Hitskin.com

Is marriage about a two people making a commitment to share their lives in the name of God, or is it a more of a basic civil liberty?

A commitment between two people to share their lives without anything religious being involved. I don't want religion in my government or my marriage.

Chris wrote:: Is marriage about a two people making a commitment to share their lives in the name of God, or is it a more of a basic civil liberty?

It's a basic civil liberty. The fact is no matter how a couple decides to affirm their vows, they need a license from the state for it to be legal....for as long as that's the case marriage is a civil liberty.

Yepperz!

Marriage as a religious institution would be the best outlook for everybody, IMO.

Marriage has traditionally been governed by the church, but in secular societies there is a legal requirement to be registered by the state as being married.

So, ppl who can't legally marry often have a ceremony in their religious community, but it ain't official.

And, when the state elects to discriminate against certain ppl who wish to legally marry because it conflicts with the majority culture's religious beliefs that is a travesty.

I guess it could go either way. Traditionally, it is a religious bond, confirmed and acknowledged in and by the church. But I feel that it does not have to be legal to be a true bond.

Quote :: Do you consider marriage a religious istitution?

I don't. Of course many people do...probably a majority, but it started out as, and has basically stayed, a social institution. Dress it up anyway you want.

Chris wrote:: Is marriage about a two people making a commitment to share their lives in the name of God, or is it a more of a basic civil liberty?

It's BOTH (depending on the context and the individuals). If you are talking about two faithful believers who want to be married in the presence of God, then "marriage" is a religious custom. If you're talking about the legal definition of marriage as it applies to social status and civil liberty, then it has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. This also means that while a church should have the right to discriminate over who they decide to marry in the name of their religion, legally speaking, ANY two consenting adults (regardless of sexual orientation) should be able to go down to the courthouse and get married!

captainbryce wrote:: ...legally speaking, ANY two consenting adults (regardless of sexual orientation) should be able to go down to the courthouse and get married!

Yes, and the anti gay marriage religionists fail to note the travesty of denying two loving couples who share their lives for years this legal option.

Like Caesar and Harod, the states and feds don't want to address this travesty. Feds say marriage is a state right like they did with the miscegenation laws in the south in the 1960s. (It was the US Supreme Court that ended that travesty in 1967)

Fact is, it is a federal issue because Social Security is involved. While each person gets their own SS, married couples can opt to draw on their spouses account. Except those two guys who shared 40 years of their lives get nothing in legal benfits.

Shale wrote:: Fact is, it is a federal issue because Social Security is involved. While each person gets their own SS, married couples can opt to draw on their spouses account. Except those two guys who shared 40 years of their lives get nothing in legal benfits.

Exactly! That's why I don't see why bans against gay marraige could be considered constitutional since it is a violation of equal rights to federal benefits. There is no rational reason to discriminate against gays in such a way beyond religious thinking (which shouldn't be a factor in a secular government).

» Video Lampooning Iola's Legalization of Gay Marriage; Suggesting Incestuous Marriage Is Next.
» Anti-Gay Marriage Strategist Declares Support For Marriage Equality
» Are You religious ?
» Politicians religious affiliations
» Televangelists/Religious programming

Hitskin.com

Do you consider marriage a religious institution?