God Hates You.......

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I should amend my comments that in MOST communities/societies, the law does not require a religious ceremony in order for people to marry. I can't say that has always been the case everywhere. It is certainly the case in all states in the USA.

I think that's in all "Western societies": you can have two weddings, one at the registry office and a religious one, if you like. Or even two.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Marriage as recognized by law has never required a religious ceremony. It could be confirmed by a Justice of the Peace, a judge, a ship's captain, filing the document with the city clerk, or in some states simply by common law (recognized because the two live together as husband and wife for a time with no license or ceremony involved at all.)

The state, however, has long recognized the benefits of traditional marriage to children, the population as a whole, and the communities in which traditional marriage is the norm, in all of which the state has reasonable and practical interest. For that reason the state recognizes, sanctions, and provides attractive incentives to encourage the institution. The state also includes certain laws governing the legality of the marriage contract to ensure that persons too closely related won't marry, that persons too young cannot be forced into marriage, etc.

None of that has any bearing on necessary benefits for those outside traditional marriage to have visitation privileges in hospitals, enjoy certain tax benefits, right of inheritance etc. in a less complicated manner than now exists. For that reason I would strongly support a new institution that would be available to everybody just as marriage is available to everybody. People could add religious ceremonies and their own traditions to such new institution just as they have with marriage.

I don't really object to what you wrote.

However: the "traditional marriage" wasn't something which gave you the above mentioned benefits - at least not during those times when marriage was just and only church's affair.

Here, civil authorities changed quite a lot, secularised the religious rules.

When you look at the first registration state does - birth - civil authorities even changed more: you don't need to have two (or more) godparents, you don't get baptised, you don't have to be there, well, you even can get registered without any mentioning of your father.

And I do think that such should be possible with 'marriage' as well.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I should amend my comments that in MOST communities/societies, the law does not require a religious ceremony in order for people to marry. I can't say that has always been the case everywhere. It is certainly the case in all states in the USA.

I think that's in all "Western societies": you can have two weddings, one at the registry office and a religious one, if you like. Or even two.

No, just one wedding is the norm at least in the USA. If conducted by a ordained and/or licensed minister, he or she signs off on the marriage certificate as do two witnesses and this is filed with the city clerk. Or you can simply obtain the two witnesses, who can be anybody at all, and file the certificate with no wedding ceremony of any kind being required.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No, just one wedding is the norm at least in the USA. If conducted by a ordained and/or licensed minister, he or she signs off on the marriage certificate as do two witnesses and this is filed with the city clerk. Or you can simply obtain the two witnesses, who can be anybody at all, and file the certificate with no wedding ceremony of any kind being required.

A wedding in a church qualifies as a civil wedding? I'd thought, you'd a separation of church and state?

(Until last year, as a catholic, you had to be married before you could have a wedding in a Catholic church. In Germany - so many, who didn't want to marry - got there religious wedding in Austra. Now, Catholics can do here, too, as Evangelicals/Protestants always could.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I'm not familiar with those practices Walter but have no reason to think that is not the norm where you are. In the USA, a Catholic would go to the city/county clerk office and pick up a wedding certificate or the officiating clergy person will have one on hand. The wedding in the church is conducted by a priest who then signs off on the wedding certificate as do the witnesses (normally the best man and maid of honor though any witness will do.) (A non-Catholic Christian ceremony would usually be conducted by an Anglican/Episcopal priest, ordained or licensed minister; a Jewish ceremony conducted by a rabbi, etc.) The completed certificate is then filed with the city/county clerk who recognizes the marriage as official according to the date the certificate was completed and witnessed. The certificate has to be be filed within a certain time period from the time it was completed and witnessed or it becomes invalid and a new certificate must be obtained.

But again, as previously commented, no ceremony of any kind and no religious involvement is necessary for the marriage to be recognized by the state. You just have to file the signed and witnessed certificate. A church wedding has no validity apart from the civil requirement and the state requires no religious involvement or any ceremony of any kind.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I think that only now I understand all this a bit more.

As said, you could marry a couple of times in various temples/churches/cult places, have really great marriages - but what counts are those couple of minutes at the registry office.

Actually, our "registered partnership" is nearly identical to a marriage, with, however, some differences e.g. constitutional legal affairs (Article 6, Basic Law: "Marriage and family ..."), salary of civil servants, and perhaps a few more minor stuff.

So it's commonly called 'gay marriage' ("Homo-Ehe"), even in official papers.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I am resistant to change that has proved itself to be not beneficial.

What is the evidence you have that gay marriage is not beneficial to some?

Also, you keep talking about "most people"

Yes, 60% is most people, but it's by no means some overwhelming majority in which everything else pales by comparison. What is wrong with challenging a tradition that keeps people who want to be together, apart? What is wrong with challenging some traditions, period? You have a case of "but it's always been this way, and it'll be bad if it changes"

Why not embrace the change and see what comes of it?

You still haven't answered my question as to what undesireable things would happen if people could form the family they want to form.

1 Reply

@chai2,

I didn't use the term 'overwhelming majority' but 'most' is most. Nobody in this country has an automatic right to be judged right or to be acceptable for that matter. Unless some outside power forces a different course, each society determines what it judges to be good or positive or acceptable and what is not. Example: it is deemed good, positive, and acceptable to wear at least some clothing in most public places. Why is public nudity unacceptable? It is unacceptable because most.....the operative word is most or a majority...people do not want there to be public nudity. At such time as most people don't care, there will almost certainly be public nudity. Until then, the would-be nudist does not have any automatic right to do as he or she pleases or to be acceptable.

There is no fundamental right to marry either via societal norms or legally. There is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution for equal protection under the law and every man, woman, and child, gay or straight, is subject to and treated equally by the same law re marriage in each state in this country. Those who don't like the way the law is structured have every right to try to change it. They do not have the right to dictate it, however; therefore, the will of the majority prevails. At such time as the majority wants the definition of marriage changed, it will change. Until that time, the law as it exists violates nobody's unalienable, constitutional, civil, or legal rights.

With reasonable restrictions in place to protect the powerless, I have no problem whatsoever with people forming families they want to form. If you will honestly read my previous posts, you will see that. I have seen in statistics and first hand the harm that comes from breaking with certain traditions, however.

I have seen the nuclear family eroded to the point that more children do not enjoy a traditional mom/pop/kids family than do along with increase in child poverty, crime, erosion of education, and various other uglies that I think have been a result of that. Perhaps you will understand why I do not embrace or endorse the change you want as I believe it will only exacerbate and increase those same uglies.

I have no evidence that 'gay marriage' is not beneficial to some. I have no reason or inclination to look for such evidence as that is not an issue for me. When my secretary who happened to be a lesbian got 'married', I went to the 'wedding.' It was fun.

I do have evidence that the traditional nuclear family is on average beneficial for kids and all people in general, however, and until somebody has ANYTHING to convince me that is not the case, I won't be changing my opinion about that.

2 Replies

Not only can Fox not show that the marriage of homosexuals is not beneficial, she cannot show that it would do any harm. Don't worry, though, she'll change her position, move the goal posts, and deny that she wants to deny anyone their civil rights, because she always wants her cake and to be able to eat it, too. She wants to be a right-wing, redneck bible thumper, and to deny that she is a right-wijng, redneck bible thumper.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I think that only now I understand all this a bit more.

As said, you could marry a couple of times in various temples/churches/cult places, have really great marriages - but what counts are those couple of minutes at the registry office.

Actually, our "registered partnership" is nearly identical to a marriage, with, however, some differences e.g. constitutional legal affairs (Article 6, Basic Law: "Marriage and family ..."), salary of civil servants, and perhaps a few more minor stuff.

So it's commonly called 'gay marriage' ("Homo-Ehe"), even in official papers.

I'm not entirely sure that I understand what you're saying here, Walter. What I was saying is that marriage laws in the USA do not consider, include, or relate to religion or religious principles in any form. No religious beliefs or practices of any kind factor into the civil contract except that a licensed clergy person is authorized to validate the marriage as is a Justice of the Peace, judge, or ship's captain etc.

A wedding ceremony in any church or synagogue is not valid without a marriage certificate being signed, witnessed, and filed with the state and the state requires no ceremony or religious custom/ritual/statement of any kind in order for that certificate to be filed.

We have one state that recognizes 'gay marriages' (Massachusetts) and I don't know if the fact that it is a same sex marriage is designated on their marriage certificates or not.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

No one said you used the term overwhelming majority.

It fact, it was I who said it.

You live in a self made, very tiny world.

If you lived in a part of the world where Christians were 40% of the population....no wait, sorry, let's make it that Christians were 10% of the population, that's closer to the % of gays and also left handed people, and 60% of the entire population said their tradition was that Christians weren't allow to marry or have children together, you'd advocate for change.

You'd say that tradition needed to be changed.

You base your argument on by saying what you've seen, by the evidence you've read. I think you only read the evidence that supports your theory.

Of course you don't have any data on how it would hurt society. If you had to go look for it, you might find something that would make your mind open up a crack, and that would cause discomfort.

Don't take that personally, there's a lot of people like you.

I'm not one of them.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

except that a licensed clergy person is authorized to validate the marriage as is a Justice of the Peace, judge, or ship's captain etc.

Well, that's what I was referring at.

A marriage here can only be made at a "registered" registry office (which may be -usually- in a townhall, but can be an 'attraction' like a castle, or 'diving tower' ..) by a registry clerk (that's a civil servant with a special training).

You can get married in a church by a priest, on a ship by a captain, at a party by a judge, in a kindergarten by a nurse - but that's all (legally) just for fun.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Okay, then your marriage laws aren't much, if any, different from ours. I guess I was using the term 'wedding' as a ritual ceremony or custom unrelated to any law or requirement by the state and I wasn't sure that you agreed with that. I think we are on the same page though.

0 Replies

@chai2,

I always take it personally when I am advised of the tiny world I live in or how I would think differently or how I would advocate in a different setting or what I base my argument on or what data I have at my disposal when it is delivered to me by somebody who doesn't have a clue about who I am, how I live, what I know, what I have experienced, or how I have arrived at my opinions.

I do try very hard not to do that to others though. I do recommend that others be like me in that regard.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Yeah I think thats a bit unfair chai.
Saying stuff like that doesn't go far to make your opinion seem wiser.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

Chai also seems to be closed minded when it comes to anything of a religious nature, just as she accuses foxfyre of being on things that are outside of her belief system. That is not a criticism, just an observation.

The only thing that I can see that may be harmful in a gay marriage where (procreation, as Chai puts it, is not a problem) is the effect on children born into such circumstances that are outside of the norm for the vast majority of children.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Too bad for Intrep's religious beliefs that fairy tales do not represent reality.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Chai also seems to be closed minded when it comes to anything of a religious nature, just as she accuses foxfyre of being on things that are outside of her belief system. That is not a criticism, just an observation.

The only thing that I can see that may be harmful in a gay marriage where (procreation, as Chai puts it, is not a problem) is the effect on children born into such circumstances that are outside of the norm for the vast majority of children.

On the contrary, I've accused no one of anything.

ff repeatedly makes statements such as others must think she's terrible, and must think she's this or that.

I've never said she was terrible, I've never called her any names at all.

seems to me ff wants to play the part of the persecuted christian, and whoever speaks their own minds are the lions.

To be clear, I'm not forcing anyone to accept anything. However, when they can't give clear explanations about what their fears are, discourse is not possible.

Re your concern Intrepid, about the children, you yourself say you can see where it MAY be harmful, not where it would be.

My idea on this is; if a gay couple want a child, they have to go through extra measures to get one. They have to really want this child.

How many children are conceived by heterosexuals that are unwanted, were an accident, or are born to couples that have no business or no concept of what it would take to raise a productive member of society. People who raise children that will be the one's that will try to torment the children of gays.

I think gay couples will raise children that will by necessity have to be quite resiliant around the children who were calved from some cow who smoked during her pregnancy, smacks them around, and sends her kids off to school with a belief system that mocks anything different from their them.

I'm thinking the number of abused children with gay parents would be a very small percentage of abused children overall. Would the % be zero? Of course not. Would it be lower than the average. I believe so.

If a childs raised in a loving home, they are so far ahead of kids abused in their home, they'll deal with the world just fine.

I'm also not closed minded to religion at all. Your saying it certainly does not make it so.

I am opposed to ignorance, and blindly following without question.

The vast majority of children throughout the ages have had to work much sooner and physically harder than children in the majority do today. Not working would have been outside the norm from the vast majority of children. Was it harmful for those children who lived in families where they did not have to work?

Outside the norm changes constantly.

What is "the norm" anyway? No one is an example of some "norm"

0 Replies

@Chumly,

Chumly wrote:

Too bad for Intrep's religious beliefs that fairy tales do not represent reality.

What would you know of my religious beliefs? You should spend more time in reality and get out of the fog so that you can better rationalize what you read. Or, think you have read.

What is your opinion on the topic of the thread as posted by the author of the thread?

0 Replies

britain has this compromise: gays can form a civil partnership, that is have the same legal rights and married couples, for inheritance and tax purposes etc. But cannot marry: marriage being the Christian ceremony.
I see no harm in this: basically Europe does not have the backward religious bigotry of the U.S. so most people aren't bothered by the religious bit: two countries allow gay marriages, Spain and Holland.

1 Reply

God Hates You.......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know