"Marriage"

tony81

Hi folks,
I'd love to x-post this to Christianity and get a few diverse opinions, but I figured they have a gay mega-thread and this discussion might get lost in it so I decided to post it here.

First: church marriage.
Catholicism has a fairly narrow view of what constitutes marriage. It's one of the 7 sacraments. It's between man and wife. In fact, it's the only sacrament between 2 people, and the only one which does not involve a member of the clergy (except as witness, and of course baptism in exceptional circumstances). Marriage is permanent: Divorce isn't allowed. Also, sex outside marriage is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Masturbation is a sin even within marriage. And certain sex acts such as anal and oral sex may be considered sinful.
In other words, Catholic marriage is not for everyone.. even people who fancy themselves as good candidates resort to divorce and (as divorce in illicit) leads to adultery and makes them downright bad catholics.

moving on: State marriage.
Married couples can avail of a couple of grand's worth of tax credits. There are tax savings in respect of inheritance, not to mention succession rights. Divorce is now permitted. Adultery doesn't really come into it any more. Not sure about Ireland, but in other countries that permit gay marriage, adoptions can be carried out by the couples in the marriage/civil union, as it can be by individuals.

What I'm trying to say, church marriage as defined by the catholic church (the main church in Ireland), as well as the presbyterian church (possibly second largest?) have a completely different definition of marriage than the state's definition..

In fact, the state's definition of marriage is quite removed from the church definition it was originally based on. Even in islamic countries you'll find the law is largely derived from the islamic definition of marriage. With each referendum and court ruling the state definition of marriage becomes further removed from the church definition.

So here's the crux of the matter: state marriage isn't about love. It's about contracts. It's about recognising a legal union which encompasses succession rights and tax breaks. In effect: it's a civil union.

So what's the problem with calling gay marriage what it is: a civil union? Saying "it's about equality" to me sounds daft, because it would be much easier to rename "marriage" to "civil union" in the statute books rather than attempting referendum after referendum and court case after court case to redefine all the other definitions.

In a way, it seems to me that the GLBTQQIA community is a little obsessed with labels and "married" seems to be a label everyone wants but no one can agree on exactly what it is.

Discuss :cool:

paulmorro

I would agree with you if there were regulations in place that meant that non religious straight people were also only in civil unions and were not allowed to get married. Otherwise there is a visible difference between the two groups.

As you point out marriage in the State is about the legalities. But, like it or not, this IS called marriage. So why shouldn't gay people be entitled to it in the same way as straights.

eviltwin

tony81 wrote: »

So here's the crux of the matter: state marriage isn't about love. It's about contracts. It's about recognising a legal union which encompasses succession rights and tax breaks. In effect: it's a civil union.

State marriage isn't about love? I think the many thousands of couples who have had a civil marriage would have something to say about that.

ewan whose army

Try and get married in a Church without the legal paperwork and the priest/vicar/pastor would refuse to do it.

Try and get married in a registry office without any mention of God, Jesus, Trinity, Holy Spirit etc. and there would be no problem what so ever.

Also remember, Marriage has been around far longer than Christianity , its at least 1500 years before JC existed.

I don't get why religion thinks it has an exclusive remit on marriage, it doesn't. If you want to get married under the eyes of God then by all means go and get religiously married. If you just want state recognition of your love and bond for each other then go and get it done in a registry office (which should marry same sex couples).

If I ever find a guy who is "the one" I would love to marry him one day, it would mean that if something happened to either of us he would be my next of kin, we could own a house together and have all the same legal rights as a married couple, I don't get why thats such a bad thing.

Across the sea in the UK, its an opt-in system no church would be forced to do them. There are a few presbyterian (who quit the CoE) churches who would do it (my old one would) Quakers, Unitarians, a handful of Baptists and some reform Jews who are planning to opt in. Its not a bad idea.

I am well aware of the Vatican's view on it, I sometimes wonder why on earth I used to be a Catholic! I just find it odd who the opinion of 1 man becomes the opinion of millions.

floggg

tony81 wrote: »

Hi folks,
I'd love to x-post this to Christianity and get a few diverse opinions, but I figured they have a gay mega-thread and this discussion might get lost in it so I decided to post it here.

First: church marriage.
Catholicism has a fairly narrow view of what constitutes marriage. It's one of the 7 sacraments. It's between man and wife. In fact, it's the only sacrament between 2 people, and the only one which does not involve a member of the clergy (except as witness, and of course baptism in exceptional circumstances). Marriage is permanent: Divorce isn't allowed. Also, sex outside marriage is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Masturbation is a sin even within marriage. And certain sex acts such as anal and oral sex may be considered sinful.
In other words, Catholic marriage is not for everyone.. even people who fancy themselves as good candidates resort to divorce and (as divorce in illicit) leads to adultery and makes them downright bad catholics.

moving on: State marriage.
Married couples can avail of a couple of grand's worth of tax credits. There are tax savings in respect of inheritance, not to mention succession rights. Divorce is now permitted. Adultery doesn't really come into it any more. Not sure about Ireland, but in other countries that permit gay marriage, adoptions can be carried out by the couples in the marriage/civil union, as it can be by individuals.

What I'm trying to say, church marriage as defined by the catholic church (the main church in Ireland), as well as the presbyterian church (possibly second largest?) have a completely different definition of marriage than the state's definition..

In fact, the state's definition of marriage is quite removed from the church definition it was originally based on. Even in islamic countries you'll find the law is largely derived from the islamic definition of marriage. With each referendum and court ruling the state definition of marriage becomes further removed from the church definition.

So here's the crux of the matter: state marriage isn't about love. It's about contracts. It's about recognising a legal union which encompasses succession rights and tax breaks. In effect: it's a civil union.

So what's the problem with calling gay marriage what it is: a civil union? Saying "it's about equality" to me sounds daft, because it would be much easier to rename "marriage" to "civil union" in the statute books rather than attempting referendum after referendum and court case after court case to redefine all the other definitions.

In a way, it seems to me that the GLBTQQIA community is a little obsessed with labels and "married" seems to be a label everyone wants but no one can agree on exactly what it is.

Discuss :cool:

There's a number of gaps in your logic here.

The most glaringly obvious being you state that the gays are obsessed with labels, while at the same time seeming to suggest you have no problem with us having legal rights and protections but object to us using a particular word.

There is a perfectly good one already in use to describe the type of relationship LGBT would like to enter. The absurdity would be pretending having to pretend that something which is for all intents and purposes a marriage, isn't one.

As has been pointed out marriage has existed outside of religion for quite some time. Civil marriage is a long established concept.

Heterosexual atheists can already get married. Should we now have to downgrade or alter the status of their union?

And why should we allow certain religious denominations define the legal meaning of the word or impact on the relationships of people who don't stare their faith?

If we do decide that marriage should understood to mean religious marriage only, what religion do we pick? Catholic marriage? What about the Quakers who allow same sex partners marry?

Or what about Islam which allows multiple wives?

Also, civil marriage is not just a financial contract which has nothing to do with love. The law recognises the special nature of the marriage contract and the love and natural affection which under pins it.

Without this recognition, marriage contracts could arguable fail for a lack of consideration or payment.

There are countless other ways which reflects it too.

Finally, contrary to what you might believe, creating a new form of civil union is without doubt the most inefficient way of providing full legal recognition of same sex relationships.

They already tried it with civil partnerships and it has resulted in over 150 differences between the two.

Having two different concepts means everywhere marriage is mentioned in law, an additional reference to civil partnership must be included to ensure equality. It means that there may be uncertainty as to whether common law principles should apply equally.

By far and away the simplest way to do it is to amend the definition of marriage in the civil registration act 2004.

Arguably you only need to delete section 2(2)(e) and the job is done. Simples.