SCOTUS ruling

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
What would happen if we just started calling the "legal part of the marriage" a civil union, and meant the "religious part of the marriage" when we said the word marriage? Drawing the concepts into popular usage would be like laying the groundwork for a new law to be passed.

The question then becomes, how do we make this change of word choice a popular change? Passing a law to validate the change would be a bridge we'd cross later.

I'm going to have to think of what I'd prefer to call a "private marriage."
 

InsaneMystic

New member
What would happen if we just started calling the "legal part of the marriage" a civil union, and meant the "religious part of the marriage" when we said the word marriage? Drawing the concepts into popular usage would be like laying the groundwork for a new law to be passed.
That would be highly problematic, because it would mean people not involved with religious communities could never have a "full, complete, real" marriage, as they're forever excluded from a part of marriage until they join a religion.


Fun (?) fact: Over here, that's already a reason for a lot of people to never officially leave the church they grew up in, even when they're otherwise areligious and completely estranged from it all. Even when it means having to pay church tax (a tax I, of course, consider an abomination), remaining part of the church "on paper" means to them they can have a "real marriage" (i.e., in a church, officiated by a priest/pastor), not just a mere signing of a legal document in an office.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
Re:
"That would be highly problematic, because it would mean people not involved with religious communities could never have a 'full, complete, real' marriage, as they're forever excluded from a part of marriage until they join a religion."

If someone doesn't go through the steps to get a marriage (read: the religious part), they must not value marriage that much, given how many religions there are to choose from. Heck, one could even form one's own religion if one felt the need. Otherwise, why shouldn't a civil union be good enough? After all, that's where all the legal perks are obtained.

By the by, I'm thinking that not all churches require you to be a member in order to get a wedding.
 

River

Active member
The question about whether "sodomy" is a crime or not is an entire different pair of shoes and has nothing to do with it.[/COLOR][/FONT]

You said (Basically) same sex marriage has been (basically) legal in the USA for a couple of centuries. I (basically) said that same sex partnerships have been treated as criminal for those centuries, up to the Texas case. Thus, I implied (basically) that you were wrong about same-sex marriage being (basically) legal in the USA for centuries. Two men who shared a home and a bed were (basically) criminals in the eyes of the law for these centuries, up until VERY recently (Texas decision). Nobody was using binoculars to see what men were doing in bed. I (basically) strongly implied that closets have all kinds of different walls; that some walls are brick and some are paper..., that any sensitive person with knowledge of history would (basically) get it. When did heterosexual couples fear for police raids of their public or private gatherings, inspections...? They did not, as they were not criminals. But gays WERE criminals. And your claim that gays have (basically) always had a right to marry in the USA is just bull cookies. And you know it.
 

River

Active member
InsaneMystic,

Let me ask you (Directly. Clearly.)...

Do you agree that there are at least these three valid usages of the term "marriage":

(a) legal marriage
(b) religious marriage
(c) neither -- just marriage

If your answer is any form of "no," may I ask you...

Are you suggesting that only (b) religious marriage is a valid use of the term "marriage"?

If your answer is any form of "yes," may I ask you...

Why?
 

RichardInTN

Member
Freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. Noone but religions alone should have the authority to choose what terms they use. The state must not ever meddle there.

The state can easily give the term up, with freedom being left intact. Making religions give the term up is dictatorial oppression, basically equalling theocracy.

You can remove the secular/legal connotations of marriage, but you can't remove the religious ones.

The religions can just as easily give the term up as well. As I pointed out though... Secular society had the term LONG BEFORE religion did. Why should Secular society give it up? That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.

First claim on something should be able to keep that claim.

Oh, and yes, you CAN remove the religious connotations of marriage. Use my marriage as the perfect example. Agnostic, married on a lake shore, no clergy in sight, Married by a Notary Public (in a state that allows them to do so), no God in the vows, No prayers in any part of the ceremony. NO religious connotations what-so-ever.




ETA: I do agree that due to Separation of Church and State, that religion can't be "forced" to give up anything... but if they don't want to share the term with Secular Society, then religions should be the ones to change.
 
Last edited:

River

Active member
ETA: I do agree that due to Separation of Church and State, that religion can't be "forced" to give up anything... but if they don't want to share the term with Secular Society, then religions should be the ones to change.

If the word "marriage" is equally valid in religious and non-religious contexts, then nobody has to change at all. The government can go on using "marriage" in a sense governments and law gives to it, and churches can go on regulating the term in their religious senses of it. Nothing need change. We can keep it as it is, a word with many meanings depending on context.

When religious people insist that the word belongs to them, we need only point out that -- historically -- they have no case whatsoever, that "marriage" was a word once (and long) belonging neither to church nor state. When the government (state) wants to regulate the word's usage, ... Same thing. Once the state had no right special right to the term -- and it still doesn't. Those who say "Hey, we're married" are married -- except, perhaps, in either of the other two senses -- governmental or religious. But guess which one will have the easiest hurdle to cross in the USA--, between religious and governmental? It will be the religious hurdle which will be the easiest to jump. By far. Ten thousand churches welcome come who may. :p
 

InsaneMystic

New member
Oh, and yes, you CAN remove the religious connotations of marriage. Use my marriage as the perfect example. Agnostic, married on a lake shore, no clergy in sight, Married by a Notary Public (in a state that allows them to do so), no God in the vows, No prayers in any part of the ceremony. NO religious connotations what-so-ever.
No, you cannot. Your use of the term marriage still has religious connotations, because you have not made the religious rites disappear from the world by choosing against personally taking part in them. You can choose to ignore them, but they still are there.

ETA: I do agree that due to Separation of Church and State, that religion can't be "forced" to give up anything... but if they don't want to share the term with Secular Society, then religions should be the ones to change.
That's nonsense. It makes as much sense as saying "oh we're not denying gay people the right to marry, but if they want the legal benefits marriage gives, it's up to them to first come up with a different word for it".

You are oppressing freedom of religion with such a stance. And you also imply that freedom of religion and secularity is 100% the responsibility of religions to watch over, because the state is too dumb, too weak, or too ideologically corrupt to ensure it. What point is there to even mention it in a constitution then, if it's actually fully the job of religions to keep the state secular? Isn't writing secularity into the constitution, in itself, anti-secular on that basis? :rolleyes:


InsaneMystic,

Let me ask you (Directly. Clearly.)...

Do you agree that there are at least these three valid usages of the term "marriage":

(a) legal marriage
(b) religious marriage
(c) neither -- just marriage

If your answer is any form of "no," may I ask you...

Are you suggesting that only (b) religious marriage is a valid use of the term "marriage"?

If your answer is any form of "yes," may I ask you...

Why?
Currently, yes. But (a) should be removed and made invalid, for the sake of secularity.

(I've been saying that all along, directly and clearly. I don't get why you feel the need to keep asking again and again, instea dof just reading what I've already said.)


You said (Basically) same sex marriage has been (basically) legal in the USA for a couple of centuries. I (basically) said that same sex partnerships have been treated as criminal for those centuries, up to the Texas case. Thus, I implied (basically) that you were wrong about same-sex marriage being (basically) legal in the USA for centuries. Two men who shared a home and a bed were (basically) criminals in the eyes of the law for these centuries, up until VERY recently (Texas decision). Nobody was using binoculars to see what men were doing in bed. I (basically) strongly implied that closets have all kinds of different walls; that some walls are brick and some are paper..., that any sensitive person with knowledge of history would (basically) get it. When did heterosexual couples fear for police raids of their public or private gatherings, inspections...? They did not, as they were not criminals. But gays WERE criminals. And your claim that gays have (basically) always had a right to marry in the USA is just bull cookies. And you know it.
No, it's not bull cookies. Criminalized behavior or not, they had the constitutionally guaranteed right to use the word "marriage" for it. Which was the argument you made with your "point (c)". If you talk about a sense that is neither religious nor legal, then bringing laws against behavior in the marriage into the discussion simply is flawed argumentation.

BTW, just as an additional bit of irony... the word "sodomy", of course, has massive and obvious religious connotations. That, in itself, would be enough to be against "anti-sodomy" laws, simply from a secularits viewpoint... even if one weren't of the opinion that the state should stay the hell out of bedrooms as long as whatever happens in there is SSC (which I happen to very strongly agree to, too).

Another BTW, there are still obscure laws that forbid oral sex even between married hetero couples. And a lot of people are having oral sex in their relationships, the law notwithstanding. So I guess, by your standards, straight marriage isn't legal in these states?


When religious people insist that the word belongs to them, we need only point out that -- historically -- they have no case whatsoever, that "marriage" was a word once (and long) belonging neither to church nor state. When the government (state) wants to regulate the word's usage, ... Same thing. Once the state had no right special right to the term -- and it still doesn't. Those who say "Hey, we're married" are married -- except, perhaps, in either of the other two senses -- governmental or religious. But guess which one will have the easiest hurdle to cross in the USA--, between religious and governmental? It will be the religious hurdle which will be the easiest to jump. By far. Ten thousand churches welcome come who may. :p
Again - this "history" argument is completely irrelevant. The moment religions start using a term foir their rites, the entire game is irrevocably changed, regardless of "who was there first".


If someone doesn't go through the steps to get a marriage (read: the religious part), they must not value marriage that much, given how many religions there are to choose from. Heck, one could even form one's own religion if one felt the need. Otherwise, why shouldn't a civil union be good enough? After all, that's where all the legal perks are obtained.
But in that case, why bend over backwards to appease them with terminology? If they don't care about the steps to marriage and just want the legal benefits, then why should we ever expect religions to call their rite anything else than what it's always been called - just plain and simple marriage, not "a part of marriage".

They have the civil union. By any rational standard, that is and should be enough for them.


By the by, I'm thinking that not all churches require you to be a member in order to get a wedding.
As far as I can tell, that's really not the case in Germany. If none of the partners belong to the religious community, they simply won't find a religious officiant to bless them... and why on Earth should they? A religious community shouldn't feel the need to extend their religious rites to "unbelievers"... in fact, if they did, it would come across to me more as presumptuous attempts at proselytization than as anything else.
 
Last edited:

RichardInTN

Member
If the word "marriage" is equally valid in religious and non-religious contexts, then nobody has to change at all. The government can go on using "marriage" in a sense governments and law gives to it, and churches can go on regulating the term in their religious senses of it. Nothing need change. We can keep it as it is, a word with many meanings depending on context.

When religious people insist that the word belongs to them, we need only point out that -- historically -- they have no case whatsoever, that "marriage" was a word once (and long) belonging neither to church nor state. When the government (state) wants to regulate the word's usage, ... Same thing. Once the state had no right special right to the term -- and it still doesn't. Those who say "Hey, we're married" are married -- except, perhaps, in either of the other two senses -- governmental or religious. But guess which one will have the easiest hurdle to cross in the USA--, between religious and governmental? It will be the religious hurdle which will be the easiest to jump. By far. Ten thousand churches welcome come who may. :p

Oh I definitely agree that no one HAS to change. I'm just saying that if anyone should, if everyone wanted their own word for it, and they couldn't get along with sharing the word... it should be the religions that change. Secular society was here long before every modern religion was dreamed up. They had it first, they have the better "claim" on it.
 

RichardInTN

Member

No, you cannot. Your use of the term marriage still has religious connotations, because you have not made the religious rites disappear from the world by choosing against personally taking part in them. You can choose to ignore them, but they still are there.


That's nonsense. It makes as much sense as saying "oh we're not denying gay people the right to marry, but if they want the legal benefits marriage gives, it's up to them to first come up with a different word for it".

You are oppressing freedom of religion with such a stance. And you also imply that freedom of religion and secularity is 100% the responsibility of religions to watch over, because the state is too dumb, too weak, or too ideologically corrupt to ensure it. What point is there to even mention it in a constitution then, if it's actually fully the job of religions to keep the state secular? Isn't writing secularity into the constitution, in itself, anti-secular on that basis? :rolleyes:

My use of the term marriage has ZERO religious connotations. I don't care what you believe. I know what it represents to the people THIS MARRIAGE is important to. That's a secular civil contract. Period. Full Stop. End of Line. Finis.

And I'm not "oppressing religious freedom". I'm saying if they don't want to share they word... then THEY need to change. They have full freedom to choose for themselves... share the word or create a new one for their own private use. They don't own the word "marriage". Society does. Society had the concept of "marriage" long before all current religions were invented.
 

InsaneMystic

New member
My use of the term marriage has ZERO religious connotations. I don't care what you believe. I know what it represents to the people THIS MARRIAGE is important to. That's a secular civil contract. Period. Full Stop. End of Line. Finis.
No, you're factually wrong. Your marriage, just like every marriage, DOES have religious connotations, simply by being called by the word "marriage", which is the name of a rite in many religions, including a RomCath sacrament.

You are in absolutely no position to decide that it doesn't. It's about facts, not about what you or I believe.


And I'm not "oppressing religious freedom". I'm saying if they don't want to share they word... then THEY need to change. They have full freedom to choose for themselves... share the word or create a new one for their own private use. They don't own the word "marriage". Society does. Society had the concept of "marriage" long before all current religions were invented.
So indeed, it's completely up to religions to make sure secularity exists, it's not a matter of the state...

...which logically means that means a state which calls itself secular is by definition anti-secular, as it imposes an attitude of the state regarding the purely religious, church-internal matter of secularity. A state is always as secular as its religions choose it to be, the state has no say in the matter... if religions choose to base the legislation on holy scripture, a secular state is powerless to stop them, lest it become anti-secular by objecting against church law getting instated. :rolleyes:

This is one of the most ridiculous, illogical, and internally contradicting stances I've heard in a long time, sorry.

It has to be the state who must change their use of words, because that's the only option for change available without becoming oppressive.

Unless, of course, you don't care about secularity in the first place. But then you have to stop whining if gay marriage (or anything else) is made illegal because [Holy Book XYZ] said it's against the will of [deity ABC]. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.


They don't own the word "marriage". Society does. Society had the concept of "marriage" long before all current religions were invented.
The history argument still is absolutely void and irrelevant, no matter how often you folks repeat it like a broken record. The moment religions choose to use the word for their rites, the matter is settled; the word's history becomes completely irrelevant to the matter.

Marriage is a religious term; there is no possibility of denying that fact by any sane, rational, and informed person. Fullstop.

Just accept the facts and get over it already.
 

Memorandum

New member
Mass appropriation of a word in a religious context, does not equal or facilitate a default connotation or ownership, by said religion. No one is denying anything. Each usage stands by itself, and for itself. You're the only one basically saying that everyone else just needs to bow down and base everything from a religious context if one exists.

Which all comes down to the fact that you just do not get it.
No one religion can own words.
A belief that religion should control anything, is a dangerous mindset to hold.
 

InsaneMystic

New member
So if I - who is pretty dang pale even for a Northwestern European - were to greet a bunch of dark skinned people with "hey you n*****s, how's it going?", and just insist that I totally mean it without any racist connotations, like, ZERO, and go on to elaborate that words can't be owned by groups (racists, in this case), then these dark skinned folks would be basically assholes if they got angry at me and pretended there actually objectively were undeniable racist connotations to the N-word, and started attacking harmless, innocent me out of nowhere, who was just politely greeting them?

Which works even better because the N-word, from its etymological history, simply means black. Let's not give Johnny-come-lately racist mass appropriation of a simple description of skin color any concern in our use of words, shall we? N***** and black person are totally synonyms! That's the first historical use, and only that one counts!

Uh huh. Rrrrright. :rolleyes:


I'm understanding stuff just fine, thank you. Probably a lot better than you do.

But I also realize from how this thread is going that there are a considerable number of people on here with whom it makes as much sense to discuss secularity, as it does discussing evolution with Young Earth Creationists. It's sad and disappointing (especially on a board whose very topic would suggest that it's frequented by people able and willing to think outside of boxes), but I'll have to leave such people to the comfort of their rigid ideologies, even when they clearly blind them to real-world, verifiable facts and sober logical thinking. I just dearly hope that secular legislation never, ever gets ruined by hardheaded opinions prevailing over more rational minds.

Peace out. (What a stupid thread.)
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
Re (from River):
"We can keep it as it is, a word with many meanings depending on context."

That's what I think will happen.

Re (from InsaneMystic):
"The moment religions start using a term for their rites, the entire game is irrevocably changed, regardless of 'who was there first.'"

:confused: I don't get it.

Re:
"But in that case, why bend over backwards to appease them with terminology? If they don't care about the steps to marriage and just want the legal benefits, then why should we ever expect religions to call their rite anything else than what it's always been called -- just plain and simple *marriage,* not 'a part of marriage.'"

Huh? I thought that's what I was proposing.

Re:
"A religious community shouldn't feel the need to extend their religious rites to 'unbelievers' ... in fact, if they did, it would come across to me more as presumptuous attempts at proselytization than as anything else."

Don't know what to tell you, I don't make the rules.
 

JessicaBurde

New member

No, you're factually wrong. Your marriage, just like every marriage, DOES have religious connotations, simply by being called by the word "marriage", which is the name of a rite in many religions, including a RomCath sacrament.

By this reasoning, because diamond is a sports term, every engagement ring has connotations of baseball.

I'm inclined to agree that trying to take the term marriage away from religious ceremonies is not a good thing, but I'm having a hard time understanding your logic.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
Are there other words besides marriage that are used in both government and religion?
 

JessicaBurde

New member
Lots of legal terms: law, court (ecclisiastical court, sharia court, rabbinic court), confession, etc
Relationship terms: divorce, family, parents (orthodox and conservative Judaism do not recognize my legal adoption by Christian parents, in Judaism my parents are considered to be my birth parents), husband, wife, adultery, fornication, sodomy
Government terms: congress
I'm sure there are others
 

RichardInTN

Member
By this reasoning, because diamond is a sports term, every engagement ring has connotations of baseball.

I'm inclined to agree that trying to take the term marriage away from religious ceremonies is not a good thing, but I'm having a hard time understanding your logic.
That's because there is no logic to the assertion that Marriage is religious.
 

Memorandum

New member
@Jessica, that is not logic. That is someone throwing a tantrum because they think the religious context should trump all. No one is trying to take away the religious context. They are assuming that and basing all their nonsense from there. Subtle playing of the victim card but it's there.

Talking in circles on par with their reasoning :p.
We aren't going to get any clear answers from this person. They keep making stuff up or flipping it by telling everybody else that they are "factually wrong", when it's clear they didn't do their homework. Priceless.
 

kdt26417

Official Greeter
Staff member
@ Jessica ... thanks for that list of words; that was bothering me.
 
Top