royalartisan
05-08-2008, 01:05 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true in most states here in the good ol' U-S-of-A that couples are obligated to obtain a civil licence from a court house before they are "allowed" to perform a religious ceremony ? As long as that is true, EVERY marriage is technically a CIVIL UNION.
That's appalling if you are one who sees marriage as a religious institution first, secular and civil contract second. I honestly don't see how the government has any authority to regulate these matters.
However, I can understand our community pushing to view marriage as predominantly a civil institution as opposed to a religious one because that way, the government would have the authority to regulate it, which includes passing legislation to define and therefore ban or legalise it.
And my next question is...if we as a "Christian nation" are so uncompromising in our principles, how can we allow atheists to marry each other ? And anyone who ignorantly says that all homosexuals are atheists, or that all atheists are homosexuals, is an absolute fool. Anyway, marriage is a sacred institution between not only a man and a woman, but a CHRISTIAN man and woman, right ? That's what I was raised to believe and accept as "truth." That's the way it should be written if we want to be absolutely clear about this whole controversy, right ? Marriage is a Christians Only club...complete with its own little handshake and secret decoder rings.
Now, of course, I've already mentioned that I am a lesbian and that I believe I was born a homosexual. And I think that this country is a nation of hypocrites. I do not believe that the United States was founded on the notion that the government has a place to meddle in the personal lives of the citizenry. And when people say we were founded on Christian principles, I must beg to differ most humbly, for in my studies of history regarding this "great" nation, I have found no profound evidence to support such a claim. In fact, my studies have provided evidence to a near contrary approach to the traditional view of the founding fathers' wishes.
The men who wrote and signed the Constitution were Deists. If you are unfamiliar with Deism, it is a branch detached from Christianity whose most basic belief is that Gd created the world and then left it to its own devices. It's almost as if the Gd had wound up a clock and then let it be. I would also add that our Founding Fathers had no intention of allowing the Constitution to sit as a document of law for longer than forty years before being redrafted, reworked, or revisited with an eraser now and then. The original intent was that the Constitution be rewritten as needed, in fact, and be viewed as a living, changing document---without an "amendment" process.
Amendments are just a way to slow down that process. In theory, if we followed the original intent of the framers, the people should be able to recreate a new Constitution and adapt the law to fit the modern times.
And I think that marriage SHOULD be defined.
"Marriage: A civil and/or religious ceremony as sanctioned by a government between two consenting adults."
BAM ! Solution made simple !
And all those people who are groaning about how if we let the homosexuals marry, pretty soon people will be marrying their cats and dogs. Or how we'll be letting NAMBLA have their way and then old men will be marrying 8 year old boys. That is a load of CRAP.
"TWO CONSENTING ADULTS"
Age of consent in most states ? 18. There. So shut up, already !
I think in the case of secular vs. religious, there should be no loser. We already treat marriage as less than sacred anyway, so why should religious factions receive any special treatment ? If we're going to define marriage as a Christian institution, we might as well outlaw atheists and non-Christians from it, not just homosexuals. Next, we'll have to be defining Christianity because we all know that Mormons and Protestants view themselves as Christians in spite of the Catholic church claiming to be the one true Christian body. It would never end....
I don't see a threat here at all....
It's not like modern Christians seem to take marriage as seriously as they claim, considering the current divorce rate in this country. Hell, my parents are both Christians and they divorced each other and destroyed our family, but that's okay because it's a man and a woman, and that heterosexual stipulation is all that matters.
It's ridiculous. It's saying we should give Christians special treatment while everyone else, homosexual or even heterosexuals of non-Christian faiths, should have to fight and argue and never have the equality our Constitution supposedly guarantees to ALL Americans.
I'm thinking that we should just abolish the term marriage and call it what it really is according to the majority of state laws: a civil union. a domestic partnership. That's equality. Calling it what it is and applying it to everyone. All marriages, gay or straight or muslim or or jewish.....they are ALL domestic partnerships....marriage is just a catchy outdated, factious word and this is all a petty semantics war.
Your opinions ? Responses ?
That's appalling if you are one who sees marriage as a religious institution first, secular and civil contract second. I honestly don't see how the government has any authority to regulate these matters.
However, I can understand our community pushing to view marriage as predominantly a civil institution as opposed to a religious one because that way, the government would have the authority to regulate it, which includes passing legislation to define and therefore ban or legalise it.
And my next question is...if we as a "Christian nation" are so uncompromising in our principles, how can we allow atheists to marry each other ? And anyone who ignorantly says that all homosexuals are atheists, or that all atheists are homosexuals, is an absolute fool. Anyway, marriage is a sacred institution between not only a man and a woman, but a CHRISTIAN man and woman, right ? That's what I was raised to believe and accept as "truth." That's the way it should be written if we want to be absolutely clear about this whole controversy, right ? Marriage is a Christians Only club...complete with its own little handshake and secret decoder rings.
Now, of course, I've already mentioned that I am a lesbian and that I believe I was born a homosexual. And I think that this country is a nation of hypocrites. I do not believe that the United States was founded on the notion that the government has a place to meddle in the personal lives of the citizenry. And when people say we were founded on Christian principles, I must beg to differ most humbly, for in my studies of history regarding this "great" nation, I have found no profound evidence to support such a claim. In fact, my studies have provided evidence to a near contrary approach to the traditional view of the founding fathers' wishes.
The men who wrote and signed the Constitution were Deists. If you are unfamiliar with Deism, it is a branch detached from Christianity whose most basic belief is that Gd created the world and then left it to its own devices. It's almost as if the Gd had wound up a clock and then let it be. I would also add that our Founding Fathers had no intention of allowing the Constitution to sit as a document of law for longer than forty years before being redrafted, reworked, or revisited with an eraser now and then. The original intent was that the Constitution be rewritten as needed, in fact, and be viewed as a living, changing document---without an "amendment" process.
Amendments are just a way to slow down that process. In theory, if we followed the original intent of the framers, the people should be able to recreate a new Constitution and adapt the law to fit the modern times.
And I think that marriage SHOULD be defined.
"Marriage: A civil and/or religious ceremony as sanctioned by a government between two consenting adults."
BAM ! Solution made simple !
And all those people who are groaning about how if we let the homosexuals marry, pretty soon people will be marrying their cats and dogs. Or how we'll be letting NAMBLA have their way and then old men will be marrying 8 year old boys. That is a load of CRAP.
"TWO CONSENTING ADULTS"
Age of consent in most states ? 18. There. So shut up, already !
I think in the case of secular vs. religious, there should be no loser. We already treat marriage as less than sacred anyway, so why should religious factions receive any special treatment ? If we're going to define marriage as a Christian institution, we might as well outlaw atheists and non-Christians from it, not just homosexuals. Next, we'll have to be defining Christianity because we all know that Mormons and Protestants view themselves as Christians in spite of the Catholic church claiming to be the one true Christian body. It would never end....
I don't see a threat here at all....
It's not like modern Christians seem to take marriage as seriously as they claim, considering the current divorce rate in this country. Hell, my parents are both Christians and they divorced each other and destroyed our family, but that's okay because it's a man and a woman, and that heterosexual stipulation is all that matters.
It's ridiculous. It's saying we should give Christians special treatment while everyone else, homosexual or even heterosexuals of non-Christian faiths, should have to fight and argue and never have the equality our Constitution supposedly guarantees to ALL Americans.
I'm thinking that we should just abolish the term marriage and call it what it really is according to the majority of state laws: a civil union. a domestic partnership. That's equality. Calling it what it is and applying it to everyone. All marriages, gay or straight or muslim or or jewish.....they are ALL domestic partnerships....marriage is just a catchy outdated, factious word and this is all a petty semantics war.
Your opinions ? Responses ?