This is different to the base "gay marriage" thread and I hope different enough. Basically, I was at my cousin's wedding. She is Protestant (as is my family mostly) and the pastor said that we were at a Christian wedding. This set me thinking. I was attending a Christian marriage. My cousin and her fiance had decided to be married in a church by a pastor. That is fair enough. They had a Christian marriage as the pastor said. However, I then though. Does this not then allow there to be a marriage which is not Christian? This would make life in society so much easier in that there is Christian marriage that is a union of man and woman before God and sanctified in a church. Then there is a marriage that is a commitment between two individuals who love each other in front of the appropriate officer of the law. If you look at it this way, you are able to keep both the "sanctity" of a religious marriage before god but it is also people for people to either get married before the state (i.e. the people) or get married if their partner is of the same sex. I really can't see any problems with this method and I would really appreciate feedback =/
I did my Final paper last semester on legalizing gay marriage, and this was kind of like one of the points I brought up, if I understand you right. Except I said something along the lines of "Let straight people have marriage, and give a different name to gay people's marriage, but give them the same rights." You're saying the same thing but make it a different ceremony altogether? If so, yes, I completely agree with you.
I see it as that, Christian couples have a Christian marrige. Jewish couples have a Jewish marriage. Muslim couples have a Muslim marriage etc. But there is also the capacity for non-religious/gay couple to have a simple marriage. A marriage that confers the same rights, and has the same importance as the other marriages, with the religious connotations. I see it as that, Christian couples have a Christian marrige. Jewish couples have a Jewish marriage. Muslim couples have a Muslim marriage etc. But there is also the capacity for non-religious/gay couple to have a simple marriage. A marriage that confers the same rights, and has the same importance as the other marriages, with the religious connotations.
What if a Christian wanted to marry a Muslim or atheist though? But at any rate, I agree. Reminds me of the marriage scene in The Invention of Lying. "Do you agree to take this man as your genetic partner, and be faithful for as long as you want to?" Still though, I don't think gay people would be saying, "We're getting 'atheist-married!'" or "We're getting gay married!", it would probably just be considered "getting married", which is what most Christians are upset about.
Then the wedding ceremony would be done on agreement of the couple. They can decide which ceremony they would like to do or if they want to do one completely different.
Well, I'm an atheist and my boyfriend is a Christian. Say if we were to get married (^///^), we would decide what type of marriage we would want. We could have a Christian marriage or a non-religious marriage depending on our beliefs so we could actually have a Muslim marriage or Jewish marriage even though we're not either of those.
The Bible says Marriage is between one man and one women, comming together to become one in flesh, before our God. I am someone who has accepted Jesus christ as my lord and Savior. Some rank me as a Christian, but that's a religion that comes close to me. That in itself is another story, forgive me. To the point, calling this a "Christian wedding," is just another way to defy a certian religion. It's either to tear down about the religion or to try others about your beliefs in it. Same with saying a "Muslim Wedding" "Jewish wedding" Ect. You're trying to emphisize on a certian group of people. Each group has their different views of marriage, but one thing is mostly common, it's a union between 'A man and a Woman.' Same Sex Marriage goes against this. And read somewhere that "Christians are angry because Gays can wed now." Ok well that's probably right, but that's not the whole story! The reason for the anger is that, in Prop. 7, any Gay couple who wants to get married can go to a christian church and demand for a cermony. Not ask, DEMAND. And if Our pastor says no, he can be arrested and prosicuted for a hate crime. Well, our 'Religion' as you say, says that Same sex marriage is against God and is a terrible sin. Even more so is the one who actually weds them. Our pastor will most DEFINATLY say no. So what ends up happening? He gets arrested... Ummm HELLO?!?! His rights are being violated! Our constitution says that we have freedom of Religion, therefore we have the RIGHT to follow our religion. Ok so I may have totally went off topic... In the last paragraph of the quoted, "you are able to keep both the "sanctity" of a religious marriage before god but it is also people for people to either get married before the state (i.e. the people) or get married if their partner is of the same sex." This is what you call an 'Idealist thought.' I come up with these alot too, so don't think I'm hating you. I'd just like to tell you that sometimes, reality just likes to kick these ideas out the window. No, God doesn't approve of same sex marriage, therefore there will always be contriversy. God Bless America. We're all a bunch of stubbern wierdos who don't like being proven wrong, but still, God Bless America! -Indignation
As I said, a non-religious wedding would take place before the appropriate officer of the law. Therefore no religious ministers would have to take part. Churches could be rented out (if there would be no objections) but there would be no laws against any religious minister who objected to the building being used. For example, my parents got married in the city hall of Belfast. That was probably because they couldn't afford to get married in a church but meh xD The facility to get married outside of a religious building already exists. To be honest I see no cons to this method (other than those who insist upon semantics, which I see as being rather sad and pathetic).
Actually, you do not have to get married in a church or by any religious service at all. You can hold a ceremony yourself, rent an area even or do the ceremony in your backyard, on a ship, or wherever you get permission, and appoint either a neutral chaplain or someone you admire enough to head the wedding such as a grandfather, a captain of a ship, etc. In the end, BOTH people who marry in a church, synagogue, etc AND those who do a ceremony as they wish to such as Wiccans, Buddhists, Atheists etc, all have to go to the court house to have their marriage recognized. Everyone also fills out the changes for their social security cards and name changes if they wish to have their names changed, by the state they are married in. You can have a Star Wars wedding if you wanted. It really does not matter and doesn't make it less official. People who go to churches for weddings also pay considerably and people who do not go to religious places may do so as well. Christians do not hold sway over weddings and marriage, although they attempt to think so which is why they are so avid against gay marriage. Marriage is not recognized by the state or country until it is officiated by the state itself. This is one of the boundaries of separation of church and state and it's there for the reason that not everyone wants to have to go to a church to get married and defy their own personal beliefs.
The problem is, same sex couples are not able to get "married". Oh yes, they are allowed to have "civil partnerships". I see that as an insult to same sex couples. It is basically saying that the love they feel for each other is not good enough to be called a marriage. Basically, the religious monopoly on "marriages" needs to end. Sooner rather than later :B|:
Oh, I support gay marriages, but the question seemed to be in regards to other types of marriages, not supported by religious establishments that are 'pre-ordained'. I do agree that a good group of conservative religious people seem to think they have the 'rights' on declaring what a marriage is and is not, but the moment that we did separation of Church and State with marriage included in that, it meant the 'monopoly' ended. This is why the conservative religious zealoty sorts are always screaming about what marriage is and isn't and there are quite a few people who support gay marriage. I do think one thing to do is support gay marriage where it actually operates so that it can continue to be shown to work where it is permitted. It will spread sooner or later to being accepted. We just have to wait till those who are stuck in their ways and out of touch with reality are out of power.
Gay marriage is legal here in Canada. I know that many gay couples come here to get married. Do they still retain their marital status once they return to their home country? I hope someone knows, 'cause I've never found that out. Non-religious gay marriage could solve some problems, I suppose. But what if a gay couple wants to be married in a Christian wedding? I have a friend who is gay and is Christian. When he does get married, I would assume that he may want to be married in Christian wedding. What then? (Hypothetically speaking, of course, as he can get married here anyways.) Allowing homosexuals only non-religious marriage would be leaving the religious homosexuals in the dust. Making all marriages non-religious would cause more problems than it would solve. It's not that I don't support that idea, I think it would work if everyone was willing. But the thing is there's a frickin ginormous majority of people that would not like this idea at all.
The point then would be that they have to find a preacher who is tolerant of gays to marry them. It's not the government that has anything to do with it then. It's finding a church that allows gays the same rights as straight folks. That is another issue altogether really as you are then asking Christian leaders of churches to go against set prescedents and it may be that one or two can be found sometime in the future that break free, as Christian religion often does divide itself. It just may take a while for that sort of thing to happen though and it will of course, cause unrest in the Christian community itself.
Does god say anywhere directly in the bible "I do not approve of same sex marriage?" Also I would like to point out that the same penalty for being gay in the bible also applies to children who disobey their parents AND women who commit adultery AND sex before marriage. So you're telling me that all of these things are going to send people to hell? If that's not the case your contradicting yourself. ALSO. The bible wasn't written by God. It was written by men. Isn't it a distinct possibility that they could have written the bible according to their tastes and reflecting the times that they lived in?
