Civil marriages are partnerships, exclusive but mutually beneficial for both partners. It is based on the life long dedication and care one partner gives to another and that the union would be make life better than to remain apart. Redistribution of assets are done when the partnership is dissolved thru a divorce or terminated when one of the partner dies.
Now, if there is no God then any Religion is a bogus social club with really strange bylaws. Lets say that religion, its ethics and principles and moral code is legally banned from interjecting its concepts into common law. Such that you cannot have a definition of obscenity because the bible tells us so or that it is illegal to kill someone because its against the 10 commandments or that man is superior to woman because Mohammed said so.
If you are still following this, then how does the complete removal of God and religion from society and its laws affect marriage?
For example, what is really stopping same sex marriages, polygamy, same sex polygamy or even inter-species marriage (think someone marrying shamu and getting all his proceeds) without religion and its teachings, what are the logical impediments to marriage other than the standard accepted man-women wedlock?
Here’s one. If a man dies without a will, his wife will inheret the property if there is no will. Maybe not always true, but I think it is in many states. If he marries a sheep, how can the sheep inherit property?
But on a larger scale, you might argue that your question is valid for any law. Why is it wrong to kill someone if there is no religion prohibitting it? IANA philosopher, but I’m sure smarter people than I have addressed this before.
“If you are still following this, then how does the complete removal of God and religion from society and its laws affect marriage?”
It doesn’t. People like to mark important events with ceremony. Did you go to your High School/College graduation? Why? Same answer applies for marraige.
Right. Marriage as we know it is normally religious, but people partnered off long before that. If the people involved in it so choose, and many do, a marriage can have nothing to do with god (or the government): it can just be a committment between two people who agree to love-and-whatever-other-words each other.
The ceremony of matrimony maybe religious but the social implications of the partnership extend past the ceremonial aspects. Kingdoms fates have been decided on marriages, real property and ownership, inheritance, and even the care and responsibility for the aprtner is fixed in law. The Graduation ceremony is nice enuf but its the diploma and the skills it certifies that matters.
Hasnt anyone heard of the rich old lady leaving her entire fortune to her cats? The money was willed to her animals, such that she specifically detailed what to do with her money after she dies. If she was married to the cat (or cats) the law would provide for the cats automatically (after probate)
Now granted this would take a lot of legislation and a lot of legal precedents before it becomes smooth but without religion then there is no real reason to stop from doing it is there? the stuff of who gets what and where and how are details that can be worked out. Theres nothing to stop society from trying it tho.
I think the same is true of a marriage. The ceremony isn’t what’s important, it’s the commitment it symbolizes, that’s part of why the ceremony can take so many different forms. And I think the government agrees: even if you’ve had a marriage ceremony, you still have to do the certificate thing, and unless I misunderstand, a common-law marriage is just as good as a fancy one legally. A ceremony is just that.
Marley, that is true only in states which recognize “common law marriages” – a dwindling number. Most states expect that for you to receive the legal benefits available to a married couple, you must comply with their standards for establishing such a marriage, in that state or another. (And DOMA gives them some recourse on whether or not to recognize another state’s authorization of a marriage or equivalent.)
Fair enough, I don’t know about the popularity of common-law marriages. I think the general point stands, though, and I don’t think any state, regardless of discretion, requires you to undergo a traditional, formal marriage to receive said benefits. Am I wrong?
There are a variety of weddings available, both religious and secular. In fact, secular marriages are on the rise (just a personal observation).
Marriage is a partnership marked with ceremony. Note how regardless of religious tradition, there is usually some type of marriage in almost every culture. I suspect that from an evolutionary standpoint, marriage is beneficial. It provided the woman with a a partner to feed her, provide shelter and protection for her and her child. For the man, it provides steady access to having his offspring taken care of, among other things.
People are social animals, and people have used ceremony since they begin to gather in groups and had to work out ways to cooperate while they were together in close quarters. Ceremony gives people a common sense of purpose, and reminds them of the common bonds they all share.
You could only assume that it would be OK to kill someone in the absence of religious morals if you assume that religion is the only possible source of morality.
As for the OP:
To worry that the removal of a moral code directly derived from the Christian religion (the only one referred to by the OP), (i.e., laws that specifically mention the bible or the ten commandments are a no-no) is to assume that there is no other possible source of a moral code.
Now you, X~Slayer, can believe that if you want to, and I, I will fight to the death for your right to believe it and state it openly, but I will also fight to the death for MY right to state openly that I think that belief is crap.
Did every single pre-Judeo-Christian society look kindly upon open murder and polygamy? Prove it.
Civil marriage laws, like many laws, are designed to influence behavior. By granting certain rights and priveleges as well as responsibilities to the partners in a marriage, the writers of the laws wish both to encourage this practice and caution the participants to weigh the responsibilities when making the decision. Such laws are written in the belief that people in stable committed relationships are good for the society as a whole.
Any argument over who and how many should be includable in such a partnership is left up to what is good for the society as a whole in the absence of religion.
I agree with scotandrsn. Besides being just downright silly, the OP makes the tacit assumption that morality originates from the Bible, which is patently false. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it’s dangerous thinking to assume that only your particular belief system is moral and that all others are amoral.
Some societies allowed it when it best suited their purposes.
For example,
Open Mass Murder: Crusades, Nazi Holocaust, Taliban ethnic cleansing, American Indian wars, Slavery, State sponsored death penalties,.
Polygame are allowed in Islamic and Mormon (in the past) sects. Im not quite sure about Hindus.
I didnt mean to infer that only judeo-Christian belief systems are the main source of morals. I wanted to see how marriage laws are formulated without any religious influence.
Yes, influence behavior based on a religious concept of good behavior. If there is no religion to cloud the issue, research shows that certain couples are happier in an open marriage where they are allowed to have multiple sex partners. Obviously the religiously tainted “adultery” laws shouldnt apply to them.
I have seen a tv news article of how a man with 3 wives was happy and content as are all his wives. I’ve seen many articles of how married pairs screw up their lives. Who is to say one is better than the other. We should have the choice. Could eliminating all god belief systems allow a more open view of matrimony? One based on actual data not moral philosophy?
Obviously, yes, and plenty of religions/religious societies, like the Taliban and the Church during the Crusades, were just fine with it as well. I would venture to say religion hasn’t had much impact on people’s view of murdering each other as a general rule.
But what the post meant was that assuming that all morality, ranging from the outlawing of murder to the support of monogamy, stems from religion, is erroneous. Your initial post seems to make this assumption, or at least posits it. Religion has influenced modern moral codes, yes, but that’s not the same.
Well then let me limit the discussion to marriage only then. Would you agree the morality of marriage is mostly religious in nature? The civil portion of marriage takes care of possesions and rights and privaleges. That is free of religious influence for the most part but what of the rest?
*adultery
*multiple partners
*same sex partners
*animal partners
If you remove the religious influences on these issues you are left with the fact that there is really nothing wrong with doing any of these things so long as everyone consents and are happy.
I am not assuming that removing religion removes morality. I am proposing that removing religion shifts the moral code.
I think it’s important to note that in the case of bestiality, no consent is possible. The participants are not all able to legally give consent. Which is an excellent secular argument against bestiality.
I’d think that, for that reason, bestiality should be excluded from this discussion. Even without religious rationales, there are good valid reasons why it should be illegal.
NO! NO! NO! :smack: You’re still not getting it. MORALITY DOES NOT DERIVE FROM RELIGION. Morality is a human construct that pre-dates Christianity, Moslemism (is that a word?), Hinduism, Judaism, and all the other isms. Morality transcends religion. Not believing in Jesus, or Vishnu, or the purple 3-headed monkey-god is not equivalent to thinking that murder is OK.
First of all, I am in favor of same-sex marriages. The only thing keeping them illegal is pure bigotry. As for polygamy, there are good reasons why it is considered immoral. For one thing, the more partners you introduce into a relationship, the higher the chances of spreading disease. For another thing, it’s sexist - It’s never been a woman having multiple husbands, it’s always a man having muliple wives. Polygamy supports the outdated idea of women as chattel. Since polygamists have in the past generally been religious people (Mormons for example, a sect of Christianity), I don’t see how you can argue that religion is the factor keeping polygamy from being the norm. In fact, secularism is what forced polygamy out in Utah.
As for marrying animals, the obvious reason that’s bad is because it spreads disease, exploits the animal, and is not going to be an emotionally healthy relationship for either party. I don’t think we need any stone tablets appearing in a thunderclap to figure that one out.
To pick those point-by-point:
Wait a minute, didn’t most of the major Biblical figures have more than one wife? Religion and monogamy aren’t the same thing. What’s the Biblical punishment for a cheating wife, stoning? That’s not moral just because it’s in there, is it? I don’t think religion provides morality at all, not in an objective way anyhow.
I think marriage between gay couples SHOULD be legal. In fact, if I was to say anything was immoral in this dispute - not that I would, I don’t think or talk in those terms - I’d say it’s immoral to ban it. There’s nothing wrong with gay marriage in my opinion.
I don’t think there’s something objectively, i.e. right and wrong, virtue and sin, with adultery. If it really is fine with everyone concerned, I’ve got no bone to pick with it. I’m bothered by polygamy, especially in a religious sense - i.e. I think some Mormon women okay it because they feel they have to. I don’t think it should be illegal because I think it’s sexist and makes women equivalent to property. Nothing religious about that either.
Having sex with animals is abusing them, end of story. You don’t need religion to know that.
Except for the “animal partners” issue (because none of us can tell if animals are consenting or not), I have no problems with the rest of the list. Adultery is often cited as an impetus for divorce proceedings, but AFAIK it’s not a crime in and of itself – if Bill Clinton committed adultery and Hillary forgave him for it, is that still a crime?
Some science fiction writers postuate a future of “marriage contracts,” where N consenting adults sign an agreement to legally share their property, possessions, rights, and whatever. The contract can be renewed or altered after X years, according to how the parties involve feel at the time. I don’t see anything wrong with such a setup, though I suspect you might.
