The concept of marriage?

Question

Ok this question has been branded around a bit so my appologies for this but

What if a person who is non-religious gets married and it is accepted by the state? What difference does this make to marriage as a whole when people are touting it as being relgious? Reason im asking is that if marriage knows no bounds of religion of otherwise then the concept of marriage should extend to homosexuals. If however it is not then the entire fabric of marriage is a sham as it discriminates against a group of people that are just as loving and caring as the next person.

I hear GW Bush saying that its to save family values, but what values are these when the US has such a high divorce rate. Ammending the constitution is not going to change this and anyway who said that gay parents can not provide the love and compassion to their children?

Whats your views on this?

(im not asking if you agree with homosexuality, so please could you refrain from saying its wrong)

imadzi; are you saying then that gay couples can not have that special relationship between them also? To me that sounds like you are saying gay couples are deficient in emotions of love and that as they are gay they are less of a person. Could you please clarify, I might be getting the wrong end of the stick here. Thanks.

Catalyst: you hit the nail on the head there girl, well-done.

Ahh but Schneb that is all assuming that Christanity hold the septure of marriage of which it doesnt, no religion does. But what if there was a religion out there that accepted homosexual marriage does GW Bush have the right to discriminate and violates the US constitution for such things? I dont think he does, do you?

Rev: I recently found out that Dick C's daughter is a lesbian much to my amusement, it does create a mindset of mockery to the situation.

Answer 1

I agree with you, I think. Marriage is a contract between two people regardless of their religious persuasions. If it helps them to make the contract before God, then that is good, but it's essentially a solemn promise between two people to give each other support and security for the rest of their lives. I don't see that it matters whether one is straight or gay.

Marriage is not about sex or the legalising of it, really, it's about a life's partnership much more - and, usually (not always), about the rearing of children. Whether or not partners of the same sex can give a child a balanced upbringing is an entirely different question and not what you asked.

Yes, it should safeguard family values, that is quite true. The divorce rate is a sad reflection that people aren't taking the promises made at the wedding seriously enough, coupled with the fact that it's relatively easy to get a divorce (though not painless).

As one of the older generation, I suppose I should be tut-tutting away about all sorts of issues and saying that 'it wasn't like that in my day'. Trouble is, I am still under the impression that my day is here and now and I haven't given up on trying to understand people and the way they act.

There's no doubt that society is changing fast in some places and the current laws aren't coping with it very well. I don't say I know what should be done about it, but there, I can still observe and try to see what are the essential values of things.

Answer 2

Marriage is an institution established by God in the book of Genesis. It is from there we receive His perfect plan of one man and one woman, leaving father and mother and clinging unto themselves as a type and model of what would eventually represent Christ and the church. Just because the laws of society has seen the validity of such a union and made it part of its contractual laws, doesn't give the right to pervert it into its own politically correct mold.
If you demand acceptance, and receive it at the end of a political gun barrel. In reality, what have you gained?
_________________________________

I'm just letting you know where the roots of marriage began. It predates any other religion or even race. Christianity was not around then, Judaism was not around then, so if the institution of marriage belongs to anyone, it is the God of the Bible. Marriage was hijacked a long time ago, and it has been distorted and perverted for years. The final nails were driven in the 60s.

As for Bush making his statements--they are not unconstitutional. Since when does "who you have sex with" classify you as a race or religion? As much as you want to believe otherwise, homosexuality, like any other sexuality, right or wrong, is behavioral.

Answer 3

If your question is family and family values, then we can look at the very first family and instantly see decline when family values are not taught to be done for the right reasons in the right way - which is God's way - and his way says that regardless of what we want to define as marriage, love, etc. that when we marry outside his will, raise our families outside of his teachings, and do not live by his standards, then we have problems. Divorce rate went up in America when when women entered the workforce after WWII as a choice - and from there it became a necessity because of greater greed in American lifestyle and demand - which if the women had returned to the house when their husbands returned home, and had all been content with the standard of living that God was providing this nation, we would not have seen the decline in American civilization that we have seen over the last 60 years.

Answer 4

Personally, I think that they should allow the marriage of homosexuals. My problem is more along the lines of who are you tell people that they can't. I think most people think that god has given them some special authority - but they really have some sort of superiority complex...or are just general homophobs.

To all Christians, there is homosexuality in the Bible, and I've just outlined the best case for homesexual marriage.

David and Johnathan.

Saul told David if he married Michal he would be his son in law for the second time.

The original Hebrew reads:
bstym ttctn by hynm

Literally translated:
You will become my son-in-law through two
The two being Jonathan and Michal

In 1 Samuel 18:3
We are told of the covenant between David and Jonathan
the Hebrew word ahbh is used
Literally translated to love/friendship

The key is looking at other passages in the bible that use the word ahbh. 20:17; Genesis 29:20 (Jacob's love for Rachel); and repeatadly throughout the Song of Solomon/Psalms to express a sexual desire - love in the context of marriage.

Answer 5

I don't think of marriage as a religious thing. I'm not religious and yet I would like to get married. I see it more as a public show of love and commitment between two people. It is a sign of the intention to stay together forever and I think that is something very brave and wonderful, even if it doesn't last.

This applies to gay people as well. I don't know why they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else just because of who they fall in love with. Who was it that said you can't help who you fall in love with?

America is a very religious country as a whole but I think it's a mistake to have a religious man as the leader of that country. He is trying to force his views onto people who do not want them. For example, in some schools in America, teenagers are not taught about contraception and are told only that abstination is the way to go. That is wrong. Kids are going to have sex whether they're told about it or not and surely it is better to educate rather than deal with the fallout?

Answer 6

I believe that the government should allow all types of marriage, as long as domestic violence or forcing is not involved. There should be an age restriction, too (I think that 17 and below is too young, these days), but I think that's it. I think that everyone should have to go to a courthouse first to sign documents and be legally married and then choose a religious ceremony for after if they so desire.

I'm Wiccan, and we allow homosexuals to be handfasted, which is our version of the marriage ceremony. Wicca is an accepted religion, at least in part, so why do they not count these marriages legally? Because there are a bunch of homophobes running the government right now. :-P to them!

Answer 7

Marriage traditionally is the department of religion, but also of business. You will find in history that marriage has a lot more to do with financial and political connections than it does with love in many cases, particularly with the aristocratic sorts. The concept of a dowery for example and the many complex laws of inheritance.

As women have, quite rightly, gained the right to own property, divorce their husbands, have started to be able to support themselves and their children financially and the stigmatism against children born out of wedlock is all but gone, so the many of the reasons that meant that people had to get married have also gone.


So what is modern, non-religious marriage about? In western cultures we have done away with arranged marriage as well, so marriage is now about love. I'm not sure that anyone needs a document from the government to tell them that they are in love though.

In western countries there are still some financial benefits to being married to do with taxes and pensions and things, so some people do it for those reasons. It s exactly those benefits that gay couples miss out on, which does seem pretty unfair.

In Britain, common-law marriages are not recognised, so married gay couples have more rights than straight ones do who have opted not to get government approval of their relationship.

In summary, I think that the concept of non-religious marriage is a bit out of date and is due a revamp.

One thing that I think is a real shame about the way our culture is shaping up is that the role of men in the family seems to have been thrown out. Lots of children don't have a father in their lives and many men seem not to feel that being a father and family man is important. I know that all single mothers work very hard and am not criticising, but maybe if as a culture we made being a dad a more appreciated thing to be, there wouldn't be so many single mothers.

Answer 8

Marriage is based on religious ideology not law.

Bush is an idiot for trying to dictate the personal affairs of two consenting adults.

As President of the U.S you would think he be the one to show tolerance despite his religion. Yet, there are people marrying there horses or dolphin or what not.

Family Values is not placed in Marriage- Marriage does not ensure a family will have a good set of values. This is were these religious idiots fail to realize.

Religion does not hold the monopoly on morals and values.

Answer 9

Marriage has always been defined as a including a man and a woman. It is only recently that same sex couples have wanted to be included in the definition of marriage. It is the same sex couples that are trying to change the definition of marriage, and many others are resisting the effort to change it. I love being married, and I don't like the idea of my special relationship being associated with same-sex couples' relationships. If a same sex couple wants to have a legal relationship similar to marriage, fine, but don't call it the same thing that my relationship with my spouse is called. I don't think the two relationships are the same thing.

All human beings are capable of loving others. I think that a same sex couple can be committed to each other, care for each other, and love each other, even for a lifetime, but the relationship between them should not be called a marriage. I simply want their relationship called by a different name, not the same name as a type of relationship that traditionally has only included a man/woman lifetime partnership.

There is an emotional, a legal, and a religious aspect of a marriage. We are all human, and we all have powerful emotions. The emotional relationship is not the major issue for me. I don't want to deny anyone the legal benefits and responsibilities of the legal relationship, but if you don't agree with the religious aspects of a marriage, please call your union something different, no matter what gender person you want to share your life with.

Answer 10

Marrage purely as a concept is religious in origin, but also a contract. It is the union of 2 people of concenting maturity and age that have agreed to be a family together. In that sense its stands to reason of human logic that homosexuals should have rights to marry. The spirituality of marrage and why it came from religion is that these 2 become one flesh; more than the interlocking of 2 physical bodies inn intercourse, it is the intriquete interwoven relationship of 2 souls. Physicaly it is impossible for same sex sexuality to interlock though they might embrace and commit acts of trying to unaturally work what is natural. Spiritually they are missing the connection too, for though like David and Johnathan who were soul mates, they were not so because of sex or some unatatural act. they were soul mates because of a bond of brotherhood. Too many people misinterpet the definition of soul mates to be about sex. True that a married couple join as one flesh and create a spiriual bond, the bond of brothers is likein Native American tradition of blood brothers when they become soul mates and very spiritual. Loosely definining morality to just human it only makes sense that if one wishes to contract a relationship of unity to create a family that 2 people should be able to. Marrage is sacred and unless one is married to God then they can not be married to each other and have success. That is why there is so much divorce. As for the President, I do not agree with his polotics, and is a hippocrit to make issue of gay marrage and have Chaney as Vice President.