Opinion On Same-Sex Marriage

[Jedi Council]

Marriage predated Christianity by thousands of years, I'm not sure why the religious feel the need to claim it as though it was some divinely inspired union.

Is that a question?

No, it was an observation.

[Novus America]

Marriage predated Christianity by thousands of years, I'm not sure why the religious feel the need to claim it as though it was some divinely inspired union.

Is that a question?

If civil marriage predates Christianity, and thus was different than Christian Marriage how does civil marriage harm or cheapen Christian Marriage? Why not have them be separate things?

Ironically it is trying to combine the two that “cheapens” one or the other, but trying to combine things with different purposes.

[Jedi Council]

Is that a question?

If civil marriage predates Christianity, and thus was different than Christian Marriage how does civil marriage harm or cheapen Christian Marriage? Why not have them be separate things?

Ironically it is trying to combine the two that “cheapens” one or the other, but trying to combine things with different purposes.

Because it would undermine the power and authority of the Church.

[Novus America]

If civil marriage predates Christianity, and thus was different than Christian Marriage how does civil marriage harm or cheapen Christian Marriage? Why not have them be separate things?

Ironically it is trying to combine the two that “cheapens” one or the other, but trying to combine things with different purposes.

Because it would undermine the power and authority of the Church.

Well here is the irony. The more a church gets involved in the legal process, the less religious and the more corrupt and political the church gets. By becoming one with the government the church just becomes a government, with all the problems and contradictions that produces.

Does the church want religious purity? Or power? Because ironically it cannot have both. The two are mutually exclusive.

Obviously the churches of the early modern period were often violent, oppressive and corrupt. Because they could not keep both power and their claims to be more interested in spiritual development rather than worldly wealth and power.

Hence we decided to separate the two. As it fixed a lot of problems.

[Jedi Council]

Because it would undermine the power and authority of the Church.

Well here is the irony. The more a church gets involved in the legal process, the less religious and the more corrupt and political the church gets. By becoming one with the government the church just becomes a government, with all the problems and contradictions that produces.

Does the church want religious purity? Or power? Because ironically it cannot have both. The two are mutually exclusive.

Obviously the churches of the early modern period were often violent, oppressive and corrupt. Because they could not keep both power and their claims to be more interested in spiritual development rather than worldly wealth and power.

Hence we decided to separate the two. As it fixed a lot of problems.

I would say most large Churches, especially the Catholic Church, are far more interested in temporal power rather than the actual purity of their faith, no matter what they might tell themselves.

[Novus America]

Well here is the irony. The more a church gets involved in the legal process, the less religious and the more corrupt and political the church gets. By becoming one with the government the church just becomes a government, with all the problems and contradictions that produces.

Does the church want religious purity? Or power? Because ironically it cannot have both. The two are mutually exclusive.

Obviously the churches of the early modern period were often violent, oppressive and corrupt. Because they could not keep both power and their claims to be more interested in spiritual development rather than worldly wealth and power.

Hence we decided to separate the two. As it fixed a lot of problems.

I would say most large Churches, especially the Catholic Church, are far more interested in temporal power rather than the actual purity of their faith, no matter what they might tell themselves.

Maybe that is the case, after all the are made up of humans, and humans get greedy, but still it is short sighted. After all when the churches had the most temporal power, they disgraced themselves so badly they weakened themselves long term.
The Puritans for example basically imploded and ceased to exist because their greed for power destroyed their image.

The irony here is the churches actually harm themselves as religious institutions when they become governmental ones.

[Kannap]

I’m not understanding how it’s a mockery.

I wouldn't call it a mockery but I do get where he is coming from. Marriage is indeed an institution that lost most if not all of its purpose for being and now exists basically as a way to get tax cuts and other benefits.

Yeah but we've outgrown the need for marriages for diplomacy purposes, so what's left?

[Kannap]

I’m not understanding how it’s a mockery.

Well, the sacrament of marriage is between a man and woman, it's lifelong, and supposed to be open to the prospect of procreation. This is the standard of God.

We're failing to meet it; we've failed to meet it for so long.

You mean the institution of marriage that predates Christianity in a world where there are a lot of people who aren't Christian?

[Novus America]

I wouldn't call it a mockery but I do get where he is coming from. Marriage is indeed an institution that lost most if not all of its purpose for being and now exists basically as a way to get tax cuts and other benefits.

Yeah but we've outgrown the need for marriages for diplomacy purposes, so what's left?

For governmentally recognized marriages and legal recognition? Nothing, because they were always more about the legal implications and benefits over any esoteric things like love and faith.

Baptism is a sacrament, yet the government does not recognize it. Why would it? What difference should it make? The validity or lack thereof from a religious standpoint of it does not change if the government recognizes it or not.

Government recognition of marriage has always been in reality about the legal benefits, that has not changed, and will not change.

So I see no reason sky the governmental and religious aspects cannot be different.

[Kannap]

Is that a question?

If civil marriage predates Christianity, and thus was different than Christian Marriage how does civil marriage harm or cheapen Christian Marriage? Why not have them be separate things?

Ironically it is trying to combine the two that “cheapens” one or the other, but trying to combine things with different purposes.

Maybe he's complaining about Christians wedding same sex couples? I know whenever I get married, I'd like my pastor to be the officiant.

[Kannap]

Yeah but we've outgrown the need for marriages for diplomacy purposes, so what's left?

For governmentally recognized marriages and legal recognition? Nothing, because they were always more about the legal implications and benefits over any esoteric things like love and faith.

Baptism is a sacrament, yet the government does not recognize it. Why would it? What difference should it make? The validity or lack thereof from a religious standpoint of it does not change if the government recognizes it or not.

Government recognition of marriage has always been in reality about the legal benefits, that has not changed, and will not change.

So I see no reason sky the governmental and religious aspects cannot be different.

Separation of church and state, innit?

[Thermodolia]

Yeah but we've outgrown the need for marriages for diplomacy purposes, so what's left?

For governmentally recognized marriages and legal recognition? Nothing, because they were always more about the legal implications and benefits over any esoteric things like love and faith.

Baptism is a sacrament, yet the government does not recognize it. Why would it? What difference should it make? The validity or lack thereof from a religious standpoint of it does not change if the government recognizes it or not.

Government recognition of marriage has always been in reality about the legal benefits, that has not changed, and will not change.

So I see no reason sky the governmental and religious aspects cannot be different.

This is why I advocate for splitting the governmental from the religious when it comes to marriage. Basically anyone could get “married” in a church or any other religious institution but they’d have to go to the court to make it official in the eyes of the government.

So while a religion might say that two people are married, if they don’t go to the courthouse the government views them as single

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Is that a question?

No, it was an observation.

Pfft, what would a Jedi know about marriage?

[Novus America]

If civil marriage predates Christianity, and thus was different than Christian Marriage how does civil marriage harm or cheapen Christian Marriage? Why not have them be separate things?

Ironically it is trying to combine the two that “cheapens” one or the other, but trying to combine things with different purposes.

Maybe he's complaining about Christians wedding same sex couples? I know whenever I get married, I'd like my pastor to be the officiant.

I mean I do not see why it is important that the guy who signs the government paper be the same as the guy who is your pastor. If you had the government do the paperwork and recognize you one week, and the religious ceremony a month later, what difference does it make really?

Sure you want your pastor to do the religious ceremony perhaps. But why does the paperwork have to be done at the same time?

Besides even if you do have him sign the paperwork you will not actually get the government to recognize benefits until later, after you filed it. Which takes time.

But I guess one can maybe make a legitimate argument the the most liberal churches have abandoned church doctrine and history but that is not a matter the government should be involved in. Do not like the teachings of a church, do not join that church.

[Novus America]

For governmentally recognized marriages and legal recognition? Nothing, because they were always more about the legal implications and benefits over any esoteric things like love and faith.

Baptism is a sacrament, yet the government does not recognize it. Why would it? What difference should it make? The validity or lack thereof from a religious standpoint of it does not change if the government recognizes it or not.

Government recognition of marriage has always been in reality about the legal benefits, that has not changed, and will not change.

So I see no reason sky the governmental and religious aspects cannot be different.

This is why I advocate for splitting the governmental from the religious when it comes to marriage. Basically anyone could get “married” in a church or any other religious institution but they’d have to go to the court to make it official in the eyes of the government.

So while a religion might say that two people are married, if they don’t go to the courthouse the government views them as single

Although this is really the way it works in reality. If you religion says you are married and you have not done the paperwork the government does not really care what your religion says, you are not getting the benefits (with the exception of common law marriage, but that could happen even without the ceremony).
You still have to get the paperwork from the court house or other government office, pay, sign it. Then you can either have a judge sign it, or someone else, but if you have someone else you have to mail it back to the government anyways.

I agree although I really see nothing wrong with the status quo, I do not see why marriage is a political issue.
I mean right now you can get a religious marriage with no governmental recognition, a civil marriage with no religious recognition. You can do them at the same time, (kind of only in that the person signings one line is the same) this is not necessary.

I do not see why we need political fights over something that is a non-issue for most people.

[Purpelia]

I wouldn't call it a mockery but I do get where he is coming from. Marriage is indeed an institution that lost most if not all of its purpose for being and now exists basically as a way to get tax cuts and other benefits.

Yeah but we've outgrown the need for marriages for diplomacy purposes, so what's left?

Nothing really. I mean, fundamentally the roles of marriage were:

• To create an alliance between families and foster forced cooperation. Important irregardless of if you are a king or a peasant who needs more hands to help with the harvest. In fact, arguably far more important if you are poor. This we have, as you said outgrown.
• To create an unbreakable alliance between individuals which forces your spouse (on pain of death in some societies) to stay with you in good times and bad. Thus creating a safety net for both individuals and their offspring. This we have abandoned by allowing divorces.
• A fornication license from your community by way of god. We have abandoned this as well. Thankfully.
• A complicated ritual involving the exchange of goods and services that serves as a means of ensuring both families can have a say in choosing the mate for their offspring. This is gone as well.

There is probably more to the list that I forgot as these are just some of the examples. But bottom line is that in the modern day and age of godlessness, legal divorces and free sex marriage is a relic of the past. It serves no practical purpose and as and it can not serve a purpose because it lost all the power it had the moment we allowed people to opt out at will.

[Novus America]

Yeah but we've outgrown the need for marriages for diplomacy purposes, so what's left?

Nothing really. I mean, fundamentally the roles of marriage were:

• To create an alliance between families and foster forced cooperation. Important irregardless of if you are a king or a peasant who needs more hands to help with the harvest. In fact, arguably far more important if you are poor. This we have, as you said outgrown.
• To create an unbreakable alliance between individuals which forces your spouse (on pain of death in some societies) to stay with you in good times and bad. Thus creating a safety net for both individuals and their offspring. This we have abandoned by allowing divorces.
• A fornication license from your community by way of god. We have abandoned this as well. Thankfully.
• A complicated ritual involving the exchange of goods and services that serves as a means of ensuring both families can have a say in choosing the mate for their offspring. This is gone as well.

There is probably more to the list that I forgot as these are just some of the examples. But bottom line is that in the modern day and age of godlessness, legal divorces and free sex marriage is a relic of the past. It serves no practical purpose and as and it can not serve a purpose because it lost all the power it had the moment we allowed people to opt out at will.

But it still serves a purpose. Such as visitation right, distribution of property if you die, joint property, tax differences, etc.
Sure the purpose has changed, as we now have outside safety nets and no longer use it to build tribal alliances as much.

But civil marriages do still have practical benefits.

[Punished UMN]

Yeah but we've outgrown the need for marriages for diplomacy purposes, so what's left?

Nothing really. I mean, fundamentally the roles of marriage were:
[list]
[*]To create an alliance between families and foster forced cooperation. Important irregardless of if you are a king or a peasant who needs more hands to help with the harvest. In fact, arguably far more important if you are poor. This we have, as you said outgrown.

Not necessarily, it's still very common in the upper and especially political classes.

[Salandriagado]

We already had 2 Christian theocracies in fact, The Papal States and Eastern Rome.

That didn't work.

Two countries that lasted far longer than any extant political entity didn't work? Do tell.

Since when is mere survival the standard of success?

[Punished UMN]

Two countries that lasted far longer than any extant political entity didn't work? Do tell.

Since when is mere survival the standard of success?

Since when is it not?

[Salandriagado]

That depends on if you think different dynasties count as making them non extant, or if the revolution counts as making them non extant.

I would say that revolutions make a country a distinctly different political institution.

In which case, the Papal State and the Byzantine Empire both lasted vastly shorter periods than claimed.

[Cekoviu]

Same sex marriage and adoption shouldn’t be allowed and neither should divorce? Why?

The general Christian definition of marriage is very specific, and IIRC the Catholic interpretation is even stricter- marriage is for making kids specifically, since you're supposed to love everyone around you unconditionally and platonically. Of course, I'm not Catholic, so I'm not entirely sure, but that's what I understand the reasoning to be.

i'd be super on board with that definition if i could have kids but i cant and i still want to get married

[Novus America]

Nothing really. I mean, fundamentally the roles of marriage were:
[list]
[*]To create an alliance between families and foster forced cooperation. Important irregardless of if you are a king or a peasant who needs more hands to help with the harvest. In fact, arguably far more important if you are poor. This we have, as you said outgrown.

Not necessarily, it's still very common in the upper and especially political classes.

That is true, the wealthy and politically powerful still use it for such purposes.

[Cekoviu]

If civil marriage predates Christianity, and thus was different than Christian Marriage how does civil marriage harm or cheapen Christian Marriage? Why not have them be separate things?

Ironically it is trying to combine the two that “cheapens” one or the other, but trying to combine things with different purposes.

Maybe he's complaining about Christians wedding same sex couples? I know whenever I get married, I'd like my pastor to be the officiant.

do presbyterians do gay marriages?

[Salandriagado]

Since when is mere survival the standard of success?

Since when is it not?

Since literally forever? Seriously, that's an utterly patheticly low standard to hold anything to.