Give Marriage Back To Religion

[Storm]

FWIW, I hear that the US is different in this regard, but for me, my taxes actually went up slightly when I got married.

Under Canadian tax rules, some credits are per household, not per person, so only one person in a home can claim them.

As for the legal privileges, I personally don't have a problem with you and "some guy named Rick" taking them on... as long as you realize that there are legal obligations that come with them. If you trust "Rick" enough for him to have de facto power of attorney for you, a half claim on your stuff now and a full claim on it when you die, then I'm not going to second-guess that.

I mean, even without same-sex marriage, there's nothing stopping you from doing that with "some girl named Julie" instead of "some guy named Rick". Same-sex marriage doesn't change anything in this regard.

Thanks, Penguin. Excellent points.

 

[Oneatatime]

My solution to the same sex marriage debate: eliminate government sanction of marriage altogether. There's something deeply troubling to me about our secular government attaching rights to rites.

I propose that we replace legal marriage with a neutral contract. Let's call it a Declaration of Household. Any consenting adults, regardless of gender or familial relation, can enter into a DoH as co-heads of household, the only requirement is that they live together. They file taxes jointly, have presumed power of attorney, survivor's benefits, protection for dependents, everything right and responsibility that goes with the recognition of married couples as a single household.

Marriage is given back to religion. Churches can marry or refuse to marry whomever they please.

Thoughts?

Religious homosexuals may take issue with this. It amounts to the state washing its hands of the responsibility it has of addressing homophobia and abandoning those subject to it within their community.

I find it amazing that homophobia is still so widely tolerated just because its religiously inspired. If religions refused to allow mixed race marriages would you propose that there be a secular marriage for mixed race people leaving the churches free to disciminate on the basis of race? I highly doubt it.

 

[Storm]

Religious homosexuals may take issue with this. It amounts to the state washing its hands of the responsibility it has of addressing homophobia and abandoning those subject to it within their community.

I find it amazing that homophobia is still so widely tolerated just because its religiously inspired. If religions refused to allow mixed race marriages would you propose that there be a secular marriage for mixed race people leaving the churches free to disciminate on the basis of race? I highly doubt it.

Um... look at my title. :slap:

I AM a religious queer.

Look at my homosexuality thread and tell me more about how I let bigotry slide.

 

[Oneatatime]

Um... look at my title. :slap:

I AM a religious queer.

Look at my homosexuality thread and tell me more about how I let bigotry slide.

I'm responding to your post, not what you are or what you have posted elsewhere. I see no reason why I should hold back on my criticism of your idea simply because you are a religious homosexual.

Who you are doesn't make your opinion anymore valid than mine. What matters is whether your can make a good arguement to support your idea.

As I said your idea amounts to abandoning religious homsexuals to the homophobia of their religion and communities. Given the nature of religious belief such people can't easily abandon their religion and community to escape this discimination. The state, pressure groups and charities should work together to address the problem of homophobia rather than dodging the issue.

 

[Storm]

I'm responding to your post, not what you are or what you have posted elsewhere. I see no reason why I should hold back on my criticism of your idea simply because you are a religious homosexual.

Who you are doesn't make your opinion anymore valid than mine. What matters is whether your can make a good arguement to support your idea.

I think I have. You haven't actually addressed it.

As I said your idea amounts to abandoning religious homsexuals to the homophobia of their religion and communities. Given the nature of religious belief such people can't easily abandon their religion and community to escape this discimination. The state, pressure groups and charities should work together to address the problem of homophobia rather than dodging the issue.

Where did I say anything about abandonment, or ending queer pride?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Um... look at my title. :slap:

I AM a religious queer.

Look at my homosexuality thread and tell me more about how I let bigotry slide.

Even if that isn't your motivation, I do think the whole "let's get the state out of the marriage business altogether" argument started as an approach by certain religious groups to keep the word "marriage" away from same-sex unions.

 

[Storm]

Even if that isn't your motivation, I do think the whole "let's get the state out of the marriage business altogether" argument started as an approach by certain religious groups to keep the word "marriage" away from same-sex unions.

OK, that's a valid point.

The thing is, not all religions are homophobic. My beloved UU would marry me to another woman in a heartbeat. Under my proposal, the backward denominations couldn't prevent that anymore.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, that's a valid point.

The thing is, not all religions are homophobic. My beloved UU would marry me to another woman in a heartbeat. Under my proposal, the backward denominations couldn't prevent that anymore.

But as it stands right now, couldn't your church perform a religious ceremony, call it marriage, but without any legal weight?

Since it seems like that's what would happen in the system you're suggesting, I don't see how it would change anything in this respect.

 

[Storm]

But as it stands right now, couldn't your church perform a religious ceremony, call it marriage, but without any legal weight?

Since it seems like that's what would happen in the system you're suggesting, I don't see how it would change anything in this respect.

Not by my understanding. We can perform "commitment ceremonies," which... well, it ****** me off, frankly. It's nice to have the wholehearted support of my faith, but I can't help feeling like it's more an attempt to comfort us in recognition of our second-class status than anything else. At least they can do that.... All the same, under the current system, the bigots get to trample my religious freedom, too. Salt in the wound.

Anyway, as far as the pride movement goes, I think it would actually help.

 

[Oneatatime]

I think I have. You haven't actually addressed it.


Where did I say anything about abandonment, or ending queer pride?

It seems I am repeating myself.

For the record I have no mentioned gay pride once so I do now know why you have brought that up.

Back to the issue you said that the state should seperate itself from marriage and leave it in the hands of the Churches. Leaving it in the hands of the Churches means no state intervention over issues of discimination against homosexuals who often aren't allowed to marry in their church. As leaving ones church and community isn't an option for many people this means homosexuals are being left in a difficult situation without state support. Its no good offering them secular partnership contact because many will want a religious marriage regardless.

 

[Storm]

It seems I am repeating myself.

For the record I have no mentioned gay pride once so I do now know why you have brought that up.

Back to the issue you said that the state should seperate itself from marriage and leave it in the hands of the Churches. Leaving it in the hands of the Churches means no state intervention over issues of discimination against homosexuals who often aren't allowed to marry in their church. As leaving ones church and community isn't an option for many people this means homosexuals are being left in a difficult situation without state support. Its no good offering them secular partnership contact because many will want a religious marriage regardless.

Let's start over without the antagonism.

First off, I never said this was the end of the fight. If such an idea was enacted, we'd still have a LONG way to go, but at least we'd have equal treatment under the law.

Secondly, see my responses to Penguin.

Finally, while I don't envy those religious queers whose chosen faiths are less supportive than my own, they can vote with their feet. It's easier said than done, but it IS an option. Alternatively, they can work to educate their chosen community, changing them from the inside. I support them whatever they choose.

 

[Oneatatime]

Let's start over without the antagonism.

First off, I never said this was the end of the fight. If such an idea was enacted, we'd still have a LONG way to go, but at least we'd have equal treatment under the law.

Secondly, see my responses to Penguin.

Finally, while I don't envy those religious queers whose chosen faiths are less supportive than my own, they can vote with their feet. It's easier said than done, but it IS an option. Alternatively, they can work to educate their chosen community, changing them from the inside. I support them whatever they choose.

Ok lets start over.

I just don't believe that it is acceptable for the state to wash its hands over this issue and leave homosexuals to manage on their own. Such a decision is also likely to be perceived by homophobic religions/communities as the state giving up trying to change them or even approving of their position. Either way they'll see it as a victory and it may further embolden them to intensify their homophobia and further it's influence.

My view is that anti-discimination laws should apply universally at all levels, no exceptions. Religion is one the bastions of discrimination precisely because its repeatedly allowed to get away with it.

 

[Storm]

Ok lets start over.

I just don't believe that it is acceptable for the state to wash its hands over this issue and leave homosexuals to manage on their own.

I don't think that's inherent in my proposal.

Such a decision is also likely to be perceived by homophobic religions/communities as the state giving up trying to change them or even approving of their position. Either way they'll see it as a victory and it may further embolden them to intensify their homophobia and further it's influence.

Yeah, they would. I think they'd be deluding themselves. I also think that such a proposal would leave them all bark, no bite.

My view is that anti-discimination laws should apply universally at all levels, no exceptions. Religion is one the bastions of discrimination precisely because its repeatedly allowed to get away with it.

I agree with that, but this isn't about anti-discrimination laws. The gov can and should go on merrily enacting those.

 

[Penumbra]

My solution to the same sex marriage debate: eliminate government sanction of marriage altogether. There's something deeply troubling to me about our secular government attaching rights to rites.

I propose that we replace legal marriage with a neutral contract. Let's call it a Declaration of Household. Any consenting adults, regardless of gender or familial relation, can enter into a DoH as co-heads of household, the only requirement is that they live together. They file taxes jointly, have presumed power of attorney, survivor's benefits, protection for dependents, everything right and responsibility that goes with the recognition of married couples as a single household.

Marriage is given back to religion. Churches can marry or refuse to marry whomever they please.

Thoughts?

For the most part, I agree. There are a lot of details to work out though.

For instance, I once proposed a similar idea, where all state-recognized unions are called "civil unions" (as it's a deliberately generic term), and religious establishments can perform marriage ceremonies and call it a marriage if they want to, and basically anyone can call what they have a marriage if that's the word they want to use. I mistakenly assumed that since words don't have any deeper meaning for me, they don't have deeper meaning for others. But some people really disliked the idea of the government not calling what they officially recognize as a "marriage". So maybe we're stuck with one word meaning many different things.

I never considered relatives and others to be included in the contract, though. I suppose it's not a bad idea. It might be best to split it up into more than one type of contract though, with different sorts of agreements.

Another problem I run into is what to do with people who want to marry more than one person. I don't consider myself or anyone to be in a position to tell people they can't do that if they want to.

I'm inclined to just let people make whatever contracts they want with one another, perhaps subject to some limitations, and the government recognizes those.

 

[Darkness]

I'll give it a shot. ETA: I wasn't trying to shut down discussion. I assumed you understood and disagreed, leaving nothing to explain.

It's cool. I know you for a long time now and know you are not a rude person. :rainbow1:

According to my idea, households would be long-term, if not permanent arrangements, not just roommates getting tax breaks. They would bear all the responsibilities of marriage, too. Not something to enter into lightly.

FTR, I'm not saying "ZOMG, THIS IS TEH PERFECT SYSTEM AND ANY1 WHO DISAGREES IS A MORAN!"

I am saying I think it might be a better system than the one we have now. Families take many forms, and should be based on more than sex. This protects families of all kinds, solves the ssm problem, and as an added bonus reinforces separation of church and state.

The problem I have is the socio-cultural implications of drastically redefining marriage. What happens to the traditional notion of the family unit (whether heterosexual or homosexual) under the new system? How would it affect the goals of people in society? Once you make marriage for everybody, you run the risk of diluting its power. Quite simply we do not know what this paradigm shift in our conceptions about marriage will bring in terms of our psycho-cultural conceptions. Allowing same-sex marriage is a reform on the traditional institution of marriage in its modern Western conceptualisation to account for gender equality. Broadening the definition of marriage to any two people, stripping it of the idea of romantic love, is a radical departure.

As for the legal privileges, I personally don't have a problem with you and "some guy named Rick" taking them on... as long as you realize that there are legal obligations that come with them. If you trust "Rick" enough for him to have de facto power of attorney for you, a half claim on your stuff now and a full claim on it when you die, then I'm not going to second-guess that.

I mean, even without same-sex marriage, there's nothing stopping you from doing that with "some girl named Julie" instead of "some guy named Rick". Same-sex marriage doesn't change anything in this regard.

My primary criticism is that ideas and especially codified laws have powerful discourses associated with them. That is precisely why it is import for most pro-LGBT people to have the term "marriage" apply to same-sex couples. I think too often we get trapped in abstract thinking when it applies to humans, when we should be thinking contextually. Expanding the definition of marriage to any two people and stripping it of its romantic connotations destroys the whole purpose of it. Socially speaking, it would be a great loss if we counted (by codifying into law) me and Julie living together unromantically, for monetary purposes, the same as marriage. Yes, people do marry for non-romantic reasons (e.g. staying in the country), but it is rare and that you still must go through with a charade is very significant.

 

[Pegg]

My solution to the same sex marriage debate: eliminate government sanction of marriage altogether. There's something deeply troubling to me about our secular government attaching rights to rites.

I propose that we replace legal marriage with a neutral contract. Let's call it a Declaration of Household. Any consenting adults, regardless of gender or familial relation, can enter into a DoH as co-heads of household, the only requirement is that they live together. They file taxes jointly, have presumed power of attorney, survivor's benefits, protection for dependents, everything right and responsibility that goes with the recognition of married couples as a single household.

Marriage is given back to religion. Churches can marry or refuse to marry whomever they please.

Thoughts?

isnt this the same as a civil union?

 

[Storm]

It's cool. I know you for a long time now and know you are not a rude person. :rainbow1:



The problem I have is the socio-cultural implications of drastically redefining marriage. What happens to the traditional notion of the family unit (whether heterosexual or homosexual) under the new system? How would it affect the goals of people in society? Once you make marriage for everybody, you run the risk of diluting its power. Quite simply we do not know what this paradigm shift in our conceptions about marriage will bring in terms of our psycho-cultural conceptions. Allowing same-sex marriage is a reform on the traditional institution of marriage in its modern Western conceptualisation to account for gender equality. Broadening the definition of marriage to any two people, stripping it of the idea of romantic love, is a radical departure.



My primary criticism is that ideas and especially codified laws have powerful discourses associated with them. That is precisely why it is import for most pro-LGBT people to have the term "marriage" apply to same-sex couples. I think too often we get trapped in abstract thinking when it applies to humans, when we should be thinking contextually. Expanding the definition of marriage to any two people and stripping it of its romantic connotations destroys the whole purpose of it. Socially speaking, it would be a great loss if we counted (by codifying into law) me and Julie living together unromantically, for monetary purposes, the same as marriage. Yes, people do marry for non-romantic reasons (e.g. staying in the country), but it is rare and that you still must go through with a charade is very significant.

Ah. Sorry, but you're not quite getting it. I"m not redefining marriage, I'm replacing it as the foundational contract of the family unit. That's why the household doesn't have to be composed of mates.

 

[Storm]

isnt this the same as a civil union?

Kinda-sorta-not-really. Civil unions are marriage lite for second-class citizens. This is an entirely different system.

 

[Darkness]

Ah. Sorry, but you're not quite getting it. I"m not redefining marriage, I'm replacing it as the foundational contract of the family unit. That's why the household doesn't have to be composed of mates.

I am not seeing the difference. You are expanding the rights of marriage to all people who live together, if they want it. Whatever you want to call it, you are expanding the legal conception of marriage.

 

[Storm]

I am not seeing the difference. You are expanding the rights of marriage to all people who live together, if they want it. Whatever you want to call it, you are expanding the legal conception of marriage.

Not expanding. Replacing. What I'm proposing has nothing to do with marriage... that's the point.