Marriage

[XChristian]

Who should have authority to determine who can and cannot be married? The Goverment, certain religous groups? Does anyone really need the institution of marriage? If a couple (or more, polygamists) love each other, want to live together, start a family together can't they take resposiblity for their own lives, actions and relationships?

 

[Arthra]

Who should have authority to determine who can and cannot be married? The Goverment, certain religous groups? Does anyone really need the institution of marriage? If a couple (or more, polygamists) love each other, want to live together, start a family together can't they take resposiblity for their own lives, actions and relationships?

I think you have some good questions...

In the United States there is civil marriage and also the Courts have decided what marriages are recognized in a civil sense. Polygamy in my view is not recognized yet in the US however as you may have heard there are some groups that practise polygamy anyway.

In the Baha'i Faith when we have a marriage it is also registered through the civil process (in the US) and the state recognizes our marriages.

For Baha'is all living parents of the prospective bride/groom must give their free consent to the marriage otherwise there is no Baha'i marriage. If a couple even though they are non-Baha'i wish to have a Baha'i marriage they have to abide by the requirements.. which are to obtain consent of their parents and state they will abide by the will of God in front of witnesses. So for me in my Faith marriage is a religious institution that is also recognized by civil law.

Does anyone really need the iinstitution of marriage?

I think so. Without marriage the children born to the couple it seems to me are less protected. One of the reasons people marry aside from love of someone is to have a family...children. A home or family is a place for nurturing and raising children. People who are not ready for the responsibility should wait until they're mature enough.

- Art

 

[Naturalist_Atheist]

I think anyone should be able to get married.

Now as for who should recognize said marriage is a whole other story. If a church has some particular views as to what marriage should be, then they have the right to only recognize marriages which fit their mold.

As for government, I don't think they should discriminate against any form of marriage. Be it polygamy or gay.

 

[SecretOfFatima]

I think we are heading down a road that is open to anything goes, would not surprise me if one of these days 3 or 4 people will be able to marry together as 1 (I truly hope not), but right now in many countries marriage and family is no longer sacrade, while that it self is not really of concern to many of us, what should concerns us is that we are beeing forced to loose our moral values and accept the imoral values of others.

Let me give you an example, in Spain marriage and birth certificates are no longer allowed to use the terms husband/wife or father/mother...

 

[peepnklown]

It’s not ‘who should’ have the authority, individuals have the authority to choose for themselves if they want to marriage (contract) or not, period.

 

[Arthra]

It’s not ‘who should’ have the authority, individuals have the authority to choose for themselves if they want to marriage (contract) or not, period.

Problem is some countries don't recognize just any marriage... They have to go through registering it.. IF the state doesn't recognize it you can have problems and be acused of cohabiting or immorality... and suffer consequences.

- Art

 

[LadyDeflora]

i think it needs more regulation less definition, what's the point arguing over who can get married when so few make it pass ten years anymore?

 

[TaleSpin]

Who should have authority to determine who can and cannot be married? The Goverment, certain religous groups? Does anyone really need the institution of marriage? If a couple (or more, polygamists) love each other, want to live together, start a family together can't they take resposiblity for their own lives, actions and relationships?

Well the basic answer is that if you live in a country where it is considered by society enough that a couple, group, human/tree or whatever love each other, want to live together, want to start a family together and want to take responsibility then I don't think it's appropriate for the government to stand in their way and prevent them from enjoying all the benefits that same government affords actual, real marriages. Though enjoying the same benefits - that doesn't actually make any of the above perversions actual marriages, only God makes marriage. Societies and governments can only recognize that they exist or refuse to.

God decided what marriage is and He decides who is married. 1 man 1 woman united by the 1 God. <- that's marriage.

But regarding regarding whether government or society is the proper arbiter for deciding which unions should receive social and legal benefits (like inheritance, medical coverage, right to visit each other in the hospital, privacy),are legal questions which should be decided by the culture/society/people and not its government - still that does not mean society is decides what is marriage. Just like before, God already decided that.

A piece of paper from the government telling me I'm "married" because they said so about as ridiculous as receiving a piece of paper telling me I'm "dating," "single" or "married to my work."

After becoming married to a single, unmarried, person of the opposite gender in a Church (the only way a person has entered into a marriage) if my marriage is considered one of the "recognized legal unions" it is a proper function of goverment acting on behalf of the will of society to provide me and my spouse with rights to visit each other in the hospital or to collect inheritance.

So if a society wants to consider gay unions, polygamous unions or any other sinful attachments something worthy of recognition for legal rights then have at it. It doesn't make it marriage, only God does that.

What frightens me is when people start worshipping their governments in the hopes said governments will solve all their problems - that's where you get idiotic ideas like "Gay Marriage" a contradiction in terms or amendments to ban "Gay Marriage" ... which is a bit like banning 10 divided by 0. Either way both parties are asking government to define marriage.

That one's already been defined.

 

[Naturalist_Atheist]

Who are any of you to tell the world and all of its people what marriage is and what it isn't? I swear, this is what I despise most about religion. Believe it or not, there are other cultures in the world, with other, *gasp* religious beleifs! They have the right to form unions of their own. There are people who practice polygamy, people who practice homosexuality, people who practice polyandry. (One woman married to many men.) Heck! There are even people that don't practice marriage at all and everyone in the villiage just kinda sleeps with everyone else.

When you people look at this you think one form was sent from your God, and the rest are sinful abominations. When I look at these I see the many different ways people in societies have come to love one another. No form is above another. They are just different.

For America to claim religious freedom, we sure do cater to the Christian faith moreso than any other.

This is where people can really use their religion to drive a wedge between two different cultures. "Our way is pure and true, because our holy book says so. The rest of you are immoral."

 

[Druweid]

God decided what marriage is and He decides who is married. 1 man 1 woman united by the 1 God. <- that's marriage.

Who are any of you to tell the world and all of its people what marriage is and what it isn't?

I'm afraid I have to go along with Naturalist_Atheist here. The concept of marriage predates history, and use of the term 'marriage' can be traced back to the first century Roman Empire. Prior to the Council of Trent in 1545 AD, a religious ceremony was not required, nor did the Catholic Church choose to dictate was constituted a proper marriage. That's roughly 1,400 years that marriage was a private matter, and not a religious institution.

At the same time, however, I know what you are trying to say, SkyHigh, and I think yours is simply a problem with semantics. 'Marriage' is a word like any other word in the English language; subject to the technicalities and whims of society, religion notwithstanding.

Certainly you can speak to whether or not your religion *acknowledges* a marriage as being correct or proper, but beyond that, you would need much stronger and more specific basis for redefining the word itself.

Respectfully,
-- Druweid

 

[TaleSpin]

Who are any of you to tell the world and all of its people what marriage is and what it isn't? I swear, this is what I despise most about religion. Believe it or not, there are other cultures in the world, with other, *gasp* religious beleifs! They have the right to form unions of their own. There are people who practice polygamy, people who practice homosexuality, people who practice polyandry. (One woman married to many men.) Heck! There are even people that don't practice marriage at all and everyone in the villiage just kinda sleeps with everyone else.

When you people look at this you think one form was sent from your God, and the rest are sinful abominations. When I look at these I see the many different ways people in societies have come to love one another. No form is above another. They are just different.

For America to claim religious freedom, we sure do cater to the Christian faith moreso than any other.

This is where people can really use their religion to drive a wedge between two different cultures. "Our way is pure and true, because our holy book says so. The rest of you are immoral."

I have some very sad news for you... everything you hate about religion you exhibit in Atheism. Ya know:

• The nearly militant solipsism;
• The prejudism;
• Using legal systems to enforce your beliefs onto others;
• The laundry list of mean celebrities associated with your belief
• The fact it's actually an unconfirmed belief; rather than something rational and self evident

You're not "tolerant" nor "enlightened" and "problem" of your attachment to religion isn't actually fixed you've merely converted to a new one. Same boat, different flag.


Which is why you are fighting ever so ardently for the exact thing you think I am; just on the flip side of the coin. You're running around screaming about how intolerant the evil Christians are for insisting marriage means *GASP* marriage, so that you can whine your way into forcing us to accept such nonsense as "Gay Marriage" etc - your beliefs.

Same tactics, different football team. You're just angry your team is losing.

 

[Druweid]

lol I'm afraid because you have gone along with Natural_Atheist I can see why, that some's serious argumentum Clintonae you've employed.

Ad hominem, but thank's anyway.

Arguing that everything is semantics and nothing actually means anything is absurd on its face.

I never said that. Is intentional misquoting your best defense?

God is God, so, consequently all your prayers to tree bark and opinions to the contrary can't change the simple fact our natural predilictions toward 1 man 1 woman are in fact because that's the way God made us;

Another ad hominem, and quite prejudiced at that. Now, quote my in my post where it says I got my answer from "tree bark," or where the gender of the participants has any bearing whatsoever. If yours was a position of truth, you would use the truth, and not all this ridiculous innuendo.

...take that a step further by going to Him to seek His recognition and you have an actual real marriage. Everything else is just a relationship with varying levels of perversity. If society wants to reward said relationships then let em; it doesn't change the definition of anything, most especially not to the most important person - God.

You are the epitome of arrogant for declaring God's law without any basis other than your own opinion. So, by all means, please list one, JUST ONE biblical text that clearly shows marriage without God's blessing is not a marriage.

Regards,
-- Druweid

 

[TaleSpin]

(Matthew 19:4-6 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, {5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

[Druweid]

(Matthew 19:4-6 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, {5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Unless you are applying a whole new form of English grammar, not in any of my dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, or Chicago Manual of Style, nothing in this verse states that a marriage without God's blessing is not a marriage.

Try again,
-- Druweid

 

[sidhe]

(Matthew 19:4-6 KJV) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, {5} And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? {6} Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So a marriage with G-d's blessing is a marriage. That's what the verse says.

Where does it say that G-d's blessing is required for a marriage?

 

[Luzeiro]

Who should have authority to determine who can and cannot be married? The Goverment, certain religous groups? Does anyone really need the institution of marriage? If a couple (or more, polygamists) love each other, want to live together, start a family together can't they take resposiblity for their own lives, actions and relationships?

The country in which you live and whose laws you uphold as a subject.

 

[Luzeiro]

So a marriage with G-d's blessing is a marriage. That's what the verse says.

Where does it say that G-d's blessing is required for a marriage?

For the Christian, God performed the first marriage. For the Christian, God is the third party in a marriage.

 

[TaleSpin]

So a marriage with G-d's blessing is a marriage. That's what the verse says.

Where does it say that G-d's blessing is required for a marriage?

P -> Q
¬ Q -> ¬ P

Or the universe implodes.

 

[Druweid]

P -> Q
¬ Q -> ¬ P

Or the universe implodes.

Nice try, but it's an invalid concept, as it fails the test of material implication.

Example:

All animals that are poodles are dogs
​

Contraposition:

All animals that are not poodles, are not dogs.
​

So your theory is not only flawed, it's a fallacious argument. And if you really knew anything about propositional logic, you were already aware of that.

Again, what happened to honesty?

Regards,
-- Druweid

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Arguing that everything is semantics and nothing actually means anything is absurd on its face. <- And a particularly nice crutch when you are arguing against the definition of something.

Ah, I detect a very poor grasp of the nature of language, and apparent ignorance of the linguistic turn.

God is God, so, consequently all your prayers to tree bark and opinions to the contrary can't change the simple fact our natural predilictions toward 1 man 1 woman are in fact because that's the way God made us; take that a step further by going to Him to seek His recognition and you have an actual real marriage.

Of course, stating that your specific religious and/or ideological background is natural rather than cultural is the oldest trick in the book. We need only look at the diversity produced by different cultures throughout history to see that heterosexual monogamy is just one of many forms in which human sexuality may express itself.