Gay Marriage v Polygamy

[McCulloch]

Is there a comparison?

It has been alleged that the prohibition on gay marriage and on multiple simultaneous spouses are alike in that there is no secular reasons for either; these practices are banned by the governments which prohibit them for purely religious reasons.

For debate:

1. Is this claim true? Are there secular reasons to ban either or both of these practices?
2. If not, is it hypocritical to advocate for one but not the other?
3. Should we abandon secularism and impose theocracy?

[Kuan]

I see we are participating in at least two threads on this, but I will make a new comment on this thread.



Let's say we follow dianaiad's scenario and take "marriage" out of the governmental lexicon and use the term civil union instead. dianaiad says this would have the advantage of not making churches acknowledge or perform gay marriages, since marriage would have no legal meaning. She seems to be afraid that this would happen or at least could happen, based on past experience with polygamy and the mormons, if we simply legalize gay marriage.



However, it occurse to me that if this fear has merit, then her solution does not fix the problem.

After all, if there WERE people who DID want to force the LDS to perform gay marriages and they were able somehow to get the government to go along with their wish, what would keep these same people and the government from doing the exact same thing with civil unions?







Why would "changing the terms" somehow make the LDS immune from having to engage in civil unions of gays?????

It would protect actually. If im not mistaken, the proposal keeps civil unions completley secualr. You cannot get it inside a church or from a religious group. It is done through the government to get the rights. Now the religious and cultural aspects of marriage have been taken out of the government. If people feel inclined to have a religious ceremony they can go to the church of their choice to get married. This leaves for example us mormons with the right to conduct marriages according to our conscience, inside our temples according to our beliefs. Yet this also leaves homosexuals with the option to get married in a liberal christian church or whatever other religion they desire.

To point out that under the new scenario, churches would not have the power to enact civil unions that had legal standing, is certainly a fair and valid point.


However, consider:

Right now, marriage is a term used for both the civil contract and the ceremonial religious aspects. Right NOW, no one can compel a church to perform either a symbolic and non-legal marriage nor a legally binding marriage . Feel free to correct me if I am in error on this. However, I can tell you the church I was married in would not do the ceremony if we did not participate in their pre-marital counciling. Thus, churches can marry or not marry anyone they wish and can put up whatever conditions or barriers they wish to those wanting to be married in that church.

dianaiad claims that if we allow gays to be married, then churches could be required to perform these marriages, even though anyone wishing to be married legally need not go to her church or any particular church, and even though those churches can today deny to marry heterosexual couples for essentially any reason. Is not her fear on this basis alone entirely unjustified?


Now, I grant you that under her scenario, there is no legal rationale to force churches to perfrom gay marriages, and that is somewhat different than the "grant gay marriage" scenario.

However, while one might say the probability of successfully forcing religions to perform gay marriages under dianaiad's scenario is therefore lower than it is under the other scenario, if there is a positive probability under the "gay marriage" scenario then there is still a positive probability under her scenario as well.


Both probabilities are, based on current practice and other evidences, clearly vanishingly small, and so could be considered irrelevant, but if one is nonzero, it seems to me we must conclude that the other is as well, and for the same reasons that dianaiad points out, namely that the word "marriage" has wider connotations than just the legal one.

I see what you are saying, and I dont have a problem at all if we extended homosexuals marriage right now. All I am trying to do is be careful with it, mormons havent had such a good time with the government in the past hence our skeptical look and the attempt to provide ourselfs with legal defense while granting rights to those who deserve it. I think that the probability is low that church's will be required by law to perform gay marriages. Yet, I think this is a good step towards the separation of church and state. Lets look at the recent discussion about how "In God We Trust" is significant and part of our history, yet also unconstitutional because of the separation of church and state. It does violate the separation, but isnt marriage similar? Its history is rich of religious and cultural significance also. If we remove In God We Trust, its only fitting that we continue the separation of church and state with marriage.

I suggest that not only does the compormise Dianaid suggested provide everyone with equal rights and with the conservative religious with a bit more legal protection, it also takes a step further in the separation of church and state. Such a simple thing as a word change actually has such a huge impact. Not only does this set up homosexual marriage for equal rights, this system could even be perfect for polygamy. Polygamy would be extremley easy to institute into Dianaid's proposal. These are the reasons why I think we should follow this compromise.

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm gonna drop out of the thread, as I see no immediate relation between gay marriage and polygamy. If anyone requests I continue here just PM me and I'll come back.

[dianaiad]

I see we are participating in at least two threads on this, but I will make a new comment on this thread.



Let's say we follow dianaiad's scenario and take "marriage" out of the governmental lexicon and use the term civil union instead. dianaiad says this would have the advantage of not making churches acknowledge or perform gay marriages, since marriage would have no legal meaning. She seems to be afraid that this would happen or at least could happen, based on past experience with polygamy and the mormons, if we simply legalize gay marriage.



However, it occurs to me that if this fear has merit, then her solution does not entirely fix the problem.

After all, if there WERE people who DID want to force the LDS to perform gay marriages and they were able somehow against all odds, traditions, and the constitution to get the government to go along with their wish, what would keep these same people and the government from doing the exact same thing under the new scenario?

the fact that churches would have no legal ability to legally bind anybody in a relationship recognized by the government; that is, churches could marry people (that is, perform the religious ceremonies that bind people in the eyes of God in whatever belief system is being applied), but they could not confer, or officiate at, any legally binding event.

Right now (in California, anyway) a couple must get a marriage license. that gives the couple legal permission to marry, and ensures that when they do marry, the state will recognize the legal rights that go with it. However, simply having the license doesn't mean that they are MARRIED. The couple must then find a justice of the peace OR a licensed clergyman with permission to marry. Only then is the couple married.

So...just take out the 'licensed clergyman' part. Make everybody find a justice of the peace, remove the ability of the church to officiate at what would then be called civil unions. Make 'marriage" strictly the perview of religion/culture/private opinion.

Keeps religion out of the government's ability to allow contracts between anybody it wants to, and keeps the government out of religion.

Why would "changing the terms" somehow make the LDS immune from having to engage in either marriages or civil unions of gays?????

Because, if religions have no legal ability to formalize them, they are certainly not going to be required to either perform, or recognize, marriages performed by anybody else.

By the way, I have never claimed that, or worried that, we would be forced to actually perform marriages. My worry has always been that we would be legally forced to recognize such marriages if they are recognized by the government. It is a valid worry, confirmed by history.

However, if marriage is made a religious/cultural ordinance and practice, like--baptism, perhaps, then the government has to stay strictly out of it.

We don't have to acknowledge marriages performed by those who would marry gays--and they don't have to acknowledge ours.

[lastcallhall]

Is there a comparison?

It has been alleged that the prohibition on gay marriage and on multiple simultaneous spouses are alike in that there is no secular reasons for either; these practices are banned by the governments which prohibit them for purely religious reasons.

For debate:

1. Is this claim true? Are there secular reasons to ban either or both of these practices?
2. If not, is it hypocritical to advocate for one but not the other?
3. Should we abandon secularism and impose theocracy?

Marriage up until 30-40 years ago didn't need to be defined because it had been the same way for thousands of years, and because this country was based on Judeo/christian values the laws reflect that. From a strictly secular argument the system can't handle it. The strain on social security benefits alone would cripple an already weakened system.
I think it is hypocritical to support or oppose one and not support or oppose the other
I like our present system, I will wait for Jesus to set up a theocracy!

[Goat]

Is there a comparison?

It has been alleged that the prohibition on gay marriage and on multiple simultaneous spouses are alike in that there is no secular reasons for either; these practices are banned by the governments which prohibit them for purely religious reasons.

For debate:

1. Is this claim true? Are there secular reasons to ban either or both of these practices?
2. If not, is it hypocritical to advocate for one but not the other?
3. Should we abandon secularism and impose theocracy?

Marriage up until 30-40 years ago didn't need to be defined because it had been the same way for thousands of years, and because this country was based on Judeo/christian values the laws reflect that. From a strictly secular argument the system can't handle it. The strain on social security benefits alone would cripple an already weakened system.
I think it is hypocritical to support or oppose one and not support or oppose the other
I like our present system, I will wait for Jesus to set up a theocracy!

Yes.. indeed. It was that way for thousands of years. That's why one of the conditions to allow Utah to become a state was to make polygamy illegal.

That is why in Tibet, they practice Polyandry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_Tibet


That's why the Romans , under Christian influence, specifically banned in in 342 A.D ..