FaRmLaNd 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.
|
Absolutely, making everything a civil union in regards to the legality of it is the easiest way out. If you want to call it a marriage and have associated religious rituals etc, then thats fine. If you want to call it a marriage and you aren't religious, thats fine, if you start a religion that enshrines gay marriage as holy thats fine. It wouldn't matter because it'd all just be a civil union in the eyes of the law. The religious connotations shouldn't matter legally, they should only matter to the people involved on a religious level if the people want to define it that way.
|
If people were to honor marriage like it ought, there would be neither the need for the approval of society, or government to acknowledge anything. You would just do it. The civil union is just to help society manage when things go wrong, like dividing up of jointly owned property and custody rights of children. There is also an implied imposing on others who control property that they are required to, or forbidden from, doing certain things with their property in relationship to others. This last one is where the greatest fight lies now (that and likely custody rights for children).
