We've had this debate before. But it's great to revisit it for new members and keep up with the changing times.

First and foremost religion has no place in government. So that ends that part of the debate right there.

Second it is MY opinion that government has no business in marriage. Why? We're talking about love here, with all the complaints about government sticking it's nose into this or that area of our lives why on Earth do we allow them to have anything to do with love?

The reason given is that marriage is considered beneficial and a stabilizing agent in society so the government should encourage it. So tax breaks are given to married couples and they need to file for marriage licenses and yada yada...

Nonsense. Anyone know a single person who got married for the tax benefits? Yes I'm sure some have, but you wanna take a guess on how well those marriages worked out? With divorce being so prevalent I hardly see marriage as any kind of stabilizing factor in society. I know plenty of completely unstable people who are married, the marriage itself often being the reason...

Remove government 100% from the business of marriage and this problem goes away. People can have whatever kind of commitment ceremony they want, it can be religious or not. It can be between men, women, groups.. whatever. Your relationship does not need a government sanction to be real. You can call it a marriage, a civil union, a superduperlovethang, what the F ever. It's no business of mine or anyone else's who you choose to drag with you through this crazy life.

Just my take on the matter. Next!

I agree that no religion should be specifically endorsed by the government. On the other hand, it is to the benefit of government that religion be allowed to thrive and be free of government oppression. Further, that people bring their deep convictions about human life, law, etc., with them to discussions about what is “good” for our country is to be expected. Most people find their religious faith supports and gives a deeper foundation for respect of life, etc., than merely assertions. In the United States, our Founding Fathers thought this obvious when they talked about “certain inalienable rights” given to us by our “Creator.”

I agree that government has no right sticking its nose into “love.”

I happen to believe there are separate issues we're discussing here. One is legal marriage for the good of children and society and the other is about rights and benefits gained from being in a certain relationship with someone. It is legitimate to talk about tax benefits for people in various living arrangements (for instance, a single person raising a child, or two aunts raising the child of a deceased family member). However, our country would totally implode, for instance, if marriage and natural bonds between parents and children ceased today and the government had to take the responsibility for arranging adoptions for all children, trying to establish responsibility for children, etc. It would be a total nightmare. The “norm” should be that parents take natural responsibility for their children. The government should encourage and provide supports to such relationships. Whether other relationships qualify for similar benefits is a good question to discuss, but the proper way to deal with it is not to act like objectively they are the same.

So "religion has no place in marriage" and "children have nothing to do with marriage" Are these serious comments?

So "religion has no place in marriage" and "children have nothing to do with marriage" Are these serious comments?

Marriage is a social contract between two people. No matter what country you live in the rules on the social contract of marriage were created by people. If those people were religious then religion probably influenced those rules. I think the point of this thread is that religion should NOT influence those rules. Unfortunately, humans are "flawed" in that they make decisions based on their life experience which will include their religion if they are religious.

"religion has no place in marriage"

There are a subset of marriages where religion is important. If it is important in your marriage then great. Why should your beliefs have an influence on my marriage? or anyone else's marriage? Religion has NO place in my marriage. Religion is never mentioned by me or my wife and somehow we have been together for 22 years.

"children have nothing to do with marriage"

There are a subset of marriages that have children. The act of having a child is a biological function through birth or a legal function through adoption. One clearly does not need to be married to have children through birth. Depending on where you live marriage may be required per the rules of adoption. I believe it is important for children to be raised by two parents but there are plenty of single parents out there doing a great job.

I believe it is important for children to be raised by two parents but there are plenty of single parents out there doing a great job.

Do you have a belief on the ideal way for a child to be raised? I agree that single parents do great jobs, adoptive parents can be wonderful, homosexual parents can be loving and do a great job, divorced couples can raise children in a great way. BUT, is there an ideal? Is the ideal to have children raised by both biological parents in a loving, nurturing home? Does the natural bond a child has and desires with his biological parents enough to suggest being raised by them together would be ideal?

Yes, that's the ideal situation most of the time. What exactly is the argument?

Yes, that's the ideal situation most of the time. What exactly is the argument?

If people can agree that is the ideal, then why shouldn't the government want to encourage this for the good of the children in society? Just because it doesn't always work out doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for the ideal or "best" for children.

Again, for me, there are two issues.

The ideal way for me to raise my children is based on my upbringing and life experience. What is ideal for my family will not be ideal for another family. It is impossible to place a standard on how children should be raised. I fail to see what argument you are making. I guess I agree with it "Is the ideal to have children raised [-] in a loving, nurturing home."

I'm not asking what the ideal way for YOU to raise YOUR children is. I'm asking if the natural bond a child feels and desires with his bilogical parents is enough for you to consider the ideal for children in society to be raised in a loving, nurtuning home by the biological parents he has a natural bond with?

My family is far from the ideal, and we are all happy and well-adjusted. But, I don't see a problem with striving for the ideal and governments wanting to promote/encourage it.

I answered your question. "What is ideal for my family will not be ideal for another family."

I do not think it is the government's place to decide what works and what does not work in a family as long as no laws are being broken. You are looking for a specific response but the best I can give you is children should be raised in a loving, nurturing home.

The ideal way for me to raise my children is based on my upbringing and life experience. What is ideal for my family will not be ideal for another family. It is impossible to place a standard on how children should be raised. I fail to see what argument you are making. I guess I agree with it "Is the ideal to have children raised [-] in a loving, nurturing home."

I'm not asking what the ideal way for YOU to raise YOUR children is. I'm asking if the natural bond a child feels and desires with his bilogical parents is enough for you to consider the ideal for children in society to be raised in a loving, nurtuning home by the biological parents he has a natural bond with?

My family is far from the ideal, and we are all happy and well-adjusted. But, I don't see a problem with striving for the ideal and governments wanting to promote/encourage it.

but the extrapolation of that argument is that infertile couples, couples past the age of menopause, and couples with no intention to have children should be denied legal marriage status.

i also have a problem w/ the idea that adopted children are somehow "less" to their parents. which is better, getting to choose a child, or getting stuck with whatever shoots out of your vagina? i mean, IMO, they're all tiny terrorists, but i can't say i have EVER met an adoptive parent who didn't feel the parental bond to their child.

if marriage is only "for the children of society" then i guess i'm never getting married. b/c i have no intention of ever having or raising children.

i also have a problem w/ the idea that adopted children are somehow "less" to their parents. which is better, getting to choose a child, or getting stuck with whatever shoots out of your vagina? i mean, IMO, they're all tiny terrorists, but i can't say i have EVER met an adoptive parent who didn't feel the parental bond to their child. if marriage is only "for the children of society" then i guess i'm never getting married. b/c i have no intention of ever having or raising children.

I have two biological children and 3 adopted children. While my adopted children love me with all their hearts, they still have a natural bond and desire to know their biological mother. I didn't mean to make it sound like adoptive parents love their children any less.

I'm also not suggesting that the "only" reason to get married is to have children. What I'm saying is, I can understand why the government initially came into the "marriage business". It was to promote an ideal home environment for children and giving tax breaks and other benefits was a way of encouraging it.

This is not about religion.