Marital Politics

[jcrawford]

Marriage rights are a hot political topic these days. Many sexual, religious and political issues are involved and the topic ought to make for a wide-ranging discussion and debate on such life and death issues as reproductive rights, sexual relations, child-rearing, financial obligations and other legal responsibilites, plus a host of other topic-related subjects which any poster may wish to introduce.

The feminist Kate Millet wrote a book several decades ago called "Sexual Politics." Hopefully we may generate enough information, data, personal POV's, opinions and comments in this thread to provide text for a new book called "Marital Politics."

I know that's a tall order, but if we put our minds to it, I know we can do it. Whether any of us would want the book published or whether it gets edited not will not be up to any of us, since everything we post here is already the published property of our generous website host, "Debating Christianity."

To get the first chapter of our book started then, the first question will be;

What rights do men or women have in marriage or to get married at all?

[juliod]

Seems pretty clear to me that your way of thinking lost.

I agree with Cephus in this.

The problem, as I see it, is that the churches gave up their authority over marriage to the secular government, in the interests of what I don't know.

So we see churches railing against divorce, but allowing it because the government says so. I mean, what is that all about? Since when is the government invloved in determining church doctrine? As an atheist I consider this perverse.

Since marriage serves a secular purpose (tax breaks) it must be allowed based on what the secular community desires. This is why the religions will loose on the gay-marriage issue. It's too late to start whining about doctrine now.

As far as I am concerned, the only issue lieft is whether the churches should be compelled to carry out gay marriages. Certainly any church that gets government "faith-based" funding should be rquired to perform the ceremonis if the secular community wishes it.

Beware, I say to the theists, of mixing religion and government.

DanZ

[Cephus]

The problem, as I see it, is that the churches gave up their authority over marriage to the secular government, in the interests of what I don't know.

The churches never had control, marriage stopped being about bowing down to some farsical deity centuries ago, and started being about property rights, etc. The church lost authority when it was thrown out of government, as it should be.

So we see churches railing against divorce, but allowing it because the government says so. I mean, what is that all about? Since when is the government invloved in determining church doctrine? As an atheist I consider this perverse.

Come on, theists get divorced much more often than non-theists, they just like to complain about it. Same with abortion, with theist women lining up around the block to get them, and their impotent husbands whining about it in church on Sunday. Religion is hypocritical.

Since marriage serves a secular purpose (tax breaks) it must be allowed based on what the secular community desires. This is why the religions will loose on the gay-marriage issue. It's too late to start whining about doctrine now.

It doesn't stop them from trying, but that's what they've become good at. Religion today is little more than a whine-fest.

As far as I am concerned, the only issue lieft is whether the churches should be compelled to carry out gay marriages. Certainly any church that gets government "faith-based" funding should be rquired to perform the ceremonis if the secular community wishes it.

Of course they shouldn't, and no one has ever suggested that they should. Churches don't have to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, or any kind of marriages they don't want to. It's a bald-faced lie when the religious zealot claims that their church will be forced to marry gay people against their will.

[juliod]

It's a bald-faced lie when the religious zealot claims that their church will be forced to marry gay people against their will.

But don't you think they should be so compelled?

If marriage serves a secular purpose (and it does as things stand) then churches have no business discriminating any more than an auto mechanic.

Tax breaks are to be had by getting married. An equitable society must make these benefits available to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

What about churches that get federal money? Should they be allowed to discriminate? No way, I say. If you take money from the secular government you must adhere to the will of the secular society. Period.

DanZ

[jcrawford]

Since marriage serves a secular purpose (tax breaks) it must be allowed based on what the secular community desires. This is why the religions will loose on the gay-marriage issue. It's too late to start whining about doctrine now.

As long as secularists continue whining about religion, secular marriage and abortion rights for women and male abortionists, Christian, Jewish and Muslim men will more than whine about their loss of God-given reproductive rights within their religious marriages.

As far as I am concerned, the only issue lieft is whether the churches should be compelled to carry out gay marriages.

The only issue left is whether married Christian, Jewish and Muslim heterosexual men are going to get their God-given rights to sexually reproduce with their wives or not. If they don't, what right will male abortionists or other racist white men have to marry each other?

Certainly any church that gets government "faith-based" funding should be rquired to perform the ceremonis if the secular community wishes it.

Some churches already perform gay wedding nups and the seccy government doesn't recognize them. The day churches are forced to perform any kind of religious ceremony by seccies will be a great victory for Muslims because the church will empty of Christian men and the mosqes will fill up with them submitting to God.

Beware, I say to the theists, of mixing religion and government.

Jews and Muslims seem to be doing pretty well at it. Time for a Christian, Jewish and Islamic state in America. How about Alabama? Later for New York and California.

[jcrawford]

If marriage serves a secular purpose (and it does as things stand) then churches have no business discriminating any more than an auto mechanic.

If an auto mechanic can't discriminate on the basis or race, religion, sex or what have you, how can women, white racist secular homosexuals, male abortionists, secular lawyers and judges, or any other secular politician discriminate against married Christian, Muslim and Jewish white and black men for long?

Tax breaks are to be had by getting married. An equitable society must make these benefits available to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

An equitable society doesn't deny Black Muslim, Christian and Jewish men their God-given reproductive rights in marriage, or their constitutional right to be notified when some secular medical quack is about to snuff out the life of the living human fetus in their wife's womb, without both 'partners' written permission.

What about churches that get federal money? Should they be allowed to discriminate? No way, I say. If you take money from the secular government you must adhere to the will of the secular society.

Time for Christian, Jewish and Muslim men of all races to adhere to the will of God instead of some secular pro-abortionists and racist white men.

[McCulloch]

It's a bald-faced lie when the religious zealot claims that their church will be forced to marry gay people against their will.

But don't you think they should be so compelled?
If marriage serves a secular purpose (and it does as things stand) then churches have no business discriminating any more than an auto mechanic.

I have to disagree with this. Churches, by their very nature, are allowed to discriminate in at least one area where it is not allowed by commercial organizations. A church is allowed to discriminate based on religious belief. Beyond that, religious organizations have been allowed to discriminate based on whether you eat pork, gender, race, marital status and just about anything that they deem to be important. This is why marriage licenses should be issued by secular authorities. And marriage must continue to be available to those who wish it, by secular means. The fact that religious leaders have been licensed by secular authorities to perform the wedding ceremony does not change that.

Tax breaks are to be had by getting married. An equitable society must make these benefits available to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

Which is why homosexuals can be married in any church which will agree to marry them or by secular authorities licenced to perform the ceremony. A church is within their rights to refuse to marry any couple for any reason they see fit.

What about churches that get federal money? Should they be allowed to discriminate? No way, I say. If you take money from the secular government you must adhere to the will of the secular society.

As I understand it, any government money given to any religious organization has to be tied to the specific projects. The government has a right to specify that those projects adhere to certain guidelines. For instance, if the government were to provide money to help a church sponsored food bank, then there should be an expectation that some the food bank would not discriminate. But they should not say the because the church's food bank received some government money, the church will now have to ordain women priests.

[Cephus]

It's a bald-faced lie when the religious zealot claims that their church will be forced to marry gay people against their will.

But don't you think they should be so compelled?

No, of course not. No one needs a church to get married, and with the separation of church and state, it's irrational to force religion to act outside of it's beliefs. There are plenty of churches out there that can and would happily marry gays already, we can leave the small-minded churches alone.

If marriage serves a secular purpose (and it does as things stand) then churches have no business discriminating any more than an auto mechanic.

But churches, by their very existence, are discriminatory and always have been. They discriminate against people of other religions, if nothing else. You're not going to change their minds and since people have a right to believe whatever they wish, no matter how ridiculous it might be, I'd say leave them alone to stew in their intolerance.

Tax breaks are to be had by getting married. An equitable society must make these benefits available to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

As well as all other rights currently granted to heterosexual couples, yes.

What about churches that get federal money? Should they be allowed to discriminate? No way, I say. If you take money from the secular government you must adhere to the will of the secular society. Period.

Churches get federal money? They get tax breaks, yes, but I don't know of any that are actually funded by the federal government.

[juliod]

Christian, Jewish and Muslim men will more than whine about their loss of God-given reproductive rights within their religious marriages.

It's my point that there are no religious marriages. The churches gave up that authority to the secular government.

Some churches already perform gay wedding nups and the seccy government doesn't recognize them.

Right. The religious marriage doesn't exist unless approved by the decular government. Same with religions that want to practice polygamy.

Now that the secular society is moving towards acceptance of gay marriage it is too late to complain. You gave us the power.

[juliod]

Which is why homosexuals can be married in any church which will agree to marry them or by secular authorities licenced to perform the ceremony. A church is within their rights to refuse to marry any couple for any reason they see fit.

But the problem is that that is not what the churches are saying. They (conservative churches and their members) want the secular government to define marriage by conservative doctrine. They want all churches and the secular justices-of-the-peace to ban gay marriage.

any government money given to any religious organization has to be tied to the specific projects.

Yeah, but's that's a worthless provision. The government funds simply displace church funds that can then be used for religions functions. So it really is direct government funding of religion. Bad idea. "Who pays the piper calls the tune."

But they should not say the because the church's food bank received some government money, the church will now have to ordain women priests.

Why not? I think taking the government's money entails just that sort of obligation, if the secular society chooses to impose it. After gay marriage, female clergy will probably be the next big issue.

If religions want control over their own doctrine, they better start building walls between themselves and the government.

DanZ

[juliod]

There are plenty of churches out there that can and would happily marry gays already, we can leave the small-minded churches alone.

But why should we? Conservative churches claims that the separation of church and state is a myth. I say let's give them all the establishment of religion they can handle. We should wrest control over their doctrine from these churches and give it to the secular government.

Churches get federal money? They get tax breaks, yes, but I don't know of any that are actually funded by the federal government.

You're behind in your news. This was one of Dubya's original planks in his platform. See below:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

DanZ