Marriage

[morningstar2651]

Why not work towards a compromise when it comes to same sex marriage? I've been thinking about it for a while and discussing it with some friends and I think I may have found a solution that both sides of the issue can agree with. Christians won't be required to perform same sex marriages and homosexuals get equal rights.

• Take marriage out of the hands of the government. It should be a purely religious ceremony.
• Replace the government institution of marriage with civil unions. Civil unions will have all the rights that marriage currently has. Anyone that is considered a legal adult may get a civil union.
• Ordained ministers, such as myself, could no longer legally unite a couple, it is their duty to religiously unite them.

I'd like to see what my fellow posters have to say about this proposal. I don't see any flaws, so point out any you see and I'll work on improving this proposal.

 

[The Seeker]

Sounds like a good idea to me, the further out of people's lives the government is, the better

 

[butterfoot]

Why not work towards a compromise when it comes to same sex marriage? I've been thinking about it for a while and discussing it with some friends and I think I may have found a solution that both sides of the issue can agree with. Christians won't be required to perform same sex marriages and homosexuals get equal rights.

• Take marriage out of the hands of the government. It should be a purely religious ceremony.
• Replace the government institution of marriage with civil unions. Civil unions will have all the rights that marriage currently has. Anyone that is considered a legal adult may get a civil union.
• Ordained ministers, such as myself, could no longer legally unite a couple, it is their duty to religiously unite them.

I'd like to see what my fellow posters have to say about this proposal. I don't see any flaws, so point out any you see and I'll work on improving this proposal.

My religous beliefs prohibit me from accepting in any way those who try to marry someone of the same sex. While I will not judge those that choose to be homosexual I can present my feelings and views. Since Marriage for thousands of years has been between Man and Woman we in no way can change that now. Civil unions would be a union between two people but technically isn't that what marriage is? So sorry no go on the civil unions. I can see where someone important in your life would want to be near you and take care of you if need be in the case of someone dying or in bad health. They didn't make Powers of Attorney for no reason.


Thats just my thoughts


-cw

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Why not work towards a compromise when it comes to same sex marriage? I've been thinking about it for a while and discussing it with some friends and I think I may have found a solution that both sides of the issue can agree with. Christians won't be required to perform same sex marriages and homosexuals get equal rights.

• Take marriage out of the hands of the government. It should be a purely religious ceremony.
• Replace the government institution of marriage with civil unions. Civil unions will have all the rights that marriage currently has. Anyone that is considered a legal adult may get a civil union.
• Ordained ministers, such as myself, could no longer legally unite a couple, it is their duty to religiously unite them.

I'd like to see what my fellow posters have to say about this proposal. I don't see any flaws, so point out any you see and I'll work on improving this proposal.

Not like this hasn't been in the P&M se(x)ction before, but let's try to go through this again...
Take marriage out of the hands of the government, but don't.
Call marriage by another name.
Marriage (civil union) will not change as far as the government's role.
Ordained ministers can't legally act on their own as representatives of government, but can represent their own religion... as it is now.

Did I miss anything?
You do realize that this issue isn't about who gets to use a word, don't you?

 

[morningstar2651]

Actually, Marriage within my religion is between consenting adults. If we do things that way, my religion may handfast whomever we choose to and Christians are free to say "That goes against our beliefs, we cannot wed the two of you".

The idea behind the civil union is that the civil union is recognised by the government, but marriage would be recognised by the religion. I also doubt that Christians would recognise a Pagan Handfasting.

 

[The Seeker]

My religous beliefs prohibit me from accepting in any way those who try to marry someone of the same sex. While I will not judge those that choose to be homosexual I can present my feelings and views. Since Marriage for thousands of years has been between Man and Woman we in no way can change that now. Civil unions would be a union between two people but technically isn't that what marriage is? So sorry no go on the civil unions. I can see where someone important in your life would want to be near you and take care of you if need be in the case of someone dying or in bad health. They didn't make Powers of Attorney for no reason.


Thats just my thoughts


-cw

Dunno what it's like in the US, but there are numerous cases in the UK of hospitals failing to acknowledge a gay partner's wishes despite contracts and legal documents signed beforehand, civil unions would give gay relationships legal parity with straight ones and hence might help to solve this. Also, its not just power of attourney, what about next of kin rights and access to insurance and pensions?

 

[morningstar2651]

Not like this hasn't been in the P&M se(x)ction before, but let's try to go through this again...
Take marriage out of the hands of the government, but don't.
Call marriage by another name.
Marriage (civil union) will not change as far as the government's role.
Ordained ministers can't legally act on their own as representatives of government, but can represent their own religion... as it is now.

Did I miss anything?
You do realize that this issue isn't about who gets to use a word, don't you?

It seemed like a lot of semantics to me. I'd appreciate it if you could help me improve this proposal to be more appealing to both sides of the debate.

The primary thing I'm not likely to waver on is equal rights. If that means giving more rights to homosexuals or less to heterosexuals I'm aiming for equality either way.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Actually, Marriage within my religion is between consenting adults. If we do things that way, my religion may handfast whomever we choose to and Christians are free to say "That goes against our beliefs, we cannot wed the two of you".

You do realize that it is the act of meeting certain requirements and filing the appropriate forms in which the government recognizes that a couple is contractually married, do you not? If a 'Christian' (notice the segregation between Christian and government) tells you that your handfast ceremony doesn't make it a marriage, that is simply their opinion. In addition, if a Christian minister/priest/pastor/etc. were to have a marriage ceremony and not meet the government's requirements and file the appropriate forms, the couple would likewise not be recognized.

The idea behind the civil union is that the civil union is recognised by the government, but marriage would be recognised by the religion. I also doubt that Christians would recognise a Pagan Handfasting.

Marriage that is recognized by the government is already a civil union, a contract, a declaration, a proven benefit to society since recorded time.
And I don't really think one religion having to recognize another religion's ceremony is a necessity... it kind of renders the whole principle of religious beliefs useless if it was a necessity.

 

[butterfoot]

It seemed like a lot of semantics to me. I'd appreciate it if you could help me improve this proposal to be more appealing to both sides of the debate.

The primary thing I'm not likely to waver on is equal rights. If that means giving more rights to homosexuals or less to heterosexuals I'm aiming for equality either way.

It is really hard to be equal when homosexuality goes against society and human nature. Sorry but you lie in the bed you make.


-cw

 

[Eve_Sundancer]

It is really hard to be equal when homosexuality goes against society and human nature. Sorry but you lie in the bed you make.

And that has been debated to death in many homosexuality threads. This is not a "debate the ok-ness of homosexuality" thread. This is a way to give everyone equal rights in marriage.

 

[Zaac]

Why not work towards a compromise when it comes to same sex marriage? I've been thinking about it for a while and discussing it with some friends and I think I may have found a solution that both sides of the issue can agree with. Christians won't be required to perform same sex marriages and homosexuals get equal rights.

• Take marriage out of the hands of the government. It should be a purely religious ceremony.

• 
  
  So does that mean that companies do not have to recognize same-sex marriages and provide spousal benefits if they do not want to? Most Churches already will not marry them so would making it a religious ceremony change anything?
  
  

  [*]Replace the government institution of marriage with civil unions. Civil unions will have all the rights that marriage currently has. Anyone that is considered a legal adult may get a civil union.

  
  Why not keep marriage and let the same sex couples get civil unions if they want?
  
  

  [*]Ordained ministers, such as myself, could no longer legally unite a couple, it is their duty to religiously unite them.

  
  What do you mean no longer legally unite them, but religiously? I've never married anyone who wasn't getting married religiously.
  
  Nice try at a compromise.
  
  But I say stop trying to legislate it. If people think that legislating marriage is going to keep the moral attitude of this country from going down the drain, they are sadly mistaken.
  
  The only thing that is going to kick start revival in the Church and spur it along to its evangelistic mission of GOING and preaching the Gospel and bringing people to Christ will be a Church that confesses and repents of sin and gets itself right before a Holy God.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

And that has been debated to death in many homosexuality threads. This is not a "debate the ok-ness of homosexuality" thread. This is a way to give everyone equal rights in marriage.

Then why limit it only adding same-gender?
Why not others that co-habitate for a duration, polygamy, close relatives, arranged marriages, etc.
As has also been discussed at length, there are advocates for those groups as well.

 

[Jetgirl]

Take marriage out of the hands of the government. It should be a purely religious ceremony.

• Replace the government institution of marriage with civil unions. Civil unions will have all the rights that marriage currently has. Anyone that is considered a legal adult may get a civil union.
• Ordained ministers, such as myself, could no longer legally unite a couple, it is their duty to religiously unite them.

I'd like to see what my fellow posters have to say about this proposal. I don't see any flaws, so point out any you see and I'll work on improving this proposal.

Hear hear!

I've been on the topic of getting the gov't out of marriage for a few months now, but you've put it much better than I have.

 

[Jetgirl]

Since Marriage for thousands of years has been between Man and Woman we in no way can change that now.

-cw

Unfortunately that's not true on two counts:

1. Marriage has been (and still is) between a man and a woman, and a man and several women, a woman and a few men, a couple of both, etc.. etc..

2. Just because something has not been changed, does not at all mean that it can't be or that it shouldn't be.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Unfortunately that's not true on two counts:

1. Marriage has been (and still is) between a man and a woman, and a man and several women, a woman and a few men, a couple of both, etc.. etc..

Not universally.

2. Just because something has not been changed, does not at all mean that it can't be or that it shouldn't be.

And likewise, just because something is different or new does not mean that it should be or is the right thing to do.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#novitatem

 

[morningstar2651]

What do you mean no longer legally unite them, but religiously? I've never married anyone who wasn't getting married religiously.

Atheists can marry too.

I'm trying to work toward a compromise. I'm open to suggestions.

The benefits of the one I posted are as follows...

To have a civil union, you get a signed piece of paper. You don't need to be a member of any particular religion or gender to do so.

To have a marriage ceremony, a Christian couple would have an ordained minister or priest officiate the ceremony, they'd exchange vows, etc.

A homosexual Christian couple could get a civil union, but they would be denied the marriage ceremony by their church. They would have all the legal rights that a heterosexual couple would have. This union, not being a marriage, would (as most Christians believe) not be recognised by God. However, this union would be recognised by the United States government.

A homosexual Pagan couple could get a civil union and have a handfasting ritual. The homosexual non-christian couple would have the same legal rights as a heterosexual Christian couple and a homosexual Christian couple.

I think I adequately explained the proposal.

 

[Zaac]

Atheists can marry too.

Not by any good Southern Baptists that I know.

I'm trying to work toward a compromise. I'm open to suggestions.

You're an ordained minister of the Gospel. Stand on God's Word. It's not open to compromise.

We've done entirely too much trying to make people feel good about their unrepentant sin, including those sitting in our congregations. As a Christian , you are called to teach, rebuke, correct and train in righteousness using God's Word.

Not to look for compromises that make people happy that they can sin and not have anyone say anything to them about it because it doesn't infringe about a Christian institution.

The committing of homosexual acts is WRONG. There is no compromise to that. And no minister of the Gospel needs to be looking for a compromise that in any way encourages anyone to that which God directs against.

 

[morningstar2651]

Neo-Pagan marriages are not neccisarlily traditionally male and female only.

I think, perhaps, that the reason that the federal institution of marriage is traditionally male and female is because homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the APA until 1973.

Sodomy was illegal in the United states up until 2003 (Lawrence vs. Texas)

Now that homosexuality isn't considered deviant by the APA and sex between homosexuals is legal, I think it may be a good idea to rethink the legal definition of marriage (or civil union). Is there good reason that these civil unions should not be for homosexuals as well?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Neo-Pagan marriages are not neccisarlily traditionally male and female only.

I think, perhaps, that the reason that the federal institution of marriage is traditionally male and female is because homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the APA until 1973.

Some insight:
1) The APA isn't an institution that is as old like others that use the term 'traditional'.
2) I really don't think you want me to post the evidence relating to the APA's political and social ideology bias/motivations - that may be seen as a derail of your thread, so I suggest that the appeal to authority there should be dropped.

Sodomy was illegal in the United states up until 2003 (Lawrence vs. Texas)

Now that homosexuality isn't considered deviant by the APA and sex between homosexuals is legal, I think it may be a good idea to rethink the legal definition of marriage (or civil union). Is there good reason that these civil unions should not be for homosexuals as well?

1) False premise that marriage definition hasn't been 'rethought'.
2) A more appropriate phrasing of your sodomy law removal would be that sex between homosexuals is now no longer ILLEGAL.

BTW - so that I don't have to quote another post ~

"I'm trying to work toward a compromise."

My Christian doctrine dictates that I stand firm, not compromise.

2 Thessalonians 2:13
[ Stand Firm ] But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you [ Some manuscripts because God chose you as his firstfruits] to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Galatians 5:1
[ Freedom in Christ ] It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Ephesians 6:14
Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place,

 

[Jetgirl]

Not universally.

No, not universally, but the claim was being made that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, which is patently untrue.

And likewise, just because something is different or new does not mean that it should be or is the right thing to do.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#novitatem

Yep. I agree.