The Great Chick-fil-A Snake Oil "Faith" Hustle

[Guest Anonymous]

There are many instances where one does not have power over the other, such as in the cases of siblings and cousins. And why would there be a need to somehow confirm it is consensual. We don't seek out any extraordinary effort to make sure other couples are totally consensual. There is always a possibility of one person feeling forced into a marriage. Not to mention the fact that some religions still do arranged marriages where one or the other person may feel like they have no say in the matter at all and might not even want to get married, yet the law still allows for them to be married.

Consent matters. It's been a long time since I got a marriage license but they asked me if I was doing it of my own free will when I did. There is always a possibility of someone being forced into marriage but that's widely accepted as being a bad thing, in the United States at least. Are you okay with people being forced to marry someone they did not freely consent to wed? If you don't believe that people should be protected from coerced marriage to the best of our ability then I don't think I can constructively engage with you further on the subject. Consent is essential to forming a valid marriage contract in my opinion.

I believe that there is still an uneven power dynamic between siblings. In the case of same(ish) age cousin marriages, I agree that consent can exist. It's not for me but it's currently legal in some states and if those people are fully consenting it's not my business.

[CanadianHippie]

There are many instances where one does not have power over the other, such as in the cases of siblings and cousins. And why would there be a need to somehow confirm it is consensual. We don't seek out any extraordinary effort to make sure other couples are totally consensual. There is always a possibility of one person feeling forced into a marriage. Not to mention the fact that some religions still do arranged marriages where one or the other person may feel like they have no say in the matter at all and might not even want to get married, yet the law still allows for them to be married.

Barring some sort of psychological issue that has arisen due to whatever may cause it, incest between family members is generally only consensual when the two parties spent the childhood of at least one of them with very little or absolutely no contact. Just do a little research on kinship imprinting. It's actually pretty interesting. Even non-related individuals who spend enough time together prior to the youngest reaching older childhood (around 7 or 7 years of age) will imprint on each other as not being an appropriate sexual partner.

There isn't the necessary background for a relationship between to LGBTQ adults to be considered an indication of psychological issues.

Siblings can very much have a power inequality. As for cousins, in many jurisdictions it is legal for cousins to marry. Hell in California it's legal for first cousins to marry (as in you can marry your dad's brother's child as long as you are both meet the other requirements for marriage such as age, ability to consent, etc.)

[formergothardite]

You know, if we let black people and white people marry each other, the next thing you know, brothers and sisters will be marrying each other and people will be marrying animals.

And, while we're at it, we shouldn't let women get the vote because, what's next? Giving babies the vote? Giving dogs the vote?

/sarcasm

Needless to say, I think slippery slope theory is bullshit.

The slippery slope argument is what people use when they have no other good, non-religious reason to not allow people who are gay equality.

[She Who Laughs]

American law allows for unconsenting people to marry? I'm confused why you brought up other countries' laws.

I know several women in the seventh day Adventist church who had arranged marriages and did not want to marry the person that was arranged for them to marry. Because of pressure from those they saw as an authority figure or as being in a position of power over them, they felt they could not refuse the marriage. This is here in the good old USA and I don't see that as any different than the person who says that one reason for relatives to not marry is because one person is in a position of power over the other such as a parent marrying a child or an aunt marrying a nephew or niece.

ETA: you don't seriously think that arranged marriages only happen in other countries and that there aren't people in the US who are married without their willing consent because they have been forced or coerced, do you?

[Guest Anonymous]

I know several women in the seventh day Adventist church who had arranged marriages and did not want to marry the person that was arranged for them to marry. Because of pressure from those they saw as an authority figure or as being in a position of power over them, they felt they could not refuse the marriage. This is here in the good old USA and I don't see that as any different than the person who says that one reason for relatives to not marry is because one person is in a position of power over the other such as a parent marrying a child or an aunt marrying a nephew or niece.

Okay, that happened. That doesn't mean that it's right. It's wrong and I feel terrible for anyone in that position.

Do you think it's okay or desirable for people to marry due to coercion? Or should we attempt to prevent that?

**ETA to respond to your ETA:

ETA: you don't seriously think that arranged marriages only happen in other countries and that there aren't people in the US who are married without their willing consent because they have been forced or coerced, do you?

I believe it happens and I believe it's wrong and should be prevented whenever possible.

[formergothardite]

I know several women in the seventh day Adventist church who had arranged marriages and did not want to marry the person that was arranged for them to marry. Because of pressure from those they saw as an authority figure or as being in a position of power over them, they felt they could not refuse the marriage. This is here in the good old USA and I don't see that as any different than the person who says that one reason for relatives to not marry is because one person is in a position of power over the other such as a parent marrying a child or an aunt marrying a nephew or niece.

And how exactly does any of this relate to two consenting adults who actually want to get married, besides trying to make it look like that gay marriage will lead to horrible things? Dropping the slippering slope argument, because it was lame when used with interacial marrriages, any other real, non-religious reason not to allow gay people to get married? Anybody?

[She Who Laughs]

I never mentioned slippery slope nor did I ever say I was arguing against anything, I do believe that once gay marriage is legal that we will see other groups try to get in on the equal rights marriage bandwagon. Polygamists have wanted it for years and other groups are sure to follow.

I think the government should just legalize civil unions for same-sex couples so they can claim the benefits of marriage without the need for the argument over what the definition of marriage should or shouldn't be. Once the civil union has happened, these couples could find a church that is ok with same-sex marriage and have a religious ceremony if they so chose.

[She Who Laughs]

I guess I can say that I don't think "horrible things" will follow. I do think it is the natural progression of things for other groups to come forward and want the same equal rights as everyone else. Personally, I think if a brother and sister want to marry or an aunt and nephew and they both are adults, and they both consent, or if polygamists want to marry and they all are consenting adults, then I say let them marry. You can't say I am using the slipper slope argument, because I am not arguing that these things are necessarily horrible or should be prevented at all costs.

[Artemis]

Hey haven't finished this one, but got a phone call half way through post dealing with Leviticus issue to say friend had had a bad accident and could we contact some people. Then had everyone on holday's animals to do. Now have to feed family and wait anxiously for news of friend. Back when I can.

[debrand]

I guess I can say that I don't think "horrible things" will follow. I do think it is the natural progression of things for other groups to come forward and want the same equal rights as everyone else. Personally, I think if a brother and sister want to marry or an aunt and nephew and they both are adults, and they both consent, or if polygamists want to marry and they all are consenting adults, then I say let them marry. You can't say I am using the slipper slope argument, because I am not arguing that these things are necessarily horrible or should be prevented at all costs.

I agree except in regards to sibling,parent/child marriage. In order to protect future generations from genetic defects, the government would have to require couples to be sterilized-as you pointed out. However, that would mean that the rules for marriage would be different for some couples. I just don't see that happening especially when you consider that there are probably only a small number of consenting couples who are so closely related to one another.

I hope that your friend is fine Artemis

[She Who Laughs]

I agree except in regards to sibling,parent/child marriage. In order to protect future generations from genetic defects, the government would have to require couples to be sterilized-as you pointed out. However, that would mean that the rules for marriage would be different for some couples. I just don't see that happening especially when you consider that there are probably only a small number of consenting couples who are so closely related to one another.

I hope that your friend is fine Artemis

Preventing marriage doesn't prevent genetic defects. All they have to do is just live together and have children outside of marriage. Prohibiting marriage just denies them the right to the other benefits of marriage that everyone else has, it most certainly doesn't prevent them from having children together. Having children outside of marriage becomes more and more commonplace every day and no one hardly bats an eye anymore, so I really don't see how prevent marriage protects against genetic defects.

[samithemage]

I think it makes more sense for the government to get out of the "marriage" issue all together. The government should issue civil unions for all consenting adults who wish to participate. This should work for polyamorous situations as well, though there would have to be some legislation on how the break up of such relationships would work. These civil unions should grant all of the rights of "marriage." Then the people involved in these civil unions can find a church that is willing to marry them. Many churches are happy to marry gay couples, and there are churches willing to marry polyamorous groups as well. This way everyone could have access to the rights of marriage, but the government wouldn't have to define marriage. Churches could define marriage in whatever way they please (which they already do), but no one would have their civil rights limited. I hope that makes some kinda sense. I had a couple of glasses of wine before jumping into this overly complicated thread.

[Anxious Girl]

I think it makes more sense for the government to get out of the "marriage" issue all together. The government should issue civil unions for all consenting adults who wish to participate. This should work for polyamorous situations as well, though there would have to be some legislation on how the break up of such relationships would work. These civil unions should grant all of the rights of "marriage." Then the people involved in these civil unions can find a church that is willing to marry them. Many churches are happy to marry gay couples, and there are churches willing to marry polyamorous groups as well. This way everyone could have access to the rights of marriage, but the government wouldn't have to define marriage. Churches could define marriage in whatever way they please (which they already do), but no one would have their civil rights limited. I hope that makes some kinda sense. I had a couple of glasses of wine before jumping into this overly complicated thread.

Why should churches get to define marriage only? That's why we have civil marriage (which 2 people get married by the government) and matrimony (religious marriage). It still boggles my mind that people can't differentiate between the 2.

[samithemage]

Civil marriage would work for me too. I just think that the government should provide certain legal protections to people who chose to apply for it. Beyond that, whatever churches want to do is up to them, even if it is terrible and hateful. I just thought that taking the term "marriage" out of the discussion might make things easier for the crazy people, but we shouldn't really cater to the haters.

[Coconut Flan]

I'm not sure we can arbitrarily relegate matrimony to mean a religious ceremony. The definitions I saw all also included the state of being married - religious or not. I'd never heard of matrimony being used in a solely religious sense so I thought I should check it out.

[formergothardite]

At this point there really is no point in switching to civil unions. The fundies would never approve because the gays would still be getting equality and then could find a church to give them a marriage. So there would still be gay marriage. I don't see the point of dropping marriage right now. People just need to accept that marriage is not only for religious people.

[samithemage]

I'm not sure we can arbitrarily relegate matrimony to mean a religious ceremony. The definitions I saw all also included the state of being married - religious or not. I'd never heard of matrimony being used in a solely religious sense so I thought I should check it out.

I've heard this idea before, of changing the terminology from a government civil union and then allowing churches to support their own ideas of marriage. I do understand how some people would find that offensive, because it seems like a cop out...and maybe it is. I think civil and religious marriage (unions, whatever term) should be separate. I just think that straight marriage, gay marriage, or polyamorous marriage are issues that the civil government should be supportive of unless it involved people who couldn't consent. I think a lot of people who are against gay marriage, at least from my experience, worry that their church will be forced to marry gay people (which is ridiculous). I think if the government got out of using the term marriage, but simply allowed people who had civil unions all of their rights under the constitution, then religious haters should shut up, not that they would, but they would have less ground to stand on. I just want a way for everyone who wants to marry to get married and this seems like it could work as a compromise. Everyone would have the same legal rights, but individual churches could decide the sorts of people the marry. I think that the churches marrying who the want part is how it works now anyway, so why not make religious and civil marriage two separate things.

[deelaem]

I answered this question several pages back. I am tired, actually, I don't have to keep answering the same questions, but whatever. I have been following the Duggars for a long time and saw mention of this site on the 19 kids TLC forum. I was curious if there were really so many families like the duggars, didn't think it was possible in modern America.

I just so happened to post in a thread talking about a controversial topic. I have also posted in other thread before this one.

That isn't even CLOSE to answering my question. Damn, you fundies are so predictable.

[formergothardite]

That isn't even CLOSE to answering my question. Damn, you fundies are so predictable.

They so are.

1. Come here and say something controversial.

2. Cry persecution when question

3. Either half answer question or don't answer them at all.

4. Say things like "I'm done talking about this." when the questions get tough.

5. Flounce.

[Kitchen Princess]

I'm not religious, nor do I see anything reverently sacred about marriage, per se. Whatever is sacred about it is between me and my partner.

That said, the language I have used for both of my partnerships has been "marriage". Four years the first time and 22 years this time. Marriage of secular people goes back a long long way.

I'm not offended to think of my marriage as a "civil union". I just think having a non-religious-joining-of-two to be required to be called a "civil union" and not a "marriage" is just totally unnecessary. I'm married, not civilly united. To give gay people's joining-of-two a different term is not fully imbuing them with equality. To convert my heretofore marriage to a civil union just because I'm areligious places me in that same class.

There shouldn't be two classes.

[formergothardite]

The word "marriage" isn't just for religious people and hasn't been for a long time so there is no reason to switch it now.

[Kitchen Princess]

The word "marriage" isn't just for religious people and hasn't been for a long time so there is no reason to switch it now.

Exactly.

[GeoBQn]

In Israel, there is no civil marriage, so marriage is handled by each religion separately. It's created a situation where if two people can't get married according to the rules of their religion (a Jew and non-Jew, a Catholic getting married a 2nd time), or if a couple doesn't want to have an Orthodox Jewish ceremony, they have to get married outside of the country. So many Israelis get married in Cyprus that the capital city has a kosher restaurant.

[Guest Anonymous]

Because marriage is the objective, it's existed for ages, and it's what everyone else has, anything that isn't marriage (even if it's marriage by any other name) is going to be "less than". It'll be a sop, no more and no less.

[YPestis]

I think the marriage issue defines the barrier between small-government conservatives and the social conservatives. Fundies belong to the latter despite saying they advocate smaller government. Libertarian leaning conservatives would probably agree with the idea of civil unions for any consenting adults who are interested. Social conservatives want more government regulation in private lives as a way to maintain public morals.

I agree with the idea of letting government hand out civil unions to anyone interested. This way, any children/dependents and property will be protected, especially in case of separations. The worst thing is to have adults who care for dependents who are not allowed say in those dependents when something happens to the legal guardian. Gay couples tend to have that issue, especially in states where they are not allowed legal recognition of their relationships. However, I would say that grandparents, caring for elderly and other nontraditional family arrangements are also in danger of custodial disputes due to lack of recognition of their rights as caretakers and legal guardians.