English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I was flabbergasted when I read that someone opposed same-sex marriage on the grounds that it went againt the religious institution of marriage.
*ring! ring!* it's the clue phone folks, pick it up.
Marriage is a LEGAL institution. NOT a religious one. Get that simple and irrefutable fact through your thick skulls once and for all ok?
If you don't believe me, try this simple experiment;
Head down to a church or synagogue or mosque and try and get married without the legal paperwork. Can't be done.
Now, go to city hall and get married by a judge or a Justice of the Peace without ever mentioning a magic sky-pixie.
No problem at all.
So, to sum up; Marriage is a legal institution and not a religious one. Making marriage a CIVIL right. You cannot deny two consenting adults the right to enter into a legal contract. And that is exactly what denying same-sex marriage is.
Understand now?

2007-02-08 03:11:24 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Oh and before some pin-head says something like "we got married and there was no legal paperwork... blah, blah, blah"
I'm talking about the ACTUAL institution of marriage. Little kids play act marriage every day, does that make thier game real? No. Same thing. Without the legal paperwork your marriage is nothing more than play acting.

2007-02-08 03:15:57 · update #1

Well we already have three people who don't seem to be able to read.
READ the question people.
Oh and for the record, the first time that the church got involved in marriages was in the 12th century when they saw that people would PAY to be married. So they made up some crap about it being " part of god's plan" and voila! More money in the coffers...

2007-02-08 03:17:52 · update #2

And for those telling me to read the bible, I've done it. I own 4.
And I find reading it to be like any other book of mythology. Trite, dull and without any real revelation.
So, thanks, but no thanks. I won't waste my time again.

2007-02-08 03:19:26 · update #3

Mrs. Harper,
Then you'll agree that the initiative to annul any marriage that is childless in 3 years to be a good one then?
After all, according to you, marriage is to produce offspring right?

2007-02-08 03:20:33 · update #4

21 answers

God forbid you guys ruin the sanctity of straight marriage!!!

Britney Spears' 52-hour marriage and her 3 month marriage have been sanctified.

Elizabeth Taylor's 8 marriages were sanctified.

Ted Haggard's sham-of-a-marriage was sanctified.

Hmmmmmm.

.

2007-02-08 15:04:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Some other person pointed out, too, that the reasoning behind not allowing gay marriage is that it's 'wrong' based on the morals of the church...which should be thrown out based on separation of church and state
BTW, the ancient Egyptians 'married' and it had absolutely nothing to do with the Bible so marriage is definitely not a religious institution

2007-02-08 03:20:40 · answer #2 · answered by strpenta 7 · 4 0

Wow! Thank you for such a passionate explanation! I never thought of it that way. It's been 18 years since I first got married and so I'd forgotten all the legal part.
BUT don't forget how all the legalities came to fruition. Religion and the belief that our founding fathers had that it would make for a better country. Even though we've screwed all their origional plans up with modern thinking (not to mention a melting pot of religion and culture) there are alot of Christian Americans out there who want a better life for EVERYBODY. No matter race, sexual orientation, religion, or political standing. They're doing their best to make a difference but as always with the government...it takes time.

2007-02-08 03:22:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Marriage was not a religious instution until the 16th or 17th century, when the church decided to interfere in every aspect of people's lives. Before then, it was simply a private contract between two people that MAY have been stored in certain pagan temples (as all contracts were stored).

2007-02-08 03:17:38 · answer #4 · answered by mamasquirrel 5 · 3 1

While modern gov't does indeed regularly overstep its authority, it's equally true that historically, common law marriages without paperwork have always been acknowledged. Marriage is between the man and the woman, witnessed by God and sometimes two witnesses. Only a bureaucrat can believe that a piece of paper means more than that.

2007-02-08 03:24:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

"So, to sum up; Marriage is a legal institution and not a religious one. Making marriage a CIVIL right. You cannot deny two consenting adults the right to enter into a legal contract. And that is exactly what denying same-sex marriage is.
Understand now? "

So you also are for allowing blood siblings to marry? They are 2 consenting adults.

How about a zoophile and his sheep? The man and the sheep are adults for their species...and the sheep seems willing...will you allow them to marry?

It is only a legal contract...right?

If it was only legal...you could choose a term other than "marriage" - instead of trying to change the meaning held for centuries.

~ Eric Putkonen

2007-02-08 03:28:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

Hate to tell you, but you're wrong in one way, yet correct regarding the piece of paper. Marriage is referred to as being sanctioned by God in several places in the Bible, yet they didn't have to file at the local courthouse for a license.
In these later centuries, taking out marriage licenses was done to promote keeping tabs for the census and to provide statistics to insurance companies and others who needed information on who they could market their products to, as well as what benefits the states would receive from the Feds come budget time.
I agree with you that these days it is a piece of paper, but in reality, people who are of a religious persuasion see it as a Holy Union.

2007-02-08 03:19:22 · answer #7 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 4 2

When I got married, I vowed to God that I would be joined to my husband until death. I would forsake all others, and honor and respect him.
I didn't do it for a tax break, or legal rights. I did it because it's Gods desire that man and woman be joined in marriage and procreate.
Now if you aren't religious, and marriage to you means a legal contract, then whatever, that's your opinion, go for it, but you'll have to move to a state that allows same sex unions, and if you are religious and can find a Reverend to perform it then more power to you. I'm guessing it will be a long time before all 50 states will recognize same sex marriages.

2007-02-08 03:20:22 · answer #8 · answered by ♫O Praise Him♫ 5 · 1 4

My marriage is religious and legal.

I have the civil, and personal right, to see my marriage how I want - don't try to take that from me.

2007-02-08 03:32:00 · answer #9 · answered by daisyk 6 · 1 1

Wow,
Long before there were governments to sanction anything, there were marriages.

Marriage in America became a legal transaction when the churches failed to regulate the marraiges, and more particularly, divorces. The division of property and custody of children were the root causes for the courts to get involved.

In John 2 Jesus attends a wedding, not his, and he did not officiate. In fact the whole purpose of the story was to highlight Jesus' first miracle, not to comment on marriage; which is why it is so enlightening, it was just the backdrop for the miracle.

Civil rights are ALL derived from one of two sources, the American Founding Fathers said that the founding document of the Constitution was,

wait for it,

hold your breath,

The Bible!

The second source for our rights was (is) British Common Law. The source document for Common Law was,

wait for it,

hold your breath,

The BIBLE.

So the fact that marriage requires a marriage license says NOTHING about the fact that its source is a religious document. Because the Justice of the Peace may perform the marriage says nothing about the authority for marriages. This, plus the volume of divorces, says volumes about how sad a state marriage has become in America.

Understand now?

2007-02-08 03:29:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 6

fedest.com, questions and answers