ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason

[i]Here’s a secular reason for you: Why would a strictly secular government encourage relationships that can’t possibly reproduce and further the species?  I mean, the relationship between the man and his sheep that CT dude hypothesized is equally as likely to benefit the species in the long run as a homosexual relationship.  After all, the difference between a homosexual relationship and two same-sex roommates is sexual pleasure and “love”, neither of which benefit society as a whole.  Should the government give benefits to roommates since their relationship benefits society just as much?

It seem to me that in a truly secular society, homosexuality would be prohibited, monogamy would be accepted, and polygamy would be highly encouraged as polygamy produces the highest number of offspring.[/i]
[i][/i] 
That’s not really a secular reason as being secular we don’t really care why a person wants to get married..  just that there is no religious reason prohibiting them.

Besides you do not touch then on infertile couples and old folks who want to get married.?.. Should we also ban those because they cannot produce offspring?

No, I’ve said it before .. the best thing to do would be to get the State out of the Religious institute of Marriage. Go back to the job it shoul dhave of ratifying the contract and let it be that.. Right now in the State of Florida a notary public an marry you.. The Staes can make it any representative of the State who can witness the contract being signed.. be it lawyer, justice of the peace or even a duly authorized police officer.

Now under this program if anyone wants to follow the route of religion then churches that will marry anyone can be found and this can be done at another ceremony.. Lots of churches will marry gay folk out there.. but.. the State needs to remove itself from religious ceremonies.

How is the state involved in religious ceremonies?  Is there a court-appointed representative that attends church weddings?  Are there governmental rules and regulations a priest must follow under penalty of fine or imprisonment? 

By definition, marriage must involve recognition by the state.  Recognition by any other authority would be ambiguous and would inevitably lead to numerous legal and societal difficulties as discussed above, not limited to difficulties determining appropriate alimony payments, child support, death benefits, social security benefits and so on.

The only way around the problems of legally ambiguous marriages would be to set governmental requirements such as who may be married, what blood tests are required, how the wedding should be witnessed, how the wedding should be documented and so on.  In this manner, the church would effectively become a branch of the government. 

If you want government meddling in marriage, than go ahead and try to change the accepted definition of marriage (recognition of a marriage by the state) to a new definition (recognition of a marriage by any of many churches).  Then you will have governmental meddling in religious marriage ceremonies on an unprecedented scale.

In the current (and traditional) system, people get married in just about any [b]ceremon[/b]y they want, religious or otherwise.  The government doesn’t care or involve itself with such optional ceremonies.  However, the couple is not acually [b]married[/b] until they fill out the legal form, get whatever tests are required, and the form is properly witnessed.  A religious wedding [b]ceremony[/b] is completely separate from the [b]marriage[/b] itself, which is a completely legal matter.  A wedding ceremony is not marriage!

Religion is no more involved in a marriage than it is involved in a divorce.  Both are completely secular and legal matters.  Any religious [b][i]ceremonies[/i][/b] merely serve to celebrate the wedding in a manner that the couple prefers.

Is Christmas the birth of Christ?  No.  It is a ceremonial holiday that (for some people) celebrates the birth of Christ.  Obviously, with respect to Christmas, there is a big difference. 

But somehow people confuse the [b]ceremony[/b] of a wedding with what a marriage atually is, a legally defined state.