RE: Freedom from religion
November 21, 2017 at 1:23 pm
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2017 at 1:35 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
I crimped the following text from another thread HERE because, this seems like the more relevant thread and I put quite a bit of effort into it.
There can be a civil institution equivalent to marriage without being considered equal to it. For example tea is functionally equivalent to coffee but they are essentially different substances. Civil marriages have an essential character that makes them different from other types of social institutions recognized by the state. They have an objective definition: an on-going legal bond between one man and one woman involving physical intimacy with the potential to produce off-spring. That is what differentiates a marriage from roommates (of any sex), live-in caregivers with power of attorney, business partnerships, casual lovers, kissing cousins, free-love communes, and yes, homosexual unions. It should be noted that many states in the USA have so-called common law marriages, automatically conferring marital status to long-time cohabiting heterosexuals who have been physically intimate. Apart from the traditional definition we get absurd results like Felix and Oscar becoming common law. This is not a "slippery slope" argument; but rather, an illustration of the unique character of civil marriage as an objectively definable and secular social institution.
As a practical matter, the state generally does not impose fertility tests or automatic dissolution of marriages when a couple is beyond child bearing years. If someone wanted to debate the merits of such policies I would be willing to listen but personally I would consider someone a spoiler for advocating those kinds of tests and measures. Also as a practical matter, the state allows religious leaders to officiate weddings, so that a civil marriage and sacramental marriage occur simultaneously as part of the ceremony. If someone wants to propose that religious leaders not be allowed to officiate civil ceremonies I am open to listening to that as well. Again however, that seems like the stance of someone willing to inconvenience millions just to be a spoiler.
So-called "marriage equality" erases the vital line between civil and sacramental marriages. For example, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist or even Swedenborgian weddings are sacraments tacitly accepted, for practical reasons, by the state as civil ceremonies. It is not a civil ceremony in-and-of-itself. That is why there are now cases before the US courts attempting to force religious businesses to recognize a civil marriage as identical to sacramental ones. There are even activists, in both the US and Australia, who want to force religious leaders and institutions to perform heretical sacraments within their sacred spaces. Again, I am open to the idea that the state has a legitimate state interest in legally recognizing homosexual unions as functionally equivalent to marriages, however, the state has no business making people perform religious sacraments against their will or to recognize nontraditional unions as equal, meaning identical, to sacramental ones.
There can be a civil institution equivalent to marriage without being considered equal to it. For example tea is functionally equivalent to coffee but they are essentially different substances. Civil marriages have an essential character that makes them different from other types of social institutions recognized by the state. They have an objective definition: an on-going legal bond between one man and one woman involving physical intimacy with the potential to produce off-spring. That is what differentiates a marriage from roommates (of any sex), live-in caregivers with power of attorney, business partnerships, casual lovers, kissing cousins, free-love communes, and yes, homosexual unions. It should be noted that many states in the USA have so-called common law marriages, automatically conferring marital status to long-time cohabiting heterosexuals who have been physically intimate. Apart from the traditional definition we get absurd results like Felix and Oscar becoming common law. This is not a "slippery slope" argument; but rather, an illustration of the unique character of civil marriage as an objectively definable and secular social institution.
As a practical matter, the state generally does not impose fertility tests or automatic dissolution of marriages when a couple is beyond child bearing years. If someone wanted to debate the merits of such policies I would be willing to listen but personally I would consider someone a spoiler for advocating those kinds of tests and measures. Also as a practical matter, the state allows religious leaders to officiate weddings, so that a civil marriage and sacramental marriage occur simultaneously as part of the ceremony. If someone wants to propose that religious leaders not be allowed to officiate civil ceremonies I am open to listening to that as well. Again however, that seems like the stance of someone willing to inconvenience millions just to be a spoiler.
So-called "marriage equality" erases the vital line between civil and sacramental marriages. For example, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist or even Swedenborgian weddings are sacraments tacitly accepted, for practical reasons, by the state as civil ceremonies. It is not a civil ceremony in-and-of-itself. That is why there are now cases before the US courts attempting to force religious businesses to recognize a civil marriage as identical to sacramental ones. There are even activists, in both the US and Australia, who want to force religious leaders and institutions to perform heretical sacraments within their sacred spaces. Again, I am open to the idea that the state has a legitimate state interest in legally recognizing homosexual unions as functionally equivalent to marriages, however, the state has no business making people perform religious sacraments against their will or to recognize nontraditional unions as equal, meaning identical, to sacramental ones.
