Forums → WEPR → What if straight marriage was illegal and gay marriage was legal?
| 51 | 23746 |
my girlfriend actually asked this interesting question recently and I figured it would make for an interesting topic. How would things be different if straight marriage was illegal and gay marriage was legal?
to be honest i had no idea how to reply to this either
- 51 Replies
This goes back into my reasoning for why marriage should be a purely spiritual matter and not a legal one.
The legality of the contract is what makes it important to many atheists; becoming married in the eyes of the law defines it.
The legality of the contract is what makes it important to many atheists; becoming married in the eyes of the law defines it.
^This is definitely an argument for why marriage cannot be solely spiritual in our modern society, despite its historical origins. Because why would secular couples undergo an historically religious ceremony, if not for the legal status of a parent?
The legality of the contract is what makes it important to many atheists; becoming married in the eyes of the law defines it.
^This is definitely an argument for why marriage cannot be solely spiritual in our modern society, despite its historical origins. Because why would secular couples undergo an historically religious ceremony, if not for the legal status of a parent?
Many of the legal benefits of marriage can be acquired other ways, albeit with more work. Those few that can't be could be with only minor alterations to the law If marriage were a solely spiritual matter there'd be no reason for secular couples to get married. I don't see why atheists would care if marriage became nothing more than a religious ceremony as long as they can still find a way to receive the legal benefits.
I don't see why atheists would care if marriage became nothing more than a religious ceremony as long as they can still find a way to receive the legal benefits.
One does not need to be religious to appreciate something symbolic.The principle is that they are agreeing to be together under a legal contract with witnesses. It is a public show of commitment. Religion means nothing to my parents, but their loading up a coach with friends and family and going down to the registry office to get it put in writing was and is important to them.
Religion means nothing to my parents, but their loading up a coach with friends and family and going down to the registry office to get it put in writing was and is important to them.
And religion is so unimportant to them that they would absolutely refuse a ceremony in a church despite how important the symbology of the act is to them? Even if they did refuse to get married in a church, they couldn't have their own personal ceremony? For that matter, why does the ceremony matter so much if not for the fact that it's a tradition passed down through generations of religious ancestors who did consider marriage to be a religious matter and were married in churches/temples? Don't most atheists appreciate leaving behind meaningless traditions of religion so that individuals can live their lives how they want without the dictates of the church?
Don't most atheists appreciate leaving behind meaningless traditions of religion so that individuals can live their lives how they want without the dictates of the church?
easter is supposed to be religious 2. however did the tradition take over the religious meaning. people do not have to do the tradition for the traditional reasons. they could be doing it just because they like the atmosphere of a church and the idea of having that way to expensive party. or something like that.
I do kinda agree that if there were no legal issues or any other hurdles in being recognized as the legal parent of a child even without marriage, more secular couples would not marry, and this trend would increase over time.
But it wouldn't vanish entirely. Marriage, like holidays as partydevil mentioned, are now more cultural than truly spiritual; we're growing up in a society where parents marry, period. It is an official ceremony where you can invite all the family to share this moment, yadda yadda and all the sentimental stuff. Is it so hard to understand under these circumstances that even secular couples want to marry? (Also, there is still a certain pressure in our society for parents of a child to marry, even though this effect might be less strong than some decades ago).
Is it so hard to understand under these circumstances that even secular couples want to marry?
It's not so hard, but that doesn't stop secular couples from going to a church and asking if they can get married. Most churches will not grill a couple on their beliefs to haze out atheists. The only people who wouldn't be able to get married in a church are homosexual couples but that isn't any different from today. And even if the government did legalize gay marriage that still wouldn't give gay couples the chance to get married in a church with a full ceremony. So they'd have to have their own ceremony and if people are going to have their own personal ceremony for a purely secular marriage then they can still do that if marriage was no longer considered a legal contract. Who would stop them? Marriage would be meaningless to the government without a contract and no church has the authority to go around stopping personal ceremonies. If the tradition is really all that matters to these people, they don't really need the contract to make themselves married.
I'm sorry guys, but it's going to take more than a few atheists wanting to take part in a religious tradition to convince me that it's unreasonable for marriage to be returned to the church as a religious matter.
it's going to take more than a few atheists wanting to take part in a religious tradition to convince me that it's unreasonable for marriage to be returned to the church as a religious matter.
For a long time, it wasn't a church matter. (Skip ahead to two minutes in for the meat.)
For a long time, it wasn't a church matter.
BBC iPlayer videos are available in the UK only. Well, I can't say I didn't learn something from following the link.
BBC iPlayer videos are available in the UK only. Well, I can't say I didn't learn something from following the link.
Forgot about that. Long story short, marriage was state controlled in Europe until the twelfth century when the Vatican exerted controlled over it.
there is still a certain pressure in our society for parents of a child to marry, even though this effect might be less strong than some decades agoaround here getting married is sometimes just for the tax benefits that it gives. that 2 people are having financial responsibilities instead of each only for their own.
also a friend of my did not marry so that their child could get mothers last name instead of his. =P
going to a church and asking if they can get married.
official marriage is a government thing now. not a church thing =)
you can get married without ever seeing a church close by.
The only people who wouldn't be able to get married in a church are homosexual couples but that isn't any different from today
come over here, sure we have some churches to pick for them to marry. =) (it already happens )
@Ishtaron I feel compelled to clarify that when I say marriage, I mean marriage in general, both spiritual or secular. Not sure if it changes anything, I was just unsure if we understood each other correctly.
One thing that bothers me is what about couples where one spouse is religious and the other secular? Would making marriage a purely religious ceremony possibly prevent such couples from marrying?
around here getting married is sometimes just for the tax benefits that it gives. that 2 people are having financial responsibilities instead of each only for their own.
In my country some people talk of the "Heiratsstrafe", literally 'marriage penalty' (the term is of course a political slogan). The situation has evolved, but there are still tax disadvantages for many married couples depending on the level of revenue.
Accessorily I just learned we had a ban on concubinage until relatively recently (until the last 40-20 years depending on the canton). 0_0
also a friend of my did not marry so that their child could get mothers last name instead of his. =P
Here, since 2013 a couple can decide whether each spouse keep their name, or they decide on one as the common family name.
One thing that bothers me is what about couples where one spouse is religious and the other secular? Would making marriage a purely religious ceremony possibly prevent such couples from marrying?
Not really. A few of the most extreme churches (extremely devout catholic, mormon, or islamic churches generally as well as zealots like the westboro baptist "church" might refuse to allow a couple to marry unless both people are part of the same religion and denomination, but for the most part any two straight people can get married at just about any church. There are probably a bunch of churches that support gay marriage too, I'm just in the wrong part of the country to hear about them.
You must be logged in to post a reply!