Who owns the rights to marriage? (Jehovah, genesis, churches, atheist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL! My gf and I are getting married in a few months. We can't decide whether to do in in New Mexico, where gay marriage is legally recognized, or in our home state of TX. We're not sure how important the legality of marriage itself really is. We're leaning more toward our home state, where we have lived many years. It's the celebration of our commitment to each other that is more important than the legal end, I think. And it's tricky when you're a married gay couple and you're not a resident of the state where you got married As for the religious aspect, that's completely immaterial to us. There's no law that a couple has to be any religion to get married, and there never should be.
Don't be stupid, it was the dinosaurs. Hrm, I wonder if the unicorns were the ring bearers, after all their horn would certainly hold a ring until it was needed.
I asked this because it seems like some people think that without religion there would no such thing as marriage. This obviously is not true. Marriage has been around much longer than the Bible, and had nothing to do with God.
People want to influence laws based on their religious views, and this should not happen.
I am trying to understand how gay marriage being legal for example, means that Christians are being trampled on? In what way is this happening? I really don't get it.
Here's the way I've come to view marriage. I have lived with and without benefit of marriage and I don't see the slightest difference other than in between people's ears.
I am not legally married to my current partner mainly because we are both eligible, in about 3 years, for social security survivor's benefits as we are both widowed. But only if we remain single. It's like getting social security benefits a few years early, basically. That's a few tens of thousands of dollars between us that the government is basically paying us to remain single.
In day to day practical terms the only thing we've had to do to compensate for not being married is to draft our wills a little differently and to have medical powers of attorney for each other so that we have each other's backs in a medical emergency, the right to visit each other in the hospital, direct each other's medical care, etc.
I don't "feel" any less married or any less sense of duty or loyalty to my wife -- to whom I refer to in exactly that manner. As far as anyone acquainted with us knows, we are married.
My wife feels less married but she's the kind of personality that readily feels "trapped" or "smothered" by the very notion of marriage. In those moments when she's exasperated with me for one reason or another, she will occasionally opine that she's relieved that we never got married, as she would evidently for some reason find it harder to show me the door if we were. Aside from whether or not she should ever say something like that to me (I certainly never would to her), it is nonsense, of course. The emotional and practical fallout of breaking up is no less if you're unmarried, assuming that real love and commitment (which comes from the heart, not a piece of paper) were present in the first place.
Indeed, divorce is a legally less muddy situation because the legal system knows exactly how to handle it; some people who break up who weren't married in the first place report that, particularly if children or a lot of assets are involved, it's actually MORE of a miserable trial to deal with the legal ramifications than if you're married.
All of this tells me that marriage has no real gravitas other than what we grant to it in between our ears. Either there is love, loyalty and devotion, or there is not. Marriage can be a beautiful gesture of love, loyalty and devotion, or a ghastly parody of it. It's really up to the persons involved.
So ... who owns the right to marriage? I take the position that marriage is a civil / societal convention and legal structure, but it doesn't really matter to me anymore because an intimate relationship with another human being sinks or swims, not on the legal basis or the pronouncements of a clergyman, but on the actual commitment two people make and how seriously they take it. Marriage, I'm here to tell you, does not make a party thereto more kind, gentle, empathetic and devoted. In some cases it has the opposite effect (for example, abusive men who lord it over their wives once they have them bagged; or just the typical man who takes her for granted now that he's made his mighty conquest). Marriage does not confer happiness and contentment, or sexual compatibility, or anything else. The only time I feel it's semi-important is if you are going to have children together; and that is mostly to prevent children from being victims of lingering societal attitudes towards the children of unmarried parents.
Stop reporting my posts you cowards. Is this the only way you can face me? Running to the mods?
From what I have read in your posts, people are mistaking wit and honesty for sarcasm. More reflection of religion's addiction to the crack cocaine of centuries of unearned deference and respect for notions that in any other context would be considered worthy of derision and unworthy of sympathy for that derision.
From what I have read in your posts, people are mistaking wit and honesty for sarcasm. More reflection of religion's addiction to the crack cocaine of centuries of unearned deference and respect for notions that in any other context would be considered worthy of derision and unworthy of sympathy for that derision.
Unfortunately it also has a lot to do with the fundamentalist desire to control - to "rule the world" in whatever way they can.
Of course, my view that fundamentalism is inherently fascistic keeps getting proven again and again when people make active attempts to silence my voice - especially when I strip the patina off their beliefs and describe them as they really are (such as the deleted Adam and Eve post).
Even the response by the one fundamentalist in this thread shows what I mean - yes, marriage belongs to Christianity, according to him. Not Hinduism, not Judaism, not Buddhism, not Zoroastrianism, etc. which are religions demonstrably older than Christianity. No! Marriage is a Christian concept and that's that.
Adam and Eve isn't the only creation story out there ... so perhaps marriage began with one of THOSE stories instead?
Is marriage a religious invention? Who owns the "rights" to marriage?
The church (or temple), unless it's a state wedding.
Ideally, if we believe in separation of church and state (which we love to quote only when it's convenient) this means that in a state like Vermont, where gay marriage is practically encouraged, a church can refuse marriage based on sexuality. On the flipside, the state cannot rule that a religious ceremony of union is illegal if such is the case.
If you choose a state wedding, you abide by state laws.
If you choose a church wedding, you abide by church dogma and the priest's decision (which is fine, just go to a different church).
Quote:
Even the response by the one fundamentalist in this thread shows what I mean - yes, marriage belongs to Christianity, according to him. Not Hinduism, not Judaism, not Buddhism, not Zoroastrianism, etc. which are religions demonstrably older than Christianity. No! Marriage is a Christian concept and that's that.
What? Say again?!?
There are weddings in virtually every culture. Hindu weddings are quite well-known as being massively ornate. Jewish weddings have a dance and some broken glass involved.
Is marriage a religious invention? Who owns the "rights" to marriage?
I guess that is subjective. The owner of the rights to it depends on who it is YOU want to recognize it.
If for example you want to be married in MY eyes..... then clearly I have 100% rights to that.
If you want your church to recognize it, then your church does.
If you want to have a marriage recognized by state and law, then the state does.
If you want something to be recognized officially by anyone or anything, then 100% of the control of that lies with the entity you want to do the recognizing. Or?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for the religious aspect, that's completely immaterial to us. There's no law that a couple has to be any religion to get married, and there never should be.
