Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The tide of marriage for same-sex couples has ebbed and flowed over the last decade with no end in sight. Because marriage sits squarely at the intersection of religion, law and society, the discussion around same-sex couples’ inclusion into the institution of marriage has been one of the most complex and hotly contested topics in America.
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
No religious institution SHOULD be forced to do that.
The middle path
According to this logic, then, marriage as a civil issue should be separate from the church.
The issues for those in support of gay marriage are civil. It seems that those in opposition are against the state telling the church what to do.
I agree with both stances. So is it therefore logical to no longer commingle church and state activities with legal church-marriages? That seems like a fine solution to me.
Gays just want the rights of marriage, that being state-sanctioning of their marriage which has everything to do with power of attorney, healthcare benefits, and financial death benefits. Do those who oppose gay marriage really have an issue with those things? It is not likely (I'm sure there are some yeses) that the majority don't want other people to do as they will. They simply don't want their religious institution to be dictated by the state as I now understand it.
Brady, thanks for clearing this up for me! So, can we agree to simply separate marriage as separate civil and religious institutions? Would that appease both sides?
- thedr9wningman
November 12, 2008 12:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We need a broad middle path
I really like the reasoning in this thread (leading up to and including your post), but a lot of thoughts/sentiments/ideals need to be "test-driven" on this middle path. I want to see that happen because I support it.
Personally, I hate debates and yes/no positions...I like it when you watch a person think ideas through and dance around until resting on a position they feel more secure with after the conversation.
Here are some opinions I am attempting to paraphrase from various discussion threads on this section of the opposing opinions web site:
a) same-sex marriage values more than just protections; they want the "intangeables" of marriage too
b) having civil unions classifying only the same-sex marriage is a fundamental inequality to marriage [which says that separate itself is unequal, and separate but equal will not be agreeable]
c) most of the division on this issue is the use of the word marriage in affiliation with same-sex couples, but much fewer will have an issue with ensuring same-sex couples the same [federal/state defined] legal rights as married couples
d) any argument about religious institutions not recognizing same-sex marriage is reversely encroaching upon the rights of the historical churches by state/federal involvement. [Thus, this violates the separation of church and state , which protects our society in both directions.]
Here are my thoughts as extension of those shared in the post above me:
1. why not have a new word that means marriage and is defined by religious institutions that support same-sex relationships?
2. why not support that state and federal policies and protections refer to all relationships formed through weddings/ceremonies/courts as civil unions to encompass marriage and any other religion -defined relationships in addition to state recognized/defined relationships.
Looking forward - the next questions
1. If state and federal authorities, back out of the picture after calling everything remotely resembling marriage as a civil union , how will the argument approach resolution at the steps of the churches in the US?
2. Is this an issue beyond the Christian churches? What about the Jewish faith or Islam? any alternatives for same-sex couples from those religions?
- nbeyene
April 11, 2009 4:06PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.