California gay marriage ban gaining steam

[Terralthra]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what the government is doing handing out marriage licenses anyway. No matter which way you slice it, Kodiak is right about one thing: the word 'marriage' is fraught with religious connotations. I'd be in favor of getting the state government out of the marriage business completely. Any two people can get a civil union, and that's the only such license the government hands out. If two people want to get married, that's between them and their church.

[Erik von Nein]

Civil unions don't cover the breadth of benefits couples receive for marrying. You'd have to redefine the entire system, which would be practically impossible and is pointless, anyway. Marriage is quickly becoming something unrelated to religion.

[Terralthra]

Civil unions don't cover the breadth of benefits couples receive for marrying. You'd have to redefine the entire system, which would be practically impossible and is pointless, anyway. Marriage is quickly becoming something unrelated to religion.

It's like you didn't even read my post. Redefining the system is exactly what I proposed. There would be no set of benefits for marrying at all, because the state would only recognize civil unions.

[Erik von Nein]

Sorry, I was distracted when I wrote that.

[CmdrWilkens]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what the government is doing handing out marriage licenses anyway. No matter which way you slice it, Kodiak is right about one thing: the word 'marriage' is fraught with religious connotations. I'd be in favor of getting the state government out of the marriage business completely. Any two people can get a civil union, and that's the only such license the government hands out. If two people want to get married, that's between them and their church.

Marriage, as it is, has always been a matter of contracual obligation. The word in english comes out of the late 13th century and was an import from French. Conversely the state of being "wed" (that is literally pledged to another person) dates in old english from prior to the 10th century if my entymology lookup is anywhere close to accurate. In other words the union of two households is indeed ancient but the strictures of wht we literally call "marriage" came MUCH later (as in at least 300 years later). In other words "marriage" has been INFUSED with religious connotation while being in the state equivalent of marriage is indeed recognizable in the english language much earlier. So in other words I refuse to allow the religous right to lay claim to a word simply because it would be convenient.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yup, if they wish to have what they describe in the bible, then they can call their thing: Sale of a female for sexual and domestic slavery. I'm sure people will be lining up for that.

Edit, Mariposia is a small, baptist, redneck town just outside of Yosemite national park.

when you have a virtual San Francisco deludge of pink/rainbow folks decending on your small town spending more money in a weekend then this rather bad year has seen for a while, well it kinda has an impact even on those people.

[Darth Wong]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what the government is doing handing out marriage licenses anyway. No matter which way you slice it, Kodiak is right about one thing: the word 'marriage' is fraught with religious connotations. I'd be in favor of getting the state government out of the marriage business completely. Any two people can get a civil union, and that's the only such license the government hands out. If two people want to get married, that's between them and their church.

Oh, I see. So marriage is a church concept, eh? What the fuck does that mean for marriages from all the parts of the world which aren't Judeo-Christian? Did marriages of Native Americans not count until the white people came here with their fucking churches? How about marriages in historical China? Japan? Korea? None of them count either?

Anyone who believes that bullshit about how marriage is "infused with religion" is an idiot who doesn't know how to see through propaganda or look outside his own narrow cultural background.

[Broomstick]

In other words, not only had the world NOT ended with the coming of homosexual marriage, some formerly opposed heteros have discovered that letting the "perverts" marry might have benefits for said heteros. Like... money for services rendered to honeymooning same-sex newlyweds.

[Darth Wong]

Fun question: where in the Bible does it say that two men can't get married?

I know it says it is an "abomination" for two men to have sex. But it also says it is an "abomination" for me to eat shrimp. I don't hear anyone saying that shrimp-eaters should not be allowed to marry.

[Ekiqa]

Fun question: where in the Bible does it say that two men can't get married?

I know it says it is an "abomination" for two men to have sex. But it also says it is an "abomination" for me to eat shrimp. I don't hear anyone saying that shrimp-eaters should not be allowed to marry.

The bible doesn't say most things that the post-messiahanic jews say it does.

[Terralthra]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what the government is doing handing out marriage licenses anyway. No matter which way you slice it, Kodiak is right about one thing: the word 'marriage' is fraught with religious connotations. I'd be in favor of getting the state government out of the marriage business completely. Any two people can get a civil union, and that's the only such license the government hands out. If two people want to get married, that's between them and their church.

Oh, I see. So marriage is a church concept, eh? What the fuck does that mean for marriages from all the parts of the world which aren't Judeo-Christian? Did marriages of Native Americans not count until the white people came here with their fucking churches? How about marriages in historical China? Japan? Korea? None of them count either?

Anyone who believes that bullshit about how marriage is "infused with religion" is an idiot who doesn't know how to see through propaganda or look outside his own narrow cultural background.

Marriages in Japan, China, and Korea typically took place in Shinto, Buddhist, and Daoist temples. In China, this only changed with the cultural revolution which, surprise surprise, aimed to supplant religion. In India, marriage laws still largely reflect Hindu religious values. I never mentioned Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. I simply said religion. That you chose to interpret "religion" as "Judeo-Christian" says far more about your cultural background's narrowness than it does mine.

[Terralthra]

Ghetto edit: Perhaps more importantly, my point was not to exclude anyone at all, nor to say that anyone's marital status should not be recognized by the state. Quite the opposite, I explicitly said I proposed to excise religion from the state's terminology and licensing. Any two people who want a civil union license should be given one, regardless of any particular religion's strictures.

I'm a bit surprised that you opted to take this fairly explicit inclusion of everyone as me wanting to exclude people.

[General Zod]

Marriages in Japan, China, and Korea typically took place in Shinto, Buddhist, and Daoist temples. In China, this only changed with the cultural revolution which, surprise surprise, aimed to supplant religion. In India, marriage laws still largely reflect Hindu religious values. I never mentioned Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. I simply said religion. That you chose to interpret "religion" as "Judeo-Christian" says far more about your cultural background's narrowness than it does mine.

If two people want to get married, that's between them and their church.

Last I checked, a church was almost exclusively a Judeo Christian concept.

[Terralthra]

If two people want to get married, that's between them and their church.

Last I checked, a church was almost exclusively a Judeo Christian concept.

Church has been generalized to be simply a house of worship, and it was in that sense I was using it. I did not mean to imply only Christian houses of worship.

[General Zod]

Church has been generalized to be simply a house of worship, and it was in that sense I was using it. I did not mean to imply only Christian houses of worship.

It's only a general term if you're Christian. I sincerely doubt you will ever find, say, a Buddhist, calling a temple a church.

[Terralthra]

Church has been generalized to be simply a house of worship, and it was in that sense I was using it. I did not mean to imply only Christian houses of worship.

It's only a general term if you're Christian. I sincerely doubt you will ever find, say, a Buddhist, calling a temple a church.

I'm not a Christian, I just wanted a generic term. If Church implies Christian, then I apologize. A number of dictionary definitions back up my usage of it, but I'll freely change it to whatever generic term for a house of worship you wish to use.

[General Zod]

Church has been generalized to be simply a house of worship, and it was in that sense I was using it. I did not mean to imply only Christian houses of worship.

It's only a general term if you're Christian. I sincerely doubt you will ever find, say, a Buddhist, calling a temple a church.

I'm not a Christian, I just wanted a generic term. If Church implies Christian, then I apologize. A number of dictionary definitions back up my usage of it, but I'll freely change it to whatever generic term for a house of worship you wish to use.

Main Entry:
1church Listen to the pronunciation of 1church
Pronunciation:
\ˈchərch\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from kyrios lord, master; akin to Sanskrit śūra hero, warrior
Date:
before 12th century

1: a building for public and especially Christian worship2: the clergy or officialdom of a religious body3often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers: as a: the whole body of Christians b: denomination <the Presbyterian church> c: congregation 4: a public divine worship <goes to church every Sunday>5: the clerical profession <considered the church as a possible career>

Everything points to Church = Christian as far as I can tell.

[Terralthra]

Everything points to Church = Christian as far as I can tell.

Already ceded. Replace it with whichever word you want. Temple, synagogue, mosque, shrine, altar, pink-unicorn-gazebo. The overall point is that even in other cultures, marriage still tends to have religious implications and connotations. This is not a universal, but it is fairly common.

[Darth Wong]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what the government is doing handing out marriage licenses anyway. No matter which way you slice it, Kodiak is right about one thing: the word 'marriage' is fraught with religious connotations. I'd be in favor of getting the state government out of the marriage business completely. Any two people can get a civil union, and that's the only such license the government hands out. If two people want to get married, that's between them and their church.

Oh, I see. So marriage is a church concept, eh? What the fuck does that mean for marriages from all the parts of the world which aren't Judeo-Christian? Did marriages of Native Americans not count until the white people came here with their fucking churches? How about marriages in historical China? Japan? Korea? None of them count either?

Anyone who believes that bullshit about how marriage is "infused with religion" is an idiot who doesn't know how to see through propaganda or look outside his own narrow cultural background.

Marriages in Japan, China, and Korea typically took place in Shinto, Buddhist, and Daoist temples.

Strange how my relatives come from Taiwan and reported that there was no such requirement.

In China, this only changed with the cultural revolution which, surprise surprise, aimed to supplant religion. In India, marriage laws still largely reflect Hindu religious values.

Do Hindu religious officials decide who can and can't get married?

I never mentioned Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. I simply said religion. That you chose to interpret "religion" as "Judeo-Christian" says far more about your cultural background's narrowness than it does mine.

You're full of shit. Throughout most of history, marriage among the peasant class (ie- the vast majority of the population) wasn't even worth officiating, not even in Judeo-Christian lands. And even when religious officials took part, there was no indication that they strictly regulated the practice or made decisions about who could marry whom.

[ray245]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what the government is doing handing out marriage licenses anyway. No matter which way you slice it, Kodiak is right about one thing: the word 'marriage' is fraught with religious connotations. I'd be in favor of getting the state government out of the marriage business completely. Any two people can get a civil union, and that's the only such license the government hands out. If two people want to get married, that's between them and their church.

Oh, I see. So marriage is a church concept, eh? What the fuck does that mean for marriages from all the parts of the world which aren't Judeo-Christian? Did marriages of Native Americans not count until the white people came here with their fucking churches? How about marriages in historical China? Japan? Korea? None of them count either?

Anyone who believes that bullshit about how marriage is "infused with religion" is an idiot who doesn't know how to see through propaganda or look outside his own narrow cultural background.

Marriages in Japan, China, and Korea typically took place in Shinto, Buddhist, and Daoist temples. In China, this only changed with the cultural revolution which, surprise surprise, aimed to supplant religion. In India, marriage laws still largely reflect Hindu religious values. I never mentioned Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. I simply said religion. That you chose to interpret "religion" as "Judeo-Christian" says far more about your cultural background's narrowness than it does mine.

I thought that marriages in ancient china don't even have religous context? Come on, ancient chinese values is more based on superistion than religion. Its more based on tradition than religion, and I don't ever remember a chinese marriage that requires a Daoist or buddist temple to take place.

Daoist or Buddist monks may come down and bless the marriage, but that's it. Religion is not required for a marriage to be official.


Perhaps this wiki quoute may help.

But on the other hand, none of the major Chinese religions consider homosexual acts as sin as many Christian churches do. Compared to sin in Christian culture, the list of sinful deeds in the codex of Confucianism does not include homosexuality. As long as a man does his duty and sires children, it is his private affair to have other male lovers.

This is also true in Taoism. Although each man is regarded as yang (陽,masculine), every man also has some yin (陰,feminine) in him. Some men can have much yin in them. So the presence of some feminine behavior is not viewed as unnatural for men. In this view, homosexuals can even be regarded as something very natural, according to the natural balance of yin and yang. It is also remarkable that many Taoist gods and goddesses live alone or together with some equal deities of the same sex. The very common example is Shanshen (山神,mountain god) and Tudigong (土地公,"keeper of earth", i.e., local god). Every place has its Shanshen and Tudigong, and they sometimes live together. Shanshen and Tudigong are often both males (Tudigong is always a male). More intriguingly, they sometimes manifest themselves as an old man and an old woman. (Such appearances are described quite often in the classical novel Journey to the West). On top of this, the philosophy of Zhuangzi emphasises on freedom and carefreeness, so anything that is seen as 'out of the ordinary' is really 'ordinary' according to the natural way of things.

And from what I understand, the chinese used to be rather tolerant of homosexuality, until the europeans came down and enforce their moral values onto the chinese.

[ray245]

Crap...lack of edit button.

Anyway, I want to add that Terralthra is basically lying as he came up with examples. Growing up in a chinese society, even in a almost unhistorical historical drama, never did anyone depict marriage in a temple.

Hell, my grandparents have a traditional marriage, and they do not need to go to a temple to be married.

Preist and Monks will be invited over to bless the marriage, a bless that isn't necessary.

Hell, almost every chinese emperors during the golden age of ancient china, the Han, Tang and Ming are quite liberal in regards to Homosexuality, even some emperors are homosexual, which is tolerated as long as they have a child.

The age of enlightment is the age where europeans starts to force the religion of other people to follow their beliefs.

[Terralthra]

Oh, I see. So marriage is a church concept, eh? What the fuck does that mean for marriages from all the parts of the world which aren't Judeo-Christian? Did marriages of Native Americans not count until the white people came here with their fucking churches? How about marriages in historical China? Japan? Korea? None of them count either?

Anyone who believes that bullshit about how marriage is "infused with religion" is an idiot who doesn't know how to see through propaganda or look outside his own narrow cultural background.

Marriages in Japan, China, and Korea typically took place in Shinto, Buddhist, and Daoist temples.

Strange how my relatives come from Taiwan and reported that there was no such requirement.

An explicit religious requirement is not necessary for a concept to have religious connotations.

In China, this only changed with the cultural revolution which, surprise surprise, aimed to supplant religion. In India, marriage laws still largely reflect Hindu religious values.

Do Hindu religious officials decide who can and can't get married?

No. In India, marriages are regulated by the government based on which religion they profess. There are separate acts to regulate Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Parsi, and one last one entitled the "Special Marriage Act,' which places no real religious strictures, except (arguably) the provisions which outlaw polygamy and require that neither party be mentally ill "in such a way as to make them unfit parents."

So, obviously, since there are four different marriage regulatory acts based on the religion of the religion of the participants, marriage clearly has no religious connotation in that culture.

I never mentioned Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. I simply said religion. That you chose to interpret "religion" as "Judeo-Christian" says far more about your cultural background's narrowness than it does mine.

You're full of shit. Throughout most of history, marriage among the peasant class (ie- the vast majority of the population) wasn't even worth officiating, not even in Judeo-Christian lands. And even when religious officials took part, there was no indication that they strictly regulated the practice or made decisions about who could marry whom.

Well, two responses here. 1) Bullshit. By the end of the middle ages, the Christian marriage ceremony accompanied even peasant weddings. source. 2) The lack of officiating by religious officials, if there actually was such a lack, still doesn't demonstrate a lack of religious connotation to the concept of marriage.

A) Of the most popular religions of the world, almost all have some sort of religious significance attached to the act of marriage. Hindu, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Daoism, et al., all attach weight to this concept.
B) The majority of people in the world profess to one of the above mentioned religions. source
Ergo, absent evidence that all those adherents profess a believe in the religion, but not that religion's doctrines on marriage, the majority of people in the world attach religious connotations to marriage. They certainly don't all attach the same connotation; that's why we try to remove religion from the governmental spheres that apply to all peoples, so as to keep governmental restrictions from interfering with any one person's religious beliefs.

I thought that marriages in ancient china don't even have religous context? Come on, ancient chinese values is more based on superistion than religion. Its more based on tradition than religion, and I don't ever remember a chinese marriage that requires a Daoist or buddist temple to take place.

Daoist or Buddist monks may come down and bless the marriage, but that's it. Religion is not required for a marriage to be official.

Can you please specify the difference between a religion and superstition?

I'll cede on the temple (since I'm obviously wrong), but you still reinforce my overall point by pointing out that monks would bless the marriage. A requirement to be official is not the same as a connotation of religion.

And from what I understand, the chinese used to be rather tolerant of homosexuality, until the europeans came down and enforce their moral values onto the chinese.

I don't recall ever saying anything to the contrary. Perhaps you are fundamentally misunderstanding my point? I am not saying anything about gay marriage or cultural acceptance of homosexuality or lack thereof; I am simply saying that marriage has a religious connotation to it in most cultures, and I think that it might simplify matters if the government stopped handing out marriage licenses at all, simply giving out the same civil union license to every pair of people who requests it, and lets it go at that.

[ray245]

Monks and priest bless the marriage, but that is an optional choice. Nor do people think lowly of you if your marriage isn't blessed by a priest and monk.

Getting blessed is basically spending extra money to make your wedding looks more successful, same thing like inviting more friends and relatives, or the location of the wedding.

You don't need to orgainse a wedding at a super-luxury hotel to be recongised as a wedding and marriage, but people believe that it ensures a more fun and successful wedding.

You are confusing need with choice.

A marriage do not NEED monks or priest to be recongised.

[Terralthra]

Monks and priest bless the marriage, but that is an optional choice. Nor do people think lowly of you if your marriage isn't blessed by a priest and monk.

Getting blessed is basically spending extra money to make your wedding looks more successful, same thing like inviting more friends and relatives, or the location of the wedding.

You don't need to orgainse a wedding at a super-luxury hotel to be recongised as a wedding and marriage, but people believe that it ensures a more fun and successful wedding.

You are confusing need with choice.

A marriage do not NEED monks or priest to be recongised.

For not the first time, I am not saying that it does need a monk or a priest or any particular religious trappings to be recognized or valid in any particular culture. I am saying that the majority of people attach religious connotation to weddings, based on the source linked above. Please stop strawmanning me.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Monks and priest bless the marriage, but that is an optional choice. Nor do people think lowly of you if your marriage isn't blessed by a priest and monk.

Getting blessed is basically spending extra money to make your wedding looks more successful, same thing like inviting more friends and relatives, or the location of the wedding.

You don't need to orgainse a wedding at a super-luxury hotel to be recongised as a wedding and marriage, but people believe that it ensures a more fun and successful wedding.

You are confusing need with choice.

A marriage do not NEED monks or priest to be recongised.

For not the first time, I am not saying that it does need a monk or a priest or any particular religious trappings to be recognized or valid in any particular culture. I am saying that the majority of people attach religious connotation to weddings, based on the source linked above. Please stop strawmanning me.

My mother and father were wed in a purely civic ceremony, presided over by a Justice of the Peace. I see no religious connotation in such a secular occurence.