More and more people who happen to be homosexual are participating in "domestic partnerships". Pagans and other non-mainstream religious or spiritual faiths are performing their own bonding rituals among their members.
Although the original definition of marriage in the U.S. for the most part has been derived from concepts in Christianity, shouldn't we progress beyond this since now the act of marriage isn't exclusively a Christian concept?
Personally I'm fine with this concept, if two individuals want to be together in life, ideally it'll be a relationship forged by love, or at the very least, it could be a kind of business relationship between two parties who want to share assets.
To ignore love for a moment, would it seem reasonable to bar two companies from merging, if that merger would be profitable for both and harm no one? Why not the same impartiality for the union of two people?
2007-12-20 02:35:52 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Marriage was instituted by God according to Jews and Christians. Marriage is covenant between two people and God. Marriage also represents God's relationship with his chosen people. If people who do not believe in God want to get married I beg to ask the question why? If they seek only a piece of paper that says they are legally bonded together why not just call it a common law union instead of insulting us who believe in God and believe that marriage is sacred and holy. If homosexuals want to demonstrate their love to one another via a legal union then they can make one with a good lawyer and call it something else besides marriage. It is insulting to the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage to have two homosexuals joined in a partnership titled marriage when we believe that the marriage is reserved between a man and a woman alone and nothing else. THe fact of the matter is that it is the homosexual who is being disrespectful, backwards, insensitive,and extremely selfish towards those in society who believe marriage is sacred by changing the very definition of what marriage is. I say call it something else but don't call it marriage. You can make a legal agreement saying you will share assests and liabilities with another party if you want to and call it something other than marriage. Given the fact that marriage is a concept created by God why would someone who is living in outright defiance towards God even want to be married anyway?
2007-12-20 02:51:48 · answer #1 · answered by christianity20com 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is a stupid idea! Marraige is far above sex. Unnatural sex can take the marraige nowhere. After some time the uselessness of the artificial relationship raises its head and the partners fall apart.
In sharp contrast to this, natural marraiges have more chances of success. Common interest in growth and education of the children plays a role when sex becomes less
important. To see the kids growing up is the best kind of
happiness the world can afford. Natural attraction of one others beautify grows with time. A real marraige only has
an equal chance of success. Living together for decades makes one indispensable for the other partner.
Humanity has developed the institution of marraige after experimenting with it for 7000 years. It is the best system around and should be maintained at all costs.
Not many people know that the International Jewery is behind ratifying same sex marraige because they want to reduce the population of other (Goyem) people.
Javed Kalaeem
2007-12-20 11:00:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
When a man and a woman wed it is usually for the purpose of creating a family and raising the family together. If homosexuals want to be together why don't they get a lawyer and form a partnership much like a business? If it is for the assets any way.
2007-12-20 10:44:06 · answer #3 · answered by B"Quotes 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Um... in the US marriage already is a legal institution, not a religious one.
If it were a religious institution, then atheists couldn't be married.
That some want to deny legal rights to individuals and couples based on religious bigotry is a problem, and one that hopefully will soon be abolished (just as laws against mixed-race marriages, which were on the books as recently as the 1960s, have finally been removed).
2007-12-20 10:42:33 · answer #4 · answered by Nandina (Bunny Slipper Goddess) 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Maybe we should redefine the concept to that of a "universal beneficiary" (for lack of a better title). You name one person, who lives with you, that you are pooling resources with for tax purposes, that can visit you in the hospital, that gets your stuff if you die without a will, that is included on your insurance plan, that assumes POA if you are incapacitated, etc.
Then people could make it their mom, dad, brother, sister, child, spouse, "partner" or whatever they wanted to.
2007-12-20 10:41:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree wholeheartedly. Marriage should be a merger between two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together, regardless of gender.
2007-12-20 10:41:13 · answer #6 · answered by Jaymi . 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
90% of Christians believe in preserving the sanctity of Marriage.
55% of them get divorced.
Its time we were honest about what marriage is really about and opened it up for all.
2007-12-20 10:39:45 · answer #7 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Marriage is a sacred institution that is defined in the bible as being between a man and a woman. If its not broke don't fix it.
2007-12-20 10:45:25 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋