Gay Marriage!!!

**Wicked Sid** · Jan 4th, 2013, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by DeadMen_Walking

Let's hug it out, with our shirts off, and baby oil...

Just a giant apology-fest in here.
---

Carry on, my fellow debaters.

**Ordinary12** · Jan 4th, 2013, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by DeadMen_Walking

Let's hug it out, with our shirts off, and baby oil...

Ah...you mean my average Friday nights! LOL!!! Are you the "Mirror/Mirror" version of Hank Venture?

**LiamKerrington** · Jan 4th, 2013, 08:27 AM

free+hugs.jpg

**reaper239** · Jan 4th, 2013, 09:26 AM

back on topic:

the thing is that this is one of the very few aspects in which the government is actually required. boil out the love and the romance, what is a marriage? besides a sham? (shamWOW!!! i just had to) it's a contract. a marriage, when you boil it down to its most base essence, is a social contract between two people who choose to share responsibility for each other. enforcement of contractual obligation (or in this case, managing restitutions when the contract is broken) is one of the few legitimate purposes of government. gay or otherwise.

**LiamKerrington** · Jan 4th, 2013, 09:43 AM

Imho marriage based on religion or law made by The State is an artifical concept to put some order into the second-smallest part of human society. The smallest part is the individual; the second-smallest is the marriage which ends in a couple unless you are Mormon or Muslim or member of some other special religion (no offense intended; just statement of facts); then the third-smallest is the family.

In either case, so in case of a marriage based on religion or based on law, certain rules are applied - rules which bind the individual as well as the couple, but also rules which bind the society, the religious community, or The State. Such rules combine allowances and permissions on the one side, limitations and duties on another side, and probably certain priviliges on the other side. This overlaps with the idea of the contract mentioned by reaper239.

Since marriage is the foundation of a certain "social unit" (a couple mostly), and this unit interacts as such within the society and in front of The State, I think it is pretty important for the society and The State to know what they are up against. Thus rules need to be established which allow The Community (as the combination of The State and society) to interact properly with the married couple. Therefore I have no trouble with The State getting involved with or even superseding the religious ceremony of marriage.

After all the Religion itself only applies for a part of the society, while the Marriage itself is in force against everyone and everything. Therefore the Marriage as such has a much more impact on the social and public community then on a certain religious part within the community.

Also I don't see the point why only Religion may be the source of organizing the fundamental elements of the society. It is what society does with itself; and for this it uses the empowerment of public authority through The State, which receives its legitimation from the people, the society.

I think all of this does not interfere with the religious ceremony as such. It is just the means to recognize certain religious beliefs and to establish the marriage in the face of the personal religion. This is how things work here in Germany: You get married at the public authorities, and you may also perform the religious rites accordingly. The difference, though, is that the general acceptance of the marriage stems from the marriage in from of the Civil Registry Office.

All the best!
Liam

**reaper239** · Jan 4th, 2013, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by LiamKerrington

Imho marriage based on religion or law made by The State is an artifical concept to put some order into the second-smallest part of human society. The smallest part is the individual; the second-smallest is the marriage which ends in a couple unless you are Mormon or Muslim or member of some other special religion (no offense intended; just statement of facts); then the third-smallest is the family.

In either case, so in case of a marriage based on religion or based on law, certain rules are applied - rules which bind the individual as well as the couple, but also rules which bind the society, the religious community, or The State. Such rules combine allowances and permissions on the one side, limitations and duties on another side, and probably certain priviliges on the other side. This overlaps with the idea of the contract mentioned by reaper239.

Since marriage is the foundation of a certain "social unit" (a couple mostly), and this unit interacts as such within the society and in front of The State, I think it is pretty important for the society and The State to know what they are up against. Thus rules need to be established which allow The Community (as the combination of The State and society) to interact properly with the married couple. Therefore I have no trouble with The State getting involved with or even superseding the religious ceremony of marriage.

After all the Religion itself only applies for a part of the society, while the Marriage itself is in force against everyone and everything. Therefore the Marriage as such has a much more impact on the social and public community then on a certain religious part within the community.

Also I don't see the point why only Religion may be the source of organizing the fundamental elements of the society. It is what society does with itself; and for this it uses the empowerment of public authority through The State, which receives its legitimation from the people, the society.

I think all of this does not interfere with the religious ceremony as such. It is just the means to recognize certain religious beliefs and to establish the marriage in the face of the personal religion. This is how things work here in Germany: You get married at the public authorities, and you may also perform the religious rites accordingly. The difference, though, is that the general acceptance of the marriage stems from the marriage in from of the Civil Registry Office.

All the best!
Liam

religion has been the basis for all society since adam and eve left the garden (see that? see what i did there?) men have worshiped God. whether that's the one true God, or the god of the sky, or the god of the earth, or zeus, or oatmeal, or allah, or the god of myself, or the god of atheism, men have worshipped at one altar or another. we are religious creatures, we crave habit, and we like order. religion has never been a part of the society, it's been the society, so to say that you don't see why religion organizes society, well that's just because you're not looking far enough back.

yes, marriage is artificial, but so is everything. law is artificial, human rights are artificial, if you are an atheist, everything about society is artificial. what would be natural is that you have something i want, i kill you, i take it, but what society does is it imparts a set of boundaries. now, if you have something that i want, society has established rules and assigned that thing a value, and if i do an ammount of work that is comparable to the ammount of work you've put in, i might have enough of what you want that you'll trade me for it. religion establishes a baseline of values from which you can now derive a code of conduct. that's something that i see that atheism simply lacks.

**LiamKerrington** · Jan 4th, 2013, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by reaper239

yes, marriage is artificial, but so is everything.

That's my main point, which is why I don't see the point in limiting marriage by making at an only religious act. This would mean that all the people in the world who have split from religions would not be able to marry. That's insane - at least in the secularized nations of the world, in which people live by rules of law in the first place and with regard to religion and ethics to a code of morality in second place.

All the best!
Liam