You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should religious groups create, define and patent a new word to replace "marriage?"
Should religious groups stop using the word "marriage" and create, define and patent a new word?
The government is not going to stop using the word "marriage." They have appropriated it. If religious groups create, define and patent a new word, then
they can define it any way they want and no one else can use it and/or re-define it.
The alternative is to spend Millions in order to reclaim the word "marriage."
I think all we would have to do is add a religious denomination modifier. For example, Methodist marriage. Or perhaps even broader, such as Christian marriage. I believe individual denominations have the right to refuse to marry homosexuals, but for them to want an oppressive government who tells us want we can and can't do is not only silly, it is the polar opposite of Jesus's teachings. Jesus taught people to not put others down even if they are different (too bad Jehovah is not the same). Also, according to the monotheisms, Jehovah created free will to give humans a choice to "commit sin" or "ask for forgiveness and be pure in the eyes of the Lord. So trying to restrict that free will is going against Jehovah's will. It's almost like trying to pass a bill that would require everyone alive to be armless to reduce murders.
It doesn't have to be an oppressive government. The government has the same option proposed above. The government could stop using the word "marriage," since it has traditionally been a religious term anyway, and start using some other word(s) like "civil union" for everyone (straight and gays). This solution would have put an end to the argument because the government cannot order religious groups to marry anyone they do not want to marry and gays would have gotten the same benefits as heterosexual couples. But the government decided to chose an option that divides people.
Well, when the government tries to limit freedoms such as marriage, I believe it to be oppressive by definition. That may not fulfill the stereotyped actions of an oppressive government found in history and media (ones that are overthrown), but it is still oppressive in nature.
Marriage isn't exactly a religious term. Many cultures have a marriage system and those cultures are very diverse when it comes to religion.
They could replace the word, but I think the hypocrisy of religious citizens in the matter is the real problem. But that is a problem that must be eliminated with careful diplomatic intervention in a way that will show them that Christianity is designed in such a way to "give people a choice between right and wrong."
The government couldn't care less if gays got married. It is the people who are opposed to certain marriages that are forcing the government to behave a certain way. But I wouldn't call those people hypocritical and I wouldn't waste my time trying to change their minds through diplomatic intervention or any other means. I would just create a new word and be done with it.
But I definitely can see your point. If religious citizens are hypocritical about marriage, then make a new thing qualitatively identical to it, yet with a different name.
Yeah, that way people who are polygamous will be allowed to get married. I mean, if the "defenders" of the word "marriage" abandon the word "marriage" for a new one, who is going to oppose polygamy? The gay community won't be able to oppose polygamy because the arguments used by polygamists will probably be similar to the arguments used by the gay community.
Yeah, polygamy is currently illegal, but the law can be changed. I mean, why should the government dictate who can and cannot get married? Polygamists need marriage equality ;)
You hit the nail on the head with this post. The ACLU is working on both. Polygamy sooner or later will be legal. Won't that be good for children in families that split up and they have six mommies. I just can imagine the legal system dealing with this.
If you open the floodgates to gay marrying then....how can you say no to anyone else, any group that wants to do the same thing and uses the same arguments?
i am sorry my good sir but you are foolhardy to believe polygamist need or want for that matter a new name for marriage. you are fool for not doing your homework and i will point this out polygamist are mostly a Christian commune that believe holy men should have multiple wives which is totally absurd i must point out. and i think you missed your target cause this debate is should there be a new name for marriage and all i find in your argument is about polygamy nothing about the debate
To begin with, I do not think that religious groups would want to change their own traditions of the word marriage for others who they may feel have mistreated the word.
Next I would like to ask why they would spend two million pounds on a word when people in other countries can 'only see God in the form of food they are so hungry'. Two million pounds would buy a lot of food.
Finally I would like to ask another rhetorical question, why on Earth would they want to replace a word that has united people together for more millenia than I know of?
This brings me to a conclusion that any religious group is unlikely to want to change a 'holy' word.
Why don't those that don't believe in it or don't fit the criteria think one up since marriage in America has ALWAYS BEEN BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
Let them come up with something that describes their union.
Money.........to defend it....is worth every cent.
Because I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. It has always been that way in America. Why? If we have always been a secular nation you would think that marriage would have included gays and groups. But the fact is it was not defined to include them. So why does it need to be changed after hundreds of years of it being the way it is?
If gays want to marry....groups want to marry...then call it something else.
Why should my personal beliefs constitute laws? For the same reason that others use theirs to make law. The abortion law was passed because of the bias of several judges.
Everyone has an opinion, and their backgrounds, their values and opinions weigh in when decisions are made.
We have never had same sex or group marriage legal in this country. Tell me why? We are an industrial, secular nation today....why not and why today? Because religious values do make a difference thats why. Most the Founders were men of God. The laws reflected that. The schools reflected that. Family lives reflected that and government reflected that. It was not secular in the Founders day or for many many years after that...well into the 1900's. The majority religion in America has always been Christianity and our laws reflected that fact.
And today we have thrown all three down the sewer and laws are being changed to reflect the isms....materialism, humanism, atheism and yes socialism thanks to Obama.
I believe it takes two to create a child. That child has the DNA of BOTH PARENTS, MOTHER AND FATHER, male and female. Each has a right to love, nurture that child. Even if they split up...it is better for the child to know its true identity to be exposed to BOTH sexes. I believe males benefit from having male influences, females from female. This is nature.
Most people think marriage is just a loving relationship between two people providing benefits to them both, legal also health. But the institution of marriage is way more than this. It influences society. If you look the world over, up until a few years ago marriage was always defined as it is today. This union of the man and woman had ways of serving society. Its the best way to make sure that all children grow up with benefits of a mother and a father. Such is not the case in same sex marriage.
And look at group marriages. Marriage has always served as protection for the couple. How is she protected in group marriages. Her husbands attention and devotion divided among the group. Kids being pitted againt other wives children, jealously, bitterness. Don't think this is not prevelant in homes such as this. You ask people who live in Mormon communitites what goes on...that is if you can find one who will be honest.
I live in Phoenix....we have large populations of Mormons, especially in Mesa. My sister lived in Sandy Utah for over twenty years....you ought to her her horror stories...of abuse among the groups.
Traditional marriage meets the needs of all involved....father, mother, children.
It also affirms masculinity and femininity, which same sex marriages could never do.
I feel that unions such as these and redefining marriage will have devestating effects on society (it will also affect traditional marriages)....but no more than it will have on children. It will divide those who do have a faith in God who oppose them. Churches will be forced by the government to accept this as normal and moral. You say it won't happen...you are wrong. The gay agenda is working hard to make sure it does. They already have started attacking churches around the country.
"The fundamental principle of our Constitution enjoins that the will of the MAJORITY shall prevail." George Washington
The will of the people are being shot down all over the country. When put to a vote about gay marriage......it has been shot down by the people every time. After the elected it is always overturned by a liberal judge. I do not believe that this country wants to redefine marriage.
Decisions should be based on a concrete, honest, analysis of material conditions.
Opinions are flimsy, and for the same reason they generally make for bad premises in arguments; they make for bad laws.
Appealing to previous popular beliefs is another form of argumentum_ad_populum
Religious values make a difference, but religious values are varied and wide. Religion has been used to support and deny a great many of various things.
Who constitutes the "founders" varies, The "core" men of the founders tend to be deists, unorthodox(ie "liberal") Christians, etc. some even were secularists. These "men of god" believed in a different god and religion then what you apparently do. The ones that signed due to fear of England might of been Christians, but what did they have to do with truly drafting the constitution?
The founding fathers were varied in their religious domination, most may of been some form of christian, but most of the more influential ones were strongly influence by diesm, or naturalism. Jefferson even cut the bible up into his own version.
The laws reflected religious sentiment, especially in the colonies before the constitution was signed. Many had religious requirements for office, and the religious conflicts amongst denominations resulted in a less secure defense against England. If the nation was to survive, religion had to be left behind. Hence the separation of church and state.
The majority religion in America was various naturalistic earth based ones before imperialistic Europeans came and killed the great majority of their adherents. This was done for , glory, gold, and "god"; and yes, our laws did indeed reflect that. The reservations, the trail of tears, the slavery, etc.
Could you summarize those isms? I have a feeling your ignorant or misinformed on their meanings.
Homosexuality, transgenders, etc bend gender roles. There is no reason why a someone of any sex can not fulfill the psychological role of a mother, or father. There is nothing natural, or empirical which states otherwise. Sure, different sexs have different natural tendencies and physical features, but our culture amplifies these into more than what they are.
There are several societies which define marriage differently, actually polygamy is the most popular and common type of relationship in history. The shift from polygamous systems to more monogamous systems was slow on a world wide scale and directly related to economic factors which allowed for European dominance.
The troubles with fundamentalist Mormonism are due to fundamentalist Mormonism, a different philosophical back drop would eradicate such problems. Consider polyamory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
Need varies, "traditional" marriage meets only a small subset of needs which have been prevalent for only the last couple hundred years or so and only in advance societies. These societies are now currently advancing past those needs.
"traditional marriage" should and will still be allowed. The constitution says so, that is so long as it isn't violated. Church are private institutions, private clubs so to say. If the boyscout can ban atheists or homosexuals then surly so can a church.
What context is George being quoted in? Surly he doesn't mean that the tyranny of the majority will prevail?
The country didn't want to end segregation, allow for religious freedom, etc. either, but the rights of man and the constitution had something else to say on the matter.
And experts disagree on this...you can always find some expert to back up what you say. So to tell me I am the only one that does this. Peoples opinion affects what they do and what they decide...and that includes SCOTUS. And they give opinion all the time. These nine appointed and unelected officials basically decide how, where, when or if public religious activites can take place. They decide whether customs and traditions are even constitutional. They decide what is in the best interest for society and they use personal opinion to do it. So if you get liberals on there...you will get abortion and same sex marriage, group marriage...as most liberals are moral relativists. If there are more conservatives you get people who oppose abortion, favor marriage between a man and woman....and most likely they are beleivers in God. Why do you think that every time there is an opening on the SC....Democrats and Republicans scramble to get a representative on it who reflects their positions.
"Separation of church and state" only appeared in Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists...but today Americans think it appears in the First Amendment. It does not appear anywhere. That amendment simply says....."Congress shall make no law respoecting an establishment of religion of prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
This is not cut and dry. What amazes me is that for 150 years or more SCOTUS members fought and defended things today the court is striking down. Now they are eliminating religious expressions and activities which like I said had always been constitutional. Why the changes? Opinions and the worldview someone has influences policy and law.
I could give you many laws on the books today that deny what the first amendment promises Americans.
Religious values are varied and wide. But so are those who are not believers. But a clear reading of the scritpures leave little doubt as to Christs agenda and what He commands His followers to do. So groups like that Westboro Baptists...are way off the mark. Christ said to love your enemy, speak with kindness. They do not. They do not represent Christ.
As for the Founders......I disagree.
Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here." Was he wrong?
George Washington said, "It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
The first Court Justice, John Jay said that when we select our national leaders, if we are to preserve our Nation, we must select Christians. "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Now Jay was in the Supreme Court......where is the separation of Chuch and State in this statement?
And what did James Madison, a primary author of the Constitution of the United States say. "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."
Harvard University was chartered in 1636. It is certainly secular today but in the original Harvard Student Handbook rule number one was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the scriptures:
"Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him (Proverbs 2:3)."
"Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools." Benjamin Rush, signer.
So if you get liberals on there...you will get abortion and same sex marriage, group marriage...as most liberals are moral relativists. If there are more conservatives you get people who oppose abortion, favor marriage between a man and woman....and most likely they are beleivers in God.
If my memory serves me, there is only one congressman who doesn't believe in God, and that's Pete Stark. The difference isn't that conservatives believe in God it's that Republicans and Democrats have different views about God. Democrats tend to be less religious but equally spiritual.
Some people seem to think that everybody should abide by their particular religious views.
"Separation of church and state" only appeared in Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists...but today Americans think it appears in the First Amendment.
It does. Read the Establishment clause.
This is not cut and dry. What amazes me is that for 150 years or more SCOTUS members fought and defended things today the court is striking down.
If you read the first Charter of Virginia it talks about “propogating of the Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness” to the U.S Constitution that was approved by the Founders…..
Why would the Founders who you say were nonbelievers, secularists.....allow such statements made in government, speeches, charters..... to read like this? Where is that separation of church and state?
And what I think is really ironic is the fact that Congress in 1777 issued an official resolution instructing the Committee on Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the bible!!!! Separation of church and what?
[T]he Holy Scriptures . . . can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase our penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses.
(James McHenry, Signer of Constitution, Sec'y of War)
Year 1620…..What did the Mayflower Compact say? Did it mention at all THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH? What did the Charter of Massachusetts say? How about the Charter for Rhode Island and Providence? How about the Delaware Charter of 1701? Jesus Christ was in all of them.
Back then the concept of church and state would have been unthinkable because their Christian faith and civic government were as one.
The charter of Virginia was before the constitution, by quite a few years. I mentioned such things as the colonies laws and their affects previously.
The separation of church and state arose out of the sectarian climate of the times.
Congress screws up, alot. I also already addressed the non-influential "founders".
Early Members of Congress continuing some aspects of their sectarian past (admittedly the more general aspects) is no surprise.
Again, it doesn't mean Christianity is foundational.
Theocracies are problematic, there are reasons why the colonies became less and less oriented towards their religion. Especially around the times of America's founding.
You've done a good job on your last two posts, I've enjoyed it :).
Laws should be fluid, and fit the people they govern. The government derives its sovereignty from that of its citizens, etc.
Yet, there should be measures against the tyranny of the majority. You will find those views prevalent amongst the founders.
Also, it should be noticed that what is allowed is not always constitutional, or supported by other founding documents(even if they don't carry legal importance). Consider the declaration of independence and slavery.
Where in the bible is a respect for other people's religions stated by Jesus, or even implied?
Also, he could be referencing Christians in the same way which Jefferson called himself a christian. Especially since he clearly states that it isn't due to organize religion. It seems from my small amount of reading on him that he may be one of those "unorthodox" or "liberal" Christians.
From where is George being quoted from, perhaps his farewell address? The idea that religion leads to political prosperity is demonstrably false. Consider the roman empire :) Or a great number of theocracies, or middle eastern countries. Also the idea that morality can not be maintained without religion is also false(consider various atheists, and various religious members), morality is a result of a reiterative prisoners' delima involving many many players. And yes, that explains why an "eye for an eye", or tic for tac is a popular form of morality. Although, recognizing that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" has its advantages(super-rational anyone :) ) Perhaps George was a religious prick, the same as most Americans of his time. Fact is, what was in the constitution wasn't popular; but it was necessary. The federalist papers exist for a reason. This doesn't mean the constitution, nor the country, was founded on Christianity, if anything it was an act against the grain of the sentiments of its time; but one passed due to certain conditions of that time. A reading of David Hume will show its enlightenment roots. George may of believed that religion was important, but such beliefs seems at odd with his other beliefs against fractions, beliefs for unity etc That he put so much emphasis on religion is rather ironic considering his other beliefs and should be interpreted not as an important founding belief, since it doesn't appear in any founding documents, nor does anything in any founding documents derive from such a belief in the importance of religion. Just because a belief may of been popular or supported by a prominent figure doesn't mean its a founding belief, or had a foundational aspect. otherwise, various medical beliefs of the time might as well be considered foundational.
Was jay speaking as a judge, or as a christian? He is correct on some points, although the treaty of tripoli would disagree with him on others. If he is speaking as a judge, he is speaking as a bad one.(<--I'm assuming context here) If as a christian outside of his work, then its a private affair.
Without context, it seems Madison is simply stating that he believes that the 10 commandments are a good/necessary code to live by, and that the country is not founded on the 10 commandments, but on each person's free will to choose to follow a good/necessary code. Most people live by some of the 10 commandments, since it contains some general morality present in most moral systems. Considering a code necessary which has most of it naturally accepted by a varied society isn't supporting a particular religion much, since so much, if not all can be accepted from various religious standpoints. Rather its just supporting a particular code, not necessarily the religion behind it. Again, this doesn't make the 10 commandments foundational.
What might make the bible foundational, is a strong demonstrable correlation between it and the constitution. That seems to be lacking. More than just Christianity being popular is needed to describe it as being foundational, perhaps it is foundational; in that it lead to the establishment clause and people starting to reject sectarianism. However, that was pre-conditioned and required dropping the importance of religious differences, which lessened the importance of religion. If religion was foundational, it was foundational in the sense that the country gave up on it on the federal scale. Unless I'm missing out on a chain of events which somehow positively relates the founding of America to religion. Perhaps religious persecution helping to lead to the development of colonies?
Whats the relevancy of Harvard?
Could you do a better job of referencing please, I would like to look up context.
I really don't care which sides creates, defines and pattens the new word. All I want is a new word to be created so that we don't have to debate this topic ever again ;)
I highly doubt the conservative faction would do this - it would feel to them like they're backing down. The fact is that they don't want to just define what they personally consider to be marriage. If that was their goal, there'd be no need for them to lobby for official regulation over marriage. They want everyone to recognise that their definition of marriage is the only correct one. To allow the government to define marriage how it likes, and allow the rest of the world to use that definition, while they pick a different word and use it only amongst themselves, would basically be admitting defeat.
