Are the bans on gay marriage religious?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by tererun, Aug 2, 2012.

  1. tererun
    Offline

    tererun BANNED

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,109
    Thanks Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    carolinas
    Ratings:
    +159
    I propose this question because it seems that when you look at the bans on gay marriage across the country they do not address religious marriage at all.

    A few facts:

    1. No US law prevents a couple from declaring their union before god in a church or other religious institution. The law does not step in and tell churches they can or cannot perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Even in states where gay marriage is not recognized gays can in front of a willing authority of a religion get married in the eyes of god.

    2. The US marriage contract does not apply religious laws or regulations to marriage. A church cannot oppose a marriage between a couple that would otherwise legally be married. The laws and benefits that are granted to couples by the government are non-religious and contractual in nature.

    3. US law allows the ending of the marriage contract as per the decided equitable distribution of assets and separation of the parties involved. The church may not recognize divorce proceedings based on their own rules in regards to marriages, but legally a couple can dissolve their relationship as per the law of the land and not religious guidelines.

    This is not to say religion does not have a place in marriage as many use it's guidelines as a subset to the legal guidelines. The law even allows for the voluntary agreed upon arbitration of the marriage contract based upon religious rules, but it clearly says that is voluntary and it is specifically expressed in marriage contracts because the standard US marriage contract does not apply those rules.

    So at the end of the day the laws that supposedly ban gay marriage do not accomplish their goals. They do not actually ban gay marriage in a religious sense. The only thing they accomplish is limiting people from joining in a partnership with another trusted person of the same gender in the same way as a marriage contract.

    Please show me where I am incorrect in this.

    If this is the case the laws are clearly prejudiced and they do not accomplish the goals they want to.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Ariux
    Offline

    Ariux BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,727
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +184
    Liberals always insist on arguing from a position of dishonesty. A ban means someone isn't allowed to do something. Homosexuals are allowed to be marry in every state. Just not every state recognizes homosexual marriages.

    There is no secular reason for government to recognize homosexual marriage, because the behavior is not beneficial to society. Religion has nothing to do with it.
     
  3. tererun
    Offline

    tererun BANNED

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,109
    Thanks Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    carolinas
    Ratings:
    +159
    How am i being dishonest when I clearly presented those very ideas in my original post? It is a big part of my idea that gays can get married in the theological sense. I am trying to say that the argument is not religious because it does not do any religious things.

    Actually there is a benefit. people have seen the benefit of legally partnering with someone you trust. They can act on your behalf if you are injured. They can combine incomes and resources in order to acquire property easier. They can make medical and financial decisions when you can't. They can cover each other's healthcare through insurance. They get death benefits. There is a number of compelling legal reasons for 2 people to enter into the legal marriage contract that do not involve love or god. Denying them the ability to do so while allowing others to gain those benefits becomes prejudiced and discriminatory if you remove the theological argument. That sort of law is not allowed in the US per the constitution
     
  4. MeBelle
    Offline

    MeBelle Mebellien Mothership © Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    15,003
    Thanks Received:
    5,342
    Trophy Points:
    340
    Ratings:
    +6,151
    "The laws and benefits that are granted to couples by the government are non-religious and contractual in nature."

    Exactly!
    If government stayed out of the marriage business, it wouldn't be an issue.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,674
    There are all sorts of things that aren't beneficial to society, yet we don't ban them. Why in this instance are there restrictions, if they're not made on a religious basis?
     
  6. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    The marriage aspect is merely a minor tool in the larger controversy which is removing all vestiges of religion from the culture.
     
  7. tererun
    Offline

    tererun BANNED

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,109
    Thanks Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    carolinas
    Ratings:
    +159
    But the laws do not offer any protection for religion in any way. They actually disregard religion entirely. If you consider gay marriage to be an attack on religion, there is no law that makes it illegal to perform a gay marriage. The only thing the laws do is not recognize the union by the government, but the government does not force churches to not recognize the union.

    Your point was clearly wrong when you read the original post, and saying it again does not make it true.
     
  8. tererun
    Offline

    tererun BANNED

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,109
    Thanks Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    carolinas
    Ratings:
    +159
    That is great and all but the partnering of couples to form a family unit and combine income and legal responsibilities and protections in order to have safety in the family unit are very much a part of our culture just like businesses are. Therefor it makes sense for the government to have laws and regulations regarding the partnership of consenting adults for a non commercial family unit. Though i am not a huge fan of modern marriage and think there is a lot of bullshit within the idea, the idea itself is beneficial to society, and it would be something for the state to define for legal reasons.
     
  9. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,263
    Thanks Received:
    1,402
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,081
    Government need not define marriage at all nor provide any special benefits to a couple just because they happen to be married. The courts are there to handle marriage for what it is, a contract between two parties. Get the government out of the marriage business and anyone can marry anyone they like, as long as we're talking about consenting adults.

    This way, "marriage" becomes a religious ceremony along with a contract of partnership, which need be no different than a partnership between and any consenting parties. Government's only role should be to provide courts for when there is a dispute between the parties.

    So, if you go to the Church of the Sacred Beaver and you don't like them marrying homosexuals, go to another church. Problem solved.

    The religious institution of marriage has been around a lot longer than our government. It requires no special protection or exclusive benefits.
     
  10. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,263
    Thanks Received:
    1,402
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,081
    True, but that has been the case long before the American culture even existed.

    Does not follow. Because an idea has been around a very long time, it must be regulated? Logical disconnect.

    Lot's of things are beneficial to society that do not require government to define it...as much as they'll try anyway. Any definition, rules or guidelines can be spelled out in the contract of partnership, which any consenting adults are free to enter into. The government need only provide a court system to settle disputes.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2012

Share This Page