Same Sex Marriage (1 Viewer)

[GordoDeCentral]

You could argue that there's a third form -- independent of religious or state recognition. Often called common-law marriage, until states started recognizing that too.

by the way, forgot to respond to the history of common law marriages you had posted. the wikipedia excerpt described most marriages being common law ones up to the council of trent; said marriages were opposed by protestant. But knowing that europe was catholic and marriage being one of the sacrament. hence that piece doesnt really say much about religion not being the catalyst and molding marriage as we know it.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[JCK]

Somebody's been reading Orwell in here

 

[swag]

by the way, forgot to respond to the history of common law marriages you had posted. the wikipedia excerpt described most marriages being common law ones up to the council of trent; said marriages were opposed by protestant. But knowing that europe was catholic and marriage being one of the sacrament. hence that piece doesnt really say much about religion not being the catalyst and molding marriage as we know it.

But the common-law practice demonstrates how socially recognized marriages existed before religion swooped in and tried to make a monopoly on them.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

But the common-law practice demonstrates how socially recognized marriages existed before religion swooped in and tried to make a monopoly on them.

the loose form could be explained but the certainty is to be a catholic you had to be married unless in the clergy; but obviously the history of the matromonial vow dates ages before john's famous seat in rome.

 

[swag]

It's amazing how much the traditionalists are good at blinding us to the past, though. Take the whole clergy exception you note to the Catholic marriage requirement. The majority of priests were married until the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

And while the objections to married priests at the time tried to appeal to some "higher calling", the fact is that the Catholic Church was wrestling with issues of dowries and land ownership. Unmarried priest? All his property stays in the church. Married priest? Surviving wife can claim a cut, thus taking wealth out of the Church.

Cynical, but true. So for everyone who might try to dress up things like marriage and celibate priests in some faux traditionalist purity b.s., it's often just a smokescreen for how baseless the tradition is and what their true intentions were in instituting such a tradition.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

It's amazing how much the traditionalists are good at blinding us to the past, though. Take the whole clergy exception you note to the Catholic marriage requirement. The majority of priests were married until the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

And while the objections to married priests at the time tried to appeal to some "higher calling", the fact is that the Catholic Church was wrestling with issues of dowries and land ownership. Unmarried priest? All his property stays in the church. Married priest? Surviving wife can claim a cut, thus taking wealth out of the Church.

Cynical, but true. So for everyone who might try to dress up things like marriage and celibate priests in some faux traditionalist purity b.s., it's often just a smokescreen for how baseless the tradition is and what their true intentions were in instituting such a tradition.

agree except i think the married priest was at an earlier council. But believe it or not there grosser travesties like the nicene creed and its constant wishywashines as to the nature of christ and the infamous iconoclasmic era.

 

[Cronios]

But as far as I know there are two types of marriage, the 'religious' one and the 'legal' one. Gay marriage probably isn't possible with the first, because everyone probably agrees that the church' traditions should be kept. But there is absolutely no reason for not allowing 'legal' marriage between homosexuals. In fact, most nations article 1 of the consitution is about equalty. Surely gays are equals to other people? Bush is having trouble with that logic btw, thats why he wants to change the constitution on this point.

Actually there are some reasons:
the state's laws recognising a pair of citizens as an official "couple" provides (in some special cases) varius rights(like adopting a child) and advantages(no taxes,monthly econ aid) with the utter goal to support such an act,
beneficial to the state (creating a family, with children, new members/workers for the
society)
A homosexual pair wont provide that and since many laws didnt predicted homosexual marriages, can be abused.
Similar minor reasons and technical difficulties require time to reconstruct and adapt the political constitution to the homosexual pairs.
Some states are less prepared than others, homos sould fight for their rights as any other sex did in the course of history, if there is a need society will adapt.

 

[- vOnAm -]

In my country, there is no common marriage, all marriage must be conducted religously.

If you wanna get married here, all your papperwork goes to the Department of Religion.

 

[Slagathor]

So there's no divide between Church and State at all? Do you appreciate that system?

 

[swag]

So there's no divide between Church and State at all? Do you appreciate that system?

The church vs. state division is something I strongly believe in, but I know it's not for everybody and everywhere.

But when I saw the name "Department of Religion", I honestly had a brief laugh -- given how overt it is. It's like having a church named "Our Lady of Streets & Sanitation".

 

[Seven]

The church vs. state division is something I strongly believe in, but I know it's not for everybody and everywhere.

But when I saw the name "Department of Religion", I honestly had a brief laugh -- given how overt it is. It's like having a church named "Our Lady of Streets & Sanitation".

Any society that doesn't know this division yet, cannot call itself modern.

 

[Slagathor]

Well in Europe's case modernity didn't come about until we seperated the two. I would say that's a good enough argument to kill any union between church and state myself. Of course a working mechanism doesn't in itself rule out possibilities of different mechanisms achieving the same results.

 

[swag]

That's a great masters thesis which I am sure has been hammered out thousands of times before...

Do pluralistic societies have inherent social and economic advantages over nations that are entirely uniform?

I would completely believe the answer is "yes" to that, but the proof would take a thread longer than Nick's...

 

[Mr. Gol]

Actually there are some reasons:
the state's laws recognising a pair of citizens as an official "couple" provides (in some special cases) varius rights(like adopting a child) and advantages(no taxes,monthly econ aid) with the utter goal to support such an act,
beneficial to the state (creating a family, with children, new members/workers for the society) A homosexual pair wont provide that and since many laws didnt predicted homosexual marriages, can be abused.

Except for the abusing part this is actually a very good point. I hadn't really thought about why tax laws were made so that marrieds benefit from it. However, nowadays marriage isn't really related to birth rate anymore, so the legal system may be a bit outdated.

Of course I won't change my standpoint because of this, but you're the first one to bring up a decent non-religious argument (I think).

 

[Geof]

Any society that doesn't know this division yet, cannot call itself modern.

Well you'll notice that this division is not completely done in Belgium. For example, priests are being paid by the state