SCOTUS ruling

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
That's good news, GreenAcres. :)
 

RichardInTN

Member
Everyone who thinks that marriage does not have a religious meaning simply doesn't know what they're talking about. Fullstop.

It is an indisputable fact that marriage is a holy Catholic sacrament. Everyone who denies that hard fact is too delusional to be worth having any kind of discussion with, and certainly should not be involved with any kind of work in a scientfic field.

Correction: It is an indisputable fact that, in Catholicism, marriage is a holy Catholic sacrament.



I don't think that anyone denies that marriage is a holy vow or sacrament or whatever applies in religions... It's just that it's nothing religious OUTSIDE of those boundaries to people that are NOT religious as well.

I'm completely, and fully married in the eyes of the law. No Priest or Rabbi or Imam or any other religious person ever presided over vows between my wife and I. And my marriage is just as legitimate as anyone else's... whether they had clergy perform it or not... as long as they filed it with the proper governmental authorities.
 

InsaneMystic

New member
Correction: It is an indisputable fact that, in Catholicism, marriage is a holy Catholic sacrament.
That's not a correction, it's the exact same statement.

Even for someone who isn't Catholic, there can be no doubt that marriage is a Catholic sacrament. It's a plain, simple fact, you don't get to argue against it... unless your argument would be that Catholicism doesn't exist. (In which case you'd simply be factually wrong, of course.)


I don't think that anyone denies that marriage is a holy vow or sacrament or whatever applies in religions... It's just that it's nothing religious OUTSIDE of those boundaries to people that are NOT religious as well.
Neither logic nor language works that way. If a religious rite called marriage exists (which it factually does), the statement that marriage does not have a religious meaning is simply false. It doesn't become true no matter how many people mistakenly think so. Even non-religious folks have to accept this truth, otherwise they just aren't making any kind of logical sense.


I'm completely, and fully married in the eyes of the law. No Priest or Rabbi or Imam or any other religious person ever presided over vows between my wife and I. And my marriage is just as legitimate as anyone else's... whether they had clergy perform it or not... as long as they filed it with the proper governmental authorities.
In a perfectly secular state, with full separation of church and state, that would most definitely have been a civil union, not a marriage. It would give you all the legal benefits you have now, it would just no longer use a religiously charged word for it.

So, as a secularist, I hope to see the day when "marriages" like yours will simply no longer exist, having become fully replaced with civil unions. :)

(Sadly, I think the SCOTUS ruling about gay marriage has pushed that day farther away into an indetermintae future. :()
 
Last edited:

Memorandum

New member
It's not going to fly. Why? Taxes.
Honestly anyone poly is going to have to do the workaround that some gay people did just for the missing rights. Adopt. It was less expensive than going by contracts alone or with Civil Unions. Because when it comes down to it, your blood family can snatch it away out of spite.

Civil unions do not carry all the rights that a secular marriage contract does. 1138, and that was the whole issue. Separate but not equal, but I guess that's totally fine it was just gay people right? :rolleyes:
We are not a theocracy and I don't give a damn if any religion thinks they own the word marriage, because that is Grade-A bull and they don't. They need to stop acting like they do, it's embarrassing. They have their definition and that is it.
 

InsaneMystic

New member
Civil unions do not carry all the rights that a secular marriage contract does. 1138, and that was the whole issue.
Expand legislation on C.U.s to carry all these rights. Problem solved.


Separate but not equal, but I guess that's totally fine it was just gay people right?
I definitely want C.U.s and marriages separate and not at all equal. Marriage should give none of the legal benefits - including adoption, taxes, etc. - that C.U.s give. None. Zero, zip, zilch. The state should be just as interested in whether or not someone is married as it cares about whether they're baptized, or fasting for Ramadan... i.e., not give a shit about it at all.

And yes, that is totally fine. Freedom of religion: Equal rights, but not ever equal rites.

(It also has jack squat to do with gay people. It's not a matter of orientation, it's one of basic human rights and constitutionally guaranteed liberties.)


We are not a theocracy and I don't give a damn if any religion thinks they own the word marriage, because that is Grade-A bull and they don't. They need to stop acting like they do, it's embarrassing. They have their definition and that is it.
*facepalm*

No longer using a religiously charged word in a secular, legal contract is the exact opposite of a theocracy. Taking the state completely out of the marriage business, and making marriage 100% purely religious would be a sign of a maximally secular society.


The vitriol in you post just proves what I said - many, all too many, non-religious/atheist people either simply don't understand secularism and freedom of religion, or even openly oppose it. It will mostly be the job of theists to ensure separation of church and state - which is a key aspect of everyone's freedom, for believers and non-believers alike - remains standing.
 

TheWind

New member
OK it is as it is in the Protestant Faiths. My wife and I were married in the Jewish Faith, it was נישואים, meaning marriage. it goes from Old English to French to the origin
"The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married."
As Roman Catholicism uses Latin, as it adopted that language, also it adopted many pagan practices. Many Saints are actually Pagan gods and goddesses. So your point is meaningless. Marriage is the bond between people. A legal, social bond, often religious. We have evolved from many practices of the early church, no more inquisitions, no more mass murders, so maybe marriage can evolve.
 

InsaneMystic

New member
In whatever way do you think that makes my point meaningless? Especially as you say you got married in the Jewish faith? That's a religion.

Your post did nothing but prove my point. Just as nobody here has yet made any logical argument against it, neither have you.
 

TheWind

New member
I also married one ex in a civil ceremony, it was still called a marriage. Marriage is a term meaning the bond between two people, or soon between three people. It has since just the Latin been a general term. Until the last century we had "Common law marriage" in this country. You merely lived together. I have a marriage licence issued by the state. Actually I have had 3 of them A Roman one, a Civil one and a Jewish one. There is a social and psychological aspect of being married. Permanency, belonging, whatever, it makes us feel good. If my wife and I take another woman, I would like to be able to give her legal. social and psychological parts of a relationship.
 

Argonaut

New member

If a religious rite called marriage exists (which it factually does),
No one has denied it so far.

the statement that marriage does not have a religious meaning is simply false.
Your logic goes the way; if Bob has a green shirt so every boy in a green shirt has the name Bob.
OR
You give the Catholic Church (or some other religion) so much authoritative power over your life that it can redefine all use of some words (even on secular context), and you are demanding everyone to accept that in their lives too.


It doesn't become true no matter how many people mistakenly think so. Even non-religious folks have to accept this truth, otherwise they just aren't making any kind of logical sense.

With all due respect, that kind of "folks have to accept this truth" -things exist only in religions. You are, of course, free to believe what ever you want. Do not insist others do share your beliefs. Others might want to have a look what for example anthropology or linguistic has to say in this matter.


So, as a secularist, I hope to see the day when "marriages" like yours will simply no longer exist, having become fully replaced with civil unions. :)

Why not, then the civil unions would simply be named to "Marriages". :D
 

InsaneMystic

New member
Your logic goes the way; if Bob has a green shirt so every boy in a green shirt has the name Bob.
OR
You give the Catholic Church (or some other religion) so much authoritative power over your life that it can redefine all use of some words (even on secular context), and you are demanding everyone to accept that in their lives too.
No, that's not at all how my logic goes. Wrong on both accounts.

Why not rename presidents "His Divine Highness, The High Priest", taxes "tithes", government "the holy curia" and judges "high inquisitors"? According to your logic, that would make absolutely no difference, as long as their job descriptions, eligibilities etc. remain the same as they currently are, and based in a constitutionally democratic tradition.

How would you explain the fact that a lot of people, not only, but especially atheists, would take this renaming - something that will effect nothing at all in their life in any way - with a mixture of whining and foaming at the mouth? (And believe me - they would. Oh boy, would they ever.) If I saw things like you, it would baffle me that they'd make so much ado about nothing but mere words.


With all due respect, that kind of "folks have to accept this truth" -things exist only in religions. You are, of course, free to believe what ever you want. Do not insist others do share your beliefs. Others might want to have a look what for example anthropology or linguistic has to say in this matter.
Wrong. And you know it's wrong, elseway you are, right now, denying that a religious rite called marriage exists. You're simply not making sense.

You're also mistaking me for someone who argues from faith. It's not at all about what I, or anyone else, believes. I'm arguing from cold, hard logic.


Why not, then the civil unions would simply be named to "Marriages". :D
Okay. You really don't mind church and state to be intertwined. I get it. I find it a horrid and dangerous stance, but it's your right to hold anti-secular views, no matter how misguided I consider them to be.

You'll have to accept, though, that some people - like me - value their rights and freedom a lot more than you value yours, and thus want religions and the state kept very far away from each other.
 

Leetah

Member
I'm not sure that there is much point in arguing this further but Mystic, what people are saying is that just because a religion uses a word from common language to describe a ceremony that does not usurp all meaning of the word in common language. That would be like saying any time one uses the word "font" it has a religious connotation because there are baptismal fonts or that one cannot "cross" the road without implying Christianity. I am a dyed in the wool atheist and just because a few hundred years ago the church managed to add itself to the civil ceremony of marriage (common law marriage excepted) I do not find the word carries an intrinsic religious meaning. When I marry the flavors in a sauce am I to assume it is a religious rite? (well, among serious foodies it might be actually)

Leetah
 

River

Active member

Okay. You really don't mind church and state to be intertwined. I get it. I find it a horrid and dangerous stance, but it's your right to hold anti-secular views, no matter how misguided I consider them to be.

You'll have to accept, though, that some people - like me - value their rights and freedom a lot more than you value yours, and thus want religions and the state kept very far away from each other.[/COLOR]

InsaneMystic,

If I understand right, your whole point of argument rests on a single claim. That claim is, "There is no valid secular usage of the word "marriage'."

Am I correct?

If the word "marriage" can be used in a secular sense (which pretty much everyone present here accepts), then there is no reason to believe the use of
the word marriage by The State is a mixing up of church and state.

I've not seen from you any strong argument for the notion that the word "marriage" has an exclusively religious, and never a secular, meaning. And since "marriage" is an English word which is ubiquitously used to translate words from the many languages which hold a common meaning, your case needs a LOT of defending and explaining. Obviously, the Catholic church is not the originator or owner of the concept or word "marriage".

=======================

A note about spam

I pop in here now and then, when I have a moment, to play. It is a momentary diversion from my work.

Catching up on the procedure (now more complicated) for eliminating spam is going to take a little time for me -- and that feels more like work than play. But I should get to it soon, and soon help with spam elimination.
 

InsaneMystic

New member
When I marry the flavors in a sauce am I to assume it is a religious rite? (well, among serious foodies it might be actually)
:confused: Is that a common thing to say in English? I've never heard that phrase. (But I'll admit I'm neither a native speaker, nor do my cooking skills extend all that far beyond "throw a frozen pizza in the oven" :D)


InsaneMystic,

If I understand right, your whole point of argument rests on a single claim. That claim is, "There is no valid secular usage of the word "marriage'."

Am I correct?
Not quite. It's not as black and white as you're making it sound here.

My claim is that the word marriage has religious connotations, which a secular state cannot strip from it. This is provably true (as scientifically objectively as it gets), because religious marriage rites exist, and it's even a sacrament in Catholicism.


If the word "marriage" can be used in a secular sense (which pretty much everyone present here accepts), then there is no reason to believe the use of the word marriage by The State is a mixing up of church and state.
It can be used in a secular sense, yes, but that still constitutes making use of a word with religious connotations. And ever since the invention of civil unions - one of the best inventions of human culture in the last few decades, IYAM - use of that word has become unneccessary. To keep choosing a word with religious connotations for a legal procedure, when a word without such connotations has become freely available, is a conscious choice against a clear, firm separation of church and state.


I've not seen from you any strong argument for the notion that the word "marriage" has an exclusively religious, and never a secular, meaning.
Because that's not a claim I ever made... as such a claim would be silly and illogical. I may be silly at times, but not about Things That Matter. And I outright loathe being illogical. ;)
 

Argonaut

New member
@InsaneMystic:

Fact: "Marriage is a Catholic sacrament".

Opinion: "The word marriage can only be used with a religious connotation."

Religion (in this case):
Repeat, repeat and repeat the opinion at the same time turning ones back to any opinion, fact or scientific research on the subject that does not back up ones opinion. Not giving a smallest backing to ones opinion other than the same opinion.

With all due respect I do not see your "hard logic".

@Leetah:
Thank you. I was just trying to find some good word to express the using of the same word in religious and secular context. Hopefully we can still cross the street without announcing to be a Christian or doing some Christian rite. :)
 

InsaneMystic

New member
Argo, you're still wrong. And you still completely mistake my position. It is not coming from religion. At all.

And there simply are no facts or scientific research that would contradict my view. It would be highly illogical for me to budge, when all the people speaking up in disagreement in fact end up either completely supporting my case without knowing/intending to, flat out construct strawmen, or simply don't have any logically coherent point to start with.

I have the strongest logical argument in this discussion, even if you happen to simply not like it. I won't bow to people who can't provide actual evidence that there's any flaw in my argumentation. Noone yet was able to do, because face it: it's a damn strong argument, as anyone with a clear mind could see when they'd bother to take off their ideological blinders.


BTW, "crossing the street" really is a bad example. These words are clearly used in completely different context (it's even "the cross" in one sitch and "to cross" in the other. No, really, come on.), quite unlike marriage (which always refers to the same basic setting: some representative performs some ceremony over two - or possibly more - people, binding them into some kind of unit when the ceremony is completed).
A far better example would have been the expression "they crucified him", used when a group of people angrily demolish someone's statements and leave them a nervous wreck, for expressing their opinion. Yes, that expression can, and often is, used in completely secular context (e.g., business meetings). But it always, always, with no exception, has blatantly obvious religious connotations.
 

fuchka

Active member
Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic church. So is Reconciliation. So is Confirmation. So what?

All three words are used in a secular context too.

There are many non-religious traditions of marriage, and I can see why some people may still want states to register their marriages.

I got civil unioned* in my state, because at that point, marriage did not extend to same sex couples. I could have got married, but I chose not to. Now, I think I wouldn't have a problem with getting married in that state as marriages can now be registered for couples of any gender.

(* I think that lack of a decent verb to describe "getting a civil union" is probably a good enough reason to keep using the word "marriage", tbh!)

Yeah, it might be neat to keep "civil unions" a thing that states do, and "marriages" a thing which people do according to their religion or culture. But I think we can cope with both uses, really.

Lack of separation of church and state would be: the state dictates what types of marriages churches are allowed to do. Arguably, if Catholic churches are directed to solemnise marriages for same-sex couples, against their own beliefs, that could be a mixing of church and state.

However I don't think the state needs to abandon a word just because it has religious connotations. So many words do. And marriage is a word with many cultural connotations too. People are sentimental about it! And it's not just because of religion.

Words are wonderful. You can try to treat them like territory, which needs to be claimed, but many peaceful usages of the same word can cohabit.

Funny someone mentioned the culinary use of the word 'marry'. Reminded me of something I wrote a few years ago. Dug it up, thought people might like a read:

Marrying the ketchup

There’s a movie that used to play on TV each December
Some generic Santa-as-cupid romance in which
a traditional, dysfunctional family in somewhere USA
finally manage to get their shit together and hold it like a smile
for the camera please at least for just this
one blessedly snow-encrusted day cos Tiny Quentin’s Christmas
wish was for mommy & daddy to love each other
very much by the 25th

I remember
mercifully little about the film but this one scene: a couple
alone in a diner after hours, the guy is tidying the tables
and he opens an empty ketchup bottle and starts to refill it
with another fuller bottle and here he turns
to her and pauses and the tension is as palpable as a breast
He’s gazing straight down the barrels of her eyes
says This is What we call Marrying the Ketchup

At that
the small glass mouths with their surprise
o lips chink a kiss, champagne, their sex
is thick and red, a full-blooded gift
from each to the other, they are no longer
two but a single bottle, spitting and swallowing the sauce
concurrently like a hungry bird
who has learnt to feed itself

In our domestic bliss we’ve found it
more economical to buy in bulk and from time
to time we marry the dishwashing liquid
marry the olive oil, marry the tahini
& this way & that we also, between ourselves,
graft support equalise and fill each other up i.e. get married
in bed, at funerals and hospitals, we marry
with our hands in the garden or in each other’s pockets

I heard a priest at a wedding recently
my dear friends
tap the mic my dear friends
Marriage Is What You Make Of It
and he waved his arms, possessed by love
like you or I can be, pronounced
by the power of ketchup now I see
that you have already married yourselves
 

RichardInTN

Member

That's not a correction, it's the exact same statement.

Even for someone who isn't Catholic, there can be no doubt that marriage is a Catholic sacrament. It's a plain, simple fact, you don't get to argue against it... unless your argument would be that Catholicism doesn't exist. (In which case you'd simply be factually wrong, of course.)



Neither logic nor language works that way. If a religious rite called marriage exists (which it factually does), the statement that marriage does not have a religious meaning is simply false. It doesn't become true no matter how many people mistakenly think so. Even non-religious folks have to accept this truth, otherwise they just aren't making any kind of logical sense.



In a perfectly secular state, with full separation of church and state, that would most definitely have been a civil union, not a marriage. It would give you all the legal benefits you have now, it would just no longer use a religiously charged word for it.

So, as a secularist, I hope to see the day when "marriages" like yours will simply no longer exist, having become fully replaced with civil unions. :)

(Sadly, I think the SCOTUS ruling about gay marriage has pushed that day farther away into an indetermintae future. :()
Marriage existed before Christianity.

And no they weren't "the exact same statement". In one (yours) its a sacrament to Catholics for everyone. In mine it's a sacrament to Catholics only. Non Catholics don't believe that Catholicism is non-existent, they believe it and it's tenets are irrelevant... because to the non-Catholics they ARE irrelevant.

Marriage "does not solely have a religious meaning" / "is not solely a religious rite" because it pre-dates all existing religions. The fact that religions took marriages TOO doesn't mean they do not / cannot exist outside of religion.

As an Agnostic, I hope the day comes when Religions will give up their bogus claims on things that exist outside their scope.
 

fuchka

Active member
Really interesting ideas in this thread about what transformations would need to happen to support poly unions.

One thing I'm curious about is people's use of the word "not legal". Like "you can have a commitment ceremony between three people, but it's not legal."

I assume people mean that it does not have any legal effect, rather than it is an illegal act.

I know that there are sad stories of non-monogamy being used in custody disputes with children, as an example of the unsuitability of an adult to parent. And obviously in many places if you tried to legally marry more than one person, that would be the crime of bigamy.

Apart from this, are there any other legal risks of multi-partner cohabiting / "marrying" (in the non-legal sense)?

A slightly different question to "how is this not supported by law"?

My feeling is that you don't get a bunch of automatic benefits, but many of these you can create yourself with various legal instruments. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's somewhat possible. And there's nothing legally stopping you, in most countries, creating the relationship or family life you want. Provided you aren't hurting or abusing anyone.

Maybe I'm naive! Looking forward to the different ways society will do things in the future, though.
 

InsaneMystic

New member
(* I think that lack of a decent verb to describe "getting a civil union" is probably a good enough reason to keep using the word "marriage", tbh!)
I've been known to mock the French tendency for old-fashioned language purism, but you have to leave it to speakers of French to be ahead of both English and German speakers in this way: "se pacser" ("getting a PACS", the French version of CU) has already become a fully regular and natural sounding French verb, distinct from "se marier" ("getting married"). :)


And no they weren't "the exact same statement". In one (yours) its a sacrament to Catholics for everyone. In mine it's a sacrament to Catholics only. Non Catholics don't believe that Catholicism is non-existent, they believe it and it's tenets are irrelevant... because to the non-Catholics they ARE irrelevant.
The fact is, it most definitely is a sacrament to Catholics for everyone (at least for everyone who is not either completely naive/uneducated, nor in denial of real world facts to the point of delusionality). Fullstop. It's simple not a matter of opinion, it's one of cold, hard facts.

People who say "it is not a sacrament for Catholics" are factually wrong, utterly regardless of whether they themselves are Catholics or not. Their false opinion is absolutely safe to be disregarded. They do not have their facts straight; their misgivings do not and should not matter in reasonable, logical discourse.

So, yeah, I may have given you too much credit in calling them the exact same statement. The statement you intended to make is simply false, while mine is true; only when interpreted as exactly paraphrasing my statement does your statement stop being false.


Marriage existed before Christianity.
[...]
Marriage "does not solely have a religious meaning" / "is not solely a religious rite" because it pre-dates all existing religions. The fact that religions took marriages TOO doesn't mean they do not / cannot exist outside of religion.
While true, these statements are utterly irrelevant to the points I made. They do not change the fact that my statements are 100% correct.
 
Top