Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Would this be acceptable to you?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
resist Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 06:01 PM
Original message
Would this be acceptable to you?
Since marriage is, in fact, a christian sacrament, I've always been amazed that government employees like justices of the peace or judges are allowed to conduct them. What if we had two types of marriages - those called marriages and conducted ONLY by clergy with the same rights as those we have now; and another called civil unions that are only granted by government officials, also with the same rights as everyone else. Those of us who are not religious might very well choose a civil union rather than go to a priest.

There would be no discussion of gay or straight - all are treated the same. If a gay person wishes to have a traditional religious marriage, his complaint is with the methodist or whatever church who wants to refuse him a marriage ceremony. Thus getting the US government out of the religious business and putting the blame where it lies; and also guaranteeing the same rights to all citizens.

Would that be acceptable to straights and gays?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
plurality Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sounds cool to me, but good luck with the religious folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, marriage is sanctioned by more religions than just christian.
But I get your point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ripley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. Marriage is not in fact a Christian sacrament to everyone.
Edited on Fri Feb-13-04 06:09 PM by Ripley
I was married by a judge nowhere near a church with no religious ceremony. I am legally married in the USA.

Why does the federal government spend millions of dollars on a program to promote marriage, and at the same time want to put a constitutional amendment in that would ban a "certain type" of marriage?

Hateful people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. something very like that
is where we are heading -- it's what i think equal under the law would look like regarding marriage.
gay folk are speaking up now about marriage -- but i think nonreligous straight americans have a vested interest in what gay folk are after. marriage is not just the arena of conservative religous straight folks.
this could be an interesting dog fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. Er, not quite
The only real feasible solution would be to get the government out of the "marriage" business all together. Perhaps the government would be limited to granting the legal status of a civil union and all benefits are derived from that. Any social ceremony would be dependent on religious or philosophical group of the couples choosing.

This of course is limiting to those without a religion or group backing them. They would have no recourse other than the civil union (though in practice there are a number of none dogmatic groups that would likely be willing to help).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hammie Donating Member (413 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. No marriage, no civil unions.
Get the govt out of the business of certifying interpersonal relationships. There is no compelling social reason for any of it. Marriage is a quaint antiquated notion. The govt will provide for the children in any case, why have marriage at all? We certainly don't need marriage lite (civil unions). Abolish them all. Since they serve no legitimate social need, there should be no goverment reward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. Certainly
Then remove the word "marriage" from every piece of legislation ever enacted in any country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hammie Donating Member (413 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Exactly (EOM)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devlzown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. There are already some churches that
perform commitment ceremonies for their gay and lesbian members. I'm sure these churches would perform marriages for the same people if it were legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taeger Donating Member (914 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. Marriage is an artifact of common law

It's a tradition handed down through English common law. It's both a sacrement and a secular institution.

It is possible to get a church "marriage" without that marriage being sanctioned by the state: Moonie MASS Marriage.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
9. what rights for "marriages" then?
If we're talking about rights within said church, and separated from rights under civil law, fine. Otherwise, no. The church has no standing to provide rights under civil law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. "Marriage is, in fact a christian sacrament"
Wow! So what do we call the results of a similar ceremony performed by a Rabbi, or a member of the Muslim clergy, or by a Buddhist monk?

Are those "married" by a justice of the peace not married? Do we already have two categories of commitment -- civil unions and marriage and I somehow missed that?

I think you're confusing your religious beliefs with the real world.

But in answer to your question, would heterosexual couples united by a justice of the peace, for instance, only be creating a civil union? Would marriage by your definition be restricted to those married by a member of the clergy? Or would you restrict it only to Christians? Do you include Catholics and Mormons in your definition of Christian? I'm quite curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JasonDeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
11. No. Lets just leave everything as it is. It has worked for 10000 years.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plurality Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. sorry, i think it's changed a bit in the last 10,000 years
Otherwise I would be able to have 10 wives and 100 children and if one of my daughters displeased me I would be able to sell her into slavery that minx!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JasonDeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Polygamy hasn't been practiced in the Christian Church since Christ.
The Apostle Paul taught One husband One wife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foreigncorrespondent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Give me a break Jason....
...and stop shitting all over mine and Sapphocrats relationship (and all other queers in relationships) with your stealth bigotry, I am bloody well sick of it.

You might not be happy with your life, Jason, but I a damn happy with the person I have fallen in love with, and want to spend the rest of my life with.

What we do in our private time is of no concern to you. If you would bloody well remain OUT of our bedrooms, then maybe, you will see that the marriage laws do need to be changed.

AND DO NOT COMPARE QUEER RELATIONSHIPS TO POLYGAMY! That is a right wing tactic and you know it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JasonDeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. BS. If you'll check plurality I was responding to him and furthermore
I'd say by the tone of your post YOUR the one that is unhappy and it has nothing to do with me. Again what you do in your private time your business, that is not the issue! The issue is the claim the homosexual community is making about what the constitution is standing for! The founding fathers DID NOT mean for the constitution to allow what your claiming and I predict a constitutional amendment will be passed to bar it! Furthermore I'm starting to have my doubts about civil unions too. My bet is this marriage or civil union push by the homosexual community is just the tip of the iceberg. You or any on your side have shown me no where in history where any society has called the homosexual lifestyle normal or openly acceptable, when you do, well thats another post.

You disagee with me, I disagree with you. Isn't America wonderful?! And I don't hate you nor am I angry with you, I just totally disagree with you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foreigncorrespondent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. The tone of my post should...
...have told you that this queer has had enough of the stealth bigotry you and a few others have shown on DU. Don't you dare go confusing my post tone with my relationship. At least I have someone who truly loves me in my life Jason.

The only thing I am not happy about is the fact that YOUR country is so arrogant it cannot even recognize people who love one another, because it can't see past its own pitiful nose! It is YOUR country that keeps me from the woman in my life Jason!

As for history showing homosexuality being openly accepted, well here is a list of books. I guarantee you won't go out of your way to read them, but unless you do, then you don't have a leg to stand on, and what you said is nothing more than blatant bigotry!

Required Reading:

-Crucifixion of Hyacinth: Jews, Christians, and Homosexuals from Classical Greece to Late Antiquity by Geoff Puterbaugh

-Homosexuality in the Ancient World by Wayne R. Dynes

-Gay Warriors : A Documentary History from the Ancient World to the Present by B. R. Burg

-Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective by Martti Nissinen

-Same-Sex Love in India: Readings from Literature and History by Ruth Vanita

-Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece by William Armstrong Percy III

-One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love by David M. Halperin

-Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan by Gary P. Leupp

As for web links, here is some to start you off, Jason:

http://www.gayegypt.com/egangodamcre.html (Interesting Egyptian history about how they believe the universe was created)

http://www.gayegypt.com/aneggaygod.html (All about Egyptian GAY GODS! Now, Jason, do you honestly believe that if homosexuality wasn't accepted in society, that society would be deeming them Gods?)

http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/egypt.htm (The third gender in Acient Egypt)

http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/ (The tomb of niankhkhnum & khnumhotep.)


<snip>
'He was impressed with its unique scenes of two men in intimate embrace, something he had never seen before in all the Saqqara tombs.

Meanwhile archaeologists working on the restoration of the causeway of Unas discovered that some of the stone blocks that had been used to build the causeway had been appropriated in ancient times from the mastaba that had originally served as the entrance to this newly discovered tomb. The archaeologists reconstructed the mastaba using the inscribed blocks found in the substructure of the causeway.

It was revealed that this unique tomb had been built for two men to cohabit and that both shared identical titles in the palace of King Niuserre of the Fifth Dynasty: "OVERSEER OF THE MANICURISTS IN THE PALACE OF THE KING."'


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/greekeros.html (Paul Halsall:
Homosexual Eros in Early Greece (1986)


<snip>
Homosexual Eros in Early Greece: "Love, and sex, between men is not a rare thing. Anthropologically a majority of societies <1> accept what we now call homosexuality, especially where one partner plays a totally feminine role. What is special about Greek homosexuality is its apparent prevalence, the appreciation of aspects of masculinity in the other partner and the almost total damnatio memoriae suffered by the phenomenon until recent decades."

"Definitions are important in considering the subject of sexuality. I was wary about using the word 'homosexual' in the title; 'eros' is the Greek word for sexual desire and what we would call romantic love. Particularly in the late 7th and 6th centuries BC but to an extent throughout antiquity, romantic love as presented in our sources was something directed primarily at members of ones' own sex. We are justified in using the word 'homosexual' only if we remember that it is an anachronism. Modern homosexuality is a psycho-social phenomenon where a person's desires are directed emotionally and sexually towards members of the same sex. The word itself is a nineteenth century attempt to medicalise what had previously been known as sodomy. Perceptions moved from sinful acts to sick persons. The Greeks were living before either a sin or medical model of homosexuality and while aware of differing inclinations did not consider these important enough to establish a separate social category. Exclusive preference for one sex or the other was not an issue and most men we hear about liked both. In short this paper is not about Greek 'homosexuality' but about romantic love in Greece during the age of the tyrants. The fact that it was largely homosexual is interesting to us but was not particularly so to the Greeks."


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/clem-ped-3-3.html (Clement of Alexandria (c.200 CE): On Effeminate Men and Masculine Women)


<snip>
Remember that Clement is NOT in favor of same sex relationships and marriages, BUT, it is interesting to note, that he talks about the fact that women were marrying women!

He writes: "But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women.

Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated.

<[[Note: Bernadette Brooten, in Love Between Women, p. 322 translates the above passage as follows: "[Luxury> confounds nature; men passively play the role of women (lit: "suffer the things of women"), and women behave like men in that women, contrary to nature, are given in marriage (gamoumenai) and marry (gamousai) other (women)"]] "


Now, Jason, this is just a sample of what the history of homosexuality is all about. I would post more, but, I decided I have given you enough, now it is up to you to do your own homework. Here is an excellent resource, might take you a while to get through all the links though. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index.html and http://www.amuseyourself.com/cgi-bin/tseekdir.cgi?location=Root-GoQueer,046com-History,047Herstory Great homework sites for you.

And BTW, If you are going to judge homosexuals (and don't say you aren't, because if you weren't Jason, then gay marriage wouldn't be such a sore issue with you) then you ought to really brush up on our history before insulting us.

Oh, and don't forget to go google the word "sappho". Once you done there try googling the native American word "Berdache" which means "Two-Spirit" people, meaning homosexuals.

And I would like to leave you with one of my partners favorite sayings: If Michelangelo had been straight, the Sistine Chapel would have been painted with a roller."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. I guess the Mormons didn't get the memo!
How many wives did old Brigham Young have?

Let me guess, Mormons aren't "real" Christians?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. 50%+ divorce rates?
It's broke. Gay marriage certainly can't hurt, and might well help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
15. Marriage is NOT, in fact, just a christian sacrament - but yes
Christians don't have a monopoly on marriage.

But for what it's worth I think you have a perfect solution: government performs only civil unions, churches temples and so on perform marriages.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
16. Don't most, if not all cultures have marriage
Since the majority of Americans are Christian, it might be considered a Christian sacrament to most Americans. The practice is not unique to Christianity or the Western world though. I don't know of any culture that doesn't have some form of marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
18. sounds good
I would a lot more comfortable if this issue was addresses AFTER we win the damn election. The Republicans are going to use it against us, I guarantee.

Gay marriage may be acceptable on DU, but sadly, DU is not even close to representing America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
19. According to the Book of Common Prayer
used by the Episcopal Curch in the U.S as well as other denominations, marriage is not considered a sacrament but a rite. There are only two sacraments, Holy Baptism and Holy Communion ordained by Christ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foreigncorrespondent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
21. We already do...
...one is called marriage, which take place in a church, the other is called civil marriage which takes place at city hall. It is the latter that the queer community is after.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opiate69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
24. Seems to me
That there are many cultures who never even heard of the Christian fairy tale, and yet those cultures engage in "ritualized monogamy" as well.. Despite what the religious nutcases would have us believe, marraige is not, nor has it ever been, a "christian sacrament".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
resist Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I'm trying not to be offended
But REALLY . . . a Seahawk? Just as spring training is about to begin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opiate69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Doh!
Edited on Fri Feb-13-04 10:20 PM by opiate69
I was offline for a couple months... and have totally forgotten to go and change my avatar! Is there a Mariners avatar available??


On edit.. nope.. dammit... I find that to be regionally discriminatory. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
28. Sorry, your info is more than a tad bit off
Marriage predates Christianity by millenia, and it is and has been practiced in other cultures and places for as long as there has been the concept of monogamous relationship. Don't misinterpret the facts so widely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC