Santa?

[L.Jane]

For many religious people, though, the definition of marriage does not change and is not fluid. It means something specific, namely the joining of two persons (in many faiths, a man and a woman) in an indissoluable covenant between themselves and God.

OK timidly stepping into the deep in here like the scared little girl that I am... You say the above quote, but pagan and other religions with more than one gd have been around long before other religions and they had marriage ceremonies, so were their marriage ceremonies not valid? I realize there aren't that many still around today, but there are some polytheisitc religions (ex: Hinduism). These are between man, woman, and gds which judeo-christian religions do not believe in. If you change your definition there to allow for the word marriage to be used, whats the difference between changing your definition elsewhere? And if you say that they can't use the word, they have been around longer than Christianity, so one can just say, sorry, we're right, you can't have it anymore?

[GrayMatterWife]

SpottyDog: for eg, people who want to marry furniture or pets or two wives or something. Their argument is, why is "marriage" confined to people or one person or whatever? Can't I be married to whomever or whatever I want? No, you can't--not unless you want to completely re-define marriage and then it would no longer mean "marriage" (religious)-- would mean "union allowed by law" (a civil concept). Just because you don't like the definition of marriage means that you can redefine it and pretend that you've somehow preserved the original meaning. (The interesting twist would be, of course, a religion that defined marriage this broadly. I would argue that, in such a case, these marriages would be equally valid--because they are religiously created. They just wouldn't be legally valid. Which is why I argue that marriage should be considered a religious, not a civil, construct.)

LJane: yes, exactly. I would argue that the definition of marriage, because it is a religious not civil construct, changes based on the religion. What constitutes a valid marriage in my faith may not be a valid marriage in another faith. And vice versa. Leave marriage to religion (like in France) and allow civil law to determine who may be brought into a union for legal purposes. Currently, the law prefers one predominate faith's religious construct over another because it defines marriage based on religious concepts. If you want to restrict under the law who may enter into a union, find a legal ground for doing so (for example, one might argue that polygamy should be prohibited because it treats women disparately).

[GrayMatterWife]

Basically, I am a big proponent of leaving religion out of legal definitions and vice versa. Why, as a Christian, do I feel this way? Because I don't want the state telling me what my religion says. If my faith OKs gay marriage, for example, I don't want the state saying that such a marriage is valid or invalid. It is a matter of what that church deems to be theologically and dogmatically acceptable. And the other way around. If my church says gay marriage is not valid, who is the state to argue? Butt out. Define a union for legal purposes in legal terms.

But that's just me. I know a lot of people feel differently and want to use civil law to make religious points.

[spotty_dog]

SpottyDog: for eg, people who want to marry furniture or pets or two wives or something.

Could you please cite an example of someone whining because they are being treated as a second-class citizen for not being able to enter a legal state of marriage with their furniture?

[GrayMatterWife]

By the way, so sorry if my posts are full of hideous type-os. Typing from iPhone with its teeny buttons. Stupid iPhones...

[GrayMatterWife]

SD: it was just a hypothetical. An extreme. There are "furniture" lovers out there. I was thinking specifically of certain polygamist-promoting sects. When we were in Salt Lake last weekend, US district court judge had to throw out a polygamist group's case asserting a right to practice their polygamy.

Good grief. Leave these people alone to practice their faith in peace. You could do that if the state stopped defining
marriage as a matter of civil law and used unions. Under that construct, no one is entitled to be "married" under civil law--just recognized as being in a union.

The marriage mess results in everyone whining. Gays whine because they feel leftout. Polygamists whine because they are criminalizes. Conservative faiths whine because they feel like "their" definition of marriage is being stolen and bastardized.

Easy solution: stop using a religious concept as a civil construct. You can easily have weddings for civil unions. You can have ceremonies.

Again, just my thought. I know a lot of people disagree and feel that the answer is to radically expand (or limit) the definition of marriage under civil law. I am just of the view that everyone will be better off by keeping marriage in the religious realm and going with civil unions for everyone as a matter of law.

[Pollyanna]

Basically, I am a big proponent of leaving religion out of legal definitions and vice versa. Why, as a Christian, do I feel this way? Because I don't want the state telling me what my religion says. If my faith OKs gay marriage, for example, I don't want the state saying that such a marriage is valid or invalid. It is a matter of what that church deems to be theologically and dogmatically acceptable. And the other way around. If my church says gay marriage is not valid, who is the state to argue? Butt out. Define a union for legal purposes in legal terms.

But that's just me. I know a lot of people feel differently and want to use civil law to make religious points.

Yes, I completely agree with this. Interestingly I have always seen marriage in the Catholic Church like this. We are religiously married and even if we were to get divorced we would still be married in the eyes of the Church unless the marriage were to be annulled. For Catholics, marriage is one of our seven sacraments. I see my marriage license as something from the state but my MARRIAGE took place in the Catholic Church, is a sacrament and dh and I do our very best to treat it as such. Dh and I entered into a union of husband, wife, and God.

[GrayMatterWife]

Yep. Several years ago, my ILs knew an elderly couple who desperately wanted to marry, but with the way SS or Medicare or something (state rules...) worked, if they had a civilly (legally) recognized marriage, they would have been far worse off financially. When my FIL recounted their plight to me, I was confused: why don't they just get married in their church (in "the eyes of God"), but not register the union with the state? Problem solved--they are religiously joined but not civilly deprived. That never occurred to my ILs--because their understanding of being marries was so closely tied to state recognition. In the end, I don't think it would have been a good solution for that couple because culturally, state-sanctioned marriage was just an inherent part of what they believed made a proper marriage. Primarily because we come from a culture that ties the two.

For many religious people, though, the definition of marriage does not change and is not fluid. It means something specific, namely the joining of two persons (in many faiths, a man and a woman) in an indissoluable covenant between themselves and God. It has nothing to do with being state-sanctioned. Personally, I couldn't give a flip if the state considers me "married," which at the law is nothing more than the legal union of two people that creates a unity of interests in property and childrearing rights. A legal definition is definitely fluid and
subject to change. I think it's misleading to use "marriage" as a legal term, although I appreciate the Anglo-American jurisprudential history. And to try to make "marriage" mean the same thing at the law as a "domestic partnership" makes the
situation even more difficult, because you are trying to co-opt a word ("marriage") for political purposes and redefine it for a social agenda. It would be a lot cleaner toake marriage a religious construct with no legal protections or effect and create a union recognized by the state for two people wishing to join as a matter of law. Some people, of course, will be both married (religiously) and joined (legally). And no one can whine about being "second-class citizens" under the law because the law follows religious understandings of unions. Everyone will equally be able to suffer through a union.

That's exactly how I feel as well.

[PrincessFiona]

Ho ho ho? This thread needs some emergency elf therapy!

I'm hardly diluting your holiday. Those elbow-shoving Christmas shoppers? Those are generally Christians getting ready for their holiday of Gimme Gimme Gimme. Not atheists like me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure, Christians participate in those types of behaviors as well. I think the behavior is disgusting, no matter who is doing it. The rabid materialism makes me want to vomit. I am in no way saying that I condone that kind of behavior. A huge part of my faith is a rejection of materialism, and that includes during Christmas. We give gifts, but they are limited and often (eta: well, more like frequently) include used or homemade goods. We buy stuff too but we dont' do any of that Black Friday nonsense and we dont' get all rabid about it. Strict budget, even back when we had money. Unfortunately, too many people, Christians included, get caught up in the whirlwind of secularist Christmas, which includes participating in the mobs of foaming at the mouth shoppers who trample each other to death like savages in an attempt to buy more crap that they dont' need.

[BonBon]

The greenery, feasts, lights, and gifts are rooted in paganism (Saturnalia). Would Christians wanting a "pure" Christmas celebration be willing to give that up?

[GrayMatterWife]

I am not sure anyone is arguing for a "pure" Christmas, devoid of traditions that we adopted and Christianized from pagan cultures. That would suck and be depressing. Maybe they are and I misunderstood. I always thought it was cool that earlier Christians were able to utilize common culture as an avenue for their faith expression. I don't want to give up those traditions associated with the holiday. Although several years ago we definitely cut back on a tradition that I felt was interfering with the observance: too many presents. It was just getting out of control and was distracting and running me ragged. I instituted the "it was good enough for Jesus; it's good enough for you" rule, which I've mentioned before. Each kid gets three gifts from Mom and Dad, plus small stocking
stuffers. I know it's made MY Christmas a lot easier and it's reduced the entitlement aspect.

[PrincessFiona]

Stop guys. Please. Its the red wine talking now, but ... it's the holidays. There is no place in a Santa thread for bahumbug. Either you do him or you don't (mwahaha innuendo intended. ). Now .... kumbaya, falalalals and .... happy holidays however you celebrate.

[GreyhoundsRUs]

I just want to say that there was a first grade fist fight at a friend's school today...the cause? The existence of Jolly Ol' St. Nick!

I hope everyone has a great weekend...regardless of your plans!