I am asking if you consider me married? The state of Florida does, yet no religous orginization was involved.... How can that be?
APP - damo, dixie and i agree
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
I am asking if you consider me married? The state of Florida does, yet no religous orginization was involved.... How can that be?
True using Southern Mans logic, Catholics should be at the back of the list when being considered as adoptive parents.
As do I, except I fully understand that they exist in order to limit marriages to those approved by the doctrine of the majority religion and to collect fees.
I don't know why you would hate this so much, Jarod. It simply gives equal standing to all religions, and allows all persons of consenting age to choose this type of agreement. All marriages would be on equal footing, including those performed by churches for homosexual couples, and only those who feel a need for secular acknowledgment or benefits would need to file for that at all.
IMO, we should limit tax benefits solely to those raising children so that laws are not again pressing towards the doctrine of the majority religion that the only valid "family" is one in the valid state of "marriage"...
I dont hate it, I am merely pointing out that you are merely changing the name. I agree with doing away with the license procedure. The only requirement should be age. I dont have a problem with the states calling it marriage if they choose.
There are lots of legal arrangements that only married people are allowed. There are certian ways that only married people can own land together. These are set up because of the unique situation that exists when two people are raising a child together or when one member of a couple gives up earning potential for the good of the group.
In my profession, a long term partner does not qualify for a consortium claim, yet a person married for a week does.
No. Just Priests. Priests and school teachers based on the news cycles...
Again, it doesn't matter what I "consider" you to be, we are speaking of why I think what we do now is wrong.
And we are speaking of how I think we should change the system in order to first have the government stop enforcing others religions on us, and secondly as a good compromise that even most religious people could agree with.
I dono, Catholics expose there kids more often to Catholic Priests.
It does matter what you think.
If you belive I am married you are acknoledging that marriage is not necessarly religously based.
If you belive that I am not married, then you are just silly.
Ive been to lots of weddings, I do not automatically it will be a religous ceramony.
No, it doesn't matter what I think. I don't think the government can "sanctify" anything and that sanctity is exactly what the most religious argue about.
Anyway, I would then be recognizing that the government is using its power to enforce what is "traditionally" (and I use that for the "traditional marriage" folk) a religious institution, not that it suddenly isn't what it was always simply because a secular entity wants some of that power too. Replacing religious dogma for irreligious dogma is also (per the SCOTUS) proscribed against in the Constitution.
What I most recognize is that by government licensing we have enforced upon us the doctrine of the majority religion, and under the guise of "traditional marriage" they continue to do this, even though there is an Amendment against just that type of thing in the Constitution.
Again, this is what I argue:
First, I want the government to come into line with the powers they were given and the limitations that were set.
Second, I want a good compromise that even most religious people agree with.
i have married people in both ca and hi - under their laws a person is officially married when the paperwork is completed and registered - a partner claims common law marriage (not so sure of the last one as common law may have been abolished since i got out of the marriage business)
religiously but not legally, people may be married as a result of a religious leaders, i.e., priest, minister etc., pronouncement - this is considered 'married within the church'
from wiki -
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways, depending on the culture or demographic. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the marital structure created is known as wedlock.
People marry for many reasons, most often including one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of love.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
good one....
all those that engage in blowjobs should also not be allowed to marry as it is sodomy to SM
I agree the government cannot sanctify anything, but my point is that marriage does not have to be sanctified, mine is not! That is exactly the point. A legal marriage that is not sanctified should and is allowed, many of my friends were married by judges and have a non sanctified marriage. You can change its name, but its still a marriage!
Then help us to "change its name" so that we can have a solution rather than a wedge issue.
I dont care if you want to change the name and do away with the liscence requirement. Ive been against the liscence requirement for a long time. TO me however changing the name is merely semantics.
Church and state are already sepperated in marriage, that is why homosexuals should be allowed to marry in the eyes of the government. THe church still has a right to not reconise the union.
Many churches currently fail to reconize divorces. The Catholics call it an anulment and you have to pay to get one!
Im sure the Catholic church does not see me as married! According to them I am living in sin and my children are bastards.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
The point is that the two are not separate when people get married in the church. You still have to get a gov't licence to get married, whether you have a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.
The suggestion was to separate the two completely.
You can get married in a church without a license and the church will reconize it and consider you married. You can also get married on a beach a church or your bathroom by a judge, priest or notary and the government will reconize it and consider you married.
If you want the goverment to reconize it you need a liscence and some legal documents. If you want a church to reconize it, you need what ever that church requires. The church should not concern itself with the governments requirements and the government shoud not concern itself with the churches requirements.