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?

[jcrawford]

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.

Now you are making a little more sense, McCulloch.

[jcrawford]

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

Why don't gays demand that their religious marriages be recognized by a so-called 'secular' state then, since if religious marriages were recognized, secular government would have to recognize so-called gay or same-sex marriages and couldn't discriminate on the basis of procreative rights or reproductive functions.

[McCulloch]

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

Why don't gays demand that their religious marriages be recognized by a so-called 'secular' state then, since if religious marriages were recognized, secular government would have to recognize so-called gay or same-sex marriages and couldn't discriminate on the basis of procreative rights or reproductive functions.

In our country, that is exactly what they did. Most politicians did not want to open the gay-rights can of worms.

[jcrawford]

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

There are still Jewish and Islamic marriages and Christians don't have to get married in no dang church to have a religious marriage. After all, marriage is a religious institution and all infidel or secular marriages are only government-arranged marriages which last a couple of days, weeks, months or years. Secular marriages are only good for feminists and homosexuals. Religious people should boycott them.

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

Nonsense. Religious marriage was instituted from the beginning of man. Secular and infidel governments come and go.

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

That's a joke. New York state just eliminated the right to marry for homosexuals.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/60018.htm

[jcrawford]

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

Why don't gays demand that their religious marriages be recognized by a so-called 'secular' state then, since if religious marriages were recognized, secular government would have to recognize so-called gay or same-sex marriages and couldn't discriminate on the basis of procreative rights or reproductive functions.

In our country, that is exactly what they did. Most politicians did not want to open the gay-rights can of worms.

So Christian, Jewish and Christian wives are not allowed to get abortions without their husbands consent? Wonderful.

[juliod]

There are still Jewish and Islamic marriages

Nope. In the US, all marriages are identical. They are approved and adjudicated by the secular government. Religions can pretend that there is some difference between their own "real" marriages, and other people's marriages, but they are just pretending. Just as unrecognized homosexual (and other) marriages are just pretend.

Secular marriages are only good for feminists and homosexuals. Religious people should boycott them.

Are you agreeing that the churches should take the position that secular marriage should be extended to homosexuals?

Religious marriage was instituted from the beginning of man.

And destroyed by "christian" governments.

New York state just eliminated the right to marry for homosexuals.

Just a rear-guard action of the loosing side. The tide of history is already set.

So Christian, Jewish and Christian wives are not allowed to get abortions without their husbands consent? Wonderful.

BTW, if you look at some of my posts under other threads about marriage, you will see that I presented a system whereby this view of yours could be adopted. In my view, marriage would be contracted between the church authorities and the marriage partners. The contract could specify acceptable and unacceptable medical procedures, and would wield the power to enforce those terms.

DanZ

[jcrawford]

There are still Jewish and Islamic marriages

Nope. In the US, all marriages are identical. They are approved and adjudicated by the secular government.

The seccies don't approve or adjudicate Jewish and Islamic marriages, and homosexual and heterosexual marriages certainly aren't identical.

Religions can pretend that there is some difference between their own "real" marriages, and other people's marriages, but they are just pretending. Just as unrecognized homosexual (and other) marriages are just pretend.

Seccie marriages are just pretend marriages until the women get abortions and divorced.

Secular marriages are only good for feminists and homosexuals. Religious people should boycott them.

Are you agreeing that the churches should take the position that secular marriage should be extended to homosexuals?

A church, mosque or synagogue can preach any doctrine it wants. I certainly don't tell any of them what they may or may not do.

Religious marriage was instituted from the beginning of man.

And destroyed by "christian" governments.

Maybe that's why Jews and Muslims have no respect for "christian" governments.

New York state just eliminated the right to marry for homosexuals.

Just a rear-guard action of the loosing side.

Secular NYS judges are on the losing side? Glad to hear that.

The tide of history is already set.

Rear-guard secularism is currently being flushed down the toilet bowl of history.

So Christian, Jewish and Christian wives are not allowed to get abortions without their husbands consent? Wonderful.

BTW, if you look at some of my posts under other threads about marriage, you will see that I presented a system whereby this view of yours could be adopted. In my view, marriage would be contracted between the church authorities and the marriage partners. The contract could specify acceptable and unacceptable medical procedures, and would wield the power to enforce those terms.

So what are we arguing about? See how the seccies divide the people and pit them against each other while they fill their tax coffers and pockets with ill-gotten gains at the expense of married men and the fruit of their wives wombs?

[jcrawford]

In our country, that is exactly what they did. Most politicians did not want to open the gay-rights can of worms.

Cowardly seccie politicians would rather let bloody male abortionists open our wives wombs without our written permission as if they were a can of worms.

[McCulloch]

In our country, that is exactly what they did. Most politicians did not want to open the gay-rights can of worms.

Cowardly seccie politicians would rather let bloody male abortionists open our wives wombs without our written permission as if they were a can of worms.

Actually, it was the religious politicians who lost their nerve.

[jcrawford]

In our country, that is exactly what they did. Most politicians did not want to open the gay-rights can of worms.

Cowardly seccie politicians would rather let bloody male abortionists open our wives wombs without our written permission as if they were a can of worms.

Actually, it was the religious politicians who lost their nerve.

You have religious politicians up there in snowland? Clap, clap.
Would that we had some Christian, Jewish and Islamic politicians here in America.