-
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.
what is marrage
- Thread starter jellio
- Start date
Wiccan_Child
Contributor
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Then, in your opinion, religious groups seeking to impose their own beliefs into the secular legistlature, are wrong to do so? That the Catholic Church which protests the state legalising same-sex marriage, is wrong to protest as such?
Upvote
0
Glas Ridire
Well-Known Member
Yes. Exactly. Religious groups seeking to impose their beliefs on secular government are barking up the wrong tree. They are fighting exactly the wrong battle. I wouldn't say that they shouldn't express their opinions (as that too would be a 1A violation) but attempts to pass marriage laws create a slippery slope where none needs to be. A law passed affirming their point of view (today) could be overturned (tomorrow) leading to successful lawsuits by homosexuals wishing to be married in the Westboro Baptist Church (picked for their extreme views). It would be much safer to divorce (pardon the pun) legal unions and marriage . .. allowing EVERY religion their own definitions but defining civil unions . . . civilly. No one could complain about not being able to get married in the Westboro Church, just because they are homosexuals. . .. but nobody could complain about an African immigrant bringing all his wives instead of leaving some behind either. . . . nobody could complain about Julie and Erica getting married in Rainbow Presbyterian either. Justice for everybody. Let civil union laws fall where they may but for the love of Pete! Stop (speaking to those denominations trying to bend secular law to fit their beliefs) trying to enforce religious views through secular law! The answer isn't "winning the culture war" but choosing to trust the US Constitution to do its job.
Plain as day. I'd invite those who would seek to legally define marriage, to do the same as people who want to ban "assault weapons". . .. find a country whose Constitution supports that, it ain't the USA!
Upvote
0
The OP asked the question what is marriage. No one ever said that a woman should stay in an abusive relationship. Why are you always so negative.
What if, what if, what if black birds had teeth and pigs could fly.
What if a woman marries a man and he treats her well and they enjoy a happy married life...wouldn't that be wonderful. What ifs, what ifs....the ideal thing is for two people to be together in a wonderful relationship.
Upvote
0
Wiccan_Child
Contributor
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Because that seems to be what is implied in your post. Given such a ghastly conclusion, I figured I must be mistaken, hence why I asked for your clarification.
"Marriage shows committment to be with someone. Today sad to say, marraige has become like a dispensable piece of clothing.. If you do not like it anymore just leave and go for something else."
I think it's a very good thing that marriage is disposable - sometimes, marriages simply don't work.
Yes, but what if they're not? This isn't some fanciful hypothetical, this is a very serious problem that many women (and men) deal with - abusive partners. Your words seem to imply that a woman in an abusive relationship can't, or at least shouldn't, get a divorce. This is a very troubling thing, given that we need to support these women, not shackle them to their abusers.
Why am I so negative? Because I love my mother and my sisters, my nieces, my cousins, my girl friends, and sadly there are men out there who would abuse them. This isn't some rare fringe 1-in-a-million thing, this isn't an abstract hypothetical, this is a real problem in the modern world.
Upvote
0
I haven't posted but I have been reading in amazement. How views of marriage differ. I am still not sure what is marriage except it involves at least 2 people. Please keep posting and I will keep reading and learning.
jellio
jellio
Upvote
0
I just read The Princess Bride a week or two ago and was laughing reading the mawwage scene because it's written exactly like he was pronouncing it in the movie.
Upvote
0
These are lyrics to a really bad song from about 20 or so years ago. I don't think too many people caught that, with the exception of Ukrainia. I was only trying to be funny.
A really bad song? BAD SONG? REALLY?
ok yeah..it is. but it's awesomely bad
Upvote
0
Glas Ridire
Well-Known Member
So, can I ask you personally to respond to what I have posted? What do you think?
Upvote
0
KimberlyAA
Well-Known Member
Marriage is a sacred institution established by God for the primary purpose of bringing Him glory. It's main purpose is not, as some think, to procreate, or to have companionship, or to fulfill sexual needs. No. It's primary purpose is to bring glory and honor to God. It is only in marriage that we are able to carry out the commission of God to replenish the earth and to subdue it. This commission by God can only be properly accomplished in marriage where the husband and wife in faithful, covenantal relationship purpose to glorify God by having children, raising them in a godly fashion, and sending them out into the world having trained them in the ways of the Lord. This is what marriage is for. It is outward focused (for God's glory), not inward centered (for our comfort).
A marriage ceremony performed by an official state representative is a valid marriage even though it is not performed in the church. The state does not give the church the authority to marry. It is God who gives the state the authority to marry.
"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves," (Rom. 13:1-2).
It should be clear from the text that God has given authority to the government. Therefore, a marriage ceremony legally performed by government authority is binding. It would not be necessary to go through another ceremony in the church in order to validate the first.
A marriage performed by the state that contradicts scripture is not valid before God. Therefore, if the state sanctions and performs marriages between people of the same gender, then that is not a valid marriage.
A marriage ceremony performed by an official state representative is a valid marriage even though it is not performed in the church. The state does not give the church the authority to marry. It is God who gives the state the authority to marry.
"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves," (Rom. 13:1-2).
It should be clear from the text that God has given authority to the government. Therefore, a marriage ceremony legally performed by government authority is binding. It would not be necessary to go through another ceremony in the church in order to validate the first.
A marriage performed by the state that contradicts scripture is not valid before God. Therefore, if the state sanctions and performs marriages between people of the same gender, then that is not a valid marriage.
Upvote
0
- Dec 1, 2011
- 22,268
- 18,221
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
To the church, not the state.
The issue is not recognition of same sex unions by the church but rather the people in those unions having the same legal protections hetrosexual couples.
The Catholic church is not forced to say that remarriages are valid and the state does not force them to nor do they get to deny legal standing to people who chose to marry again. The same should be true with same sex marriages.
Upvote
0
Paulos23
Never tell me the odds!
- Mar 23, 2005
- 8,419
- 4,769
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Desk trauma said:
Agreed. If it was solely the church then as an athiest I couldn't get married. We are talking civil law here, not church law.
Upvote
0
Glas Ridire
Well-Known Member
Why? Why are we talking about civil laws ruling on church ceremonies? We shouldn't be. . .. in the United States . . .. if we read and believe our Constitution.
Upvote
0
Paulos23
Never tell me the odds!
- Mar 23, 2005
- 8,419
- 4,769
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Glas Ridire said:
Because many states still require you to have a religious offical to marry you. That unfortunely has a effect on the discusion of marriage. If you are talking about all marriage you have to bring in the civil law since it has been tied to religion.
Upvote
0
- Dec 1, 2011
- 22,268
- 18,221
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
The issue is not religious doctrine but rights conferred to couples by the state. There is no requirement of a ceremony, religious or otherwise, to get married only some documents to sign and verbally agree to in the presence of a number of witnesses.
I could have any number of religious rights to say that I and my partner are married but as far as the state is concerned she and I only become a married couple when we sign the paperwork.
Upvote
0
Glas Ridire
Well-Known Member
My position is, religion should be untied from civil union so that no religion or lack thereof has a corner on the market so to speak. When we read the 1st amendment, it is really hard to argue that the government has ANY right to pass a law supporting any flavor of marriage over another. Really. Read the 1A and get back to me on how the Govt can say marriage is or isn't whatever. I maintain marriage is religious and civil unions are. . . . civil. The government can pass whatever laws on civil unions but must NOT touch the topic of marriage.
Upvote
0
Wiccan_Child
Contributor
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Why not, though? Why does religion have a monopoly on marriage, if the only common denominator is that of commitment? Why can't the State say, "OK, we consider X, Y, and Z to be Marriage, and will confer rights and privilages thereto"? I mean, if 'civil partnership' is equivalent to 'state-recognised marriage', why not just call it a 'marriage'? The State has legal descriptors for what constitutes a religion, but that doesn't mean an individual has to personally adopt that vernacular.
I'm all for civil and religious unions being disintangled; I think it would solve most, if not all, of the problems surrounding same-sex marriage today (except, of course, the anti-gay movements quite simple hatred of gays). However, a shift in terminology that would give religion the sole right to marriage seems... unnecessary.
Upvote
0
