- Feb 10, 2013
- 36,631
- 21,079
- 29
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Fair enoughWell. that's not true. Even the Bible says that David had eight wives and his son had more than that.
I disagree. The institution shouldn’t be changed based on the whims of adults.A civil marriage isn't sacred.
A marriage between one man and one woman is still considered a natural marriage though.And the Catholic Church (among others) does not recognize civil marriage to begin with so there is nothing to be destroyed.
My biggest problem is forcing others to provide services to a same sex wedding when they don’t want to because hey find it wrong. No one should be forced to violate their conscience.It goes without saying that a gay couple who wanted to live their lives together before SSM was legalised did so anyway. In countries where it hasn't been legalised they are doing so right now. So what changes when it does become legalised? Well, they get rights in regard to each other that they didn't have before. And that's about it.
Why on earth would someone attempt to argue against that?
But....goes the cry...marriage is a sacred institution! Well, for a small minority it is. For the last year that figures are available, in Australia 4 out of 5 marriages were conducted by a civil celebrant. So no, it's not regarded as a sacred matter by the vast majority. Australia - share of religious and secular marriages 2018 | Statista
All we are left with is a petulant cry by some that 'hey, marriage is something which we define. And our definition is the one that counts!'
OK, but those kinds of concepts are of no interest to anyone outside the church. I think I see what you may be driving at, though. Traditionally, people have regarded the getting of the license and the ceremony in the church as all part of the same process, when they are actually two different processes. The clergyman serves two functions as well, he administers the sacrament but he also serves as a legal witness to a civil contract.A marriage between one man and one woman is still considered a natural marriage though.
On the contrary, our political system empowers citizens to regulate society by totting up the 'whims' of adults.I disagree. The institution shouldn’t be changed based on the whims of adults.
But only a small proportion of marriages have any connection with religious beliefs. What you should be saying is that you disagree with what has already happened. In which case, fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. But most of us could care less about it. Life goes on.I disagree. The institution shouldn’t be changed based on the whims of adults.
I've no problem with that.My biggest problem is forcing others to provide services to a same sex wedding when they don’t want to because hey find it wrong. No one should be forced to violate their conscience.
AgainWell, only if it might be "disturbing" for someone if they did. That's the law in Texas. As you know, some far-right people are disturbed that kids learn about what went on back then.
As someone remarked, they are terrified that their grandchildren might learn what they were doing at the time.
And sometimes, as in Florida, they just want to put a happier face on the institution of slavery.
According to the law they passed, only if it's "disturbing" for people. History has to be revised in Texas, eliminating any truths that are "disturbing."Again
your claims that Republicans are banning the discussion in slavery in schools
That's the Florida standard. Teachers are required to tell kids that slavery was a good thing for slaves in that they learned trades.or trying to "put a happier face on the institution of slavery"
Yes. Thanks for sharing. I treat everyone well regardless of how they live their life. It’s none of my business.But only a small proportion of marriages have any connection with religious beliefs. What you should be saying is that you disagree with what has already happened. In which case, fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. But most of us could care less about it. Life goes on.
When I wore a younger man's clothes I was about as conservative as one could be. Church 3 times on Sunday, all social life revolved around the church, alcohol was banned in the house, homosexuals were thought to be the lowest form of life, sex before marriage simply didn't exist...It was a very cloistered life. Can I blame my parents for the attitudes they instilled into me? No. Because it was how they had been brought up.
But when I left home - something they never did, as we all lived in my paternal grandparents home (and both parents died there), I saw things weren't as they thought they were. They were wrong. And I had to admit that I was wrong. Which wasn't easy. It took time. And I still carry the remnants of that upbringing. But I had to make a choice. Remain stuck in the limited world in which I grew up like some insect trapped in amber. Or accept the world for what it was. And treat people how they deserved to be treated. Not as others thought I should treat them.
Thank youI've no problem with that.
Fair enough. Still think people have the right to not participate in any ceremonies they see wrong.On the contrary, our political system empowers citizens to regulate society by totting up the 'whims' of adults.
The institution itself.Are you saying that civil marriage once was sacred? Sacred to who?
Marriage is an agreement between the two people. If desired it can be formalised either within a civil setting or a sacred one. It's not automatically one or the other. The two people make that choice. 80% choose civil.The institution itself.
By sacred I wasn’t referring to civil or religious. Rather, the institution itself is harmed.Marriage is an agreement between the two people. If desired it can be formalised either within a civil setting or a sacred one. It's not automatically one or the other. The two people make that choice. 80% choose civil.
Seems weird to connect political correctness on a very specific topic with religious faithfulness, but then again can't say I'm surprised.The EO is against same-sex marriage. That's. a fact, sir. Those are faithful are opposed to it.
But given they already are and a significant amount of case law and bureaucracy has developed around that situation, the easier thing would be for groups which don't want to partake to just choose a different name for it. Religious union, perhaps?Sure, and they don't actually call that "marriage" in many cases. Things like property, children, etc. need to be considered and the state has an interest in such things. But the state doesn't have to be in the marriage business to do that. And it solves all these issues when some religions want the state to be enforcing their particular beliefs.
I just explained. The institution is what people themselves conceive it to be. You don't get to decide how someone else views it. And 80% of people view it soley as a civil matter. The institution isn't harmed. It's your view of it which is compromised. That's just a matter for you. It affects no-one else.By sacred I wasn’t referring to civil or religious. Rather, the institution itself is harmed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?