In the US, we have a right to participate (or not) in whatever religious tradition we choose. This freedom of religion means allowing others to have their own moral code; people might have their store open for business on Sunday, or attend a mosque for worship, or drink/smoke/gamble, or write books/make movies about offensive topics, or have sexual relations outside a committed relationship, or even form a household with someone of the same-sex.
Laws should forbid things that are intrinsically, verifiably, and significantly harmful to people and/or society. Same-sex marriage, IMO, doesn't fit those criteria. Therefore, a law against it would be based primarily on religious opinion. BTW, giving rights to only traditional marriages IS THE SAME AS outlawing SSM.
Either you believe in the Freedom of Religion and therefore legally allow people to hold and practice either Christian or non-Christian values AND ALSO not legally endorse one value system over another OR YOU DON’T.
2007-10-25 05:31:59 · 8 answers · asked by nc 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Marriage should be between you and your partner. You can throw in your deity of preference if you wish. But, the State has nothing to do with it... I know! Taxes... oh and moral authority... ooooooo... The government should refuse to acknowledge marriage as an institution. Taxing should be done on individuals ONLY. Leave morality between the individuals and their churches (what they teach their children) and keep it out of the government. Only ethical questions belong in government, not moral ones.
2007-10-25 05:56:53 · answer #1 · answered by barchanon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I think SSM should be legal, or at least the rights associated with it should be.
Let me rephrase that - I would take the word "Marriage" completely out of the lawbooks. Instead, the legal term would be "civil union" (or similar). Everyone who is currently married would be automatically entered into a civil union.
From then on, "Marriage" is completely a religious term. It gives you no state or federal rights, though it might give you rights within a church.
I expect there would be a variety of civil unions defined - on the basis of practicality ONLY. Does society want to encourage people in love with each other to stay with each other? OK, we have a union type for that. It has tax and rights implications. How about a legal commitment between people for care such as between child and parent entering into the eldercare system? Great, we have a contract for that too.
However, I question your phrase "forbidding things that are intrinsically, verfiably and significantly harmful to people". It sounds more like a bright line than it really is. Where does abortion fall? How about self defense?
For better or for worse, religion (even if you are not religious) ultimately has a HUGE effect on your concept of right and wrong. Its not clear to me that we can ever satisfactorily separate what is right and wrong from what is religiously right and what is religious wrong.
2007-10-25 12:46:18 · answer #2 · answered by Elana 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A couple of observations about your logic.
Marriage has a minimum of 2 components. A religious, spiritual and ritualistic component and a legal and contractual component.
The governments function in Marriage is the legal and contractual component. It should not have any influence or sway over the religious aspect of it nor should it attempt to legislate values or morality. Your argument that "Laws should forbid things that are intrinsically, verifiably, and significantly harmful to people and/or society. Same-sex marriage, IMO, doesn't fit those criteria." is debatable and I would therefor steer clear of it. It could be argued that same sex marriage damages the fabric of society.
Also the absence of one thing is not necessarily the presence or affirmation of its opposite. Your statement "a law against it would be based primarily on religious opinion. BTW, giving rights to only traditional marriages IS THE SAME AS outlawing SSM." is therefor not valid. The absence of a law is not the moral or quantitative equivalent of a law that is contrary to that thing.
One more thing, freedom of religion does not trump all other liberties. We also have freedom of speech but that does not mean you can yell fire in a crowded theatre.
=============================================
PeachPie - I agree with you. I am agnostic\buddhist myself. There is a community and ritualistic aspect to most marriages, that is what I was referring to. The inclusion of the word "religion" was not intended to mean that all marriages have a religious component. Only that many do and many more have a ritual\spriritual component. Also, my answer concerns itself with the original question about the logic and reasoning involved.
=============================================
2007-10-25 12:41:43 · answer #3 · answered by loudwalker 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You cannot stop people from voting their conscience. This issue has been voted down very decisively in most every state. Religious rights are slowly being taken away. Holiday tree, removal of the 10 commandments, taking in GOD we trust off of documents etc. These things are making Christians angry, so when we have a chance to keep Christian values by voting, we will. We feel homosexuality is not normal. Go forth and multiply doesn't compute with them. Anyone can prat ice any religion or no religion, be gay or not, that is okay by me. Just don't ask me to support it.
2007-10-25 13:07:01 · answer #4 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you. A law against same sex marriage would only be based on religious values, and religion has no place within the countries laws.
EDIT:
loudwalker~ Religion doesn't have to have a place in marriage if you choose not to include it. For instance, me and my husband are not religious and our wedding had no religious influence. When it comes down to it, the main part of a marriage is that it's LEGAL, religion being involved is just your personal preference. Now does that mean we don't love each other, "till death do us part" ? NO, it just means we don't believe in god.
2007-10-25 12:42:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its not about rights, its about the Government taking control of a word that is the most powerfull sacrament in the church. For 1000's of years, people got married because they were commiting to each other in front of God. Our government is turning this ceremony into a legal loophole for tax benifits and other rights. THAT IS NOT MARRIAGE, that is just getting married for benefits. Take a walk down to your local courthouse and see how many people are actually getting married for "immigration" purposes. It has nothing to do with the sexuality of a person, most religious people are pissed because a word that was associated with religion is now controlled by governments and now poeple are abusing that for other reasons other than commiting the rest of their lives to the other person.
2007-10-25 12:35:01 · answer #6 · answered by Relax Guy 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The government already has laws about polygamy
-it's illegal-
even though it was a practice normally only embraced by deeply religious types
So I think the government has already decided what defines a married couple and what value system they endorse..
2007-10-25 12:40:47 · answer #7 · answered by tnfarmgirl 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You have committed a logical fallacy. Homosexuality is an aberration. It is not normal. Creating a so-called marriage will not make homosexuals more like normal people. That's what homos want: to be like normal people.
Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. There is no reason to change that.
Homosexuals do not have to engage in aberrant behavior.
2007-10-25 12:37:05 · answer #8 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋