No it isn’t. It’s an institution that religion has often shoved its way into as it tries to shove into everything else, but it is by no means inextricably tied to religion, or even primarily religious. Religion could be completely erased from human memory and marriage would still exist just fine. Nor does religion even agree on the matter anyway.
Marriage might have started as a religious institution, but these days it’s hardly the case anymore. What part of getting married by Elvis to a drunk hooker in Vegas is religious ?
Arguably, there’s nothing in the Bible about gay people (in the orientation sense). The Bible only talks about people who engage in certain sexual practices. (And it’s not always clear exactly what sexual practices are being referred to, or how they should be translated.)
I think this is the heart of the problem. We have allowed marriage to become incorporated into our laws–tax codes, survivorship rights, etc. to such a degree that homosexual couples are incidentally penalized. But for the legal benefits–which could readily be resolved by making Civil Union Between Two Consenting Adult Human Beings the legal requirement–we would be left with a segment of the population desiring admission into a private club which specifically excludes them: God-Blessed Matrimony.
Desiring admission into such an institution is a far less sympathetic cause–makes as much sense as me wanting to be admitted to MENSA when I clearly do not meet their criteria.
Is there really a lot of controversy over how to read: “'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
I can’t see how gay sex would be punishable by death, but gay marriage could be OK.
Of course, this is only an issue for men. God is totally cool with lesbians. But then, He’s a guy, so that kind of explains it.
I don’t believe it even started as one.
But it doesn’t; again, there isn’t any universal religious opinion on this, there are religions that have no problem with it. This is a matter of some religious factions using the law to impose their religious views on everyone, a violation of separation of church and state as well as bigotry.
I’ve been asking the OP’s question for years, and have yet to hear even a semi-rational answer.
I would not disagree with this. And my point was that it would be prudent to make a legal distinction between “Marriage” with the religious trappings and “Civil Union” which relates purely to legal status; and to make Civil Union available to any paired adults and leave Marriage prerequisites up to the religious authority.
I see your point about Marriage not being necessarily religious. I’m just working with a different definition of the same word, I think.
If in fact the root cause of the problem was the “pollution” of marriage, this solution would have been adopted ages ago, as it has been in many states, up to the limits of their power. That it has not happened indicates that the sanctity of marriage is just a disguise for the real problem, homophobia.
But God also hates murderers and says they should be killed too. But they are allowed to marry. So… your explanation doesn’t work for me.
Which gets gays into marriage, but now excludes atheists. I kind of have a problem with that “solution.”
God hates man-on-man sex, and SSM sanctions said sex.
Murderers getting married doesn’t make them murder more. At least not necessarily.
State, Federal and International law all use the term ‘marriage’.
If the religious wish to remain in a special class they can start calling themselves Christ-Married or something. And as long as that special term isn’t recognized in codified law imbuing them with greater rights I’m all for that.
Not quite completely unconnected - same sex adoption would pull children out of poverty.
You are right that recent decades have seen a great decline in spousal abuse and murder - must be the declining morals of our time … :dubious:
This is like asking why Jews can’t join the NSDAP.
No matter how you look on it, marriage is intrinsically a religious practice. Most often it takes place in a church the ceremony is performed by a christian priest. The christian God is quoted to say that if two men have sex they should be killed. Does not like gays.period.
Why on earth would followers allow SSM? That would be big fuck you to the proposed creator of the universe. I think if you are a christian you should be against gay marriage, it makes perfect sense to me.
Nonsense; do you think that atheists don’t get married? Marriage is a legal contract between two people and is valid regardless of what any particular batch of believers wants to say.
Irrelevant since this isn’t supposed to be a theocracy.
Switched the bolding around for your convenience. See ? Even you realize that not all (hetero) marriages performed today involve religion. So what the fuck, man ?
He also hates people who work on Saturday… Perhaps no marriages should be held on that day? If they are, they are invalidated?
My question for religious people is why is it that Christianity gets to decide the qualifications for marriage for everyone?
It’s not like there’s only ‘christian marriage’ in this country.
Who has ever said anything like that? I find it hard to imagine, since the two concepts are likely negatively correlated, assuming a connection at all.
No, it’s not. Why do you keep saying that?
That’s just the ceremony, and the priest is acting on behalf of the state. The legal status of being married is a state function. You can be married in a Church (think polygamist Mormons), but not legally married.
Why on earth would Christians allow divorce to be legal?
Yes, I can see that many Christians would not wan their Churches to perform such ceremonies, but that is a different issue from SSM being legal.