Marriage-a political or religious institution

[Confused]

I was watching the new this morning (on MTV so bare with me) when it was announced that New Jersey would no longer ban same sex marriages. As I sat there watching all the religious groups picketing outside the courthouse it got me wondering. What is it that religious groups oppose with same sex marriage. Now before you go ballistic, hear me out. The current Brittanica definition of marriage includes the following:

Main Entry: mar-riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross

Nowhere in this definition is their any mention of a religious rite. No religious leader is required to perform a marriage (a judge can) and no religous leader is required to negate a marriage. However, for a marriage to be legal, paperwork must be filed with the state. Therby negating the separation of church and state if the religious grounds for denying same sex marriage are based on religious reasons.

So my question for debate:

1) Do you oppose gay marriage because the term marriage is used and you consider that a religious term?

2) After your marriage, did you not file the proper forms for it to be recognized legally, thereby negating it being a religious union only.

3) Do you not feel that having to file papers with the state after the ceremony negates separation of church and state?

[Confused]

Looks like we just have a difference in opinion, McCulloch. I feel I have demonstrated that a license is not necessary to establish property in common, and you agreed but still felt a license was better for the reasons you gave.

I don't know where else I can take this argument/debate. I do not feel a license is better for the reasons I gave, and you feel a license is better for the reasons you gave.

How about letting each couple decide? The government will issue marriage licenses for those who wish to document and formalize their marriage relationship and recognize their common property and other legal responsibilities related to marriage immediately and the government will legally recognize those marriage relationships through common law, for those who don't. A bit like the status quo (at least here). I see no reason to change.

Also, for those who wish to have their religion perform some sort of ceremony related to their marriage, they are free to do so. For those who don't, they are free to not do so. The marriage is a marriage either way.

I understand where you are coming from, but I cannot agree with you. I am opposed to the licensing of marriage in general. To me, the definition of marriage is the capacity and commitment of a man and woman to love each other. Creating a form for marriage reduces marriage down to a form, in my honest opinion.

Like you stated before, if we licensed marriages, even loveless couples can be considered married (like they do today). Based on the historical definition of marriage, that's not marriage. That is simply two people living together as roommates.

I have lived with my roommate for 7 years now. If love and gender were not part of the equations necessary to establish marriage, we'd be considered married under the common law. That's just plain wrong. Love and gender are necessary to define marriage, IMO.

Love and gender are irrelevant. Historically love wasn't even a concept until the victorian age. Marriages were based on wealth and convenience. Do you consider you and your roommate a couple? If not, then it isn't considered marriage under common law.

Ok, first off here is the current recognition of love: Based on Wikipedia

Cultural views
Main article: Love (cultural views)
Although there exist numerous cross-cultural unified similarities as to the nature and definition of love, as in there being a thread of commitment, tenderness, and passion common to all human existence, there are differences. For example, in India, with arranged marriages commonplace, it is believed that love is not a necessary ingredient in the initial stages of marriage it is something that can be created during the marriage; whereas in Western culture, by comparison, love is seen as a necessary prerequisite to marriage.


[edit] Scientific views
Main article: Love (scientific views)
Throughout history, predominantly, philosophy and religion have speculated the most into the phenomenon of love. In the last century, the science of psychology has written a great deal on the subject. Recently, however, the sciences of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology, neuroscience, and biology have begun to take centre stage in discussion as to the nature and function of love.

Biological models of sex tend to see it as a mammalian drive, just like hunger or thirst. Psychology sees love as more of a social and cultural phenomenon. Psychologist Robert Sternberg created his Triangular theory of love and argued that love has three different components: Intimacy, Commitment, and Passion. Intimacy is a form where two people can share secrets and various details of their personal lives. Intimacy is usually shown in friendships and romantic love affairs. Commitment on the other hand is the expectation that the relationship is going to last forever. The last and most common form of love is simply sex, or passion. Passionate love is shown in infatuation as well as romantic love. This led researchers such as Yela to further refine the model by separating Passion into two independents components: Erotic Passion and Romantic Passion.


[edit] Chemical basis
Main article: Interpersonal chemistry
Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that a consistent number of chemicals are present in the brain when people testify to feeling love. These chemicals include; Testosterone, Oestrogen, Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Serotonin, Oxytocin, and Vasopressin. More specifically, higher levels of Testosterone and Oestrogen are present during the lustful phase of a relationship. Dopamine, Norepinephrine, and Serotonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship. Oxytocin, and Vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments.

In December 2005, Italian scientists at Pavia University found that a molecule known as the Nerve Growth Factor has high levels when people first fall in love, but these levels return to as they were after one year.

"NGF level was significantly higher (p<0.001) in the subjects in love [mean (SEM): 227 (14) pg/ml] than in either the subjects with a long-lasting relationship [123 (10) pg/ml] or the subjects with no relationship [149 (12) pg/ml]. Notably, there was also a significant positive correlation between levels of NGF and the intensity of romantic love as assessed with the passionate love scale (r=0.34; p=0.007). No differences in the concentrations of other NTs were detected. In 39 subjects in love whoafter 1224 monthsmaintained the same relationship but were no longer in the same mental state to which they had referred during the initial evaluation, plasma NGF levels decreased and became indistinguishable from those of the control groups."[1]

Now marriage:

[edit] Definitions throughout history
Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures: modern understanding emphasizes the legitimacy of sexual relations in marriage, yet the universal and unique attribute of marriage is the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). Traditionally, societies encourage one to marry "out" far enough to strengthen the ties, but "close" enough so that the in-laws are "one of us" or "our kind". Exception to this rule has been found in the marriages whose aim is to strengthen concentration of wealth and power rather than to create affinal ties. Even in this case, the individual was often encouraged to marry "within" close family limits. (Further discussion and reference: Marvin Harris, late Professor of Anthropology, Columbia University)

Marriage remains important as the socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. Marriage is sometimes understood as a relationship designed to produce children and successfully socialize them. Sex prior to marriage was called fornication and sex outside a marriage during marriage was defined as adultery and bother were criminalized. Also, children outside of marriage were known as bastards. Historically, many societies have allowed some form of polygamy. Europe, the United States and Canada have, for the most part, defined themselves as monogamous cultures. This partially stemmed from Germanic cultural traditions, Christianity, and mandate of the Roman Law. However it is important to note that Roman Law permitted prostitution, concubinage, and sexual access to slaves. The Christian West formally banned these practices.[citation needed]

Globally, most existing societies no longer allow polygamy as a form of marriage. For example, China shifted from allowing polygamy to supporting only monogamy in the Marriage Act of 1953 after the Communist revolution. Most African and Islamic societies continue to allow polygamy (around 2.0 billion people). Probably less than 3% of all Muslim marriages are polygamous. It is increasingly expensive in an urban setting, but more useful in rural areas where children are a future source of agricultural labor. Most of the world's population now live in societies where polygamy is less common and marriages are overwhelmingly monogamous.

Since the later decades of the 20th century many ideas about the nature and purpose of marriage and family have been challenged, in particular by LGBT social movements, which point out that marriage should not be exclusively heterosexual. Some people also argue that marriage may be an unnecessary legal fiction. This follows from an overall shift in Western ideas and practices of family; since WWII, the West has seen a dramatic increase in divorce (6% to over 40% of first marriages), cohabitation without marriage, a growing unmarried population, children born outside of marriage (5% to over 33% of births), and an increase in adultery (8% to over 40%)[citation needed]. A de facto system of serial monogamy has emerged.

Today, the term marriage is generally reserved for a union that is formally recognized by the state (although some people disagree). The phrase legally married can be used to emphasize this point. In the United States there are two methods of receiving state recognition of a marriage: common law marriage and obtaining a marriage license. The majority of US states do not recognize common law marriage. Many localities do support various types of domestic partnerships.

Marriage was strictly a civil institution until about the mid 5th century CE. Around that time Augustine and others theosophised about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in co-opting it. Christians began to have their marriages conducted by ministers in Christian gatherings. Having always regarded it in practical terms as a relationship between a man and a woman, it was in the 12th century that the Church (the Catholic Church ), as well as other orthodoxies, formally defined marriage as a sacrament. (In Catholicism the Sacrament of Matrimony is between three people: God, the man and the woman). The Protestant Reformation reformulated marriage as a life-long covenant; Protestant leaders like Martin Luther and Calvin denied that marriage was a sacrament.

Please note where historically, marriage and love were anything but interlinked and todays society recognizes it as a civil not religious union. A couple makes a religious union when a man of the cloth performs the union. But without that paper to the state, it isn't recognized by law.

[McCulloch]

Under my definition of marriage, there is no state recognition of marriage, so there would be no tax benefit for being married. But let's say they got married for the purposes of health insurance benefits. I would leave that up to each individual employer to determine who and how they want to hand out the benefits.

I have misunderstood you up to this point. I had not noticed that you would remove any state definition of marriage, licensed or common law. So in your ideal society, it seems as if there would be no legal definition of spousal benefits, spousal obligations or spousal next-of-kin. No divorce since there is no marriage (under law). An employer could discriminate by providing spousal benefits only to different sex spouses.
I think that removing the state recognition of marriage is a sea change that our society is not ready for.

I disagree that the only objection to the recognition of same-sex marriages is on the basis of religious values. Same-sex couples cannot procreate.

Do you only recognize as married, those couples that can procreate? In your mind, if my widowed post-menopausal mother were to remarry, it would not be a marriage? What about same-sex couples that do procreate?

I would like to see marriage keep its original definition, because I really do believe marriage is all about the love between a man and woman.

And you are entitled to that belief. But you are not entitled to arbitrarily impose that belief on others who may hold different values.

[Confused]

Under my definition of marriage, there is no state recognition of marriage, so there would be no tax benefit for being married. But let's say they got married for the purposes of health insurance benefits. I would leave that up to each individual employer to determine who and how they want to hand out the benefits.

I have misunderstood you up to this point. I had not noticed that you would remove any state definition of marriage, licensed or common law. So in your ideal society, it seems as if there would be no legal definition of spousal benefits, spousal obligations or spousal next-of-kin. No divorce since there is no marriage (under law). An employer could discriminate by providing spousal benefits only to different sex spouses.
I think that removing the state recognition of marriage is a sea change that our society is not ready for.

I disagree that the only objection to the recognition of same-sex marriages is on the basis of religious values. Same-sex couples cannot procreate.

Do you only recognize as married, those couples that can procreate? In your mind, if my widowed post-menopausal mother were to remarry, it would not be a marriage? What about same-sex couples that do procreate?

I would like to see marriage keep its original definition, because I really do believe marriage is all about the love between a man and woman.

And you are entitled to that belief. But you are not entitled to arbitrarily impose that belief on others who may hold different values.

And your final statement is exactly why church and state are separate. If God exists, only he can uphold his laws. Until he deems mankind important enough to warrant his attention again, we can only hold man to mans standards. One persons values are perfectly reasonable so long as they don't infringe upon anothers. In these cases, we have courts of man to decide. But same sex marriages don't infringe upon anothers rights.

[4gold]

Love and gender are irrelevant. Historically love wasn't even a concept until the victorian age. Marriages were based on wealth and convenience. Do you consider you and your roommate a couple? If not, then it isn't considered marriage under common law.

I think you misunderstood the point. Under your definition and McCulloch's definition, my roommate and I could get married for the sole purpose of a tax writeoff.

Don't you think this is a little absurd?

Please note where historically, marriage and love were anything but interlinked and todays society recognizes it as a civil not religious union. A couple makes a religious union when a man of the cloth performs the union. But without that paper to the state, it isn't recognized by law.

I disagree with your source about the historicity of marriage.

St. John Chrysostom's Homily 19 "On Marriage", he writes:

There are two reasons why marriage was instituted: to make us chaste and to give us children. Of these two reasons, the first takes precedence especially now that the human race has filled the entire earth. But now that the resurrection is at hand, and we do not speak of death but rather advance toward another life better than the present one, the desire for posterity is superfluous.

And then from John H. Erickson's "Orthodox Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage": "the early Church had been more concerned about the character of Christian marriage than about the wedding".

And then from Edward Moore: "Marriage in the Hellenistic and early Byzantine period was largely a matter of a couple announcing to a large number of people - usually at a planned wedding feast (Cana is a perfect example) - their intention to enter into a devoted, monogamous relationship. Surely there was an element of ceremony involved, but such props were not necessary for the marriage to be considered valid. In the early Church, such unions became Christianized, and presence of a priest at such a ceremony (largely in the capacity of witness) became standard practice. "[/quote]

[4gold]

I have misunderstood you up to this point. I had not noticed that you would remove any state definition of marriage, licensed or common law. So in your ideal society, it seems as if there would be no legal definition of spousal benefits, spousal obligations or spousal next-of-kin. No divorce since there is no marriage (under law). An employer could discriminate by providing spousal benefits only to different sex spouses.
I think that removing the state recognition of marriage is a sea change that our society is not ready for.

No, you still misunderstand me. Commonlaw marriage would be recognized by the state, but commonlaw marriage would be used for determining property rights, not tax writeoffs.

Do you only recognize as married, those couples that can procreate? In your mind, if my widowed post-menopausal mother were to remarry, it would not be a marriage? What about same-sex couples that do procreate?

Under my definition, this decision would not be up to me. It's between your mother and her spouse.

As far as procreative same-sex couples, again, it would not be up to me.

And you are entitled to that belief. But you are not entitled to arbitrarily impose that belief on others who may hold different values.

And this is where people always take this conversation, but it is a poor argument. What you are telling me is that is proper for you to arbitrarily impose your belief on others who may hold different values, but it is not okay for me. Sorry, I won't accept your last sentence.

I cannot accept your definition of marriage. To me, marriage is more than roommates. I noticed that during this post you did not bring up the subject of roommates being allowed to marry under your definition.

As I pointed out before, if we cannot accept each other's premises, then we're really not going to get anywhere fast. You cannot accept a definition of marriage that includes love, and I cannot accept a definition of marriage that includes roommates.

[McCulloch]

There are two reasons why marriage was instituted: to make us chaste and to give us children. Of these two reasons, the first takes precedence especially now that the human race has filled the entire earth. But now that the resurrection is at hand, and we do not speak of death but rather advance toward another life better than the present one, the desire for posterity is superfluous.

What did he mean "at hand"? Oh, never mind. Marriage to make us chaste. He seems to disagree with the apostle Paul.

No, you still misunderstand me. Commonlaw marriage would be recognized by the state, but commonlaw marriage would be used for determining property rights, not tax writeoffs.

Oh. So you want to change the tax laws to not recognize marriage, but keep the legal concept of marriage for the recognition of property rights. And remove the state from the task of registering marriage, so that all marriages would be common law.

And you are entitled to that belief. But you are not entitled to arbitrarily impose that belief on others who may hold different values.

And this is where people always take this conversation, but it is a poor argument. What you are telling me is that is proper for you to arbitrarily impose your belief on others who may hold different values, but it is not okay for me. Sorry, I won't accept your last sentence.

No. I have no intent on arbitrarily imposing my belief on you. You can, if you wish, deny that same sex marriage is not according to your values. You can, if you wish, believe that interracial marriage is unacceptable. You can, if you wish, believe that eating pork will send you to hell. But tolerate those who do not agree with you.

To me, marriage is more than roommates. I noticed that during this post you did not bring up the subject of roommates being allowed to marry under your definition.

I cannot think of a reason why to deny roommates being allowed to marry.

You cannot accept a definition of marriage that includes love, and I cannot accept a definition of marriage that includes roommates.

You are right. I cannot accept a definition of a legal relationship that has implications and obligations under the law, such as property rights, which is based on something which has no legal meaning, love. I cannot see how you could consistently hold your position unless you remove the concept of marriage from all forms and levels of government and justice.

[Confused]

4Gold:
I think you misunderstood the point. Under your definition and McCulloch's definition, my roommate and I could get married for the sole purpose of a tax writeoff.

Don't you think this is a little absurd?

Absurd yes, but people get married for a green card. Is that any less absurd? But it happens.

4Gold:
Confused wrote:
Please note where historically, marriage and love were anything but interlinked and todays society recognizes it as a civil not religious union. A couple makes a religious union when a man of the cloth performs the union. But without that paper to the state, it isn't recognized by law.


I disagree with your source about the historicity of marriage.

St. John Chrysostom's Homily 19 "On Marriage", he writes:

Quote:
There are two reasons why marriage was instituted: to make us chaste and to give us children. Of these two reasons, the first takes precedence especially now that the human race has filled the entire earth. But now that the resurrection is at hand, and we do not speak of death but rather advance toward another life better than the present one, the desire for posterity is superfluous

You can disagree with it all you want, but it doesn't make it less valid. You make references to religious marriages and why they were instituted. Tell me, During the 1700, 1800, 1900's, were either of these reasons you quote relevant? NO. Marriages were based on social status (the upper class was engaged at birth) or what was the most economically sound arrangement. Remember Dowry????

4Gold:
4gold wrote:
Under my definition of marriage, there is no state recognition of marriage, so there would be no tax benefit for being married. But let's say they got married for the purposes of health insurance benefits. I would leave that up to each individual employer to determine who and how they want to hand out the benefits.

Your definition of marriage is irrelevant. Unless you run your own country where you can enact your own laws, then your definition is no more than utopia.

I applaud your concept of marriage, but it isn't what marriage is today. Nor has it ever been so. Couples during the monarchy era married to procreate, yes, but only for a son to inherit. Not because God told them to procrate.

I will continue to say, marriage is a civil union that can be made religious if one chooses, but it isn't a religious union that can be made civil if one chooses. The state dictates you must register your licence etc.... before your marriage is recognized, regardless of who performed the ceremony.

[4gold]

Oh. So you want to change the tax laws to not recognize marriage, but keep the legal concept of marriage for the recognition of property rights. And remove the state from the task of registering marriage, so that all marriages would be common law.

This is essentially what I am saying.

No. I have no intent on arbitrarily imposing my belief on you. You can, if you wish, deny that same sex marriage is not according to your values. You can, if you wish, believe that interracial marriage is unacceptable. You can, if you wish, believe that eating pork will send you to hell. But tolerate those who do not agree with you.

But you are arbitrarily imposing your belief on me. Tell me this: why is a gay marriage license better than a commonlaw gay marriage?

You are right. I cannot accept a definition of a legal relationship that has implications and obligations under the law, such as property rights, which is based on something which has no legal meaning, love. I cannot see how you could consistently hold your position unless you remove the concept of marriage from all forms and levels of government and justice.

I simply see this as being a sticking point between us no matter how much we argue. I cannot accept a definition of marriage that includes roommates, and you cannot accept one that includes love.

[4gold]

Absurd yes, but people get married for a green card. Is that any less absurd? But it happens.

I really don't have much to comment on this. I think the definition of marriage is getting more and more vague by the generation. One absurdity is not a justification for another, in my opinion.

You can disagree with it all you want, but it doesn't make it less valid. You make references to religious marriages and why they were instituted. Tell me, During the 1700, 1800, 1900's, were either of these reasons you quote relevant? NO. Marriages were based on social status (the upper class was engaged at birth) or what was the most economically sound arrangement. Remember Dowry????

It seems you are agreeing with me. As time goes on, the definition of marriage has been changing. I understand that my definition of marriage has not applied for some 10 centuries now, but that does not make my definition any less valid. It stands on its own.

Your definition of marriage is irrelevant. Unless you run your own country where you can enact your own laws, then your definition is no more than utopia.

I applaud your concept of marriage, but it isn't what marriage is today. Nor has it ever been so. Couples during the monarchy era married to procreate, yes, but only for a son to inherit. Not because God told them to procrate.

I will continue to say, marriage is a civil union that can be made religious if one chooses, but it isn't a religious union that can be made civil if one chooses. The state dictates you must register your licence etc.... before your marriage is recognized, regardless of who performed the ceremony.

I live in a representative republic (USA). The great thing about this country is that I can try and persuade others to accept my definition, while you guys try to get people to accept yours. The USA is about as close to a utopia as one can get (or as Churchill said, it's the worst form of government, except all the rest).

In 2004, my state had the opportunity to ban gay marriages as part of the state Constitution. I voted against this option, but I was in the minority. This doesn't mean that my definition still cannot be used in the future. It simply means that someone else's definition of marriage won out over my own.

This is why we debate on internet forums! I realize that my concept is in the minority, but it is still my opinion. Personally, I find a definition of marriage that includes roommates to be absurd. And you guys find a definition of marriage that includes love to be absurd. Let's be thankful we live in nations that allow for the collision of ideas -- and may the best idea -- the idea with whom the majority agrees -- win!

[Vladd44]

Like you stated before, if we licensed marriages, even loveless couples can be considered married (like they do today). Based on the historical definition of marriage, that's not marriage. That is simply two people living together as roommates.

You say this, and variations of it repeatedly, however you never show where you derive this historical definition of marriage.

I dont see where love had much to do with it at all in its origins. Seemed more about procreation and survival than anything else. Add that to what has been for most of its time a male dominated relationship bordering on ownership and I still fail to see where love was relevant.

Love is something that has entered into the picture relatively recently, unlike reasons such as property, alliances, bloodlines or borderline slavery.

And I do know that it is a workable definition for society, because that's the way it was for the first 10 centuries under almost every single culture on earth -- especially Western cultures.

Please by all means, show me how love was the basis of marriage for the first thousand years of civilization.

The original purpose for a marriage license was to distinguish those who were in a loving monogamous relationship from those who were simply being sexually promiscuous.

No it was to establish male dominance over females in a legal sense, transferring that power from the dad to the husband.

I understand that my definition of marriage has not applied for some 10 centuries now, but that does not make my definition any less valid. It stands on its own.

Stand on it's own? What does that mean? You definition is totally valid, as long as you dont try to apply it to other people. And the same can be said of my viewpoint, confused, or McCulloch.

I live in a representative republic (USA). The great thing about this country is that I can try and persuade others to accept my definition, while you guys try to get people to accept yours.

heh, You must live in a different USA than I do. More like a constitutional dictatorship.

I have no desire to convince the rest of the country I am right, I just want them to quit prying into other peoples lives and let them make their choices for themselves. Even if that includes barren gay loveless mariages of roomates.