How would you define Marriage?
- Thread starter Abaddon
- Start date
Harbringer
Your A One Flower Garden
I think a marriage should be between a man and a women, and same sex should be all the same rites, but just refer to it as a union so people can know rite of the bat, that and it pleases everyone.
"Are you married"?
"No Im in a union"
catch my drift.
"Are you married"?
"No Im in a union"
catch my drift.
Gotta keep divorce a sacred institution between a Christian man and a Christian woman.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Spoken like a true lawyer.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
"Marriage" is just a term that refers to the union of two people who love each other.
It can't really be compared to any of the other Christian sacraments, as all the other sacraments are not things that non-Chriatians seek out in their lives.
You can't make marriage a strictly religious institution, because non-religious people seek out marriage as well.
cubsfan6506
Got u
Marriage is a union specifically between two people with their last names starting with any letter but I. They can't get married for reasons that I can't explain but we must make it into a law so I can marriage can feel better.
robo-snickers
frisco pimp
or you can call it "the game"
"will she see our neighbor thong under our bed tonight?" or
"will she smell her sisters perfume on me?"
everyday can be fun and exciting
"will she see our neighbor thong under our bed tonight?" or
"will she smell her sisters perfume on me?"
everyday can be fun and exciting
Shadylookin
master debater
like it or not marriage does come with legalities that have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or any religion for that matter. There is a reason why non-religious posts like judges, mayors, justices of the peace, sheriffs, and such and such can marry people, and that reason is because marriage isn't a religious institution invited by Christianity.
I can't think of a single instance where 2 people got married to gloat about their trying to "destroy the establishment." Most people that want to get married, but are not legally permitted to do so, aren't doing it to get back at society, but rather to get their due process of the law.
Statistically the evil heathens or "non-religious" lead marriages similar to the religious, in fact they have a slight advantage at staying married longer than the average religious person.
Gay marriage has been legal in a handful of other countries and even in Massachusetts for a while and society as we know it has not collapsed
good luck with that, I'm sure Fred Phelps needs more for the flock
Sorry, what? Are we still talking about atheists getting married, or is this a rant about gay marriage?
Because if this is a rant about atheists getting married, perhaps you should rail against them celebrating Christmas and Easter, what with those filthy heathens talking about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and putting up trees and hunting for Easter eggs just to spite all the Christians.
And if it is a rant about gays wanting to use the term 'marriage' you'll have to fight that one on a case-by-case (or more precisely, a religion-by-religion) basis. The Catholic Church is still after me for having the gall to marry a woman that was already married. But seriously, at that point gay Catholics still could not be 'married', and for them to refer to themselves as married would be a violation of the 8th Commandment and thus a sin. Isn't that what you want? More realistically, don't you understand that that is all you can hope for in the long run? The 'institution' you speak of has changed quite a bit over the years (in the liberal Western world no more dowrys, no more arranged marriages, no more second-class-citizen status for wives, divorces now available to both spouses) and it'll either continue changing and adapting, or the 'institution' will fade away generation by generation. If saying that is peeing in people's cornflakes, then perhaps those people shouldn't be eating breakfast in public restrooms.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
A union between 2 consenting adults.
If people want to know someone's sexuality there is a much easier way to ask it... It seems to me that it would be much more useful as a definition to have the term marriage cover both hetero- and homo- partnerships.
A true lawyer recoginizes it as a sacred institution for his or her bank account, although, to be frank, some groups take the sacredness of divorce more seriously than others.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Quildavyr
Man of sick jokes!
Marriage is the hole in your pocket.Nothing else
Slavery,as a polite term?
Slavery,as a polite term?
Gabryel Karolin
Gammelgädda
Very easy. Marriage is whatever the church that conducts them want it to be.
If homosexuals and such people want to enter a formal union they will have to either convince their church to change their doctrine or find some other authority to formalize their partnership. Demanding that everyone should be allowed to marry in church is stupid.
I have little problem with same-sex couples living together, its up to them. I just don't believe in forcing your view on other people (in this case the various christian churches).
If homosexuals and such people want to enter a formal union they will have to either convince their church to change their doctrine or find some other authority to formalize their partnership. Demanding that everyone should be allowed to marry in church is stupid.
I have little problem with same-sex couples living together, its up to them. I just don't believe in forcing your view on other people (in this case the various christian churches).
And if it's not a church conducting the service?
That's forcing your views upon others that a non-Church marriage should be recognized.
Gabryel Karolin
Gammelgädda
That's fine. The less church influence on our daily life the better.
The term "marriage" is heavily associated with christianity though, isn't it? Maybe they should find something else.
Nope. The Christians stole it from the Jews. Maybe the Christians should find something else.
The way I understand the argument, influencing the government to recognize a marriage that certain churches won't is somehow forcing one's views upon those churches. I'm of the view that if the government is in the licensing business on this one, it shouldn't be swayed by narrow definitions put forth by organizations that don't even pay taxes. Neither should it force an organization to conduct ceremonies recognizing the licensed relationship. Perhaps an organization that wishes to discriminate should merely pay for a license to discriminate to offset the Justice of the Peace costs that their discrimination could lead to.
Similar threads
