Thread: Where did the "right" to marriage come from?

Originally Posted by Alric

If civil unions were equal to marriage they would just call it marriage. They are not however, because they are a lesser form for marriage. The civil union debate is basically the segregation debate all over again. The claim that they are separate from one another but still equal is the excuse people gave for why blacks shouldn't have access to the same buildings white has.

We all know where that gets you though and its anything but fair and equal.

Quoted for truth. This is exactly that. "Separate But Equal". These are different circumstances, but in essence, when someone says that "Civil Unions exist so why let them get married? They're the same!" Not only are they using the Separate but Equal argument... they are saying that gays deserve all the privileges of marriage, but not the title "marriage".

And I just want to point this out... A lot of times when I see christians arguing against gay marriage, they act like the concept of marriage is a christian thing, to be done by a minister to marry a man and a woman. The only thing protecting me as an atheist from being cut out of marriage is the first amendment to the constitution. I can see it easily being accepted widely that "Atheists don't believe in the bible, or marriage, so why let them get married?". I've heard ignorant banter like that before. My favorite is when I talk about biblical concepts and I hear "But you're an atheist so why should you care"... God help me... "You're an atheist, ask a monkey to help you haaaa".

But back on topic...

Let people get married, and mind your own business. Like Xei said... Why isn't this common sense?

Originally Posted by mooseantlers

Can animals give their consent whether they get killed or not for our consumption?

Killing an animal is not the same as having sex with it, please don't confuse the two.

What happened to "God loves everyone equally"? Hypocrisy like that is why lots of people mistrust Christians. I assume you're American. Didn't the forefathers say "All men are created equal" or something like that?

Originally Posted by cedward1

Also, if we officially approve of straight marriage and in some states gay marriage, why stop there? Why can't I marry my brother, or my dog? Am I supposed to be "in love" to get married, or can I start a business and marry my business partner? Why can't groups of people get married?

Here we go again. Two consenting homosexual individuals wanting to get married have nothing to do with marrying a pet.

A link to share, it's an image:

Had to explain Gay Rights and Equality to someone who likened gay marriage to marrying your toaster. I made this. - Imgur

Originally Posted by Marvo

Killing an animal is not the same as having sex with it, please don't confuse the two.

Killing a human isn't the same as having sex with one either, and you can't rape or kill a human. Animals have less rights. (okay, seriously, we need direct notifications for quotes)

Originally Posted by mooseantlers

Killing a human isn't the same as having sex with one either, and you can't rape or kill a human. Animals have less rights. (okay, seriously, we need direct notifications for quotes)

Raping an animal is not the same as having sex with it, please don't confuse the two.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Killing an animal is not the same as having sex with it, please don't confuse the two.

I'd say that killing an animal is a more serious thing to do than having sex with it, therefore consent should be more relevant when it comes to killing than when it comes to sex.
And killing animals isn't completely necessary for us. Even if it was, intentions and necessity shouldn't change the importance of consent.

EDIT:

Wow, that was so off-topic.
To make up for that, I'll type out my opinion on marriage, and by extension gay marriage, I guess.

I don't think there should be a "right" to marriage. Marriage is a service provided by a religious institution. Or at least it should be. As it is now, it has way too much importance in society, which pollutes legal matters with religious bullshit. The fact that marriage is linked to christianity is the sole reason, I think, that gay marriage could possibly be objectionable.

And to be honest, I think the objections should be considered. I look at it like this; since it's a service that comes from the church, the church should be in charge of it. Thus, they get to say who can and who can't get married, no matter how ridiculous their reasons are. No wall-eyed marriages in this church, bitches.

That should be fair. They should have the freedom to be assholes of whatever level they please.
All those legal advantages that comes from marriage should just be severed from marriage and applied somewhere else. Don't we already have a version of marriage that isn't religious? Civil unions? Take all the advantages from regular marriage, put it in civil unions. This way, gay people can have their marriage with all the advantages while not having to enter a church that basically wants to condemn them to hell. And at the same time, the church doesn't have to be forced to marry people they don't want married.

Maeni is pretty much right. Marriage should really just be reduced to what it is, a religious ritual, rather than some legal arrangement. People can get civil unions, if they want recognision by the state. This goes for all kinds of couples.

Historically marriage was never a service performed by a religious organization. If two people swore love for each other and then started living together, they were married. You didn't need the church to say you were married, everyone just accepted it. It isn't a religious matter now either, anyone can get married except gays. Atheists get married all the time, you just get a certificate saying you are married a boom, the deed is done. So why should religion have control over marriage when it never did it the past and doesn't currently have control now?

No one really cares about the idea of "marriage". Churches want control over marriage for power. They will not accept civil unions being the dominate form of marriage, though it would probably make all gays, atheists and the majority of everyone else happy.

I totally agree with you, giving civil unions all the powers of marriage would make most people happy, however the issue was never over the word marriage but over those powers. The people who want to keep those powers for them self are not going to be happy, but I say screw them. They have no right to special privileges over everyone else.

Well, yeah.
I view marriage as sort of an official thing that you seal with a ritual, whether religious or not. Anything else is just, well, a relationship. I never felt that marriage was a necessarry thing, in fact I might be leaning towards wanting marriage abolished all together.

But, as it is right now, marriage seems to be run by the church, for the most part. If you want a "proper" marriage, you have to get it through the church. And that's the problem. So instead of trying to let gays get married in churches, we should just start giving the same advantages to people who get non-religious civil unions and what-have-you.

I disagree that marriage isn't a religious matter today. I can't speak for America, but in Denmark, atheists get married in churches all the time, not because marriage has nothing to do with religion, but because people don't give a flying fuck. They've come to think of marriage as a tradition, something everyone does, and so they just ignored the fact that what they're doing is rooted so deeply in religion. That doesn't change the fact that it is a religious ritual in a religious environment. When you say that "you just get a certificate saying you are married a boom" aren't you talking about civil unions? I'm totally for that, and I'm pretty sure gay people can get that?

To me, the ENTIRE argument against gay marriage balances on the church. If you "do the deed" in the church, then the church should be allowed to give you the boot for whatever reason they want. If you get a civil union outside of the church, then there's no argument against homosexual unions.

If what you're saying is that gay people can't even get a non-religious civil union, then that's what needs to be changed.

No I am talking about normal marriages. Since a marriage certificate is a legal document you request them from the government. The government doesn't care if you perform the marriage ritual in a church or not. So you can usually go down to town hall and have public official marry you, and you are married.

Even if you get married in a church, you still have to go and request a certificate from the government. So its obviously a government ran institution. So yes, heterosexual couples can get nonreligious marriages by government officials outside the church but gay couples are banned from nonreligious marriages by government officials outside the church. It has nothing to do with religion in those cases but it is still banned.

If gay people cannot go to the town hall and have an official non-religious marriage, then that is completely outrageous.
If that really is the case, then religious people who oppose gay marriage should go shove a bible up their ass.

I guess I've been misinformed about how marriage works, then. Literally the only argument against gay marriage I can see is a religious one. And if religious people want gay people to stay out of their churches then let 'em have their churches to themselves. But if it really is true that marriage has nothing to do with churches or religion, then I simply cannot see how we've come to this situation? Why can't gay people just get a civil union in the town hall then?

EDIT:
Time to look up Wikipedia.

Civil union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So now I'm confused. Am I right when I say that civil unions and marriage are EXACTLY THE SAME except marriage has a religious ceremony added on top?
Then what does it mean that some states offer "Unions granting rights similar to marriage"
How can they be 'similar'?
And why do people even want marriage, if civil unions or other non-religious methods of getting married is exactly the same?

No civil unions are not the same thing, at least not in the US. The federal government does not recognize civil unions as a legal union. You do not get any of the normal federal benefits that married people get.

Also if you get married, all states see you as married. With a civil union most states don't recognize them, so if you travel outside your state you lose your relationship status and all benefits. That is if civil unions is even legal in your state, which it isn't in nearly all the states.

You are asking the perfect question, why would people care if they were exactly the same? They obviously wouldn't, however they are not even remotely the same. Civil unions are the barely legal, outlawed in most states, you don't even get a fraction of the same amount of rights, shitty second place loser to marriage.

Rather than attempt to justify sex with animals...

I'm going to attack the idiotic fallacy that "Gay marriage leads to interspecies marriage".
You're forgetting one key factor. Both marriage and sex require consent. An animal is not able to consent to sex, therefore it is not and never will be possible to legally have sex with an animal, regardless of whether or not gay men can be married.

Just because we tamper with the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, DOES NOT MEAN that we will slide down the slope and allow INTERSPECIES marriage.

Read more here: Fallacy: Slippery Slope

Originally Posted by Alric

No civil unions are not the same thing, at least not in the US. The federal government does not recognize civil unions as a legal union. You do not get any of the normal federal benefits that married people get.

Also if you get married, all states see you as married. With a civil union most states don't recognize them, so if you travel outside your state you lose your relationship status and all benefits. That is if civil unions is even legal in your state, which it isn't in nearly all the states.

You are asking the perfect question, why would people care if they were exactly the same? They obviously wouldn't, however they are not even remotely the same. Civil unions are the barely legal, outlawed in most states, you don't even get a fraction of the same amount of rights, shitty second place loser to marriage.

But you just said that...

Originally Posted by Alric

No I am talking about normal marriages. Since a marriage certificate is a legal document you request them from the government. The government doesn't care if you perform the marriage ritual in a church or not. So you can usually go down to town hall and have public official marry you, and you are married.

So why can't gays just get "married" through the government? That way they don't have to enter a church, and thus the church should have no say in it? I thought getting married in the town hall was civil union.

No, getting married at city hall is still a marriage. Nonreligious marriages are still called marriages if they are between a heterosexual couple. Civil unions is a lesser form of marriages that are only for gay couples regardless of the couples religious beliefs, and is illegal in most places and where it is legal has inferior rights.

So gay couples can not get 'married' by the government, but everyone else can.

Well then I've misunderstood the situation. This is definitely a weird system.

It is a weird system because the government is trying to illegally oppress a section of the general public(people who are homosexual). In the US the government does some time pass illegal and unconstitutional laws, and they usually remain in effect until the courts overrule them and says it unconstitutional. The courts have not yet ruled on this, but it is probably only a matter of time before the supreme court declares the federal ban on gay marriages unconstitutional.

Until that time however, we should still support our fellow Americans who are being oppressed by the US government