some one new wrote:
Marriage is supposed to be a perminant bond between two people *cough* man and woman Who love each other. But with people wanting to redefine it and the divorce rate up so high marriage pretty much means nothing but a union between two people (civil union). I think the best thing the state can do is not define marriage at all but issue “civil unions” to everyone. No one is being discriminated against and marriage isn’t being defined. Everybody wins.
“Civil union” sounds like a fucking business contract, not a bond united by love. No way am I getting “civilly unified” when I’m older. If the current definition of marriage is one man and one woman but has lost it’s meaning then why can’t we just redefine it so there’s more than one different kind of marriage to give it a new meaning?
Like I said before it pretty much is simply a business contract nowadays with the divorce rate so high and people marrying for the wrong reasons (not love but money etc.) Its really not about love anymore for a lot (not all) people. Instead of the state redefining marriage lets have the stae give out civil unions to everyone because thats pretty much all it is.
BTW you can’t say I’m discriminating against Gays. If they were given a new version of marriage for themselves that would be discrimination.
You see marriage as a business contract... yep, I can see your true character now.
And spiritual bond isn’t dead. Just because it’s not religious doesn’t mean it’s not spiritual.
You don’t seem to get my point. The government shouldn’t be involved in marriage and define what it is. I don’t think marriage is supposed to be a business contract but the government should issue the unions non religious documents. Marriage is being treated like a business contract for a lot of people (who marry for the wrong reasons) I understand most people do it out of love but when the stat gets involved with a sacred institution like marriage there is a lot of red tape. It goes in to the equal rights amendment that allows same sex couples to be together, but seperation of church and state keeps the goverment out of what marriage means. It should be a legal contract as far as the goverment’s concerned.
Let me fill you in on the meaning of marriage. Marriage was NOT created by religion, marriage did NOT originally have a civil ceremony, marriage was NOT created for true love, and it WAS originally created out of what was essentially a business deal (civil union is the same thing) for two families to bond their children together whether they liked it or not.
If you want to keep the original meaning of marriage then go ahead and start asking your parents to force marry you to someone you don’t know so you can have kids and do the same to them. If you want the true meaning of marriage, leave religion out of it because religion has no right to define marriage all by itself. Keep marriage for love.
ramunematt wrote:
Let me fill you in on the meaning of marriage. Marriage was NOT created by religion, marriage did NOT originally have a civil ceremony, marriage was NOT created for true love, and it WAS originally created out of what was essentially a business deal (civil union is the same thing) for two families to bond their children together whether they liked it or not.
If you want to keep the original meaning of marriage then go ahead and start asking your parents to force marry you to someone you don’t know so you can have kids and do the same to them. If you want the true meaning of marriage, leave religion out of it because religion has no right to define marriage all by itself. Keep marriage for love.
And government does? Whats with non-theists only using separation of church and state to benefit their own agendas? If multiple religions have similarities about how they define marriage wouldn’t the state be imposing on them by defining marriage at the expense of their beliefs? The government shouldn’t be involved in the definition of marriage at all. However it should ensure the rights of people to live and be with whoever they want. I don’t see whats so unreasonable about that.
__________________
Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom!
ramunematt wrote:
Let me fill you in on the meaning of marriage. Marriage was NOT created by religion, marriage did NOT originally have a civil ceremony, marriage was NOT created for true love, and it WAS originally created out of what was essentially a business deal (civil union is the same thing) for two families to bond their children together whether they liked it or not.
If you want to keep the original meaning of marriage then go ahead and start asking your parents to force marry you to someone you don’t know so you can have kids and do the same to them. If you want the true meaning of marriage, leave religion out of it because religion has no right to define marriage all by itself. Keep marriage for love.
And government does? Whats with non-theists only using separation of church and state to benefit their own agendas? If multiple religions have similarities about how they define marriage wouldn’t the state be imposing on them by defining marriage at the expense of their beliefs? The government shouldn’t be involved in the definition of marriage at all. However it should ensure the rights of people to live and be with whoever they want. I don’t see whats so unreasonable about that.
Screw the government. I’m not on their side. I’m not on religion’s side either. Neither of them have anything to do with love. Don’t relate marriage to religion/government and don’t try to prevent gays from doing it because its really none of your business whether they get married or not. And don’t try to make them feel better by letting them get married but calling it something else, because labels create division which will just make things worse.
"...what happens when you do not name? You look at an emotion, at a sensation, more directly and therefore have quite a different relationship to it..." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
Look, someone new, I’m sick of your shit. I know what you’re doing now and I don’t like it. You want others to confrom to your values of being religious and not getting divorced but you can’t outright say it so you claim that; because you feel your definition of marriage is the only true one but others are being accepted that we should throw all the others out the window because they’ve “disgraced” yours, in effect belittleing those that don’t conform to your religion.
Sean not logged in wrote:
Look, someone new, I’m sick of your shit. I know what you’re doing now and I don’t like it. You want others to confrom to your values of being religious and not getting divorced but you can’t outright say it so you claim that; because you feel your definition of marriage is the only true one but others are being accepted that we should throw all the others out the window because they’ve “disgraced” yours, in effect belittleing those that don’t conform to your religion.
Appearently not.
I’m saying same-sex couples have the right, constitutionally, to be together. But the government should be neutral in the arguement while allowing people to be with who ever they want. The state should call it civil unions the individuals can call it what ever they want.
__________________
Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom!
some one new - labelling things as a “marriage” or a “civil union” is redundant. Throughout history a marriage has been a civil union - a social contract between two people, sometimes involving their families. Some were arranged, some were not. But it was called a “marriage”.
Modern Christians attempt to re-define marriage within the context or their own religion, and even try to make it sound as if they invented marriage. Marriage pre-dated Christianity. Look up information on marriages in ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Celtic cultures if you need some information on this.
Etain wrote:
some one new - labelling things as a “marriage” or a “civil union” is redundant. Throughout history a marriage has been a civil union - a social contract between two people, sometimes involving their families. Some were arranged, some were not. But it was called a “marriage”.
Modern Christians attempt to re-define marriage within the context or their own religion, and even try to make it sound as if they invented marriage. Marriage pre-dated Christianity. Look up information on marriages in ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Celtic cultures if you need some information on this.
I just saying that if religions have sensitivities toward marriage and there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state then the government shouldn’t be involved in defining it. Let the individuals do it.
__________________
Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom!
tastefrogtushe wrote:
I’m not saying that it means nothing to society! There’s just too many couples ending up in divorce! So what’s the point in getting married?
When I say that I become the evil theist who wants to impose his beliefs.
__________________
Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom!
tastefrogtushe wrote:
I’m not saying that it means nothing to society! There’s just too many couples ending up in divorce! So what’s the point in getting married?
When I say that I become the evil theist who wants to impose his beliefs.
That would be because your whole premise for your argument is that you believe the spiritual bond between two people is “dead” (my bad you didn’t state “spiritual bond is dead”...but you responded “my point exactly” ).
watermelon man wrote:
Basically every marriage is a civil union that the government takes care of. The ceremony is the religious aspect.
Governments should allow civil unions to everyone but it should be up to the church whether or not they allow people to get “married” since that is the religious aspect and they can treat their religion as they want.
Wouldn’t that be discriminatory to people who aren’t part of that religion?
It’d be the churches discriminating, which they are allowed to do.
Right now every marriage is by law a civil union. The only reason people call it a marriage is because of the ceremony that usually accompanies it. You can get “married” without a wedding, and without being religious. However, the church doesn’t have to let you have a ceremony.
some one new wrote:
“because labels create division which will just make things worse."
That could go either way.
No, it can’t. If we were to look at eachother as human beings instead of labels such as black, jewish, latino, atheist, republican, anarchist, etc. then maybe there would be more harmony.
would you would rather create more and more labels than create unity?
some one new wrote:
“because labels create division which will just make things worse."
That could go either way.
No, it can’t. If we were to look at eachother as human beings instead of labels such as black, jewish, latino, atheist, republican, anarchist, etc. then maybe there would be more harmony.
would you would rather create more and more labels than create unity?
What better way to create unity then to compromise?
I’m not trying to say every one has to follow my opinion about marriage. (If so this discussion would be a lot different) But the government should help both sides of the argument
allow same sex couples to be together while staying out of the marriage discussion by supplying civil unions to every one treating it more like a business contract as far as its concerned. Allow individuals to call it what they want.
