sapphi_snake said:
richardhutnik said:
Coca-Cola said:
FaRmLaNd said:
The question of whether gay marriage should or shouldn't be allowed cannot be a religiously decided decision in a secular democracy. For the very reason that a secular democracy is not a theocracy.
Lets put it this way, religions should be happy they exists in a secular democracy and not a theocracy. Why? Because most religious can exist within a secular society but only one can really exist in a theocracy. Take a look at Saudi Arabia and tell me how many churches exist in the country?
Secularism is the only way to go if you want to be able to have multiple religions or none all in the same country.
|
U.S.A. is a secular democracy
Gay marriage is not just about religion vs. secular, it's deeper than that. I don't have problems with gay marriage, but marriage has to be defined! It's going to be a long fight but I do believe in u.s.a., gay marriage will be legal - someday.
|
The problem you run into here is that the meaning, purpose and demands of what make a marriage a marriage takes shape in a religious context. By trying to have the same thing in a purely secular context is going to have people arguing for what they feel are their "rights", and that can lead to all sorts of things that undermine the nature of marriage. Because people argued they had a right to a divorce, then the concept of "til death due you part" got thrown out the window. Marriage isn't going to work as a concept so long as people keep trying to ground it in rights. Marriage is the idea of mutual sacrifice for one another, in love. The belief that the concept of marriage comes from a transcendent being, whose ways are to be followed, elevates marriage to be more, and drives people to be better.
I would say to stop fighting to get society to redefine what marriage is and find something else that would be more viable elsewhere. I would say to redefine everything as civil unions, for SECULAR purposes and be done with it.
|
How do you come up with this stuff? And why don't you religious people find a different name for your unions?
|
What do you mean "you religious people"? I am not sure religious people are going to be happy with the state labeling everything "Civil unions". I proposed the civil union solution as a way to deal with the issue of homosexual marriage without having to change the values of society to redefine what it considers to be marriage, before the issue can be resolved.
As for the other stuff, I was explaining where the ideal view of marriage has originated, and where the basic ideas have developed. They have developed in a religious context, not a secular one. Secularly, they have been implemented in the legal system, to also allow for divorce. And on this:
Marriage is the idea of mutual sacrifice for one another, in love. The belief that the concept of marriage comes from a transcendent being, whose ways are to be followed, elevates marriage to be more, and drives people to be better.
Look at the wedding vows and see what they call for. It is mutual sacrifice for one another, in love. When you then attempt to take this idea and say it isn't sow, and subject to change, the people will end up deviating from it, arguing that they have a right for this or that, and cheapening it. Why is there divorce today and it is a major part of the marriage landscape if not for the fact that what marriage is has been cheapened in a culture that derives its ethics from rights?
