A mentality I don't understand...

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82830

You can't make the argument that marriage is a distinct religious precept when: A) a state-issued license is required; B) marriage is not religion-specific, yet certain forms condoned by non-Christian religions (Mormon polygamy, for example) is expressly forbidden by federal law; and C) there are financial breaks issues for those who marry, regardless of whether they have children. This sort of melodrama really just... Grinds My Gears.


M.

Well I think marriage was originally just a religious or spiritual institution. Then the government went and stuck it's nose once again where it didn't belong. The reason we have all of the problems with what marriage is today is because the state gets involved where it has no buisness being involved. I think marriage should be a privet institution and the various religions or institutions should be able to define it however they want. At the same time I think the government should get out of marriage all together. No more licenses no more voting on the rights of certain individuals no more tax credits or whatever. Just have the state stay out of it all together. Just like the Constitution says.

Your mistake is that you are trying to make sense of the way typpies do things. You are far too logical for their ways.

My opinion ... all the various forms and ceremonies of marriage could easily be replaced by a private contract between the people involved. No need for any official involvement except maybe an arbitrator if there is a contractual breach.

btw: Mormons no longer practise polygamy, that was a very short era of their history.

Ah, were that so... first, there is the FLDS, a fundamentalist sect of the Mormon belief system, most of whose members live on the Utah/Arizona border which still practices polygamy. This is not a group in the tens or hundreds, but in the thousands. Within the mainstream faith itself, there are still those who practice polygamy albeit in a rather veiled manner. This is not something I speak of lightly; having nearly two-thirds of my family who are Mormon and living in Utah, it is something that comes from observation and experience.

I appreciate your comment about logic - it rarely has a place when people in large numbers are involved. Junfan85, while I appreciate that it had roots in religions and communities, but when it became institutionalized by the state then the rules changed. A church can refuse to marry two individuals of the same sex; they can even refuse to marry on other grounds. However, when the state dictates who can marry, it infringes on one of the basic concepts in American law (even if it does not always exist in practice) that all men and women are equal in the eyes of the law. So why prohibit same-sex marriage? The churches can always do that, so why do they need a law? I'm sure if the major faiths aren't interested, there will be new ones popping up who will fill that niche. And as an aside... Are you aware of the disparity of fundraising in California on Prop 8 between the general population and those who are LDS? Look into it - I can provide links, but I think you'll find more interest if you look for it yourself.


M.

Er, you do realize there is plenty of evidence that this is just not the case? Marriage is very nearly universal to human cultures, and it just is not true that it is something invented by religion, or premised on spirituality. These things are more or less involved depending on the extent to which they are prominent in the culture itself.

This is nonsense. The government is not sticking its nose in at all.
It can be, they can. Government is simply offering a public kind of marriage. It's an extra option. You and your religion are quite welcome to consider yourself privately married in the eyes of each other, without involving the state.


The constitution says there will be no tax credits?

well, that shocked me!

its like their trying to fit in as many different groups to insult as they can.

how screwed up do you have to be to want to make hate pages spouting venom and insighting intollerance. They cant have been hugged enough as a child.

That comment just made my day!

In all seriousness though, it seems that many conservatives have a persecution complex. They strip a group of their rights, and then whine about persecution.

An abstract of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article, which describes the analysis of four people found in a stone-age gravesite, concludes that marriage - two parents staying together - predates our present day by about 4600 years.

(LINK #1 & LINK #2)

Thus, the "Traditional Nuclear Family" precedes Christianity by about 2600 years. This is roughly the time of the construction of the Great Sphinx and pyramids at Giza. Further, Thus, the Christians can not claim to have invented marriage, since it existed even before the Biblical Old Testament was written; nor can the "Gay Rights" activists claim that the "Traditional Nuclear Family" originated just a few hundred years ago, when instead such families existed during the Stone Age.

A bit off the thread but: I understand what you are saying, however, I am myself an ex Mormon having held a high office in the local area for a number of years. I use the term Mormon in the strict sense of the mainstream church, and do not apply it to breakaway groups. If there are mainstream members still practicing polygamy, they would be promptly excommunicated if discovered by their leaders ... presuming the leaders involved are not also corrupt.

S50 - Thank you for the response. While I have known some wonderful members over the years, and more than half of my family are members, there are also a lot of corruption within the organization. When I was young, I spent a fair amount of time looking into it, and seeing beneath the surface really bothered me. I appreciate the clarification on usage; I use the more expansive definition unless otherwise specified.


M.

Personally, I believe in TRUE separation of state. Meaning I don't want to hear about this nation under GOD anymore than I want creationism being taught in science class. The benefits given to married couples in society are given to them because it is implied that married couples have children which ensures the future of the nation. And pretty much all the benefits they receive from the state revolve around money: tax benefits and such.

It should be very simple:

All heterosexual couples sign a civil union certificate and have a civil union ceremony from the state - that is a contract to keep all their promises to the state.

All homosexual couples sign a civil union certificate (with a clause that they must adopt and raise at least one child) and have their civil union ceremony - that is a contract to keep all their promises to the state.

In short - GOVERNMENT GRANTS CIVIL UNIONS TO ALL CITIZENS.

Anyone who wants to be MARRIED can look for a religion to marry them.

That includes all of the people who think that marriage is a big party where you dress up and invite all your friends and family and a priest and you cry and tell each other "I will love you till the end of time"

Let's not forget people: MARRIAGE IS ABOUT CHILDREN.

Thank you, makuranososhi, this is the correct view. Marriage is a social institution not a religious one.

There is nothing simple about it. State sanctioned marriage is a civil union. The state does not care if people choose to incorporate religion into any ceremonials they attach to this union, so long as the general conditions (set by the State and alterable and variable from time to time as the state may dictate), for entering into this kind of civil union are adhered to.

None of which grants any or all religion any precedence over marriage, the word, or the institution. To stop calling marriage 'marriage' because religious groups have asserted some non-existent precedence over the word/institution is a clear encouragement as to the establishment of religion, religious precedence and religious authority. By its duty to not establish religion, the State is surely required to protect wider society's propriety rights in the word and institution of marriage.