Separate civil and religious marriage - pros and cons

[Crazy Liz]

Marriage has always been a social institution. The civil and religious aspects are both later add-ons that may or may not exist in any given society.

 

[IzzyPop]

Marriage has always been a social institution. The civil and religious aspects are both later add-ons that may or may not exist in any given society.

I disagree. Marriage has been a mostly legal institution. It has always been a method of transferring ownership and inheritance.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I disagree. Marriage has been a mostly legal institution. It has always been a method of transferring ownership and inheritance.

Marriage is prior to law, prior to religion, and prior to property. This is true, whether you study it from a legal POV, a sociological POV, or a religious POV. There was no property, no law, and no religion in the Garden of Eden, but there was marriage.

Later institutions recognized marriage and used marriage, but did not establish marriage.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Cons - homosexuals still don't have the same rights as heterosexuals.

 

[wanderingone]

I disagree. Marriage has been a mostly legal institution. It has always been a method of transferring ownership and inheritance.

I'd say that it's legal systems that responded to marriage rather than marriage being created by a legal system. Law usually has to catch up to the community rather than the community being defined by the law when it comes to civil matters.. of course once the laws are in existence things get kind of murky..

I don't disagree that marriage in itself, regardless of when it was codified was for most of history (and still often is ) a means to control who gets what.

 

[IzzyPop]

I'd say that it's legal systems that responded to marriage rather than marriage being created by a legal system. Law usually has to catch up to the community rather than the community being defined by the law when it comes to civil matters.. of course once the laws are in existence things get kind of murky..

I don't disagree that marriage in itself, regardless of when it was codified was for most of history (and still often is ) a means to control who gets what.

Maybe legal is not the best word. I'm pretty sure marriage in some form predated any codified judicial system. But brides were (and still are in some places) traded just like any other valuable commodity. Marriage arose from this system of bartering.

 

[IzzyPop]

Marriage is prior to law, prior to religion, and prior to property. This is true, whether you study it from a legal POV, a sociological POV, or a religious POV. There was no property, no law, and no religion in the Garden of Eden, but there was marriage.

Later institutions recognized marriage and used marriage, but did not establish marriage.

As stated in the above post, I agree that marriage predated law, but I disagree that marriage predated property. Marriage is all about property. It severed the female from her prior family and bonded her to the new one (thus the change of surname).

 

[Crazy Liz]

As stated in the above post, I agree that marriage predated law, but I disagree that marriage predated property. Marriage is all about property. It severed the female from her prior family and bonded her to the new one (thus the change of surname).

Certainly marriage predated property according to the POV of the Christian scriptures. Whether it predated property in terms of anthropological prehistory is probably impossible to prove because the history off marriage customs, to the degree they have been preserved, have come down to us along with property customs.

I think we can agree, though, that pair-bonding seems to be pretty normative to human reproduction. So the question would be whether some sort of socially recognized pair bonding had already begun to occur before humans invented the concept of property. I would argue that it is more plausible that concepts of property arose among social groups that were already pair-bonding than that pair-bonding arose out of the concept of property.

You may argue that pair-bonding did not become what we would recognize as marriage until customs involving property were added to the customs of pair-bonding. If so, then you may make your argument that property preceded marriage, but realize it is circular. I think it is highly improbable that concepts of property preceded human pair-bonding.

 

[Crazy Liz]

It severed the female from her prior family and bonded her to the new one (thus the change of surname).

Oh, and one interesting thing about the Garden of Eden in Judeo-Christian mythology: It preserves the idea that originally marriage severed the male from his prior family and bonded him to the new one.

Genesis 2:24

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.​

 

[LittleNipper]

Cons - homosexuals still don't have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Nor do two girls or two boys having consentual sex need any. A family may, but homosexual sex cannot produce a family. And secular government doesn't wish to foster sex for sex sake (at least it once didn't). At least I don't see how sex benefits society except for the procreation of childern to fill various future roles in society. And make MODEL citizens. Are sex mongers model citizens or simply abusers of such?

 

[jcook922]

Nor do two girls or two boys having consentual sex need any. A family may, but homosexual sex cannot produce a family. And secular government doesn't wish to foster sex for sex sake (at least it once didn't). At least I don't see how sex benefits society except for the procreation of childern to fill various future roles in society. And make MODEL citizens. Are sex mongers model citizens or simply abusers of such?

Having sex for the sake of pleasure doesn't make you a nymphomaniac sex monger.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Nor do two girls or two boys having consentual sex need any. A family may, but homosexual sex cannot produce a family. And secular government doesn't wish to foster sex for sex sake (at least it once didn't). At least I don't see how sex benefits society except for the procreation of childern to fill various future roles in society. And make MODEL citizens. Are sex mongers model citizens or simply abusers of such?

So who gets to define who is a "MODEL" citizen? And in what possible way could who a person finds attractive have anything to do with it?


Also, how in the world do "sex mongers" relate to homosexuals, homosexuals who in fact may or may not be sexual active just like heterosexuals.

What in the world is a "sex monger" anyway?

And who has given you the right to define family for the rest of us? Family is a nebulous term, that frankly over the centuries has covered a variety of social groups. And what prevents a homosexual from having children? Much like a lot of heterosexual couples these days, homosexuals can engage in artificial insemination or adoption to have a child. What invalidates these children and the corresponding family structure?


Why can't you just admit that you find homosexuality repulsive, and leave it at that. Why do you feel the need to try to enforce your morality on the rest of the world, when its quite clear it isn't wanted or appreciated?

 

[jcook922]

So who gets to define who is a "MODEL" citizen? And in what possible way could who a person finds attractive have anything to do with it?


Also, how in the world do "sex mongers" relate to homosexuals, homosexuals who in fact may or may not be sexual active just like heterosexuals.

What in the world is a "sex monger" anyway?

And who has given you the right to define family for the rest of us? Family is a nebulous term, that frankly over the centuries has covered a variety of social groups. And what prevents a homosexual from having children? Much like a lot of heterosexual couples these days, homosexuals can engage in artificial insemination or adoption to have a child. What invalidates these children and the corresponding family structure?


Why can't you just admit that you find homosexuality repulsive, and leave it at that. Why do you feel the need to try to enforce your morality on the rest of the world, when its quite clear it isn't wanted or appreciated?

I love you. I'd have a same-sex marriage with you if I wasn't straight.

Seems more like a quest to promote Christianity to make it the dominant force in the world, so they have can keep a grip on being the authority that decides what is right and proper. All under the guise of using the bible as justification to people who don't follow the bible, all for the sake of religious extremists never having to live with people that violate their own comfort zone.

Sounds more like selfish needs and wants that come from a secular thirst for control, being justified by religion.