Sane Sex Marriage

[The Honest Politician]

"Why you think that governments at any level should be involved in marriages or civil unions of any kind, for any sex?"

It is the govt's job to ensure that minorities are accorded the same rights as the majority.

Satisfied?

The dishonesty is implicit in your lengthy rants that have nothing to do with the question at hand.

I am a liar because my post are long?

Are you on crack?

What kind of thought process is that?

[PocketRocket]

I thought we had danced this dance to death, but apparently not, so here we go again....

Marriage, as I see it, is a religious institution.

This seems to be the main argument against SSM among those who oppose it.

If marriage is indeed a religious institution, then perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us to WHICH religion it belongs.

Catholicism??? Protestantism??? Buddhism??? Shintoism??? Quetzocoatl-ism???

Marriage has been around for far longer than most, if not all, organized religions.

Marriage ceremonies are as varied as the number of different cultures which perform such ceremonies.

In ancient times, a knight and maiden would jump over the knight's sword, and they were thus married.

In several North American Indian tribes, the father of the bride would perform the ceremony by simply draping a blanket over the shoulders of the bride and groom as they sat together.

Some African tribes performed the ceremony by having the father of the bride hand over his daughter with one hand, and a cow with the other.

Could any of these be considered "religious" ceremonies???

Some religions approve of, indeed even encourage, polygamous marriages.

To most (not all) Christian sects, a polygamous marriage is considered sinful.

In Canada and America, polygamy is illegal, except where it can be shown that it is part of the multiple spouses' religion.

IOW, the law recognizes the right to polygamy where the individual's religion approves of such a marriage.

Therefore, under the law, as under religion, no single definition of marriage exists.

So, in short, no one religion can lay claim to marriage as its own, and the law cannot decisively define what exactly a marriage is.

This, IMHO, nullifies the religious angle, simply because marriage predates most, if not all, organized religions, and the variety of religions allow a variety of types of marriage and marriage ceremonies.

On the other hand, we have the legal institution of marriage as recognized by most western nations.

A couple can be married in a courthouse by a judge, or at sea by the master of the vessel, most often the captain of a ship, but such ceremonies have also been performed by owners of large pleasure craft.

Contracts are drawn up laying out the obligations of the parties involved.

This makes marriage a legal institution.

So, if we agree that church and state are to be two separate entities, then the religious question cannot come into play in making a decision on the legality of any specific type of marriage.

This gives us not one, but TWO good reasons to throw out the whole religious argument.

If we also agree that a marriage performed by someone OTHER THAN a church official is legal and binding, then this gives yet another reason to toss out the entire religious argument.

(Sorry, I am not criticizing either your religion, or your personal beliefs here, but rather your desire to impose your personal beliefs on others)

In view of the facts cited above, SSM becomes just another type of marriage, the legality of which is the only thing in question.

Consider also that history does include cases of SSM, as far back as the middle ages, a few of which were actually approved by the Vatican, and this further nullifies the religious angle, and lends further support to the current question of SSM simply by historical precedent.

(A simple Google search provides historical examples of SSM)

The issue of SSM is NOT an issue of minority rights...

That is a matter of opinion.

Being that you are not part of the minority in question, and being in opposition to SSM, this makes your last statement simply a matter of opinion, not fact.

However, you cannot question the fact that Homosexuals do indeed make up a minority of our population.

Therefore, if we consider the right to marry a "right" as recognized by law, then it does indeed become an issue of denying "rights" to a minority of the population, ie; the right to marry the person of your choice.

Does this make it a minority rights issue???

I guess that hinges on the two questions brought out above; are Gays a minority, and is marriage a right.

[PocketRocket]

Came back to address this later quote....

The way I was raised (Catholic), marriage is an institution that is religious and authorized by a priest. I understand that there is a new definition where the state can perform marriage. This is not my personaly position, but I am entitled to the traditional definition of marriage, aren't I???

I would say rather than "authorized" by a priest, "blessed" or "sanctified" by a priest.

Catholic marriage ceremonies are indeed quite, um, ceremonious, but can hardly be said to be the only way to get married.

Unless you denounce ALL marriages which are NOT performed in a Catholic Church, then you cannot use Catholicism alone to justify your argument against SSM.

You also state here that you are entitled to your personal position.

Agreed. As long as you recognize the fact that your position is indeed personal, and should not be imposed upon others with differing beliefs.

[PocketRocket]

If the people involved choose to have some sort of religious or civil ceremeony, they are free to do so and call it a marriage, a civil union or a ham sandwich if they so choose.

Personally, rather than "Ham Sandwich" I prefer "PocketRocket Sandwich", with two Swedish female roller skaters as the bread

Butter is okay too, but I'll pass on the pickles, thanks.

[PocketRocket]

Don't they just register domestic arrangements for estate and tax purposes now? What's the difference, other than the word "marriage?" Or is that it?

There has been a question of spousal rights when it comes to pensions, insurance, employee benefits and so forth.

In many cases, spousal rights of these sorts have been denied to gay partners.

[PocketRocket]

The word 'mariage' carries so much freight/baggage for so many that it has become an area where govt just needs to get out of the way. We have many instituions in society to take it from there.

As long as there are tax implications which go hand in hand with marriage, the goverment cannot afford to get completely out of the way.

The way the Canadian government financially penalizes married couples simply for getting married, it is definitely in their best interest to stay involved, if only periferally.

[PocketRocket]

Re: thread title - it is a typo, I hadn't even noticed it until you pointed it out!

Thanks. I was wondering. If you were opposed, it would definitely have been a good pun, in keeping with the thinking of some people

[tml12]

OK Pocket,

I do appreciate your willingness to debate the issue with me and I will most certainly respond now.

First, your position is respectable and I most certainly think you have made many valid points.

Marriage, to me, is an issue of religion. Just because I am Christian, I am not saying that marriage is a Christian institution. It is not...marriage, rather, can and should be performed by all religions, Christian, Jewish, Arab, etc. This includes ancient ceremonies you speak of.

I neither support "legalizing" or "prohibiting" SSM. Because the state is not a religious institution, I do not believe the State can take a position on that issue. If the Anglicans, say, want to legalize SSM then that is fine with me. Yet, the state "legalizing" SSM is not something I understand. SSM is now to be performed by the state? To me, that is more of a civil union. The state is involved with civil affairs. Again, I think we disagree on who can "perform" marriages. My friends on the left say anyone can get married anywhere by any person. I just don't see it that way.

If I were PM, I would make it an issue of provincial rights. If I were a Premier, then I would intepret the law as per the values that I have.

I realize my position is rather "archaic." When you consider that I am in my early 20s, it is probably even more archaic including people in my age group. My parents agree with me...only 2 of my friends do. Maybe I will change my position one day. However, in the meantime I will attend my friends gay marriages and support their decisions, even if I don't see it the same way. I respect all different opinions (left, right, and centre) because these are the cornerstones of democratic society. If I can clarify anything else for you, I would be glad too...

[PocketRocket]

TML: Very respectable, and respectful, post. Thank you.

I was simply pointing out why religion cannot lay sole claim to marriage.

This last post of yours certainly increases my respect for you in light of the fact that you are willing to discuss your views without being overly contentious about them.

All your points are well taken, and very well said.

Two thumbs up

[fellowtraveller]

As long as there are tax implications which go hand in hand with marriage, the goverment cannot afford to get completely out of the way.

I agree, and please read my posts on this specific topic. The Politician refuses to and insists on misrepresnting my position, garbling it up with rubbish about religion and sexual orientation. We must protect both indiivdual rights and other rights, such as freedom of religion. Our current and new SSM law allows religious groups to reject same sex marriage rights already, which discriminates against gay people - yet this is perfectly OK with supporters.

There is no need at all for the governemtn to define marriage, and obvious and compelling reasons why they should simply get out of the 'marriage' business. There is a need for governemtn to register domestic arrangement, as you note.. They already do just that in other areas of civil law, such as registration of corporations.

[Shakeyhands]

I was married by a marriage commissioner in my back yard in a service that didn't mention any higher power. Would you say I'm not married then?

Who did the marriage commissioner represent?

The way I was raised (Catholic), marriage is an institution that is religious and authorized by a priest. I understand that there is a new definition where the state can perform marriage. This is not my personaly position, but I am entitled to the traditional definition of marriage, aren't I???

Within your church of course!