question about gay marriage

[Woodruff]

Then it begs the question: If you put Marriage into the church "bucket" rather than state, what do all the people who love the tradition of marriage (as defined by modern society, not it's history) but aren't religious do?

There will certainly be institutions that pop up that provide non-religious marriages. It's not like high dining venues and ballrooms won't take people's money because they're having purely ceremonial marriages. There might also be churches (I don't know, I'm just assuming) that would be glad to accept gay marriages for the same reason: gay people's money is just as good as straight people's money.

So we strip away any legal bindings attached to current marriages? And make them purely ceremonial, i.e. meaningless*?

Look at our divorce rate - they're already pretty meaningless to a large part of our population.

[PLAYER57832]

Any thoughts?

Yes...you're not looking at the situation with any rationality. Why must everyone be limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex? That's really NOT what marriage has historically entailed on a consistent basis, so it doesn't seem to me that there is a rationale for claiming that as "the definition". As to not claiming equal protection, they absolutely ARE doing exactly that by claiming the right to marry the person that they love.

Dwilhelmi, you're absolutely right, it's not about discrimination, it is about definition.

Woodruff, he is thinking rationally. You're asking "Why should it?" and that's like saying a loaf of bread shouldn't be called a loaf of bread anymore because you want to call it a biscuit. Two genders absolutely is the historical definition of "marriage," and it's been very consistent in that until this past decade or so... more than 2000 years of consistency there.

No, it absolutely IS NOT "the historical definition of marriage". Good God, do you people ever look outside of your own preconceptions?

Already gave him citations to that effect. He promptly ignored it.

[the carpet man]

is marriage not a bit of an outdated concept anyway? i am slightly baffled as to why someone living in 2012 would desire such a 15th century ritual.

especially as so few people are actually religious any more anyway. an athiest who wants a christian marriage in a church? i have to laugh a bit.

[Haggis_McMutton]

is marriage not a bit of an outdated concept anyway? i am slightly baffled as to why someone living in 2012 would desire such a 15th century ritual.

especially as so few people are actually religious any more anyway. an athiest who wants a christian marriage in a church? i have to laugh a bit.

It's a deeply ingrained cultural tradition, it has little to do with gods.
Yes many of our traditions are silly (please critically examine Christmas for a minute), but people like their traditions.

[the carpet man]

every marriage i have been to has been in a christian church, yet none of the people getting married were christians. yet they still told a vicar that they wished to be joined in 'holy matrimony'.

[Woodruff]

is marriage not a bit of an outdated concept anyway? i am slightly baffled as to why someone living in 2012 would desire such a 15th century ritual.
especially as so few people are actually religious any more anyway. an athiest who wants a christian marriage in a church? i have to laugh a bit.

My wife and I (her mildly religious and me agnostic atheist) chose to have a marriage in a church for our parents, primarily (both quite religious). It was important to them and wasn't that important to us, so it jwas something nice we could do for them.

[pmchugh]

I think it is a sad reflection on this site that one of its longest running moderators is clearly a bigot.

edit: embedded video

[PLAYER57832]

It's up to the people because they are the ones who are going to have to foot the bill.

The people decide what they will and will not support. California is so broke that this does not even come down to constitutional or unconstitutional. Liberalism has bankrupted California so badly that it can't afford to uphold anything whether it's in their constitution or not. LOL at them trying to be more liberal. Just have them change their name to Greece and be done with it.

Liberalism or the greedy idea that its OK to benefit from multiple services, a nice environment.. and then refuse to pay for much of anything.

I put it in greed.

For all you keep trotting out this claim that its "liberals" (never mind that no liberal has been in power for a LONG time) and Democrats wanting more and more than cuase all this mess, the truth is that Republicans have NOT done much to really cut spending.. just the opposite. Oh, sure, they were happy to pass out tax breaks, but real serious spending cuts.. no way!

I'd say its a lot more responsible to ask people to pay for what they want than to pretend they can get it all for free and just paying less will suddenly solve everything.

[PLAYER57832]

is marriage not a bit of an outdated concept anyway? i am slightly baffled as to why someone living in 2012 would desire such a 15th century ritual.

especially as so few people are actually religious any more anyway. an athiest who wants a christian marriage in a church? i have to laugh a bit.

Distinguish the ritual from the fact. A wedding is a ceremony, like many others. Denying the meaning of ceremony is rather naive. It may not be "important" to many, but there are reasons we hold to these patterns.. they offer structure and solace, times of celebration that everyone understands.

Marriage, though, has changed its forms. A lot of people here assume that the 18th and early 19th century idea of marriage are all their is. They are mistaken. A big reason for marriage in past years was legality. That has not really changed. The legal issues have shifted a bit.. its now as much about inheritance between spouses as to children and legitimacy of children. Medical decisions are now far more complicated and having someone you trust to make those decisions is even more important (perhaps) than in the past.. etc. Oh yeah.. and women are no longer considered property.

There are legal and financial drawbacks. A single women with kids many times gets financial assistance that a couple in essentially the same financial situation would not. But, that is an anomoly of how assistance is given (child support is often not counted, child support paid is not taken out of the paying families' income).

[the carpet man]

if you want some sort of legal securities then sign a contract with your lover. you don't need the gesture of a religious marriage.

[oVo]

Marriage is not a right.

There are many rights that are absolutely tied to marriage, so I am afraid that I must disagree with your statement. Because while marriage itself is not a right, it has become a defacto right in how it impacts actual rights.

Absolutely. It is unfortunate that Presidential hopefuls are making this a big campaign issue. With all the benefits attached to marriage it is closer to a human rights issue than a political tool for courting votes from the conservative right. Gay couples --regardless of how long they are together-- are deprived of many basic rights that are taken for granted by the rest of society. In the eyes of the church marriage my be considered sacred to heterosexual unions, but to the government and other institutions it is an obligation required for people to qualify for the privileges and benefits that have always been attached to it.