Marriage is a Christian construct?

[OllieFranz]

It would be great if there was a solid, clear difference between the terminology used to refer to a secular recognition of a commitment and the religious version of the same, but why does religion get to nick the term 'marriage'?
How about you can get legally married, and if you want a religious union you can arrange that via your faith?

You can even call it a "Marital Covenant" if you don't like the word "union" (because, even if you refuse to acknowledge it, you know that union [as in "Civil Union"] implies a lesser status than marriage).

The fact, however, is that marriage was a civil contract long before any religious significance was placed on the relationship between the participants. Which is why it was often an arranged affair between the parents or tribal elders.

 

[shirono]

You can even call it a "Marital Covenant" if you don't like the word "union" (because, even if you refuse to acknowledge it, you know that union [as in "Civil Union"] implies a lesser status than marriage).

The fact, however, is that marriage was a civil contract long before any religious significance was placed on the relationship between the participants. Which is why it was often an arranged affair between the parents or tribal elders.

I don't really want to argue semantics, but I'll say this. Words are subjective, "Civil Union" only implies lesser status because the unions need to be fixed to have the same status. If they had the same status I could care less what they called them. I'm not particular about the name used.

I do agree with your other point though.

 

[mpok1519]

Marriage existed before Christianity.

So when people say "marriage is a christian concept", theyre wrong. Marriage is a marriage concept.

 

[OllieFranz]

I don't really want to argue semantics, but I'll say this. Words are subjective, "Civil Union" only implies lesser status because the unions need to be fixed to have the same status. If they had the same status I could care less what they called them. I'm not particular about the name used.

I do agree with your other point though.

But remember to whom I addressed the remark. The reason they insist that same-sex relationships be labeled "civil unions" is so that they do not have equal status with cross-sex marriages. Sure, if we could get them to agree to separate civil from religious ceremonies, we could then concede the word marriage to them, but why should we?

 

[laconicstudent]

Personally, I don't think a religious marriage and a civil marriage should be synonymous. In all honesty, I think it would be best if people did their religious ceremony, and then went down to City Hall, or the courthouse, or whatever. I realize the convenience of having clergy able to perform a legal marriage, but it has lead to too much confusion by certain segments of society who think that gay marriage is an attack on their religious beliefs.

 

[moonkitty]

You kind of answer your own question here. They all have marriage rituals in them, set up by their God.

Hence, marriage is mandated by God.

So all these other Gods are real? Real enough to set up marriage rituals?

 

[Archer93]

But remember to whom I addressed the remark. The reason they insist that same-sex relationships be labeled "civil unions" is so that they do not have equal status with cross-sex marriages. Sure, if we could get them to agree to separate civil from religious ceremonies, we could then concede the word marriage to them, but why should we?

Erm, I think your'e confusing me with someone else. I insist on nothing of the sort! I'm marrying my fiancee, blast it, not forming a civil partnership with my same-sex life partner!
'Civil union/partnership' doesn't carry the same social and emotional weight as 'marriage'. And since it was not originally a religious thing, I WANT THE WORD TOO!!!!!

(M-day in April, current plan. I'll be calmer afterwards....)

 

[OllieFranz]

Erm, I think your'e confusing me with someone else. I insist on nothing of the sort! I'm marrying my fiancee, blast it, not forming a civil partnership with my same-sex life partner!
'Civil union/partnership' doesn't carry the same social and emotional weight as 'marriage'. And since it was not originally a religious thing, I WANT THE WORD TOO!!!!!

(M-day in April, current plan. I'll be calmer afterwards....)

Yours was not the post I quoted.

Oh wait ... I see the problem, now. You are referring to the statement in that post concerning who I was addressing in my earlier post (where I did quote you). At that time, I was building onto your response, and the person I was addressing (as referred to in the later post) was not you, but the same person to whose post you responded. Sorry about the confusion.

Mazel tov on your upcoming marriage. May you and your spouse enjoy many wonderful, loving years together.

--------------


BTW, in some European countries (I know for certain that it is true of Germany) Civil marriage and a religious wedding are two separate things (The religious leader who presides over the wedding is not the notary for the civil marriage). And it's been that way for over 100 years without any confusion. The two can be separated, and in a country with Separation of Church and State, they should be separated.


.

 

[Aradia]

Technically, buddhist "marriages" are secular. They are cultural affairs, with a monk who happens to be there for "blessings" and what-not. And there is no buddhist god who mandates marriage.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Marriage is certainly not a Christian construct. The construct observed by most Christians is, in fact, a custom adopted by Jews long before Christ, anyway - it was a Jewish custom. And many other, equally as old or older, religions have much different ceremony for marriage - but I would say that all religions have a system of marriage.

And, as marriage has been oft used much outside of religious context for nearly all of history (monetary gains and family ties being the predominant reasons for marriage until fairly recently in time), it is hardly even purely religious at this point in time.

 

[Archer93]

Yours was not the post I quoted.

Oh wait ... I see the problem, now. You are referring to the statement in that post concerning who I was addressing in my earlier post (where I did quote you). At that time, I was building onto your response, and the person I was addressing (as referred to in the later post) was not you, but the same person to whose post you responded. Sorry about the confusion.

Mazel tov on your upcoming marriage. May you and your spouse enjoy many wonderful, loving years together.

--------------
.

Ah, gotcha. Cool. And thanks!

.

BTW, in some European countries (I know for certain that it is true of Germany) Civil marriage and a religious wedding are two separate things (The religious leader who presides over the wedding is not the notary for the civil marriage). And it's been that way for over 100 years without any confusion. The two can be separated, and in a country with Separation of Church and State, they should be separated.
.

Very true- but, alas, not the case over here in many cases. Britain being an officialy Christian country (which might be why we're not as fussed about it as some officially secular countries are- that and the centuries of burning and bloodshed that resulted when people were very fussed about religion) the legal bit of a Church of England wedding is done by the officiant as well. And I think it's true for RC weddings as well, but don't quote me! Otherwise, the happy Hindu couple, say, do the signing of the register bit quietly before the ceremony.

Our secular weddings aren't allowed to have any religious element involved. So why religious objections are given any weight, I do not know...

 

[Verv]

China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc. are all nations that are not majority Christian and have many atheists living there. China and Vietnam are majority atheist.

They do not have gay marriage because they do not believe that it is a proper lifestyle.

I discussed the issue with a Chinese atheist, once, and he said it quite simply...

"When men and women make love, they make children. When a man and a man make love, they create a disease."

It really is just an issue of it not being a positive influence on society and thus not being sanctioned as such.

 

[Archer93]

China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc. are all nations that are not majority Christian and have many atheists living there. China and Vietnam are majority atheist.

They do not have gay marriage because they do not believe that it is a proper lifestyle.

I discussed the issue with a Chinese atheist, once, and he said it quite simply...

"When men and women make love, they make children. When a man and a man make love, they create a disease."

It really is just an issue of it not being a positive influence on society and thus not being sanctioned as such.

Simple is definitly the word. That chap's statement is incorrect. I thought China had a good educational system- still, there's always the odd exception to prove the rule.

 

[shirono]

Sorry, I've been a bit absent because of dealing with plumbing problems in my apartment...they still aren't fixed, but I'm not in danger of being flooded out any more at least

Technically, buddhist "marriages" are secular. They are cultural affairs, with a monk who happens to be there for "blessings" and what-not. And there is no buddhist god who mandates marriage.

Fair point.

China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, etc. are all nations that are not majority Christian and have many atheists living there. China and Vietnam are majority atheist.

They do not have gay marriage because they do not believe that it is a proper lifestyle.

I discussed the issue with a Chinese atheist, once, and he said it quite simply...

"When men and women make love, they make children. When a man and a man make love, they create a disease."

It really is just an issue of it not being a positive influence on society and thus not being sanctioned as such.

I would go into why there are SO many things wrong in that statement, but if you look back at my OP. This is NOT a discussion of whether gay marriage is moral or not, if you wish to discuss that there are plenty of threads on it in the Ethics section...this just isn't one of them. My views (as I am a lesbian) on the subject should be clear, but...

This is a thread about Christianity assuming they have the right to mandate (mostly this is the argument used by fundamentalists here in the US) who can and can not be married.

I'm happy to see that many people here have come to the conclusion that Christianity should have no control over who can and can not be married, but my question is WHY do other groups (I've mentioned them before, Westboro Baptist, The 700 Club, Focus on the Family, etc.) believe that Christianity should control marriage?

 

[shirono]

Erm, I think your'e confusing me with someone else. I insist on nothing of the sort! I'm marrying my fiancee, blast it, not forming a civil partnership with my same-sex life partner!
'Civil union/partnership' doesn't carry the same social and emotional weight as 'marriage'. And since it was not originally a religious thing, I WANT THE WORD TOO!!!!!

(M-day in April, current plan. I'll be calmer afterwards....)

Congratulations! That's amazing!

I didn't mean to offend, I'm merely saying that the legal term could be something else. It wouldn't stop you from saying you are married or referring to your spouse as your husband/wife. I'm just saying there has to be a better way to deal with the issue than acting like two children who HAVE to have the same toy. "Marriage is my word!" "Well, I want it too!" over the last couple of years that is just how I've come to see both sides of the argument here in the US.

 

[Archer93]

Congratulations! That's amazing!

I didn't mean to offend, I'm merely saying that the legal term could be something else. It wouldn't stop you from saying you are married or referring to your spouse as your husband/wife. I'm just saying there has to be a better way to deal with the issue than acting like two children who HAVE to have the same toy. "Marriage is my word!" "Well, I want it too!" over the last couple of years that is just how I've come to see both sides of the argument here in the US.

Thank you! And as you say, it won't stop me from using the word in day to day life.
The thing is- the topic came up randomly in a social environment, and while the other person wasn't anti-same-sex relationships, they did say, in all ernestness- "Well, you won't be exactly 'married', will you? It's a civil partnership."
Legally, of course, they are correct. But calling it a 'civil partnership' puts my relationship in the same linguistic and mental ballpark as a business partnership, not a life-long commitment.

I know- when it comes down to it the whole row can come across as rather childish. But to continue your analogy- it's not as if there is only one toy, there are lots of this type of toy.
There are lots of different types of Transformers toys, and some people prefer certain Transformers over others. There are enough Transformers toys for everyone who wants one, but some kids seem to be insisting that only they and their friends can have them. Everyone else can have a toy that looks similar to but not actually like any existing Transformer, which doesn't have the Transformer logo and isn't actually a Transformer.

 

[OllieFranz]

I know- when it comes down to it the whole row can come across as rather childish. But to continue your analogy- it's not as if there is only one toy, there are lots of this type of toy.
There are lots of different types of Transformers toys, and some people prefer certain Transformers over others. There are enough Transformers toys for everyone who wants one, but some kids seem to be insisting that only they and their friends can have them. Everyone else can have a toy that looks similar to but not actually like any existing Transformer, which doesn't have the Transformer logo and isn't actually a Transformer.

That's a memory my family could have done without a reminder of. The first Christmas after Transformers first came out, there was another brand which also had a cartoon, and one or two generic brands. My mother didn't know any better, and she just picked up transforming toys for all her grandchildren that looked interesting and were in her budget. Such a kerfuffle you never saw, over who got "real" Transformers and who got knock-offs.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

For instance, one of my best friends was married in a Wiccan ceremony by a Wiccan priestess who got herself a license to marry.

You are aware that Wicca is not the best example to use, especially when you are bringing up cultures/ethnicities/spiritualities etc. that pre-date Christianity as a means of discussion and comparison. Wicca is purely a 20th century development, even though it does have roots in ancient Pagan rituals.

 

[Archer93]

That's a memory my family could have done without a reminder of. The first Christmas after Transformers first came out, there was another brand which also had a cartoon, and one or two generic brands. My mother didn't know any better, and she just picked up transforming toys for all her grandchildren that looked interesting and were in her budget. Such a kerfuffle you never saw, over who got "real" Transformers and who got knock-offs.

Oh my goodness. I can imagine. Sorry!
A strong argument against knock-offs of brands, methinks.

 

[Gracchus]

You are aware that Wicca is not the best example to use, especially when you are bringing up cultures/ethnicities/spiritualities etc. that pre-date Christianity as a means of discussion and comparison. Wicca is purely a 20th century development, even though it does have roots in ancient Pagan rituals.

Certainly it is true that Wicca is not the same as the old pagan religion, but it is also true that Christianity is not the same religion that Paul preached and it bares little or no resemblance to what Jesus taught. Neither of those gentlemen would be likely to recognize in modern Christianities much that was familiar to them in ritual or doctrine.