Ali, Greetings... Many eons ago, most religions began performing union ceremonies...I don't see religion as having appropriated 'marriage', they did for most, define it...oh, and thankfully, this is not France.
mk
OK, sure. But as someone pointed out below, there are religious countries which recognize gay marriage, like Spain. So why can't the US do that? :shrug:
I've no qualms with your religion and its importance to you. I just want to know why religion has appropriated the term "marriage." And please forgive me for bringing up France again (I do it a lot here), but over there, the only legal marriage ceremony is the one performed by the mayor. You can be married by a priest (or other man of the cloth), but the only ceremony that is recognized by law is the one performed by the mayor of the town you're married in. And yet, people married by the mayor call themselves "mariés" and their union is a "marriage," whether they eventually have a ceremony in a church or not.
Ali, Greetings... Many eons ago, most religions began performing union ceremonies...I don't see religion as having appropriated 'marriage', they did for most, define it...oh, and thankfully, this is not France.
You do realize that there is such a thing as conservatives right here on RP, who hold a different opinion than you — on this topic.
Like the various religions, one day in the future, I'd like to see the terms that separate us - conservative, liberal, libertarian, nutbag ... eliminated from our conversations. Then we would be merely a group of people with interesting ideas and opinions on how to make this world a better place.
Of course I realize Conservatives, like Liberals, are not monolithic....note, I said Conservatives of my bend...
I'll PM it to you. I did frame my question around RP, said there was a discussion going on here about it. What I posted was just the crux of what he said.
Thanks for a thoughtful and heart-felt answer on the topic.
What I have difficulty understanding is how other countries seem to have no trouble permitting same-sex marriage. Norway, Spain, and South Africa are in some ways more religious than the US; Norway is strongly Lutheran, Spain strongly Catholic, but South Africa has a wide range of religious beliefs, many of which are ancient and tribal.
The US is secular and has no state religion. That is mandated by law and charter. Why is same-sex marriage easier in less religiously diverse countries than the US?
I wonder about that, too. I think part of the answer is in Ali's father's e-mail: "Do I endorse gay marriage? As a person, yes; as a pastor, I am constrained by vows to not act on my personal conviction." I admire and respect that attitude - I wish more people could adopt it. But they don't, and that's where you get bans on gay marriage, pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, and other such intrusions.
There seems to be less separation of church and state here than there. Sure, we wrote it into our Constitution. But over there, where they endured centuries of religious wars and persecutions, it's written in the bones of their society. You can believe what you like in private, but in public everyone has a level playing field and no one's beliefs get primacy.
I've heard it said that this country was founded by those seeking to escape religious persecution (the Puritans). But the first thing the Puritans did when they got here was start their own oppression: anyone deviating from the Puritan norm got kicked out to fend for themselves. Hardly a model of religious freedom.
We've come a long way since then, to be sure. And I don't blame any of this on religion or the religious. In my experience, most people of faith are sincerely good, well-meaning people who have no desire to cram their beliefs down anyone's throat. They disagree with other views, but they respect others' rights to have them. I don't see the world the way they do, but that's my choice and I try to give them and their beliefs the same respect I'd ask for from them.
It's more of a fundamentalist mindset, a belief in the One True Path and an unwillingness to concede any space to other possibilities. I think it was at the roots of the Revolution here, and it's still a very strong element in our society.
Thanks for a thoughtful and heart-felt answer on the topic.
What I have difficulty understanding is how other countries seem to have no trouble permitting same-sex marriage. Norway, Spain, and South Africa are in some ways more religious than the US; Norway is strongly Lutheran, Spain strongly Catholic, but South Africa has a wide range of religious beliefs, many of which are ancient and tribal.
The US is secular and has no state religion. That is mandated by law and charter. Why is same-sex marriage easier in less religiously diverse countries than the US?
You know Zep, I wonder about this too. I was pretty surprised when Spain legalized same-sex marriage.
What rights do the spouses have— social security benefits for example— do they have to share a benefit meant for one person? Just one example of many where legal rights associated with marriage only work in our system with pairs.
Not really. We have the ability to divide by a lot of numbers other than 2. We also have the ability to make arangements on a pro-rata basis, or a vesting schedule. We do this all the time with other financial instruments and transactions. So far we have chosen to limit it with marriage out of the desire for a social / religious construct that fits the norm we have aggreed upon to date. I think there is the will now to expand that construct as we have done many times in the past, it's just a matter of finding the point that we are generally comfortable with as a society.
As I said last night, I asked my dad, a pastor, what his stance on gay marriage is. He wrote me a very thoughtful, long letter. This paragraph sums up his answer to my question:
Years of tradition focused on the theological justification of marriage—-procreation, friendship, and regulated enjoyment of sexuality—-are powerful forces at work for many people and institutions who want to protect privilege and power. The day is coming when the recognized covenantal relationships between same sex partners will be commonplace. But for now, while I may find it possible to endorse such relationships, I cannot officially bless and authorize homosexual covenants without jeopardizing my credential as an elder in The United Methodist Church.
Do I endorse gay marriage? As a person, yes; as a pastor, I am constrained by vows to not act on my personal conviction.
This is just one man's opinion, of course, and my dad has long been active in social justice causes. He also said this:
I have no confidence that my answer would be acceptable to expert theologians. {Your brother, also a pastor>, for example, may have a very different take on the matter. Our church has not officially changed its position on homosexuality in all the years we have been debating the matter. So my answer has no status!
If anyone is interested in reading his entire essay, let me know.
I imagine your father is not the only pastor who feels this way. Thanks for posting his (partial) answer.
The same way it handles property shared between two or more entities - see partnerships/LLCs/corporations.
The only slightly messier bit is parental rights, but we do already have methodology for working that, it just needs a bit of extension. There is even precident for non-biological parents, and other shared custody arrangements.
The only realy qualification I can see to letting people get married is informed consent. If you pass that legal bar then more power to you.
Consenting adults should be free to pursue whatever relationships with other consenting adults they see fit.
Years of tradition focused on the theological justification of marriage—-procreation, friendship, and regulated enjoyment of sexuality—-are powerful forces at work for many people and institutions who want to protect privilege and power. The day is coming when the recognized covenantal relationships between same sex partners will be commonplace. But for now, while I may find it possible to endorse such relationships, I cannot officially bless and authorize homosexual covenants without jeopardizing my credential as an elder in The United Methodist Church.
Thanks for a thoughtful and heart-felt answer on the topic.
What I have difficulty understanding is how other countries seem to have no trouble permitting same-sex marriage. Norway, Spain, and South Africa are in some ways more religious than the US; Norway is strongly Lutheran, Spain strongly Catholic, but South Africa has a wide range of religious beliefs, many of which are ancient and tribal.
The US is secular and has no state religion. That is mandated by law and charter. Why is same-sex marriage easier in less religiously diverse countries than the US?
How does the legal system handle it, though? Messy.
The same way it handles property shared between two or more entities - see partnerships/LLCs/corporations.
The only slightly messier bit is parental rights, but we do already have methodology for working that, it just needs a bit of extension. There is even precident for non-biological parents, and other shared custody arrangements.
The only realy qualification I can see to letting people get married is informed consent. If you pass that legal bar then more power to you.
I'm not sure - I can barely guess at what the legal issues would be.
What rights do the spouses have— social security benefits for example— do they have to share a benefit meant for one person? Just one example of many where legal rights associated with marriage only work in our system with pairs.
As I said last night, I asked my dad, a pastor, what his stance on gay marriage is. He wrote me a very thoughtful, long letter. This paragraph sums up his answer to my question:
Years of tradition focused on the theological justification of marriage—-procreation, friendship, and regulated enjoyment of sexuality—-are powerful forces at work for many people and institutions who want to protect privilege and power. The day is coming when the recognized covenantal relationships between same sex partners will be commonplace. But for now, while I may find it possible to endorse such relationships, I cannot officially bless and authorize homosexual covenants without jeopardizing my credential as an elder in The United Methodist Church.
Do I endorse gay marriage? As a person, yes; as a pastor, I am constrained by vows to not act on my personal conviction.
This is just one man's opinion, of course, and my dad has long been active in social justice causes. He also said this:
I have no confidence that my answer would be acceptable to expert theologians. {Your brother, also a pastor>, for example, may have a very different take on the matter. Our church has not officially changed its position on homosexuality in all the years we have been debating the matter. So my answer has no status!
If anyone is interested in reading his entire essay, let me know.
As a disclaimer, I have to say that I feel if 2 people love each other and want to get married, what business is it of mine if they're both male, female, or other?? I'm a supporter of any two people who want a legal marriage in the eyes of the law.
SO here's an interesting twist. The BBC is running a piece today on their News Hour radio broadcast... What about polygamist marriages? If all parties agree, and want to be "married," who are we to deny them? The polygamist supporters in the story were using religion (Islam) to justify this practice. Apparently a growing problem/issue/whatever you want to call it in Britain now. So most Americans would be against polygamy, I think. My personal feelings about it are illogical, but in confronting them, I've realized I feel strongly against it if it is part of religious practice, but less strongly against it if it is an arrangement that spontaneously happened. Not sure where that leaves me on the hypocrite scale, but hey— at least I'm honest. And nevermind the fact that it would be terribly impractical to deal with in the sense of property law, etc.
Someone here used religion as a reason to deny use of the term marriage to homosexuals. Does that only apply when you're using your own religion to justify something? No doubt. This is a huge argument why even religious people would be better off under a government where lawmaking is insulated from religion. You may not be the dominant religion forever.
But back to polygamy... if gays are allowed to legally marry— what logical argument against polygamy will stand up? How is the number "2" to be made "sacred?" Hmmm.
As long as everyone invovled is a consenting adult, I'm okay with polygamy. Or polyandry, for that matter.
before we totally jack this thread, I'll bump this BillG wrote:
As you've probably noticed, we try to stay as politically neutral as possible here on RP. We definitely don't believe in imposing our political beliefs on our listeners, and we've always encouraged the free expression of political views of all colors here in our listener forum.
Here in California, however, there is an ongoing issue that — in our minds, anyway — transcends politics. It's not a red, blue, conservative, or liberal issue. It's an issue of love, and tolerance, and respect for the grand diversity of human experience and emotion. So we've posted a video that addresses this issue on our front page (& I've posted it here as well). If it moves you like it moved us, please share it with your friends.
To those of you who have a political or religious opinion that predisposes you against this subject: please take a moment to watch this video with an open mind and an open heart. That's all we ask. Thanks.
I'm just going to play devils advocate.
As a disclaimer, I have to say that I feel if 2 people love each other and want to get married, what business is it of mine if they're both male, female, or other?? I'm a supporter of any two people who want a legal marriage in the eyes of the law.
SO here's an interesting twist. The BBC is running a piece today on their News Hour radio broadcast... What about polygamist marriages? If all parties agree, and want to be "married," who are we to deny them? The polygamist supporters in the story were using religion (Islam) to justify this practice. Apparently a growing problem/issue/whatever you want to call it in Britain now. So most Americans would be against polygamy, I think. My personal feelings about it are illogical, but in confronting them, I've realized I feel strongly against it if it is part of religious practice, but less strongly against it if it is an arrangement that spontaneously happened. Not sure where that leaves me on the hypocrite scale, but hey— at least I'm honest. And nevermind the fact that it would be terribly impractical to deal with in the sense of property law, etc.
Someone here used religion as a reason to deny use of the term marriage to homosexuals. Does that only apply when you're using your own religion to justify something? No doubt. This is a huge argument why even religious people would be better off under a government where lawmaking is insulated from religion. You may not be the dominant religion forever.
But back to polygamy... if gays are allowed to legally marry— what logical argument against polygamy will stand up? How is the number "2" to be made "sacred?" Hmmm.
before we totally jack this thread, I'll bump this BillG wrote:
As you've probably noticed, we try to stay as politically neutral as possible here on RP. We definitely don't believe in imposing our political beliefs on our listeners, and we've always encouraged the free expression of political views of all colors here in our listener forum.
Here in California, however, there is an ongoing issue that — in our minds, anyway — transcends politics. It's not a red, blue, conservative, or liberal issue. It's an issue of love, and tolerance, and respect for the grand diversity of human experience and emotion. So we've posted a video that addresses this issue on our front page (& I've posted it here as well). If it moves you like it moved us, please share it with your friends.
To those of you who have a political or religious opinion that predisposes you against this subject: please take a moment to watch this video with an open mind and an open heart. That's all we ask. Thanks.
