quote:

Originally posted by BeeZee:

quote:

Originally posted by Crow Girl:

Problem solved. In my universe at least.

Hurrah! I live in the same universe as Crow Girl and Dweller!
*looks around*

It's a big universe, innit?

And it's all MINE mwahahaha.

Well, the 1563 Council of Trent formalized the relationship between the Catholic Church and the practice of marriage, but it definitely had religious or spiritual aspects to it well before then.

*sets up camp in this Universe*

quote:

Originally posted by Crow Girl:
Dweller:

Are you referring the churches who are being sued in Massachusetts because they refuse to marry same-sex couples?

Not directly, as I'm not privy to all the facts in those cases, but peripherally, it's a concern.

Agreed. Can you break down what you are referring to?

quote:

Originally posted by Hooligan:
The government should stay out of the church. The church should stay out of the government.

Things would be much simpler...

The problem with this idea is that both entities are made up of people, and we're just not, on the whole, capable of keeping our legislative and spiritual parts of ourselves separate. One will always inform the other, whether the individual wants them to or not.

The best we can hope for is that our government will continue to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in so far as not establishing a State religion, no matter how badly the NeoCons want one.
(Wouldn't it be awesome, on some level, if there *was* a State religion, and it was Buddhism or something? Man, would those NeoCons go apoplectic!!)

I just don't understand why people who want to be married can't be. I mean, if someone asks you, you're still allowed to say No, right?

I think people should know how to hold a job and pay bills and maybe balance a checkbook before they get married, but I don't really see gender as an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Freeman:
I mean, marriage is religious, inherently, from what I seem to gather, right? Or has it become a completely social and legal thing

Well, weddings existed long before the christian church was around. My understanding is that marriage was first and foremost a legal contract, and that it was only later that the church began officiating.

So I do disagree that the word 'marriage' is the sole preserve of the churches. however, if individual churches want to define it in a certain way, then that's up to them, but for those churches to club together to pretend theirs is the only definition is something I find repugnant.

My thoughts on the church and marriage:

Christianity has a minute hold on the institution of marriage because:

only 35% of the world is Christian (rough number), yet the idea of marriage is present in almost every single culture and communicty whether touched by the religion or not.

The insititution of marriage (albeit with a few additional wives at times) existed thousands of years before Christianity even began, and existed in cultures that were never touched by it (think China, Mayas, Incas BC)

The idea that the istitution is only reserved for those that meet certain requirements set down by that religion (thus homosexuality) would therefore exclude all non-members of that religion (i.e. athiests would be shit out of luck in the US etc.)

That the institution is in jeapordy for failing to meet requirements set down by the religion is ridiculous as to be LEGALLY married one must sign a contract and there is no LEGAL obligation to include the church at all.

Guess which side i am on here.

But when the governement dictates who I should love and how i should express it then i see that as a long scary downward hill.

That is a real threat to morality.

religious stats

So roughly 76% of the US are christian, to further pad the point.

Damn delayed research tactics!

nominally christian, at least.
Gallup poll detail.
65% of people in this survey say religion is an important part of their everyday life.

I'd like to see polling data about who opposes gay marriage in those demographics.

quote:

Originally posted by Crow Girl:
Agreed. Can you break down what you are referring to?

Simply put, no religious officiant should be required to perform a duty they don't morally feel they should be obliged to perform. And, moreover, no private property should be required to be used for a ceremony the owners find immoral.

If Richard Dawkins owns a nightclub, he should have the right to refuse to allow a meeting of the Flat Earth Society to take place there.

quote:

Originally posted by McMurphy:

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Freeman:
I mean, marriage is religious, inherently, from what I seem to gather, right? Or has it become a completely social and legal thing

Well, weddings existed long before the christian church was around. My understanding is that marriage was first and foremost a legal contract, and that it was only later that the church began officiating.

So I do disagree that the word 'marriage' is the sole preserve of the churches. however, if individual churches want to define it in a certain way, then that's up to them, but for those churches to club together to pretend theirs is the only definition is something I find repugnant.

Just a couple of quick points:

1. Marriage, before it became a religious rite, was primarily a social and economic contract. In many places, it still is.

2. If you want good stats about religion in the US, you absolutely must check out the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Their Religious Landscape Survey of the US is an excellent resource with a great reputation.

My whole thing on this issue is that I would never want to see a religious institution forced into performing marriages against their beliefs. I think this is heavily implicated in separation of church and state, so it shouldn't be an issue (i.e., if a state legalizes gay marriage, it's the legal/social/civil portion of it, and churches shouldn't have to go along with it). I don't know if the anti's are arguing that that's what's going to happen, but if they are, it's a silly argument.

That said, even religious marriages in the US have a civil component to them. Hence all that paperwork the witnesses are supposed to sign. So although the hardcore anti's argue that marriage is purely religious, they're simply wrong -- and anyone who's been married in the US (or Canada for that matter) should know better.

As I write this, I'm on the verge of saying, "fuck the PhD" and moving to a country where my marriage is actually recognized.

It's recognized by me. Which doesn't help with the legal stuff, but so you know.

quote:

Originally posted by Dweller in Darkness:
If Richard Dawkins owns a nightclub, he should have the right to refuse to allow a meeting of the Flat Earth Society to take place there.

I really want to go to a nightclub owned by Richard Dawkins, now.

In other news, Quakers in Britain decided about three weeks ago, at their yearly big meeting, to do gay weddings as well as het weddings. (This is different and a step further from their blessing of couples in civil partnerships, which they already do. They are using the "m" word, now.)

You shouldn't have to move, 'cos that'd be two less awesome people in this country and in my state and we need all the awesomeness we can get.

That said, you also shouldn't have to fight tooth and nail for your right to be happy.

quote:

Originally posted by Dweller in Darkness:
It's recognized by me. Which doesn't help with the legal stuff, but so you know.

But it does make me feel a little better.

Honestly though, I'm thinking I'd rather live in a country where something like DeGrassi could actually be shot and not taken off the air after three episodes.

quote:

Originally posted by Maeve:
You shouldn't have to move, 'cos that'd be two less awesome people in this country and in my state and we need all the awesomeness we can get.

That said, you also shouldn't have to fight tooth and nail for your right to be happy.

That's awfully kind on both counts. Thanks. Sadly, Central PA just isn't sitting right lately.

quote:

Originally posted by Uqbar:

quote:

Originally posted by Dweller in Darkness:
It's recognized by me. Which doesn't help with the legal stuff, but so you know.

But it does make me feel a little better.

Honestly though, I'm thinking I'd rather live in a country where something like DeGrassi could actually be shot and not taken off the air after three episodes.

Are we talking original DeGrassi or New DeGrassi? Because, yes, the new one had some good characters, but the creators still deserve a solid keelhauling for hiring the worst possible actors for each and every role.

quote:

Originally posted by Uqbar:
That's awfully kind on both counts. Thanks. Sadly, Central PA just isn't sitting right lately.

Come to London! There's no way civil partnerships would be rescinded here, even if (when) the Tories get in at the next election.