|
Post by BearClause on Mar 30, 2022 11:40:34 GMT -5
Civil marriage is not necessarily religious marriage, despite the legal aspects that allow ceremonies. Nobody gets to tell me that I’m not really married just because I chose a civil ceremony at a government building. It’s insulting. I am married. I don’t care if anyone thinks that’s trashing a religious tradition. That just reeks of arrogance. Would you accept a legal union, which gave every last bit the same legal, tax, etc. benefits to the two consenting adults (federal and state) .... but which used a different word? My guess is, you would not. Therefore, it is more than just a practical matter. You want to control the word itself.
The issue I see is that there is a distinct group of people literally advocating for “marriage” to be reserved only for religiously sanctioned unions. For whatever reasons, they’re the ones who want to control the word for reasons they can explain better since there are several. But at the heart, it’s some religiously minded who believe that it cheapens their definition of marriage when others claim to be married in a fashion that they don’t approve of, whether it’s a same sex couple, two atheists, or whatever. So no it’s not me who wants to control the word marriage, it’s them. I’m not going to tell them that their definition is wrong. They tell others that only they can decide who is married. That’s just wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2022 11:44:43 GMT -5
Would you accept a legal union, which gave every last bit the same legal, tax, etc. benefits to the two consenting adults (federal and state) .... but which used a different word? My guess is, you would not. Therefore, it is more than just a practical matter. You want to control the word itself.
The issue I see is that there is a distinct group of people literally advocating for “marriage” to be reserved only for religiously sanctioned unions. For whatever reasons, they’re the ones who want to control the word for reasons they can explain better since there are several. But at the heart, it’s some religiously minded who believe that it cheapens their definition of marriage when others claim to be married in a fashion that they don’t approve of, whether it’s a same sex couple, two atheists, or whatever. So no it’s not me who wants to control the word marriage, it’s them. I’m not going to tell them that their definition is wrong. They tell others that only they can decide who is married. That’s just wrong. But what does it matter, if it's just a word?
That's the extent to where I agree with them. If you have two paths, which lead to exactly the same benefits .... I don't see any problem at all reserving the word "marriage" for a religious ceremony.
Again, IF it's just the word. What I can't tell, is if they are also (perhaps quietly) wanting to reserve some of the total (legal, tax, etc.) benefits specially for those married.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2022 11:47:09 GMT -5
It was. So?? Stuff changes. You advocate for radical changes, in fact. Follow the frickin' argument. They're denying that stuff changes and making an argument based on the institution of marriage as centuries old. Religious marriage is centuries old. Most civil society was originally governed by religion. Back then, there was no such concept as an official, legal marriage that was done outside the religion.
I don't care if you hate that, it's how it came about.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 30, 2022 11:51:18 GMT -5
Follow the frickin' argument. They're denying that stuff changes and making an argument based on the institution of marriage as centuries old. Religious marriage is centuries old. Most civil society was originally governed by religion. Back then, there was no such concept as an official, legal marriage that was done outside the religion.
I don't care if you hate that, it's how it came about.
This is just completely false. Marriage long predates Christianity, it predates Judaism, it predates when the Abrahamic God was just a member of the Canaanite pantheon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2022 11:55:58 GMT -5
Religious marriage is centuries old. Most civil society was originally governed by religion. Back then, there was no such concept as an official, legal marriage that was done outside the religion.
I don't care if you hate that, it's how it came about.
This is just completely false. Marriage long predates Christianity, it predates Judaism, it predates when the Abrahamic God was just a member of the Canaanite pantheon. 🙄 Semantics games.
You'll pretend that two Neanderthals grunting at each other was "marriage", just to avoid being wrong.
Proof. Links.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 30, 2022 12:01:12 GMT -5
This is just completely false. Marriage long predates Christianity, it predates Judaism, it predates when the Abrahamic God was just a member of the Canaanite pantheon. 🙄 Semantics games. You'll pretend that two Neanderthals grunting at each other was "marriage", just to avoid being wrong. Proof. Links.
Pharaohs in the Old Kingdom of Egypt (and earlier) had wives. So dishonest about this.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Mar 30, 2022 12:01:28 GMT -5
Religious marriage is centuries old. Most civil society was originally governed by religion. Back then, there was no such concept as an official, legal marriage that was done outside the religion.
I don't care if you hate that, it's how it came about.
This is just completely false. Marriage long predates Christianity, it predates Judaism, it predates when the Abrahamic God was just a member of the Canaanite pantheon. Moreover, every human culture has marriage. There is nothing specifically Judeo-Christian about it. It's just that religion is a greedy, jealous force in people's minds. It wants to co-opt and control everything. Celebration of the winter solstice? NO! "Birth of Christ!" Harvest festival? NO! A religious celebration of the dead. Spring? NO! Passover/Easter. Marriage? NO! Only as a sacrament in our church. We see what are effectively marriages in the animal kingdom, as many animals pair-bond for life to mate and raise children. There is every reason to think that marriage probably predates homo sapiens, much less religion. And it certainly predates the Abrahamic religions. But religious people want to claim it as something they own and control.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2022 12:02:34 GMT -5
Pharaohs in the Old Kingdom of Egypt (and earlier) had wives. So??? How does this disprove anything I said?? Where in my post did I specify "Judeo-Christian" anything?? I said "religion". I said what I meant. No surprise, you read what you wanted to read and railed against that. 🙄
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2022 12:04:43 GMT -5
We see what are effectively marriages in the animal kingdom, as many animals pair-bond for life to mate and raise children. Silly non-argument. So go do that! You don't need to be married to do that. Lots of people, in fact, are not.
|
|
|
Post by valleyvolley1 on Mar 30, 2022 12:07:02 GMT -5
This is just completely false. Marriage long predates Christianity, it predates Judaism, it predates when the Abrahamic God was just a member of the Canaanite pantheon. Moreover, every human culture has marriage. There is nothing specifically Judeo-Christian about it. It's just that religion is a greedy, jealous force in people's minds. It wants to co-opt and control everything. Celebration of the winter solstice? NO! "Birth of Christ!" Harvest festival? NO! A religious celebration of the dead. Spring? NO! Passover/Easter. Marriage? NO! Only as a sacrament in our church. We see what are effectively marriages in the animal kingdom, as many animals pair-bond for life to mate and raise children. There is every reason to think that marriage probably predates homo sapiens, much less religion. And it certainly predates the Abrahamic religions. But religious people want to claim it as something they own and control. You are an absolute idiot with that response. Go back to your little boyfriend
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 30, 2022 12:11:55 GMT -5
Pharaohs in the Old Kingdom of Egypt (and earlier) had wives. So??? How does this disprove anything I said?? Where in my post did I specify "Judeo-Christian" anything?? I said "religion". I said what I meant. No surprise, you read what you wanted to read and railed against that. 🙄 How does anything you've claimed prove anything? You're positing, completely unsupported, that marriage as an institution is religious in origin. Back it up (and don't use anything Judeo-Christian because we've established that marriage predates that religion).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2022 12:16:35 GMT -5
So??? How does this disprove anything I said?? Where in my post did I specify "Judeo-Christian" anything?? I said "religion". I said what I meant. No surprise, you read what you wanted to read and railed against that. 🙄 How does anything you've claimed prove anything? You're positing, completely unsupported, that marriage as an institution is religious in origin. Back it up (and don't use anything Judeo-Christian because we've established that marriage predates that religion). You cited Pharaohs of Egypt.
That society was built upon the belief in gods. That's religious. Marriages between people were governed by society and thus governed by the gods. That's religious.
There's not going to be any way for you to point back to an ancient society that didn't believe in gods of some kind and governed on behalf of them. That includes marriages.
Your desire to assert and enforce secular society and marriage, is entirely a modern invention. Why are you afraid of admitting that?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Mar 30, 2022 12:22:14 GMT -5
How does anything you've claimed prove anything? You're positing, completely unsupported, that marriage as an institution is religious in origin. Back it up (and don't use anything Judeo-Christian because we've established that marriage predates that religion). You cited Pharaohs of Egypt. That society was built upon the belief in gods. That's religious. Marriages between people were governed by society and thus governed by the gods. That's religious. There's not going to be any way for you to point back to an ancient society that didn't believe in gods of some kind and governed on behalf of them. That includes marriages. Your desire to assert and enforce secular society and marriage, is entirely a modern invention. Why are you afraid of admitting that?
LOL You're just making %*$# up, OK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2022 12:25:47 GMT -5
No response, has nothing. Got em again
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2022 12:26:54 GMT -5
I've proven the point.
Secularism is a modern invention. That doesn't, in any way, mean it's a bad thing. I don't think it's bad, personally.
That said, there needs to be respect for where it all came from. Humans were, for a long, long time, exclusively religious.
|
|