Forums → WEPR → What if straight marriage was illegal and gay marriage was legal?

This is why I advocate returning marriage to the church as a spiritual matter and creating a separate, well defined, legal union for people of any and every gender to join into.

Yuup.

My assumption that the rigid gay/straight dichotomy will eventually go away or at least be less extreme than they are now

I don't know. There are always people who can't be tolerant and who will always pull this out. I am straight and christian but I have absoullutly nothing agains gay pearsons,but as I said- there are always people who are not tolorant or who don't understand that this is not something to argue about so radically.

Monogamy is hardly unheard of in the natural world. Penguins are famous for being strictly monogamous. There might be social issues tied in with marriage that are strictly the result of human culture, but I have to disagree with Moegreche on the concept that marriage itself is a solely human phenomena.

Marriage shouldn't be confined to a narrow definition adopted by religious groups, even if legal unions are accorded to all and sundry whatever ones orientation is.

It's hardly a concept to be monopolized by any group. Marriage might be nothing more than a legal rubberstamp for certain benefits given to couples and a final symbolic union to be celebrated but to take it away from the non religious hints of prudishness.

For example, where I come from, marriage is viewed with great reverance and celebrated Accordingly. Yet most weddings here arent coloured by religion. It would be unfair for any one group to monopolize the concept in any way suited to their particular understanding.

I'm not sure those are distinct concepts. Gay marriage is seen as immoral within a religious context for two reasons. One is that reproduction seems to imply a male should may a female. The other is that having the gender roles of masculinity and femininity within a union seems like a wholesome, spiritual thing.

Except that isn't how every culture works. Some cultures do recognize other genders. Gay marriage advocates love to point towards the way Native American tribes treated two-spirit people as a model for accepting homosexuals in the modern age. And India has recognized a third gender in its legal system. With various cultures, past and present, accepting more than 2 genders the yin yang combination can't be the sole spiritual aspect of marriage.

As for children, very rarely was having children the sole purpose of a marriage. There are numerous occasions of marriage being used to join families and even countries together. That's a big part of why arranged marriages were so common in the past. And who can forget all those zany people marrying for such a frivolous reason as love. Love is an ill-defined concept that can't be a factor for legal matters. There's no way to measure how much someone loves someone else. There isn't even a way to prove someone is in love.

I think you misinterpreted - marriage is human, monogamy isn't.

Marriage is generally a monogamous union, especially in the U.S. where polygamy isn't legal. Even in polygamous marriages, the marriage itself is a bond between two people the difference being that those people are also allowed to marry others as well. Of course, even if you want to separate the terms monogamy and marriage we'd then have to define what marriage is that precludes anything other than humans. Adelie penguins have a courtship ritual in which the male presents a female with a gift. If she accepts, they become lifelong mates. They share a nest, they work together to raise and protect their children, they share food, and they work together to survive. Is there some aspect of marriage that's missing there? Ritualistic courtship, lifelong bond between two individuals, shared assets, cooperative survival... I'm not sure what exactly isn't there that would separate it from a marriage.

Marriage shouldn't be confined to a narrow definition adopted by religious groups, even if legal unions are accorded to all and sundry whatever ones orientation is. It's hardly a concept to be monopolized by any group.

Why not? Historically, the church has had the power to dictate the rules of marriage even to kings. Spirituality was a major role in marriage until recent years, and one of the biggest reasons secular marriages are becoming more common is the push for gay marriage to be legalized.

But just for arguments sake, let's say that the government completely dismisses the spiritual aspect of marriage and turns it into a purely legal contract that any two people can enter into at will. What is that saying about the marriages that were purely spiritual? Did every pair of slaves that jumped the broom not get married because they couldn't legally form contracts? Did countless serf couples not get married because they didn't have assets to share? How many marriages throughout history are being retroactively nullified because modern society demands marriage be a right?

Let's take this situation one step further. How do you make marriage into a right? A right is something that every individual has, a marriage requires two people. Are people to be paired off at birth so that everyone can get married? How do you provide the right of marriage to someone who isn't sociable enough to meet someone and get married on their own?

Of course, the government could keep the spiritual aspect of marriage. Then we're stuck right where we are now, with certain people not being allowed to get married because lawmakers can't ignore their own religion in order to change the law. It clearly violates the concept of separation of church and state, but there isn't really a way to keep the spirituality of marriage without doing so. Or do you have another solution besides the government and the church having their own very separate forms of union?

Well, I guess firstly, the church is but one actor in the argument. There are hundreds of churches, dozens of religions with their own definitions and practices of marriage. That would undoubtedly complicate things, and would be highly unfair if we arbitrarily assign marriage as a spiritual matter under a single church, or even a single religion in the unlikely event the churches even put aside all their differences.

Another issue that springs to mind would be cultures/people that have marriage practices that aren't religious in nature, such as the Chinese. Much of the marriage process, customs and traditions are secular in nature, and rooted in Confucian notions of filial piety, the importance of the family, etc. Narrowly defining marriage in one sense is to ignore a vast cultural diversity, and ultimately, to "discredit" the marriage practice of others. It would also be prudent to point out here that the church does not "own" the concept of marriage, not the least because marriages have occurred for thousands of years before the church (or any major religion today for that matter).

I feel that many of the examples and questions you pointed out in the flow of reasoning are red herrings. For one, marriage laws have always been in a flux, and changing them would not have any tangible legal effect on marriages of previous generations. Marriages being retroactively nullified isn't the main issue at hand, because it would very likely not happen, nor should the past hold us back. Imagine what would have happened if we stuck with old execution laws because repealing them would mean that executed criminals in the past were executed wrongly?

Another point I would like to raise is that marriage, or rather the freedom to marry is a right, but just like most rights, one should not be forced to use such a privilege. Whether you find the right person who agrees to be with you is not part of the equation. The government only provides and safeguards our ability to marry and enter a union. To use another example, I have the right to vote, but I can choose not to use it.

----------------------

This probably leads me to my understanding of marriage which to some would be exceedingly simple. To me, marriage is just formally cementing a union between two people of consenting age who love each other, regardless of their gender, social status, race, religion, etc. That's just it. If a proper marriage, wedding ceremony and registration are found to be frivolously unnecessary between two people who are perfectly contented to spend the rest of their lives together, that would go down with me just as well.

My point is, people should be able to live with whomever they love, with the usual restrictions (Age, mental health and choice, etc). If they settle on marriage, go for it!

I realise that I haven't exactly answered the point of your question amid my rambling. It's a little tricky because different countries recognise the validity of marriages differently. The UK for one, has done away with common law marriages that are still available in some US states. Some Pennsylvanian counties still have Quaker marriages. Most European nations have a mandatory civil marriage.

I think the last is the least painful and cleanest of the lot. Everyone has to obtain a civil marriage, and then they can opt for a religious one. The government does not claim to have jurisdiction over the spiritual aspect of a wedding, and religious organisations can retain some of their traditional power. That could help resolve the problem of same-sex marriages somewhat, by removing part of the religious question; Though that particular headache still rears its head when a same-sex couple want a religious marriage as well. It's something I'm still mulling over.

That would undoubtedly complicate things, and would be highly unfair if we arbitrarily assign marriage as a spiritual matter under a single church, or even a single religion in the unlikely event the churches even put aside all their differences.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... I didn't say it should belong to one, just that it should belong to the church in general not the government.

not the least because marriages have occurred for thousands of years before the church (or any major religion today for that matter).

First, once again I have to say that I'm not referring to any one specific religion when I say the church. Second, Judaism traces back roughly 10,000 years to the city of Ur in ancient Mesopotamia. Even if marriage was older than every religion still in practice today there'd be no solid proof of any marriages older than Judaism. I admit, I know very little about Chinese marriage customs. I do know, however, that Confucianism is a highly spiritual philosophy that's often labeled as a religion and is closely related to Taoism in religious structure. So I find it highly doubtful that Confucianism has led to purely secular marital rites in China.

I feel that many of the examples and questions you pointed out in the flow of reasoning are red herrings. For one, marriage laws have always been in a flux, and changing them would not have any tangible legal effect on marriages of previous generations. Marriages being retroactively nullified isn't the main issue at hand, because it would very likely not happen, nor should the past hold us back. Imagine what would have happened if we stuck with old execution laws because repealing them would mean that executed criminals in the past were executed wrongly?

I feel that your counter example is a strawman. Marriage has not been redefined through a changing of generations, people are attempting to actively redefine it to give homosexuals the ability to get married. In the act of intentionally redefining a concept you're telling the people who used the old definition in the past that they're wrong, which is why I said that doing so would nullify past marriages. Execution laws changed as new methods became available making the old methods seem cruel in comparison. Even if it wasn't a natural change, it wouldn't make sense to continue using unnecessarily cruel methods just because it would mean that those already executed suffered a cruel fate. Your analogy is akin to accidentally hitting someone with your car and then driving along the sidewalk to avoid admitting you were wrong. While my points were similar to a college professor redefining a word and telling his class that Shakespeare was incorrect in his use of that word.

Another point I would like to raise is that marriage, or rather the freedom to marry is a right, but just like most rights, one should not be forced to use such a privilege. Whether you find the right person who agrees to be with you is not part of the equation. The government only provides and safeguards our ability to marry and enter a union. To use another example, I have the right to vote, but I can choose not to use it.

You can chose not to vote, but if someone refused to allow you to vote they'd be violating your rights. So what happens if someone wants to get married, but no one is willing to marry them? How do you safeguard someone's right to get married while still safeguarding everyone elses' right to choose not to get married?

My point is, people should be able to live with whomever they love, with the usual restrictions (Age, mental health and choice, etc).

People can do that without getting married. Common law marriages used to take effect after a certain period of time living together, but those are almost completely fazed out in the U.S.

Though that particular headache still rears its head when a same-sex couple want a religious marriage as well. It's something I'm still mulling over.

You can't always get what you want. The government can't force a religious institution to perform a marriage. Nor should it ever have that power. That's an instance when people should just be grateful for what they have and accept that some things are beyond their power to get.

Well, I think overall a point to consider is that not everything has to be black and white. There can be compromise. For example, when we redefine marriage laws, it would not necessarily mean that past marriages are definitely wrong. If we broaden laws to legalise homosexual marriage, that wouldn't nullify past marriages. Even if we introduce new marriage laws that would require civil registration, that would not mean that past marriages are invalid, with the simple expedient of defining that marriages henceforth should be accompanied with a license.

Given that the right of marriage is one whereby you are only granted the freedom/permission of marrying, and not a guarantee of marriage, I'm not sure what's the point of contention here is? Whether something is wants to get married, but no one wants to with him/her is not the government's business. Once he or she finds the perfect match, he still has that right. I understand the voting example doesn't fit snugly like a hand into a glove, but I don't think my poor metaphor should take anything away from the initial point.

Well, the government certainly has and should have a certain degree of control over religious organisations, especially when it clashes with other civil rights. I'm just not too sure where I currently stand on the degree. If there were clergymen willing to conduct a religious marriage for a same sex couple, even when their religious superiors oppose so, should they be allowed to do so?

Another reason why I'm against religion in general of having more control over what a marriage is defined as, is the mindblowing number of definitions that will inevitably tangle themselves messily with our other rights and the constitutional framework in general. I feel that it's much better to leave a marriage contract to a single guideline enacted by the civil authorities, which would ensure fairness and equality.

-----------
PS, I might not have been too clear, but my analogy was drawing more upon the causes of execution, not the method. :X Not that it would matter much. I can't wrap my head around the analogies you provided though.

About Chinese wedding customs though, it varies much in detail from region to region, especially in border areas with ethnic minorities. I would boldly venture to say that in general though, the concept of marriage in Chinese dominated countries differs very much from the image of a "sacrosanct union between man and woman in the eyes of a diety" that other cultures partake of. We might have our own little superstitions, such as picking out the marriage date based on lucky astrological dates, presenting gifts that symbol prosperity or luck, etc, but there's little in the way of a "god" playing a part in it.

Except that isn't how every culture works. Some cultures do recognize other genders. Gay marriage advocates love to point towards the way Native American tribes treated two-spirit people as a model for accepting homosexuals in the modern age. And India has recognized a third gender in its legal system. With various cultures, past and present, accepting more than 2 genders the yin yang combination can't be the sole spiritual aspect of marriage.

As for children, very rarely was having children the sole purpose of a marriage. There are numerous occasions of marriage being used to join families and even countries together. That's a big part of why arranged marriages were so common in the past. And who can forget all those zany people marrying for such a frivolous reason as love. Love is an ill-defined concept that can't be a factor for legal matters. There's no way to measure how much someone loves someone else. There isn't even a way to prove someone is in love.

But we're taking about opponents of gay marriage, though, not about all people who would deign to marry at all. Are you saying that one or more of the cultures you listed opposes gay marriage on religious grounds that are unrelated to the reasons I mentioned?

As a side note, I'd be careful using India as an example of gender open mindedness, given how rigid their gender roles are and how intolerant their society is of that third gender. Trans people have it better in the West, by far.

Marriage is generally a monogamous union, especially in the U.S. where polygamy isn't legal. Even in polygamous marriages, the marriage itself is a bond between two people the difference being that those people are also allowed to marry others as well. Of course, even if you want to separate the terms monogamy and marriage we'd then have to define what marriage is that precludes anything other than humans.

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying animals that exhibit monogamous relationships are married, while also saying that marriage can be polygamous. Is it not true, then, that animals can be polygamously married, as long as they cooperate for survival? Why wouldn't a pack of wolves all be married to one another, then?

You're also implying that people who do all the things you mentioned and live life together monogamously without getting married are married anyway, even when they aren't.

The only way to reconcile those contradictions is if marriage is a human contract.

Let's take this situation one step further. How do you make marriage into a right? A right is something that every individual has, a marriage requires two people

People do not have the right to a marriage, they have the right to marry. Much in the same way that the right to bear arms does not imply that everyone has a gun by default, the right to marry does not imply that everyone has a marriage by default.

An answer to the original post: We'd all die, assuming the rule was followed. That's just one of the reasons I don't like "gayness".

We'd all die, assuming the rule was followed. That's just one of the reasons I don't like "gayness".

That's just one of the reasons I don't like "gayness".

Care to list off the rest of your reasons?

Told you I'd get back to this. @Kalaina

But we're taking about opponents of gay marriage, though, not about all people who would deign to marry at all. Are you saying that one or more of the cultures you listed opposes gay marriage on religious grounds that are unrelated to the reasons I mentioned?

We're talking about those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons. Therefore, I provided situations in which religious/spiritual/cultural beliefs do not restrict marriage, or even gender, solely to a matter of reproduction and/or yin yang dichotomy. That alone should be enough to disprove that religious opposition to gay marriage is solely the result of religious institutions pushing people into reproductive partnerships. If you disagree then we'll have to get into specifics on Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, and Shinto stances on gay marriage since Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have explicit condemnation of homosexuality.

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying animals that exhibit monogamous relationships are married, while also saying that marriage can be polygamous. Is it not true, then, that animals can be polygamously married, as long as they cooperate for survival? Why wouldn't a pack of wolves all be married to one another, then?

You're also implying that people who do all the things you mentioned and live life together monogamously without getting married are married anyway, even when they aren't.

The only way to reconcile those contradictions is if marriage is a human contract.

I'm not contradicting myself at all, I simply gave a limited example. If I wanted to give an example of a polygamous "marriage" in nature I would turn to lions. A pride has 1, maybe 2 if it's large enough, male lions in it with the rest being female. The male protects the pride and its young from attack while the females hunt for food. Wolves would make a bad comparison because they do not indiscriminately mate among the entire pack, they're more of a community than a family.

There is, or at least was in many places, such a thing as a common law marriage in which people who do the things I listed for an extended period of time would be considered married. So that implication wouldn't be entirely inaccurate. And because you didn't answer I'll ask again.

Is there some aspect of marriage that's missing there? Ritualistic courtship, lifelong bond between two individuals, shared assets, cooperative survival... I'm not sure what exactly isn't there that would separate it from a marriage.

Obviously neither love nor spirituality can be measured so there's no way to prove they are or aren't there in animals. So if marriage is solely a human trait I'd like to know what aspect of it is missing.

People do not have the right to a marriage, they have the right to marry. Much in the same way that the right to bear arms does not imply that everyone has a gun by default, the right to marry does not imply that everyone has a marriage by default.

It doesn't provide everyone with a marriage by default, but it does mean everyone has the right to do it. Your gun example is no different than my voting example. If someone went into a store and wanted a gun but was told they couldn't buy one then their right to bear arms would be violated. Or if they had a gun and the government took it from them (divorce) their rights would be violated. So, how can everyone have to right to marry if it's possible for everyone else to refuse to marry them? How can a one sided divorce exist if marriage is a right?

I've been pinged, so here we go.

We're talking about those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons. Therefore, I provided situations in which religious/spiritual/cultural beliefs do not restrict marriage, or even gender, solely to a matter of reproduction and/or yin yang dichotomy. That alone should be enough to disprove that religious opposition to gay marriage is solely the result of religious institutions pushing people into reproductive partnerships.have explicit condemnation of homosexuality.

I don't follow. If the situations you mention aren't situations where there is religious opposition to same-sex marriage, how do they in any way reflect on religious opposition to same-sex marriage?

There is, or at least was in many places, such a thing as a common law marriage in which people who do the things I listed for an extended period of time would be considered married

In no way does this invalidate the idea that marriage is a human contract. The aspects you're ascribing to marriage (lifelong commitment, cooperation) are natural aspects of life for both humans and animals. The fact that we feel compelled to retroactively call it "marriage" is a human thing.

I'm also a little put off by the idea that mating should be considered a requirement for marriage, but that's a different argument.

Obviously neither love nor spirituality can be measured so there's no way to prove they are or aren't there in animals. So if marriage is solely a human trait I'd like to know what aspect of it is missing.

What's missing is a pile of convoluted laws, procedures, judgments, and assumptions. If two animals want to live together and share everything, they do. If two humans want to live together and share everything, they do. We also sometimes enter into a binding contract we call marriage that grants us some benefits (and drawbacks) from the society in which we live. The reason we do that is because our society places artificial barriers on what we're allowed to share outside of marriage. Animals don't deal with that, they just live together and cooperate.

If someone went into a store and wanted a gun but was told they couldn't buy one then their right to bear arms would be violated.

Not necessarily true. What if they can't afford a gun? They will go, attempt to exercise their right to bear arms, and fail to do so because they can't meet the necessary requirements to obtain a gun. So if a person goes, attempts to exercise their right to marry, and fails because they don't have a partner to marry, that doesn't mean they have no right to marry at all. But this is getting overly pedantic and after my last experience on this forum I'm not exactly looking to enter into another argument about what words mean.

At this point we're going back on forth on arbitrary details trying to define something about marriage, but I don't even know what we're trying to accomplish. Do you oppose same-sex marriage?

I don't follow. If the situations you mention aren't situations where there is religious opposition to same-sex marriage, how do they in any way reflect on religious opposition to same-sex marriage?

They reflect religious perception of marriage from a spiritual perspective. Getting into the specific reasoning for why Abrahamic religions oppose homosexuality would require combing through thousands of years of history. I don't have the expertise, nor the desire, to do that so unless you can it's going to be extremely difficult to find specific reasoning for religious condemnation of homosexuality.

In no way does this invalidate the idea that marriage is a human contract. The aspects you're ascribing to marriage (lifelong commitment, cooperation) are natural aspects of life for both humans and animals. The fact that we feel compelled to retroactively call it "marriage" is a human thing.

So, you're arguing that marriage is a contract because humans decided to define natural behavior as marriage? Wouldn't that make everything people do a human thing as long as we have words to define that behavior? If I'm misinterpreting this please feel free to correct me, but it seems like by that standard even simple behavior like breathing or eating could be defined as a "human thing" because we named and defined that behavior.

I'm also a little put off by the idea that mating should be considered a requirement for marriage, but that's a different argument.

If you do define marriage as a legal contract then procreation, or at least the ability to procreate, is a core aspect of a marriage and one party's failure to meet that standard is valid reason for a divorce. And according to you "Gay marriage is seen as immoral within a religious context for two reasons. One is that reproduction seems to imply a male should may a female."

What's missing is a pile of convoluted laws, procedures, judgments, and assumptions.

But is that really marriage or is it just what marriage has become as society has further pushed marriage into a secular definition? This goes back into my reasoning for why marriage should be a purely spiritual matter and not a legal one. In the past if two people wanted to get married they performed the ceremony and it was done. For Christian Europe that meant contacting the local church or priest and giving vows. For slaves in the Americas that meant a celebration and the couple jumping over a broom. Other cultures had their own traditions, but there were no contracts or hoops to leap through or even laws to be concerned with.

At this point we're going back on forth on arbitrary details trying to define something about marriage, but I don't even know what we're trying to accomplish. Do you oppose same-sex marriage?

I'm opposed to marriage being a secular contract, something you seem to at least partially agree with on page 2. I consider the push for purely secular marriages made by gay marriage proponents to be a selfish act that ignores the history of marriage so that a relatively small group can get something they desire. There are also cases where gay rights advocates take unreasonably extreme positions that I will oppose. But beyond that I don't really care who gets married or how many people they get married to as long as everybody involved is a willing part of the relationship.

They reflect religious perception of marriage from a spiritual perspective. Getting into the specific reasoning for why Abrahamic religions oppose homosexuality would require combing through thousands of years of history. I don't have the expertise, nor the desire, to do that so unless you can it's going to be extremely difficult to find specific reasoning for religious condemnation of homosexuality.

So, you're arguing that marriage is a contract because humans decided to define natural behavior as marriage?

If you do define marriage as a legal contract then procreation, or at least the ability to procreate, is a core aspect of a marriage and one party's failure to meet that standard is valid reason for a divorce. And according to you "Gay marriage is seen as immoral within a religious context for two reasons. One is that reproduction seems to imply a male should may a female."

For Christian Europe that meant contacting the local church or priest and giving vows.

For slaves in the Americas that meant a celebration and the couple jumping over a broom.

Other cultures had their own traditions, but there were no contracts or hoops to leap through or even laws to be concerned with.