How would you define Marriage?

[EdwardTking]

(1) For the english speaking world, marriage used to mean:

"an exclusive contract of union entered into by a man and a
woman that only terminates on the death of one party"

This meaning is still followed by he Pope and conforming Roman catholics.


However divorce laws changed that for most.

(2) For the great majority of the english speaking world,
marriage currently means:

"an exclusive contract of union entered into by a man and a
woman that only terminates by divorce on the death of one party"



(3) The homosexual lobby wants marriage to mean:

"an exclusive contract of union entered into by two adults
that only terminates by divorce on the death of one party"


(4) For the islamic world marriage means:

"an exclusive contract of union entered into by a man and up to
four women that only terminates on the death of a party"


(5) So premumably for homosexual islamics, marriage would mean:

"an exclusive contract of union entered into by up to five adults
of the same sex that only terminates by divorce on the death of one party"


(6) And presunmably for bisexual islamics, marriage should mean

"an exclusive contract of union entered into by up to five adults
of either sex that only terminates by divorce on the death of one party"


(7) For PETA and other such.....

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

The way I understand the argument, influencing the government to recognize a marriage that certain churches won't is somehow forcing one's views upon those churches.

Not at all. The goverment telling the churches who they must allow to marry is what I don't want. If the goverment themselves want to issue civil marriage licences that allows couples to be legaly married that's fine.

I'm of the view that if the government is in the licensing business on this one, it shouldn't be swayed by narrow definitions put forth by organizations that don't even pay taxes. Neither should it force an organization to conduct ceremonies recognizing the licensed relationship. Perhaps an organization that wishes to discriminate should merely pay for a license to discriminate to offset the Justice of the Peace costs that their discrimination could lead to.

I don't agree that a church refusing to marry homosexuals are dicriminating against them. They simply don't fill the criteria to be allowed that service. You might aswell say that I'm discriminating when I don't invite a random hungry person into my house for dinner and instead inviting only persons I know and trust.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm mostly interested in the couple loving each other enough to stick around for their lifetimes.

 

[scherbchen]

Why do you all focus so much on the Christian belief system? Hindus have marriages as well, so do Muslims and I believe just about any faith. Then there are inter-religious marriages. It seems no matter what your faith (or lack thereof) is that marriage is a fundamental part of human life, building and maintaining a family. Religion and State are also there to facilitate (heh) and structure life.

As has been said, the way we live our lifes is ever-evolving and state and religion have to constantly catch up with these changes. As institutions these are by definition always several steps behind and as a rule do not like change.

It is a reality that same-sex couples live in family-like relations today. It is backwards, yet sadly natural due to the slow-moving nature of the institutions that set these regulations, that these couples do not receive the same (legal) rights as "regular" couples.

As far as religious acceptance of these unions/marriages go... Religions are way more advert to change than governments, so this is a long, long way away. Heck, condoms for Africa, anybody? The above mentioned right of divorcees to re-marry? But with this issue I can't really be bothered, I am straight and an atheist. Gay couples who want their families to be recognised by their respective churches (I'm sure there are some, although re-marrying is probably a more important topic) should really make that argument. The seperation of state and church makes this (right to marry a member of your sex) a no-issue imho anyways.

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't agree that a church refusing to marry homosexuals are dicriminating against them. They simply don't fill the criteria to be allowed that service. You might aswell say that I'm discriminating when I don't invite a random hungry person into my house for dinner and instead inviting only persons I know and trust.

You are discriminating, but you have that right. A church is more like a business open to the public (except the tax-free part). I am offering them an option that most places open to the public do not enjoy . . . the right to discriminate based on gender in an offered service . . . all they have to do is pay for a license to discriminate.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hmmn, I disagree. But my disagreement is a Canadian one, where we might treat our churches differently.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

You are discriminating, but you have that right. A church is more like a business open to the public (except the tax-free part). I am offering them an option that most places open to the public do not enjoy . . . the right to discriminate based on gender in an offered service . . . all they have to do is pay for a license to discriminate.

That's absurd, either it's ok or it's not, money shouldn't allow you to be above the law.

Maybe you're joking about this license? Should trains and airtransport companies also have to aquire such a license to be able to allow children to travel at half the price of an adult? It's age-discrimination after all. And should banks have to aquire one to be allowed to offer better interest-rates to those who deposit more money since that's discriminating to the poor?

A church as an organization should have full rights to decide for themselves who they allow membership and who can utilize their services. Church marriage is not marketed as a universally offered service any more than the dinner at my place I mentioned earlier.

 

[JollyRoger]

That's absurd, either it's ok or it's not, money shouldn't allow you to be above the law.

Maybe you're joking about this license? Should trains and airtransport companies also have to aquire such a license to be able to allow children to travel at half the price of an adult? It's age-discrimination after all. And should banks have to aquire one to be allowed to offer better interest-rates to those who deposit more money since that's discriminating to the poor?.

You are mentioning price discrimination. Notice that children and adults are still allowed to travel (not banned) and banks aren't making a decision based on the traditional categories (race, gender, religion, orientation). Both banks and transportation companies have significant licensing requirements. In addition top general discrimination laws, they have to follow additional ones to satsify their particualr government regulators.

A church as an organization should have full rights to decide for themselves who they allow membership and who can utilize their services. Church marriage is not marketed as a universally offered service any more than the dinner at my place I mentioned earlier.

Do you go out and try to tell people about the eternal benefits about dining at your place? Isn't salvation, a core part of a Church's business model, promoted as being universally available?

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

You are mentioning price discrimination. Notice that children and adults are still allowed to travel (not banned) and banks aren't making a decision based on the traditional categories (race, gender, religion, orientation). Both banks and transportation companies have significant licensing requirements. In addition top general discrimination laws, they have to follow additional ones to satsify their particualr government regulators.

So your license is not required for discrimination due to age or finiancial situation but only for what you call the traditional categories? It's still ridiculous. An "If you got the money the laws doesn't apply to you".

And I'm sure homosexuals are allowed to enter churches just like anyone else. As you say they are open to the public. They just don't meet the criteria for some of the services.

Do you go out and try to tell people about the eternal benefits about dining at your place? Isn't salvation, a core part of a Church's business model, promoted as being universally available?

If I did would I then be required to open my door and offer food to anyone seeking these eternal benefits?!

And as far as I know salvation requires adherance to church codex, by which homosexuality is described as not acceptable. Not universally available then, but only universally attainable.

 

[JollyRoger]

So your license is not required for discrimination due to age or finiancial situation but only for what you call the traditional categories? It's still ridiculous. An "If you got the money the laws doesn't apply to you".

And I'm sure homosexuals are allowed to enter churches just like anyone else. As you say they are open to the public. They just don't meet the criteria for some of the services.

A diner can't deny a black man a meal and claim it is not discriminating because it let him in the door.

If I did would I then be required to open my door and offer food to anyone seeking these eternal benefits?!

Probably not. Your home is private where a church is not.

And as far as I know salvation requires adherance to church codex, by which homosexuality is described as not acceptable. Not universally available then, but only universally attainable.

Churches are pretty open about attempting such attainment, thus making them open to the public. If they are open to the public, I think you should start with the proposition that the same discrimination laws apply to them as other places open to the public. I am being very generous in giving them a loophole to buy their way out of the default status. Maybe you are right that they should not be able to buy their way out. Perhaps they should be subject to the same discrimination regulations and same taxes as every other business open to the public.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

A diner can't deny a black man a meal and claim it is not discriminating because it let him in the door.

No, but they can deny him the 5€ off and free funny hat if he doesn't have the company bonus card which allows them to monitor and log his purchases.

Probably not. Your home is private where a church is not.

That's a relief, at least.

Churches are pretty open about attempting such attainment, thus making them open to the public. If they are open to the public, I think you should start with the proposition that the same discrimination laws apply to them as other places open to the public. I am being very generous in giving them a loophole to buy their way out of the default status. Maybe you are right that they should not be able to buy their way out. Perhaps they should be subject to the same discrimination regulations and same taxes as every other business open to the public.

Church attendance may be open to the public, I don't think there is any false marketing going on about who is allowed to marry. An organization can offer both universal services and selective ones simultaniously; that Mercedes runs a charity soup-kitchen doesn't mean that their cars are also free.

The problem seem to be that you consider church marriage a universal right that is advertised as such by the church. It is not. The situation imo is similiar to that of grants directed specifically to students of a certain background, ethnicity or chosen future profession. An "If you are a Christian, according to our definition of a Christian, we offer you this service". Church marriage is not a basic public service being denied because of sexual orientation, it's an "extra" offered to those who meet the expectations of the organization which grants them.

 

[warpus]

Not at all. The goverment telling the churches who they must allow to marry is what I don't want. If the goverment themselves want to issue civil marriage licences that allows couples to be legaly married that's fine.

Seems to me like everyone but those who are against homosexual marriage would be happy with that.

Why do you all focus so much on the Christian belief system? Hindus have marriages as well, so do Muslims and I believe just about any faith. Then there are inter-religious marriages. It seems no matter what your faith (or lack thereof) is that marriage is a fundamental part of human life, building and maintaining a family. Religion and State are also there to facilitate (heh) and structure life.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[JollyRoger]

The problem seem to be that you consider church marriage a universal right that is advertised as such by the church. It is not. The situation imo is similiar to that of grants directed specifically to students of a certain background, ethnicity or chosen future profession. An "If you are a Christian, according to our definition of a Christian, we offer you this service". Church marriage is not a basic public service being denied because of sexual orientation, it's an "extra" offered to those who meet the expectations of the organization which grants them.

I'm not saying anything about a universal right - I'm talking about churches being treated like any other business open to the public. If they choose to offer a service, there are certain categories of discrimination that should, by default, subject the churches to the same level of regulation as other businesses. Why complain about how others are trying to make themselves special for wanting to get married, when you want not only for marriage to be available to only a select few, but also want the businesses that offer marriage services to receive special treatment in regards to the discrimination laws?

They may feel free to not offer a discount on the use of their building to a gay couple without a coupon - just like the diner - but as a default rule - they should be required to not discriminate. However, to appease the pro-discrimination crowd when it comes to churches, a reasonable compromise from the default would be to let them opt out if they pay for an opt-out license.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

I'm not saying anything about a universal right - I'm talking about churches being treated like any other business open to the public. If they choose to offer a service, there are certain categories of discrimination that should, by default, subject the churches to the same level of regulation as other businesses.

But by making churches hold gay marriages you are making drastic changes to the very service they are offering. You are in fact forcing them to offer a service they have never advertised. Marriage to them is per absolute definition between a man and a woman. It would make more sense to ban that service as a whole because of it being inherantly discriminatory.

Why complain about how others are trying to make themselves special for wanting to get married, when you want not only for marriage to be available to only a select few, but also want the businesses that offer marriage services to receive special treatment in regards to the discrimination laws?

Almost everything of the above is false. I have never complained about this, neither have I said that not all should be allowed to marry. I am however supporting the churches right to retain their millenia-old definition of what constitutes a marriage and not be forced to change it because of political correctness.

Again if some churches decide to extend this service to gay couples, or if the goverment issues civil marriages on its own I have no problem with this.

They may feel free to not offer a discount on the use of their building to a gay couple without a coupon - just like the diner - but as a default rule - they should be required to not discriminate.

How about they may feel free not to offer the use of staff or property to purposes which are in complete disagreement with their policy.

The discount is the marriage in this case. To qualify for it you need to conform to church teachings.

However, to appease the pro-discrimination crowd when it comes to churches, a reasonable compromise from the default would be to let them opt out if they pay for an opt-out license.

How the hell does this help those you perceive as being discriminated against? All you're doing is making it OK to treat people badly as long as you pay the goverment money to do so. This is without doubt the most idiotic concept I've heard about for a long time, that you actually work with law makes it ten times worse.

Hopefully you re-read this thread tomorrow and wonder what the heck you were thinking.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Marriage is when you are so sure that you will be with the same person for the rest of your life that you're willing to bet half your stuff on it.

 

[JollyRoger]

But by making churches hold gay marriages you are making drastic changes to the very service they are offering. You are in fact forcing them to offer a service they have never advertised. Marriage to them is per absolute definition between a man and a woman. It would make more sense to ban that service as a whole because of it being inherantly discriminatory.

My option would let them self-select to ban it as a whole.

Almost everything of the above is false. I have never complained about this, neither have I said that not all should be allowed to marry. I am however supporting the churches right to retain their millenia-old definition of what constitutes a marriage and not be forced to change it because of political correctness.

If you are saying they shpouldn't have exclusive use of the term, we agree.

Again if some churches decide to extend this service to gay couples, or if the goverment issues civil marriages on its own I have no problem with this.

My plan leaves these options open.

How about they may feel free not to offer the use of staff or property to purposes which are in complete disagreement with their policy.

Like the diners that used to not serve blacks.

The discount is the marriage in this case. To qualify for it you need to conform to church teachings.

The service is marriage. To qualify, you have to get past the dicrimination of the servoce provider.

How the hell does this help those you perceive as being discriminated against? All you're doing is making it OK to treat people badly as long as you pay the goverment money to do so. This is without doubt the most idiotic concept I've heard about for a long time, that you actually work with law makes it ten times worse.

So, if the goal is to end discrimination, then you propose that Church's don't discriminate at all? Or that they should be allowed to discriminate without consequences? I'm offering a compromise - setting the default at non-discrimination instead of discrimination. Since we are dealing with religious beliefs, if people feel strongly enough about them to feel the need to discriminate, giving up some earthly treasure shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Hopefully you re-read this thread tomorrow and wonder what the heck you were thinking.

I'll probably think it was crazy to let churches off the hook so easy.