Don't like it? Get out!

[xoxoxoBruce]

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Even better: Call it all civil union from a governmental point of view, and let individuals and/or their churches decide whether to call their unions marriages. No double standard, religious people still can put whatever restrictions they want on what they call marriage, and nonreligious people can ignore those restrictions and call themselves married anyway.

Why would non religious people WANT to call it married?
Marriage is a religious concept, located in Genesis.

If you're not religious, why would you want to call it marriage?

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, it's a social concept that's mentioned in religion, as are many other social concepts, because religion exists in a social environment. Marriage existed long before the bible was written.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Why would non religious people WANT to call it married?
Marriage is a religious concept, located in Genesis.

If you're not religious, why would you want to call it marriage?

Because "marriage is a religious concept" is a religious concept, and nonreligious people don't have to buy into it. Marriage existed before the Bible, and has existed outside of religion. Murder is also in Genesis, but it's not a religious concept.

Some people, to feel their marriage is valid, need to have it blessed by their church. That's fine, but it's not true for everybody.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because "marriage is a religious concept" is a religious concept, and nonreligious people don't have to buy into it. Marriage existed before the Bible, and has existed outside of religion. Murder is also in Genesis, but it's not a religious concept.

OK. Remember that 76%? I'm thinking of this issue in a religious POV.

From a religious POV, the first murder ever recorded is in Genesis, carried out over jealousy over who's sacrifice God liked best. Murder, to 76% (+ Muslims + Jews, who use the same Genesis) is a religious concept. You don't have to be religious to carry it out, like marriage, but it is definitely a relgious concept, and the law against it is religious in nature (see Moses).

Some people, to feel their marriage is valid, need to have it blessed by their church. That's fine, but it's not true for everybody.

I think you may find that to a majority of people, if it's not "sanctified" by an official of some religion, that it's not a marriage, it's a civil union. Which is why I posted the compromise above.

I'm not disagreeing with your viewpoint, your opinion is as valid as mine. I'm just trying to get you to understand where the best possibility of compromise is going to come from.

(As a side note, this conversation would never have occured in the 50's, and I'm interested in your viewpoint as to WHY things have changed so much in our culture since then.)

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

OK. Remember that 76%? I'm thinking of this issue in a religious POV.

You asked why the non-religious person would call it a marriage. What the 76% think isn't relevant.

I think you may find that to a majority of people, if it's not "sanctified" by an official of some religion, that it's not a marriage, it's a civil union.

I doubt that. There are tons of lapsed Catholics who don't join another church but still get married.

Which is why I posted the compromise above.

Actually, mine makes more sense in that respect. Just call all of them civil unions, and let individuals decide whether to call it marriage (and the vast majority, religious or not, will - they certainly do now). People who want religious blessings will get them, and people who don't won't. Having governmental "marriages" and "civil unions" which are separate but equal is a bad idea, and just an invitation for constant attempts to add more priviledges to one but not the other.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

(As a side note, this conversation would never have occured in the 50's, and I'm interested in your viewpoint as to WHY things have changed so much in our culture since then.)

In the 50's, the argument was whether interracial marriages should be legal, and the same aguments were used. Hopefully it's a constant trend in a free society. I think the internet has dramatically helped as well in recent years, allowing people to interact with people outside their social circles.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

If you're not religious, why would you want to call it marriage?

Because we non-religious types deserve the same as the rest of y'all. I'm not a second-class citizen and I refuse to be treated as one.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Pie

Because we non-religious types deserve the same as the rest of y'all. I'm not a second-class citizen and I refuse to be treated as one.

The trick here, my friend, is to come up with a term that is better than the one they use. Marriage? Try forever relationship or incredi-bond!

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Murder, to 76% (+ Muslims + Jews, who use the same Genesis) is a religious concept. You don't have to be religious to carry it out, like marriage, but it is definitely a relgious concept, and the law against it is religious in nature (see Moses).

No it isn't. Murder is a crime that transcends all religions. The only thing that varies is the dividing line between murder and lawful killing. Do you think that it was legal to murder among the Israelites before Moses brought down the tablets? No, it's just that no set of laws can be taken seriously if "don't murder" and "don't steal" aren't included.

[Elspode]

Don't Christians refer to it as "holy matrimony"? The rest of us heathens should get to call it "marriage".

We use "handfasted" and "married" pretty much interchangably, as a matter of fact, but just try finding the little "handfasted" check box on your average questionaire.

What is really under discussion here is the pervasive intrusion of the predominant religion into the lives of people who do not follow that path. As long as I am not harming anyone else, why should I have to be burdened with those tenets' intrusion into my dealings with government and civil functions?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because "marriage is a religious concept" is a religious concept, and nonreligious people don't have to buy into it. Marriage existed before the Bible, and has existed outside of religion. Murder is also in Genesis, but it's not a religious concept.

Some people, to feel their marriage is valid, need to have it blessed by their church. That's fine, but it's not true for everybody.

I'm thinking that everybody keeps saying "religion" when they mean "Christianity."

It's only recently (say the last half-century or less, just at a guess) that marriage has really developed in a non-religious context.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What? Jews, muslims and the people that practice the myriad of far eastern religions, don't get married?

I was married by a Justice of the Peace, once. The paperwork was the same.....it said I was married.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

It's only recently (say the last half-century or less, just at a guess) that marriage has really developed in a non-religious context.

Common-law marriage is older than that, and whether a common-law marriage is religious in nature is completely up to the individuals.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Common-law marriage is older than that, and whether a common-law marriage is religious in nature is completely up to the individuals.

What? Man, someone needs to fix that! People shouldn't get to decide whether or not their private affairs are religious or not!