Christian Marriage is a lifelong 1m1w covenant

Post Reply New Topic

I'm an atheist and also a social libertarian. I don't believe that government should have any role in defining relationships, or marriage. Legal marriage should be abolished.

This guarantees religious freedom to follow whatever practices they live, and exclude people from their private members club according their rules. People are free to find an origination that will marry them or not.

No legal conflation needed.

Gay people have campaigned for the right to get married. Now why should they want that? Please exclude tax advantages, if you have them in the US for married couples. That is too obvious.

I sympathise, but that is an issue of fairness, there is no injustice in not having legal marriage at all. Legal marriage isn't inherently a "right" it is legal concept. The rights issue happens when there is discrimination.

There are far too many thing being called "rights", which are not really fundamental at all.

Of course my view is a minority one for now, but it is indisputable that legal and religious marriage have become conflated otherwise these groups wouldn't have such a stake in the result.

I think it equally wrong to tell what should be a especially a private group/organization, who they marry.

I don't have to like their views. I do want to remove any special privilege they have as far as legal status though.

It may be too obvious, however, it's sufficient as an argument...

I'm really disappointed that lukecash12 left.

Oh, I didn't leave, my friend. Was waiting until I had enough time all at once to muster up a proper response. I wouldn't feel as if I were giving you the effort you deserved unless I practice some quality control.

Ok, good.

As an atheist, the question of where morality comes from is a subject that people keep bringing up to me.

People talk as though without God there must be no morality. It leads some atheists to conclude that perhaps for those who make that argument, it may be true.

Yes, and there are options in language, staggering options now with modern language. Not only that but philosophers were very formative in determining the more technical bits language we use today.

Btw, I'm not sure how you guessed my love for Dutch. You probably didn't but that is truly an odd coincidence. Do I feel as if I've been geworfen? Absolutely. Mein freunde von mir: Sapere aude- habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen!

The more we read, and the better we understand language, all the more exciting and wonderful it is to contemplate things. The only premise I don't agree with, that I am half assuming that you've presented, is that you are boxed in by language, that the historical process is nothing compared to language itself when it comes to the ideas you've inherited. This I simply can't accept, because the language you've acquired in your life doesn't happen in a vacuum, you must have your own idiosyncratic expressions like anyone else, and there is a clear precedent for your atheist position given all of the available schools of thinking.

Part of language is that not all of it is accessible and it can also be very group related. I am sure that there are expressions to do with your interests that I don't even have a concept of, and forgive me if I'm wrong but I also doubt you are familiar with theological terms like sublapsarianism, or the differences between satisfactory and governmental atonement. This is language above and beyond the normal vernacular, language that caters to people with particular interests.



At the same time there are many other species with different behavior and attitudes concerning murder. Is our revulsion really so basic as we might think? Just examine our history and puzzle that for yourself. When I think of such things, I am not entirely certain. Is there not murder in war? And how ancient is war? How long ago were groups just as simple as the Iriquois, Zulu, or Pauyoot skirmishing against one another? It seems to me that humans have a very easy time sanitizing the idea of murder when it comes to people they don't identify with, or people whose resources they desire.

How deep does the revulsion really go?



You're absolutely right. The question is when religious sentiment really are infringing upon people's basic rights, as agreed to by our basic charter of government, and what it really means to be conscious both of the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority.



I don't see at all where you are making a jump from "no income property, or settled arrangement" to "possibly" a "prohibition of laws regarding religious belief" (I realize this is a bit of a paraphrase, so I apologize if it is incorrect). The jump isn't at all clear or apparently warranted. What's more, there are a number of famous speeches which make it clear that religious sentiments were absolutely part of lawmaking, so the very same people who framed the constitution seem to run contrary to your remarks.

The Missouri Compromise is a prime example, as there was a hotbed of religious argument alongside the constitutional and fiscal arguments, and Congress decided that new states south of the Mason-Dixon line would be able to practice slavery. Clearly this was a burden on and offensive to people who didn't believe in slavery, as it even deeply offended a number of people who voted to pass it, including John Hay himself (the principle author of the bill), and of course the slaves were burdened. It was done during Jackson's presidency to preserve the union, forty years before the civil war.

Now we're on the other side of history, and the slippery slope you present is, to be honest, no more ignominious and terrifying than the slope of policing the involvement of religious ideas in politics. Clearly history has enough examples of non-religious precedents for laws that were every bit as terrible if not more so than religious laws; just take a moment to consider the havoc wreaked on the world in the 20th century by atheist regimes. The Inquisition was a drop in Stalin's pond.

I would argue that it is not the religiosity of tyrannical laws that must be checked, but the tyranny itself.

1. What right does the government have to be involved? Does their involvement help? Marriage seemed to get along just fine before they started mucking with it.

2. I do deny all non-christian marriages, however, I mean that only in the sense that I deny they are the same concept as a christian marriage. On top of that I fully expect the same kind of denial from others. This, in and of itself, is not harmful, judgmental, or hateful in the least (although it can certainly be all three).

3. The price of mucking up this highly personal issue, with the filth crusted hands of government, is that they haven't been able to satisfy anyone and the way they've ultimately handled this is anything but democratic. Not only did they use the constitution for toilet paper when they legalized gay marriage, they continued in and further set a precedent for giving constitutional rulings on issues that have nothing to do with the constitution; who knows, maybe they'll directly contradict the constitution in the future, like they already have in other numerous other cases. And who has to wait for a gruelingly long process, surely aware, if they aren't blind, that it will end up splattering feces all over the constitution like this has? People who practice polygamy and polyamory.

What could solve all of this? We could simply start dispensing people legal rights according to their living situations. After all, it is their living situations and the relational concerns that they choose, which are fundamental in our inclination as a society to guarantee them certain legal rights. Married couples are expected to have more expenses, expected often to plan on building a family, and as such the IRS is more lenient with them in giving them a few special filing statuses (MFJ, MFS, QW). They are able to draw on survivor's annuities, receive certain privileges when they are written into a will, etc.

Of course we need all of that. We rightly expect financial and general living considerations, because of the world we now live in and the burdens we collectively shoulder as citizens (e.g. taxes, jury duty). What we don't need is Uncle Sam's seal of approval to legitimize our relationships, to differentiate between them and arbitrarily privilege certain people. I can determine my own feelings, relationships, and life decisions, thank you very much. When I first married my ex wife and we made it legal, in my eyes we were no more or less married because of the State, as the place that we really got married was in a church and the paradigm we were married under was the gospel, not the paradigm of taxes and social security.

They are involved because marriage involves taxes and legal issues like joint ownership of assets and legal rights concerning offspring.

Last I checked, legal marriages had nothing to do with the church or any religious stuff so there never was any 'mucking' of it. Here's a fact: If you marry through a church and do not legally register your marriage, the state will not recognize said marriage. That is why when you marry through a church there is legal paperwork that goes with it.. you get the religious ceremony and the legal stuff taken care of.



Basically you simply deny that non-christian marriages...are not christian marriages. Ok, makes sense. The outrage seems to be then that same-sex marriages through a church would not be christian because the church in rome does not accept it... which is fine because same-sex marriages are not being done through rome-endorsed christian entities... and the more the roman church denies these marriages the more followers they will lose. These days enlightened people do not take kindly to oppression.



Just stop right there and listen to yourself. You are declaring that if LEGAL MARRIAGE is not a christian marriage by your definition then the STATE should not be allow it.

Do you understand the concept of separation of church and state? The constitution literally says that the state will not side with any religion. If your religion says same-sex marriages are forbidden the state does not have to enforce your beliefs on others.

Which is EXACTLY what you and others like you are crying about. That the state is not enforcing your beliefs upon the rest of us.

Your medieval mindset is obsolete. Thankfully though, you live in a society where the same principles that recognize same sex marriage also recognize your right to practice your religion of choice without fear of oppression... that very same oppression which you want the state to do on your behalf.

It's a sad irony that... a so called 'christian', the religion of 'love and compassion' demanding others be oppressed and encouraging hatred upon others.

You speak a lot about toilet paper. Perhaps its time you took a good look at what it's wiping.

^^^

Yup, the toilet paper is still the residue of the archaic non-reality rules of religion; and in the case of the United States; moreover, the Christian religion, whose grimy hands of subjugation through baseless fear, oppression, and repression of human nature is the originator of much human illness, suffering; and yes, indirectly even death; as social oppression and repression of human nature is one of the worse sources of human stress; and yes, science, now, definitively shows that chronic human stress leads to the destruction of every bodily system; AND CAN EVENTUALLY LEAD TO A PREMATURE DEATH.

AND SOMETIMES for innocent homosexual children; who are forced to go to church; completely understanding that they are HOMOSEXUAL and THAT is no choice of anyone except their particular mix of innate genetics and environment as is; THEY FEEL excluded from the human race as whole; when the psychopathic leaning pastor or priest coldly suggests that Jesus is all about inclusion of everyone; and then turns the other cheek to give the exclusion of Loving homosexuals; not allowing them to enter into a most so-called basic sacrament of the Catholic Church; and with the protestants, the other so-called big boy macho guys just bully the homosexual males and females, in some cases, literally to frigging death.

Yes, in this way the church is as slimy as the slimiest toilet paper on the face of the earth. It's all about reproductive control and STILL IS, for women in many countries, to the max of 'purchasing cattle for reproduction', as metaphor of course.

Now, for folks who wanna live this way; that is another thing; but for folks who are forced into it, in a continuing environment of social abuse, stress, eventual premature death or suicide; as a last resort from being ostracized out of the social circle; AS that is, overall, the worst, of slow or fast torture for human nature.

But only a person who truly has a heart, soul, and a spirit expressed in cognitive and affective emotional empathy can possibly understand this. This is a rare commodity in close thinking minds; whether it is a Militant Atheist or a Fundamentalist Christian.

There is good reason to go to church for social connection FOR
THE Interdependent Relationship in Connectedness of ALL THAT IS AKA GOD.

But there is only the metaphor OF THE DEVIL for folks who coldly exclude other folks;

FROM THE FRIGGING HUMAN RACE; as the lesser of even a 'precious dog' that sits
in the lap of Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Monsignors, Priests and other Pastors;
many of whom, are already innately homosexuals, practicing life in a closet;
or simply repressing their human nature, as is; as a lie of living life; getting
exposed as we already fully know; as has been the case in the history of
my Catholic Church,
as well.

Sixty-Six percent of the American Public are for the rights of gay individuals to
have civil unions; and these days even a boring priest is enough to empty
the pews of a Catholic Church; the Priests in the know who wanna keep
their jobs, keep it don't talk about it, don't ask, for 99 percent of the
time; as they know THAT Sixty-Six percent of the American Public
is out there in the Pews; and potentially just another
lost congregational member to a church
with a more up to date,
reasoning EMOTIONAL
mind IN BALANCE.

The function of church will always be here;
But the function of ignorance and HATE,

IS ON ITS WAY OUT.

SOME PEOPLE ARE
STILL BORN WITH
A HEART; A SOUL;
AND A SPIRIT;
AND EVEN
BETTER
FRIGGING
COMMON SENSE.

Anyone, who is ignorant enough to believe
that GOD doesn't make all the colors
of the RAINBOW IN HUMAN BEING;
is just a frigging
knot on the
LOG HERE;
WITHOUT
ANY AFFECTIVE
OR COGNITIVE EMPATHY
AKA HUMAN COMMON SENSE;
TO SEE all the colors of the
human rainbow that range
from in-between to all
the colors of gender
and sexual
orientation;
yes, even more
than '50 shades of GREY';
for anyone with common
sense; with a REAL HEART,
SOUL, SPIRIT, AND MORE
THAN FRIGGING HALF A BRAIN.
And to be clear, what I mean by
half a brain is a Literalist without
Emotional Intelligence. Any one
with Emotional Intelligence can
quickly get the REAL
OF QUEER THAT
OVERALL ALREADY
IS HUMAN BEING
IN THE TOTAL
MIX
OF THE
RACE,
AS
IS.

PERHAPS, one day
a full brain of human
being will rule the world;
at least, in the U.S., Obama,
a man with a full brain
IS essential
in health care
expansion and
the expansion
of civil
rights OF
'GAY', along with
his administration
and peers; so the
REAL GOD OF NATURE
BLESSES THE U.S.A. IN THIS
WAY
NOW;
And the ignorant
among us continue
to JUST
LOSE.

AND ANYWAY,
IT was only a matter
of time (nows) for
this to eventually
rule, as GOD'S REAL
RULES ARE WHAT
TRULY RULES; AND
THAT INCLUDES
HOMOSEXUALS
AS AN ESSENTIAL
PART OF THE
Bonobo and
Human
'races';
for frigging
continued harmonious
SURVIVAL AS A WHOLE,
HOMOSEXUALS AND
HETERO-SEXUALS
HAND
IN
HAND, AS FREE
COOPERATING
EQUAL RIGHTS
MEMBERS
OF SOCIETY
IN ALL WAYS.

And if anyone wonders why I am
so passionate about this issue;
AS hard as it may be to believe
if one looks at my law enforcement
big looking head and 230LB muscular
body; clearly available to see on all
my blogs; when I am young I
am mistaken for a female;
and just because
of THAT most everyone
assumes I am gay; even
though I am 100% hard
heterosexual; so I am
verbally abused for
years; and this
frigging hurts;
even if ONE
IS NOT gay;
I can only NOW
imagine how much
MORE it hurts for a person
who is gay; so anytime I see
anyone bullying someone like this
in REAL LIFE; I confront them face to
face; and the bully boys who are men now;
turn their tail and run in metaphor as now I am
three or four times stronger than they are;
as anything is
possible in life;
and now the person
they bullied is
their frigging
worse nightmare
come to
LIFE.

I neither tolerate THAT
OR ACCEPT IT;
I understand it
as weakness
and truly
often homophobic,
as these folks often
have hidden
homosexual
desires for
themselves;
but there is
no place
for HATE
AND ABUSE
OF OTHERS IN
THE WORLD
anywhere any
time AND as far as
a I am concerned;
no one gets a pass
from me; not even
my Catholic Priest
as I have confronted
him directly with it
and put an end
to homosexual
verbal abuse
at my
Catholic
Church too;
at least,
in
part.

And Here is my
theme song for
BULLIES OF
ALL COLORS;
including
physical,
emotional,
intellectual,
and all the shades
of psychopathic
grey, extending
out to hate
and 'demon'
and or
'devil'
DARKEST
BLACKEST
HOLE SUN
SOUL
reaLIty.

If marriage is purely a religious institution then why is the government sanctioning or recognizing it in the first place?

It was originally cultural, but whether it is religious or purely cultural government has no business defining it.

^ that.

The government is not sanctioning it. Its regulating it. Remember, the government will not interfere with who you want to marry or why, its only interested in taxes and legal matters in that regard.

We have a state church with bishops in the second house of lawmakers, or is it the first house. An ordained priest is likely able to sign a marriage certificate as would a registrar.