Is Christianity due for a government-imposed Reformation?

[Nathan Poe]

Anybody can get a lawyer.

I'm still not seeing the connection here -- yes, marriages are more easily set aside than wills. So... fewer people should get married?

[Nathan Poe]

Yes they can, they simply can't get a marriage license, that is all. Is there something preventing them from saying they are married?

Saying one is married is one thing -- receiving the government's protection for married couples requires a license.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm still not seeing the connection here -- yes, marriages are more easily set aside than wills. So... fewer people should get married?

Nah, more people need to have their legal affairs in order before something goes wrong.

[lilpixieofterror]

Saying one is married is one thing -- receiving the government's protection for married couples requires a license.

Government protection? What does the government protect in terms of married people that they don't protect as single people? You are afforded a few privileges, most of which are granted though other means anyway or only apply under a handful of situations, so perhaps you could name a few that and if marriage is such a great thing, why are so many people avoiding it all together?

[Nathan Poe]

Nah, more people need to have their legal affairs in order before something goes wrong.

No argument there -- but that's hardly the only reason people get married, is it?

[Nathan Poe]

Government protection? What does the government protect in terms of married people that they don't protect as single people? You are afforded a few privileges, most of which are granted though other means anyway or only apply under a handful of situations, so perhaps you could name a few that and if marriage is such a great thing, why are so many people avoiding it all together?

Relax, lilpixie, if you're so gung-ho against marriage, sorry if I hit a nerve...

This brings us back full circle to our "reinventing the wheel" argument. Sure, there are other ways to get those benefits -- and such protection could be construed as separate from marriage, but equal. You'll remember, of course, that "separate but equal" didn't go over very well in the past -- there's no reason to assume that the government would get it right this time.

As for why "so many people" avoid it -- well, you hit on one of the reasons before -- because marriage contracts are so easy to get out of these days. But we're not talking about the people who don't want to get married, we're talking about the ones who do. There happen to be a lot of people who are looking for the right person, one whom they feel confident that they'll spend the rest of their lives with. Right or wrong, the government gives certain benefits to people who make that decision, but maybe the reason not as many people are taking the plunge is because they want to be sure it's the right decision. Marriage isn't something that should be taken lightly (no matter how easy it is o dissolve), as I'm sure you'd agree.

I'm actually all for the suggestion of getting the government out of the marriage business entirely -- I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hades of it ever happening, but it'd be nice -- call every government-licensed arrangement a "civil union" and let the religious organizations have their "marriages" -- which, by themselves, carry no civil weight. Actually, that's more or less the way it is now, except for a few changes in the terminology. Alas, that'll never happen...

[Cerebrum123]

I'm actually all for the suggestion of getting the government out of the marriage business entirely -- I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hades of it ever happening, but it'd be nice -- call every government-licensed arrangement a "civil union" and let the religious organizations have their "marriages" -- which, by themselves, carry no civil weight. Actually, that's more or less the way it is now, except for a few changes in the terminology. Alas, that'll never happen...

I actually have no problem with this idea, better than redefining marriage.

[Nathan Poe]

I actually have no problem with this idea, better than redefining marriage.

Except it is redefining marriage -- currently, "married" couples enjoy certain government protections and benefits. Under the new system, they would not. "Marriage" would mean what it has always meant within the Church, but would count for absolutely nothing outside of it. You'd be left with nothing but a name. As I said, it would more or less reflect the current reality -- a Church wedding doesn't matter without the state's piece of paper.

So really, what, exactly, would you be saving?

[princesa]

Except it is redefining marriage -- currently, "married" couples enjoy certain government protections and benefits. Under the new system, they would not. "Marriage" would mean what it has always meant within the Church, but would count for absolutely nothing outside of it. You'd be left with nothing but a name. As I said, it would more or less reflect the current reality -- a Church wedding doesn't matter without the state's piece of paper.

So really, what, exactly, would you be saving?

In this example, the term 'marriage' will remain for use in churches only and then the recently married couples will get their state certificate that gives them the benefits anyway. Is it really redefining the term marriage as the church uses it?

[Cerebrum123]

Except it is redefining marriage -- currently, "married" couples enjoy certain government protections and benefits. Under the new system, they would not. "Marriage" would mean what it has always meant within the Church, but would count for absolutely nothing outside of it. You'd be left with nothing but a name. As I said, it would more or less reflect the current reality -- a Church wedding doesn't matter without the state's piece of paper.

So really, what, exactly, would you be saving?

Not quite the same as redefining marriage, but it isn't exactly what the ideal would be either. Also, it would at least protect people from being sued for not wanting allow a gay marriage to be performed at their church. Again, it's not ideal, but it's better than what most are suggesting.

[lilpixieofterror]

No argument there -- but that's hardly the only reason people get married, is it?

So what is the primary reason then that homosexual couples want to get married if that isn't the primary or only reason? I know what it is, it is to gain acceptance and the 'legal protections' are just being used as a cover.

[technomage]

So what is the primary reason then that homosexual couples want to get married if that isn't the primary or only reason? I know what it is, it is to gain acceptance and the 'legal protections' are just being used as a cover.

You honestly believe that there is no homosexual capable of loving another person, desiring to spend the rest of their lives with that person, and who wants to make a commitment reflecting that desire? Is the reason you cited the only reason straights get married?

You live in a very cold world, Pix, but the gays and lesbians I know do not share your cynicism. Desiring to get married solely for social acceptance would produce short-lived, cold, and fatally flawed relationships. If you are correct, no "gay marriage" would last more than six months.

Why do homosexuals want to marry? Because marriage is a ritual of commitment, whether you are speaking of secular or religious marriage. Because marriage is a promise, made to each other, in love.

And because they love each other.

Is there any more reason needed than that?

[lilpixieofterror]

You honestly believe that there is no homosexual capable of loving another person, desiring to spend the rest of their lives with that person, and who wants to make a commitment reflecting that desire? Is the reason you cited the only reason straights get married?

Did I say that? If you are just going to stuff words down my throat to make me say things I never said, let me know now so I will know to just ignore anything else you have to say on this topic. What I have pointed out is that there is no 'protections' given by the federal or state government to married people that do not existed to single or unmarried couples. There are privileges granted, but if your argument is that these privileges are 'unfair' then shouldn't we extend them beyond just those that are 'married' and included the unmarried as well? As far as I tell, this is a way to gain acceptance, with the 'legal stuff' being used as a backdrop to attempt this with.

You live in a very cold world, Pix, but the gays and lesbians I know do not share your cynicism. Desiring to get married solely for social acceptance would produce short-lived, cold, and fatally flawed relationships. If you are correct, no "gay marriage" would last more than six months.

I do not pretend to read people's minds and emotions, so don't pretend to read mine. You suck at it. The government did not approve my wedding, I did. The government did not say I could pick to marry who I wanted, I did. The government didn't even tell me I had to get a marriage license. The license was simply a legal thing to me, it didn't 'approve' anything. That was done at the wedding, which again, nobody is forbidding anybody from holding. So really, if a piece of paper makes you somehow 'feel' better; I would seriously be worried about how well that marriage will work out. I do not need the government to approve of whom I choose to marry.

Why do homosexuals want to marry? Because marriage is a ritual of commitment, whether you are speaking of secular or religious marriage. Because marriage is a promise, made to each other, in love.

Is anybody preventing them from going off and having their own wedding? Nope. Is anybody preventing them from living with whom they see fit? Nope. Is anybody preventing them from having the same protections everybody else is granted? Nope, so why does it matter if you get some silly piece of paper from a court house? You know how many times I have used mine? I could count it on one hand, just how many times I have ever used or needed it and the only reason is because of my job and SS, that's it. So really, what is the huge fuss? Is this about acceptance or about 'legal protection'?
And because they love each other.

Is there any more reason needed than that?

And again, is anybody preventing them from saying they are married? What is so special about this piece of paper that makes people so uppity? To me, a marriage license was just a legal thing that is it. The wedding is what was important and is anybody prevented from having a wedding?

[lilpixieofterror]

[QUOTE=Nathan Poe;3428437]Relax, lilpixie, if you're so gung-ho against marriage, sorry if I hit a nerve...[/quote[

You didn't, so don't worry about it.

This brings us back full circle to our "reinventing the wheel" argument. Sure, there are other ways to get those benefits -- and such protection could be construed as separate from marriage, but equal. You'll remember, of course, that "separate but equal" didn't go over very well in the past -- there's no reason to assume that the government would get it right this time.

And again, do you have any strong evidence that this peice of paper is 'seperate, but equal'? Nope, in fact I have been married for over a year and a half and I could count on one hand how many times I needed to use my marriage license. Gosh, for such a big fuss people make over it, it really doesn't seem to be used all that much at all. From what I have seen, everybody simply accepts my word and doesn't ask for it to confirm a thing.

As for why "so many people" avoid it -- well, you hit on one of the reasons before -- because marriage contracts are so easy to get out of these days. But we're not talking about the people who don't want to get married, we're talking about the ones who do. There happen to be a lot of people who are looking for the right person, one whom they feel confident that they'll spend the rest of their lives with. Right or wrong, the government gives certain benefits to people who make that decision, but maybe the reason not as many people are taking the plunge is because they want to be sure it's the right decision. Marriage isn't something that should be taken lightly (no matter how easy it is o dissolve), as I'm sure you'd agree.

And again, is anybody preventing them from saying they are married? Nope, so what is the argument again?

I'm actually all for the suggestion of getting the government out of the marriage business entirely -- I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hades of it ever happening, but it'd be nice -- call every government-licensed arrangement a "civil union" and let the religious organizations have their "marriages" -- which, by themselves, carry no civil weight. Actually, that's more or less the way it is now, except for a few changes in the terminology. Alas, that'll never happen...

A 'civil union' tends to have a bit different definition over a 'marriage'.

[Michelle]

And again, do you have any strong evidence that this peice of paper is 'seperate, but equal'? Nope, in fact I have been married for over a year and a half and I could count on one hand how many times I needed to use my marriage license. Gosh, for such a big fuss people make over it, it really doesn't seem to be used all that much at all. From what I have seen, everybody simply accepts my word and doesn't ask for it to confirm a thing.

That's because, praise God, your husband is alive and well.

When mine died, I had to pull out that 'piece of paper' plenty of times; to collect survivors benefits, for insurance claims, to gain access to community property, to prove right of survivorship, and at the mortuary to prove I was the one with the right to say. I shudder to imagine the hassle, however, if I had to have separate documents for each case.