Marriage Equality In Australia Will Mean The End Of Easter Mother’s Day And Christmas

[Theodarzna]

And here I thought the concept of marriage was for people to spend their life together. Thank you for your "concern" nonetheless.

You can spend your life together with anyone.

[Cyberowl]

You can spend your life together with anyone.

I was just calling out his concern trolling how gay marriage will eventually lead to infidelity.

[Tijuana]

What are these people so scared of if gay people marry? Never understood why people make such a big deal about it.

Why do we let governments have ANY role in marriage, aside from filing a form that notes to the government that one has occurred?

[DarkTZeratul]

Why do we let governments have ANY role in marriage, aside from filing a form that notes to the government that one has occurred?

To ensure things such as tax brackets, asset management, legal rights, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.

[Cyberowl]

Why do we let governments have ANY role in marriage, aside from filing a form that notes to the government that one has occurred?

Why do we let religious institutions have ANY role in marriage, aside from a note how they should go on a hike because their religion isn't the owner nor inventor of marriage?

And what Dark said.

[Tijuana]

Why do we let religious institutions have ANY role in marriage, aside from a note how they should go on a hike because their religion isn't the owner nor inventor of marriage?

And what Dark said.

Because a marriage is a religious ceremony? I don't even...are....are you serious?

- - - Updated - - -

To ensure things such as tax brackets, asset management, legal rights, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.

You didn't read what I said. Try again.

Why do we give government any power in WHO marries WHO? Why is this a thing, at all? Filing a form to notify them of a marriage fulfills every purpose you just typed out. Every single one. Why do WE need THEIR fucking permission to marry anyone? Like, why did we ever give them this power anyway? It's stupid.

[Masark]

Because a marriage is a religious ceremony? I don't even...are....are you serious?

Except it predates every modern religion by millennia.

[Tijuana]

Except it predates every modern religion by millennia.

Source obviously.

[Mormolyce]

Why do we let governments have ANY role in marriage, aside from filing a form that notes to the government that one has occurred?

Presumably because it's a social ceremony and therefore administered by our social administrators.

- - - Updated - - -

Source obviously.

Wait are you asking for a source on marriage predating modern religions?

- - - Updated - - -

Because a marriage is a religious ceremony? I don't even...are....are you serious?

No, it's a social ceremony that some religions co-opted. Incidentally, the church didn't require a priest to even be present at weddings until the Council of Westminster in 1076. And a century later they made it a requirement that it be at a church. These changes were actually made largely in an attempt to regulate marriage, for practical purposes.

Here's a fun exercise: find a passage in the Bible depicting a wedding performed by a priest.

[Blur4stuff]

I'd rather the government have nothing to do marriage. If you want to have a religious ceremony that's your business. People could still sign contracts or construct wills if they are worried about their wealth and things like visitation rights.

[Masark]

People could still sign contracts or construct wills if they are worried about their wealth and things like visitation rights.

So we should toss out the established legalisms of marriage and replace it with a patchwork of new stuff that will at best do the same thing with more complexity and potential for unexpected consequences, because...?

Furthermore, wills don't change tax law, which marriage affects.

[Adam Jensen]

Except it predates every modern religion by millennia.

And that it exists inside and outside of many religions. Atheists can get married.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Because a marriage is a religious ceremony? I don't even...are....are you serious?

http://ask.metafilter.com/200553/How...arried-legally

If it were purely and solely a religious ceremony, ship captains wouldn't be able to perform it. Atheists couldn't it, and you wouldn't need a license to show that you've done it or are going to do it.

The act of getting married is not the same as the ceremony some people choose to have done. It is a societal construct before it is a religious construct, and yes, because committing to sharing your life with someone has definite and far-reaching implications beyond what your church has the ability to influence.

[Edge-]

http://ask.metafilter.com/200553/How...arried-legally

If it were purely and solely a religious ceremony, ship captains wouldn't be able to perform it. Atheists couldn't it, and you wouldn't need a license to show that you've done it or are going to do it.

The act of getting married is not the same as the ceremony some people choose to have done. It is a societal construct before it is a religious construct, and yes, because committing to sharing your life with someone has definite and far-reaching implications beyond what your church has the ability to influence.

Sadly whole "captains can marry people at sea" thing is a load of bunk. The only way the marriage would be legal would be if the captain was also a judge/minister/official like a notary public. Their being a captain doesn't matter, and I believe Navy captains are barred from said behavior so it's a non-issue.

Sorry to spoil that fun tidbit : (

Also judges and certain public officials have the authority to marry, and they don't need shit beyond that. They could be an atheist and the state don't care, shit's still legal.

It's what puzzles me about so many of the "arguments" against countries/states legalizing matters when they also happen to have something like a separation clause. Because most folks refer to to marriage and absolutely include all of the state-granted legal rights and privileges that come with it, no the purely religious aspect of it. There's a reason it's referred to as "marriage law" etc., because that's also what it's referred to outside of the religious context. So when folks come in saying, "But it's a religious ceremony! Government has no business in it!" I'm always left wondering why they use such a specific definition for it rather than the definition that is most common in everyday life.

[Mormolyce]

Sadly whole "captains can marry people at sea" thing is a load of bunk. The only way the marriage would be legal would be if the captain was also a judge/minister/official like a notary public. Their being a captain doesn't matter, and I believe Navy captains are barred from said behavior so it's a non-issue.

That does kind of get at the nub of the issue though - that what you actually need to perform a marriage is a celebrant's license or some equivalent, which is managed by the state. I believe priests of various religions also obtain a license of this kind, not sure if the process is substantially different from a regular celebrant. In any case, the priest is merely acting as an agent of the state in this capacity.

Even in the Middle Ages when the church began to get involved in marriage, it was doing so largely in its capacity as a state administrator. The motivation to require priests in attendance at weddings was to reduce "secret weddings", apparently this was an ongoing administrative issue for medieval societies which spurred centuries of legal/ecclesiastical reforms aimed at curbing it.

[Tijuana]

Presumably because it's a social ceremony and therefore administered by our social administrators.

- - - Updated - - -



Wait are you asking for a source on marriage predating modern religions?

- - - Updated - - -



No, it's a social ceremony that some religions co-opted. Incidentally, the church didn't require a priest to even be present at weddings until the Council of Westminster in 1076. And a century later they made it a requirement that it be at a church. These changes were actually made largely in an attempt to regulate marriage, for practical purposes.

Here's a fun exercise: find a passage in the Bible depicting a wedding performed by a priest.

I don't know what you mean by "modern" religions. But yes, religion predates marriage, by dozens of millennia, obviously.

- - - Updated - - -

http://ask.metafilter.com/200553/How...arried-legally

If it were purely and solely a religious ceremony, ship captains wouldn't be able to perform it. Atheists couldn't it, and you wouldn't need a license to show that you've done it or are going to do it.

The act of getting married is not the same as the ceremony some people choose to have done. It is a societal construct before it is a religious construct, and yes, because committing to sharing your life with someone has definite and far-reaching implications beyond what your church has the ability to influence.

Ship captains can't perform marriages, that is a myth from TV shows. I didn't say it was solely a religious ceremony; obviously there is MORE meaning than just the ceremony. Stop fighting straw men. Talk to yourself if you want to argue with your own ideas.

[Kujako]

If only the right were as upset about things like force child marriages in the US rather than what two adults do... ah well.

[Blade Wolf]

I don't know what you mean by "modern" religions. But yes, religion predates marriage, by dozens of millennia, obviously.

- - - Updated - - -



Ship captains can't perform marriages, that is a myth from TV shows. I didn't say it was solely a religious ceremony; obviously there is MORE meaning than just the ceremony. Stop fighting straw men. Talk to yourself if you want to argue with your own ideas.

The oldest dated marriage ceremonies that we know comes from the Aboriginal in Australia if i remember correct and that's atleast 30000 years old.

[Tijuana]

The oldest dated marriage ceremonies that we know comes from the Aboriginal in Australia if i remember correct and that's atleast 30000 years old.

That marriage was a religious ceremony, and they had religion before that. Religion predates almost every human construct.

[Mormolyce]

I'd like to congratulate old Tijjy for conceding that he's out of his depth on this one. An important step forward!

I don't know what you mean by "modern" religions. But yes, religion predates marriage, by dozens of millennia, obviously.

So you don't need a source on it after all?