How to Define Same-Sex Marriage

Really not sure, if you have a substantial argument to make based on that or you've simply found an angle and are trying to drive it all the way home for the sake of it.

Either way, it doesn't matter what particular clergy want. Religious scripture does not support their positions.

In the case of Abrahamic religions, homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin and an abomination in the Torah as follows:

While apparently same-sex marriage isn't explicitly outlawed in these religions, the above quote makes it quite unambiguous whether the institution of marriage allows for same-sex couples to be married.

Simply because you have a gay "Imam" (with very, very big quotation marks) running around officiating same-sex marriages, that does in no way mean an exclusion to the provisions is in order.

 

I have been quite literally MARRIED two times (ha!) without a single element of religion involved in either of them. First marriage was performed by an atheist notary public. Second one was performed at the court house in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Not once did anyone suggest that I should call my marriages anything else. I fail to see how the word marriage is all of a sudden the domain of religious institutions.

 

Nor do I see why Abrahamic religions should lay claim on the word. I'm Wiccan, if my High Priestess wants to marry a same sex couple, in view of and with the blessing of my Gods, when who is the government to declare it not a marriage? Though I have to admit, I agree with @Levite too, I'd be perfectly open to civil unions, provided that civil unions were for everybody, and then you could call your own particular union whatever you want.

 

I could well note the ways in which Jews of the non-Orthodox (and even a few of the Orthodox) communities are reinterpreting Leviticus, or finding ways in Jewish Law to essentially nullify those two verses, due to ethical concerns. I could also note that the precise and same condemnatory language that those verses apparently use in reference to male homosexual acts are used to condemn the eating of shellfish and crustaceans elsewhere in Leviticus, yet I see no one urging national bans on shrimp or clams.

I might even note that some of my Christian professional colleagues have opined that Jesus has freed them from obeying commandments of this sort; and I might discuss the lack of universal agreement in both these traditions today about how to use or avoid these two verses.

But I won't. I don't need to, because the United States is neither a Christian country, nor a Jewish country, or even a Muslim country. It is supposed to be a secular government, to ensure religious freedom for all while at the same time protecting the civil rights of all, by not empowering any religion or its views over any other.

Bible prooftexts should have zero relevance and weight in a discussion of American politics, and I can only hope the same would be true for Canadian, Australian, or British politics, though I know Britain, at least, has a state religion, so that may be different. My hope,though, is that such a wall of separation between religion and government would be adopted into use by any and every civilized nation, even those with religious characters, since even empowering one interpretation of religion over another causes great injustice and chaos.

 

Most (if not all) religions lay claim to the word marriage.

I don't think it matters what their scriptures say about homosexuality. Different religions have splintered over lesser things to offer alternatives.

 

Why does it matter to you that same-sex couples are joined in marriage, not in civil union? Why does any of their campaign for same-sex marriages matter to you? Is it very important to you that none of the terms are defined?

My motivation isn't up for debate here. Nor are you making any contribution to the discussion by completely misrepresenting what I have said.

I never claimed that there is a need for the world to adopt or match the Australian legal code. All I did was point out that under the Australian system same-sex couples are already provided all benefits and recognition of a traditional marriage. Except for calling it a marriage.

Why insist on calling it marriage? Why is Civil Union not good enough? Where is your claim on the concept of marriage?

Also, if you have an actual argument to make against my position, I would love to hear it.

Your personal experiences are great anecdotes, but if you're making a point solely about not seeing how the concept of marriage is suddenly the domain of religious institutions (and thereby completely ignoring the argument I made earlier about it), then why bother?

Way to go off-tangent. Are you merely trying to do a political smear, or are your frustrations with religion clouding your ability to come up with coherent rebuttals? I hope your "but seriously" in the next paragraph meant that is not the case.

The point of my quoting the Torah was to provide evidence for the prohibition of same-sex marriage within the religious framework. Whatever the source reasons are, it still stands that since homosexuality isn't accepted, the religious institutions cannot officiate a same-sex marriage, unless they act in flagrant violation of their own tenets.

I have never argued that the state should ban same-sex marriage. I have only provided you with an explanation for why a state may have imposed a unilateral restriction on marriage as an institution.

Much like Levite, I believe the state should stay entirely out of the marriage business. I also pointed out, now repeatedly, that the Australian system is a very viable solution to the entire quagmire that is the political debates on same-sex marriage.

But to further entertain your frustrations with the Abrahamic religions and its followers, why would you claim Leviticus, a book of the Old Testament, is merely an interpretation? How do you figure that a literal text is an interpretation of itself?

Wait. The unethical practice of preventing same-sex couples to use the word "married" and providing a legal substitute with the full benefits and recognition of traditional marriage?

In addition to the above, you have read my point in how religious institutions have provisions that restrict certain types of heterosexual couples from getting married, right?

On another note, are we still talking about marriage as a religious institution? Cause you, and others, keep bringing entirely irrelevant issues into the discussion. The merits of the prescribed applications of the death penalty, or other religious practices, aren't the focus of this thread at all.

 

oh, wow. ya'll have fun.

 

Well, you have noted the issue. What is the basis for Jews to have ethical concerns over, and attempt to nullify, verses in the Torah? Doesn't the intentional nullification of parts of the text provided to you from God only result in the same manipulated and edited piece of writing that is today's Bible?

Agreed. Secular governments are the way to go in most countries, in my opinion.

I do, however, differ in secular societies appropriating the concept of/term marriage for themselves and suddenly locking the religious institutions from having a say in it. They can always, and some of them have, come up with their own systems to govern permanent relationships.
--- merged: Nov 11, 2013 at 10:29 AM ---

Again, why bother?

 

The issue should have been resolved legally in the US with the Supreme Court ruling in the landmark 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia (overturning state laws banning interracial marriage).

The “right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals” and “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” Based on Loving, marriage should be a "fundamental freedom" for all and protected by the Constitution; a right that states cannot deny w/o an "exceedingly good reason"

Religious doctrine is not an "exceedingly good reason" in a country that values separation of church and state.

 

No, you got that entirely wrong.

1. It is not a terrible thing to quote, as it is the foundation for the reasoning why the Abrahamic religions don't allow same-sex marriage. Do you want me to be sensitive to others hearing about this tenet, and throw the source of the religious argument away? What on earth?

2. It doesn't matter if certain clergy want to perform same-sex marriages, when the scripture of their own religions do not support it.

3. This is the third time I'm saying this now: I am not arguing for the state to ban same-sex marriage. The state should stay clear from marriage altogether. Marriage should be in the realm of religious institutions only.

Go back to Leviticus 18:22. Ignore the consequences Leviticus puts on committing an abomination. Simply focus on homosexual acts being considered an abomination (i.e. illegal).

I am not arguing for any law against same-sex marriage.

I do not understand your notion that a de facto relationship is not a solution to religious institutions preventing same-sex couples from marrying. De facto relationships are legally the same as a marriage, and both can have official weddings.

Why is there even the question of "worthiness"? Marriage is a religious institution, and same-sex couples aren't considered eligible under their tenets.

There is no objective reason that a difference in legal systems and their provisions would mean a moral shortfall on any side. It means there are different systems, with the side implementing their own system seeing all others as insufficient.

Sharia law differs with Leviticus in that it does not prescribe a fixed punishment for homosexual acts; instead it defers to the judges in question to decide on the appropriate punishment, if at all. There are always degrees of interpretation, but what is abundantly clear is that Abrahamic religions do not accept homosexuality.

"Different interpretation" or not taking scripture literally is not a blank cheque to completely misconstrue what the scripture in question said, or intended.

That is obviously a hard sell to people who subscribe to your NA society's philosophy on Freedom of Speech/Expression.

Again, not arguing for a state ban. Not even agreeing with it.

I do not understand what your point is. Are you saying religious folk (in this case Jewish) are discriminated against from enjoying a religious same-sex marriage? While I agree with your logic when considering secular law, it keeps coming back to the fact that homosexuality isn't accepted, even punishable, within the Abrahamic framework.

First one would have to accept that a Jew/Christian/Muslim's homosexuality is at all reconcilable with their religion.

State ban on same-sex marriage? No argumento.

Faithful same-sex couples wanting to marry in a religious context? Argumento.

Bringing up the reason for a practice in order to establish the practice's existence within a framework doesn't mean that the initial reason is up for debate.

The Leviticus quotes don't have a bearing when considering the merits of a state ban on same-sex marriage. They certainly do when considering the religious implementation of marriage.

Then we agree.

I don't get it. How does preventing the label of marriage, yet allow Civil Unions, perpetrate the prevention of experiencing a permanent relationship, or deprive the world of love?
--- merged: Nov 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM ---

This is where I differ fundamentally.

Marriage isn't a state institution. Nor should it be.

Simply because the state has taken on the role of overseeing the registration of marriages as a service to society, the claim on the institution of marriage didn't suddenly shift to the state.

 

Nobody is arguing that religions can't continue to practice as they see fit. But where do you get the idea that you can control the word marriage? Marriage is a state institution. You can't marry certain relatives. Property laws are tied up in it. Taxes chamge. It establishes inheritances and so forth. So please don't pretend marriage is not a state controlled institution
Ask all those mormoms if they can practice their faith. Nobody is telling churches that they have to include marriages or chamge their practices. But they can't tell others what to do. You start that and maybe Australia, a primarily christian nation says no more islamic practice. Or establishes taxation on certain religions.

 

This is called a discussion. We discuss and express our opinions on current matters and their merits and downfalls.

Why did I have to explain that to you?

 

You didn't. I've been here a long time. I was hoping for answers to those questions.

 

My answer is because words are important. I think the very act of religious people trying to claim it is an overt act, an attempt to s ay ultimately that there is something that gays will never have. That they are not legitimate. By denying the use of the word marriage they are creating an exclusive, not inclusive environment.

 

I would argue that it makes a tremendous difference what the scripture says about homosexuality. If the scripture doesn't leave any real room for marriage of homosexuals, how do the religious individuals of the same-sex marriage possibly reconcile their current status with the tenets of their religion?

Or is it a human spite kinda thing?

Nice use of the word specious. Do you want me to be petty and describe secular/LGBT aspirations for same-sex marriage that way?

Given that in addition to the religious claims I also outlined earlier that the roots of marriage are non-secular, and that by far and away the world population presently recognizes marriage as a religious union (whichever religion that may be); it is far easier for the proponents of keeping marriage in the domain of religious institutions to have a rational motivation.

My reasons for arguing against same-sex marriage campaigns also include the notion that I find it vulgar the way secularists appropriate an institution for themselves and entirely exclude the religious community from having any say in the matter of how it is to be implemented. At best, their views are snubbed as specious.

The reasons of the proponents on the other side of the debate strike me as much less rational. A substitute system exists and can easily implemented, and it would actually be wholly that of the secularists to do with as they please. However, everyone seems to consider Civil Unions/de facto relationships as lesser. It apparently hasn't occurred to anyone that both systems could simply co-exist on equal terms.

What are your reasons for not adopting a new system? Aren't people attaching negative connotations to it for no reason?


EDIT: Too tired to address any more points tonight. Will try to get back to yours tomorrow @omega

 

Actually I established that marriage is a secular institution that has licenses issued by the state. Try a property transfer on death without that license. Religions can officiate marriages, but they dont issue the license. And again, religions can control what's in their bailiwick. To get married in the catholic church, years ago, I had to play their little games. They could have refused me if they chose.
Why develop a new system when one is already in place? And one more time, trying to reserve "marriage" and define it exclusively is discriminatory. It tells a certain part of the population that they are not worthy of something that most of the rest of the world shares. I'm sorry you dont recognize the discrimination, I hope you will at some point. I look forward to your personal growth.