Quote:
Originally posted by Halx
I've yet to see someone actually argue against my point.
|
Well then let me drink from that potential poisoned chalice
Quote:
Marriages are recognized by the state, not just the church. Now, since the two are supposed to be separate entities, Christianity should not even come into the conversation when it comes to the STATE legalizing gay marriages. That said, the state has no right to say right or wrong - a marriage is a vow between two people and if they want to sign papers that says their incomes are now combined, so be it.
I think the states should be all for it in fact, because they get more tax money from it all.
|
1)State recognition of an issue which the church claims primary dominion over is a prime motivator for its involvement.
2)It is important to remember that in general, a Church considers itself the prime moral guardian and guide of humanity onto a path of "enlightenment" in its diverse form.
A disestablismentarian opinion is an admirable ideal, but I feel it neglects the fact that religious adherents derive from their sheer numbers a right to representation of their views in society.
There is a and should be a
de jure separation of church and state. On this point I agree with you. On the point of
de facto relationships derived from the implicit moral influence, I am less certain. If the people elect Christian representatives who espouse Christian Values, then these are what should be enforced. That's democracy.
Naturally, the recognition of fundamental rights limits the effect of this, as a basic humanist assumption of personal freedoms should allow a degree of equality derived from natural justice.
3) As to the point of the state deciding right or wrong, I will reject a point I don't think you were making, in case it was your intent:
There is a duty of government to guarantee the social ethics of the populace in line with the opinions of the populace. This is fundamentally enshrined in personal rights, but extends also to moral guardianship of a certain degree.
Now, if you haven't left due to boredom, my opinion.
There is a fundamental question to be asked:
what is the purpose of marriage and related benefits?
If it is simply a way of encouraging natural reproduction, fine. But one must be even handed in such matters and deny benefits to couples who are incapable or choose not to have offspring.
Hardly a modern opinion. Perhaps more suited to the 1920's.
If, on the other hand, like me, you realise that marital status confers vital rights such as economic benefits and entitlements (inheritance, taxation, etc...) and, perhaps more importantly, rights to decisions such as resuscitation orders and rights of attorney over those who are
non compus mentis.
When you realise that marriage is, in addition to its expression of love (which can be done separate to the state) an economic and social entity of great import, then I feel there is a strong case for permitting same sex marriage of equal status.
But that leads to the question of Polygamous or Polyandrous agreements. There I am not so sure.
In conclusion (phew!) I disagree with you when you say the church should not be involved, because it remains a substantial influence on the moral reckoning of a large proportion of people.
On the other hand, I would like to live in a world where who I choose to stick things in and whether or not they stick things in me can be a matter of pure personal choice, subject to obvious moral constraints (species, consent and age).
there... far too many words for little of merit.