part that's the important one then they don't.
But if the legal part is the only important one and the religious part is so much hokum then your argument falls apart in a shower of tiny screws. Gay marriage becomes marriage based on the law of the land rather than any sort of religious aspect. And at that point you will need to reverse your opposition to gay marriage. (Actually if you will the second it becomes legal I owe you an apology).
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3345 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I'd also add Reform and Reconstuctionalist Jews, some Buddhist groups and others to the religious groups who perform gay marriage ceremonies. They support the right of gay couples to get married because of, not in spite of, their religion.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3533 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The pastor must sign off on a state issued license for a church wedding. I would like to cut the church out completely. A pastor would not be a signatory on a state license.
No, a pastor can sign off on a state-issued license for a church wedding in the U.S. There's no legal necessity for him/her to do so, other than the legality of the marriage in the eyes of the state. Some denominations have taken the stand that they'll only perform marriages that are okay with Cæsar, but that's purely their own internal decision.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Equal is equal.
But the extension of civil marriage to homosexuals will not bring about equality. It will leave an even more glaring inequality within the institution of marriage itself because it will separate marriage into civil and religious and insulate the two from each other. That at any rate, is the way I see this playing out, based on the sort of things government ministers are saying about it.
This is already done. For example, try convincing the Roman Catholic Church that a remarried divorcée is really married to her second husband and not her first. You seem to find that separation of civil and religious marriage perfectly fine. (At least you haven't raised any objections the many times the disparity has been pointed out on this thread.) What you seem to be really objecting to is that civil marriage will no longer conform to your particular view of religious marriage. Exactly why your religious views should be privileged in law when others aren't hasn't been explained by you yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The Quakers in Britain do not marry gay couples. What would be the point in pressing for a change in the law if gay marriage were already permitted?
This is another example of the same thinking. In this case, where a religion takes a view you disagree with, you're perfectly happy to regard civil marriage and religious marriage as separate and distinct, yet I can see no overriding principle as to why you make this distinction here and not elsewhere other than your personal dislike of same-sex marriage.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 6736 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is already done. For example, try convincing the Roman Catholic Church that a remarried divorcée is really married to her second husband and not her first. You seem to find that separation of civil and religious marriage perfectly fine. (At least you haven't raised any objections the many times the disparity has been pointed out on this thread.)
I'm not a Roman Catholic so I won't speak for them, but my understanding is that they regard such marriages as valid but non-sacramental.
quote:
What you seem to be really objecting to is that civil marriage will no longer conform to your particular view of religious marriage. Exactly why your religious views should be privileged in law when others aren't hasn't been explained by you yet.
No what I'm objecting to is that the redefinition of marriage will no longer conform to anything that was previously understood culturally, historically and theologically by marriage. How is it asking for privilege to argue against same sex marriage?
quote:
This is another example of the same thinking. In this case, where a religion takes a view you disagree with, you're perfectly happy to regard civil marriage and religious marriage as separate and distinct, yet I can see no overriding principle as to why you make this distinction here and not elsewhere other than your personal dislike of same-sex marriage.
No this is a purely factual thing. The Quakers are themselves campaigning for gay marriage because there isn't such a thing at the moment. Just because they choose to think of something as equivalent to marriage doesn't make it so.
And there is also the matter of context here. In Britain there aren't two categories of marriage - there is one institution and there is civil registration and religious registration of marriage. In the CoE as has been pointed out clergy act as registrars. I don't want to see civil and religious marriage made distinct but that is what the UK government is almost certain to be proposing after their consultation. They may allow some denominations and faiths to opt in to same-sex marriage, or they may decide the least controversial thing to do is to separate religious and civil marriage as far as same-sex couples are concerned.
Posts: 3267 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
What you seem to be really objecting to is that civil marriage will no longer conform to your particular view of religious marriage. Exactly why your religious views should be privileged in law when others aren't hasn't been explained by you yet.
No what I'm objecting to is that the redefinition of marriage will no longer conform to anything that was previously understood culturally, historically and theologically by marriage. How is it asking for privilege to argue against same sex marriage?
It's asking for privilege to do so on the grounds that the state's understanding of marriage doesn't fit with your religion's teaching on marriage, especially if the same consideration is not given to anyone else's religious teaching.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
This is another example of the same thinking. In this case, where a religion takes a view you disagree with, you're perfectly happy to regard civil marriage and religious marriage as separate and distinct, yet I can see no overriding principle as to why you make this distinction here and not elsewhere other than your personal dislike of same-sex marriage.
No this is a purely factual thing. The Quakers are themselves campaigning for gay marriage because there isn't such a thing at the moment. Just because they choose to think of something as equivalent to marriage doesn't make it so.
And there is also the matter of context here. In Britain there aren't two categories of marriage - there is one institution and there is civil registration and [Anglican] registration of marriage. In the CoE as has been pointed out clergy act as registrars. I don't want to see civil and [Anglican] marriage made distinct but that is what the UK government is almost certain to be proposing after their consultation. They may allow some denominations and faiths to opt in to same-sex marriage, or they may decide the least controversial thing to do is to separate religious and civil marriage as far as same-sex couples are concerned.
I fixed your post for you. As far as I can tell, you're not really worried about civil and religious marriage being made distinct, just civil marriage and one particular religion's (C of E) marriage being made distinct. Having civil marriage not match up with Roman Catholicism or the teachings of the Quakers doesn't seem to bother you much. This only makes sense if you consider faiths other than the Church of England to not really be religions. And while you may not consider that to be demanding privilege, it certainly looks that way to outsiders.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 6736 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
And there is also the matter of context here. In Britain there aren't two categories of marriage - there is one institution and there is civil registration and religious registration of marriage.
This is simply wrong. There are two categories of marriage; marriages and Civil Unions. You are arguing against the making of the two categories of marriage into one category of marriage.
quote:
In the CoE as has been pointed out clergy act as registrars.
So?
quote:
I don't want to see civil and religious marriage made distinct but that is what the UK government is almost certain to be proposing after their consultation.
No they aren't. They are, if they decide the right way, going to end up with one form of marriage. Marriage. Rather than two.
Your "Religious" marriage is an attempt to claim privilege at the expense of religious liberty. You are not talking about "religious marriage". You are talking about "Conservative Religious Marriage that is not like their marriage" and hoping no one notices. Or possibly you haven't noticed. I don't know which and I don't much care. Either way please stop confusing "Religious" and "Conservative Christian".
quote:
They may allow some denominations and faiths to opt in to same-sex marriage, or they may decide the least controversial thing to do is to separate religious and civil marriage as far as same-sex couples are concerned.
Or they may do the sensible thing. Reduce two categories of marriage to one category of marriage. And then allow different religions to marry people who they want to. Which is what happens now - no one will make specific churches marry gay couples any more than we currently force the Roman Catholic Church to marry divorcees.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3345 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Tony has PC problems and I am taking a tea break from work - this thread has put on a lot of posts which will take me time to read through carefully which I can't do till later when I get home, but I can already see, Justinian, that some of your posts are getting personal to Spawn. You know where the Hell board is. Please step further away from the 'getting personal' line or take it to Hell.
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6136 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's asking for privilege to do so on the grounds that the state's understanding of marriage doesn't fit with your religion's teaching on marriage, especially if the same consideration is not given to anyone else's religious teaching.
No this is nonsense unless it is considered to be seeking privilege for any view to prevail in the public sphere. You cannot seek to uniquely disqualify religious voices by crying 'foul' in this way and on such specious grounds.
quote:
I fixed your post for you.
No you didn't fix it, you altered my views. It's absurd to expect religious believers to entirely agree with each other, or to speak on behalf of each other. And then to go on to suggest that just because I've declined to do so I don't consider them to be religions. Total nonsense.
quote:
And while you may not consider that to be demanding privilege, it certainly looks that way to outsiders.
Such outsiders would have to be extraordinarily obtuse to see it that way.
Posts: 3267 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
This is simply wrong. There are two categories of marriage; marriages and Civil Unions. You are arguing against the making of the two categories of marriage into one category of marriage.
I'm assuming that you're not British. Let me explain, there aren't civil unions there are civil partnerships. These are not understood in legal terms to be marriage. A consultation will shortly be launched by the British government on how to legislate for same-sex marriage. I'm not sure that I can make it any clearer than that.
[ 07. March 2012, 20:17: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posts: 3267 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Justinian, I'm only going to deal with a factual thing in your post about the Quakers because there's no point for me in prolonging a discussion with someone who is labelling me a liar for merely taking a different view.
The Quakers in Britain do not marry gay couples. What would be the point in pressing for a change in the law if gay marriage were already permitted?
This involves you insisting that religious marriage and civil marriage are one and the same thing. The entire point is that just because your version of religious marriage lines up, other versions of religious marriage don't. The Quaker's version doesn't. Why does your version get special status of the Quaker's version?
--------------------
The musical diary now has an entry in which I witter on endlessly about the band Gomez without telling you properly what I think of their music. Enjoy.
Posts: 9687 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's asking for privilege to do so on the grounds that the state's understanding of marriage doesn't fit with your religion's teaching on marriage, especially if the same consideration is not given to anyone else's religious teaching.
No this is nonsense unless it is considered to be seeking privilege for any view to prevail in the public sphere. You cannot seek to uniquely disqualify religious voices by crying 'foul' in this way and on such specious grounds.
Your response seems off point. Remember, your objection was to separating the religious and civil aspects of marriage. If that's the case it's a double standard to claim that the Quaker or Roman Catholic (or other) standards on what constitutes a valid marriage shouldn't be considered a valid basis for civil marriages.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
I fixed your post for you.
No you didn't fix it, you altered my views. It's absurd to expect religious believers to entirely agree with each other, or to speak on behalf of each other. And then to go on to suggest that just because I've declined to do so I don't consider them to be religions. Total nonsense.
I'm not suggesting they agree, I'm just making the rather obvious point that if, as you contend, civil and religious marriage are one and the same in the UK, then there are religions which consider same-sex marriage valid. As such, same-sex marriage should also be valid under civil law. Since this does not seem to be the case, we are forced to conclude that civil and religious marriage are actually separate things in the UK.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 6736 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This involves you insisting that religious marriage and civil marriage are one and the same thing.
Well they are at the moment. There is no difference in the way the law understands them.
quote:
The entire point is that just because your version of religious marriage lines up, other versions of religious marriage don't.
The Quaker's version doesn't. Why does your version get special status of the Quaker's version?
I'm really not sure what you're saying here. It seems to be a version of what Croesus has been arguing, that because other Christians differ from my position I am somehow in receipt of a privilege or status by the very fact of arguing my own viewpoint. Quakers have a right to speak for themselves.
[ 07. March 2012, 21:28: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posts: 3267 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This involves you insisting that religious marriage and civil marriage are one and the same thing.
Well they are at the moment. There is no difference in the way the law understands them.
quote:
The entire point is that just because your version of religious marriage lines up, other versions of religious marriage don't.
The Quaker's version doesn't. Why does your version get special status of the Quaker's version?
I'm really not sure what you're saying here. Igt seems to be a version of Croesus that because other Christians differ from my position I am somehow in receipt of a privilege or status by the very fact of arguing my own viewpoint. Quakers have a right to speak for themselves.
1. No difference as long as you're not a Quaker.
2. No, you're not in a position of privilege by arguing your view point. But what you are arguing for is that the secular law ought to align with your religious understanding of marriage, and not with someone else's religious understanding of marriage. It's not possible for the secular law to simply be the same as THE religious understanding of marriage, simply because there is not a single 'religious understanding'.
--------------------
The musical diary now has an entry in which I witter on endlessly about the band Gomez without telling you properly what I think of their music. Enjoy.
Posts: 9687 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS Essentially what Croesos and I are saying to you is that the only reason you think secular and religious marriage are one and the same is beacuse currently there isn't a split in meaning between the law and YOUR version of religious marriage.
Other people, with different religious understandings of marriage, already notice the split. You don't currently notice the split because it doesn't affect you. You'll notice the split if the law changes, but your mistake is in thinking that that would be the first time the split between religious and secular meanings exists.
--------------------
The musical diary now has an entry in which I witter on endlessly about the band Gomez without telling you properly what I think of their music. Enjoy.
Posts: 9687 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
