we should also ban divorce and prosecute fornication and adultry.
More people, especially children, are hurt by divorce and unfaithful dads and moms than they are by gays marrying. Divorce changes childrens entire life and one partner walks away free or with another partner while the other raises children in poverty. Everyone's life is negatively affected.
If you truly believe in the sacredness of marriage than an iron clad contract should be drawn up and withheld by the law.
This is not my fight but if this sacredness is the only reason we are in this fight it makes no sense.
2006-10-26 11:17:11 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I agree...First marriage was never started to be "sacred" it was a legality to bind mates together when property laws started to come about and if you read the early ones nothing went to the wife..it all went to a male heir..real sacred huh?
So it changed and it became more about uniting clans/families or uniting to start a new settlement and the best way to do such was intermarry since you would all be kin then and hence trustworthy and the people did not get a say..it was arraigned by parents or elders.
It wasn't until the romantic period when people came up with marriage for love. That was the start of the "sacred" marriage. Now people can claim whatever they want about the definition of marriage being a man and a woman but they usually don't understand that "because it has never been that" has already been tried and rejected. Inter-faith marriages were illegal once, inter-racial marriages were once illegal. Now they are...why? Because it was found to be wrong to deny people marriage just because "It has never been that way and against the defintion" and "will ruin the sanctity" when there was nothing wrong with it.
Now people play the child card and think that will work, I have yet to see anything about the "Procreation Protection Act" which would make it punishable by death for a single person to have a child, to raise a child, to even give birth to a child. I have yet to see any marriage dissolved by the law because a couple could not or chose not to have children. Why?
Because there IS no good reason to deny gay marriage but the opponents will throw whatever mud they can to confuse and mislead people and gte the all riled up against the notion. If these same people REALLY had the convictions they say they do they would do exactly as you asked and would there be this kind of argument? Would people be arguing over the definition of marriage if it was about married couples being REQUIRED to have children since "marriage is about family"?..that's right NO
Marriage is and should be nothing more than a contract between 2 consenting adults that they will be together as spouses.
NO religion doesn't get to keep the word since it was first used as legality then it belongs to the state not church so go find another.
Basic rule of those who tell you something is immoral: they want you to do as they say, not as they do
2006-10-26 11:56:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
(sorry my thoughts are a little scattered around the place on this one)...
true we should contemplate such bans and prosecutions. But who has the right to act as judge and jury on such matters?
Fornication doesn't relate to marriage as do the others so I'll leave it out. Divorce is far too easily obtained for very stupid trivial reasons in my country and this shouldn't be allowed. Adultery is a real disgusting problem that eclipses everything else. If something should be prosecuted it should be this above all others.
Well you've based the arguement on divorce on the effect on children as a gay couple can't have children, that children aren't hurt by a "gay marriage" is a moot point. Marriage is strongly tied in with family life, to consider a "gay marriage" as a marriage is to lose sight of what marriage is about.
I truly believe in the sacredness of marriage but to say that an iron clad contract should be drawn up etc, is to place the law we have over God's law and thus marriage wouldn't be that sacred at all now would it?
Marriage doesn't belong to the state which can change its opinion arbitrarily. Whatever opinions we may have (or bans we make) don't change what marriage is (its been an institution for longer than people have had opinions). The best we can do is try to live accordingly to what it is meant to be.
ps. You also shouldn't wave poverty around like that. The vast majority of people able to read this message have never seen what poverty really is.
2006-10-26 11:40:42 · answer #2 · answered by Paul C 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is MY fight... I'm straight but I have wonderful, caring friends who are gay. I know lots of people who are hurt in a very practical way because they do not have the legal protections of marriage. That's aside from the whole discrimination issue.
There is nothing, not one single thing, that married heterosexuals would lose by allowing gay couples to marry - except maybe snobbery.
If the government really wants to 'defend marriage' they would do better to improve the economy so that there is less stress on married couples, who fight over money more than any other issue.
AND I agree that people who are against gay marriage on religious grounds need first to fight to ban divorce, since there is a lot more in the Bible against divorce than homosexuality.
2006-10-26 11:25:38 · answer #3 · answered by KC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Marriage was established from God in the garden of Eden. Marriage in biblical terms is between a man and a woman not anything else. As far as your divorce theory their are reasons for a biblical divorce and if one of these reasons are used and proved for divorce this does not relieve that individual from their responsibility to children. God set-up standards for marriage and divorce this does not mean all of mankind will always follow these standards. These standards will not be changed by GOD just to include more people in this sacred institution.
2006-10-26 11:39:31 · answer #4 · answered by peewee5001 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
marriage SHOULD be a contract between 2 people and treated as such. What and who can dictate "sacred"?
For that matter, to heck with marriage, 2 people living together should be able to draw up a contract and receive the same considerations as anyone else. I am talking about son's looking after mother's, brothers and sisters living together and so on. Any "JOINT" partnership in living should be recognized, lets get the whole thing OUT OF THE BEDROOM, that should NOT be the issue.
2006-10-26 11:21:14 · answer #5 · answered by Barbados Chick 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you're basing that law on the bible, then adultery should be the only exclusion to the rule. So your proposal would be fine with me. I hate it when I see couples (Christian or others) divorce just because they don't want to bother working out their problems, esp. when there are children in the picture. People seem to take marriage way too lightly nowadays.
2016-05-21 23:10:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Evangelical Right is about to get a rude awakening this November.
Church and State should always remain seperate. Any legislation of religion will be struck down by the ACLU, thank goodness!
It is a shame that so many people live their lives based on Judeao-Christian Mythology.
2006-10-26 11:25:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
what is your question? I agree that marriage is from God, that divorce is not good, adultery and fornication should be exposed also. maybe if we lived the example instead of just saying were against these things would could make a difference in this world.
2006-10-26 11:21:34 · answer #8 · answered by Lover of my soul 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What you need to understand is that God is not mocked. That means, very very very bad things upon those who on the wrong side of God on these issues.
There is a slow progression...
1. turning away from the faith, which you obviously have...
2. trying to find God in other things, when only Jesus can fulfill. Sex, perversion, etc.
3. in due season, God turns the people over: homosexuality
4. the nation will fall. the USA will cease to be a world power.
People do not put two and two together cause they do not know that God is truly ALMIGHTY. The judgments have been happening, SLOWLY. People like you may only learn when you're in the flames? I say, wake yourself. Mankind was created by a moral God. If he intended on gays, why did he make male and female in all of nature?
Read this paper www.homosexualityexplained.com
2006-10-27 03:43:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Personally, I think we should just make the only 'legal' form of marriage the one gotten in a courthouse - and it should be availible to any two people of legal age, regardless of gender. The churches can keep marrying whoever they want, but they still have to go get the 'real' license from the state. Let's see what that does to the 'sanctity' of marriage.
2006-10-26 11:20:47 · answer #10 · answered by eri 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋