- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Mar 12
Originally posted by RBHILLYes the elected representatives of the people should back off and let the self selected churches
Governament should stay out of marring people and let the churches do it.
do whatever they like... [if you can't tell that's sarcasm you need help]
I am sorry [well actually I am really not] to burst your bubble but not only does religion have
very little to do with marriage (other than having co-opted it as an excellent method of controlling people,
cornering the market in things everyone does or wants to do, death and sex) but the majority (in the UK)
don't have any religion and worldwide the majority of people are not members of any denomination of Christianity.
So which churches should have the power to decree which people should be allowed to marry?
Marriage is (among other things) a contract, a way of indicating to the state that these two people are legally binding
themselves together and trusting each other with legal powers and rights.
This is absolutely the business of government. If you have a church wedding the vicar/priest/whatever may say the words
and blather about god a bit but the official bit that makes you married is the paperwork of the state (who license the vicar
to act for them) that legally joins you together. (and where appropriate changes your names)
For those who are not religious (or are in a hurry or can't afford a big church wedding) the state provides civil weddings
which simply do the paperwork without the theistic blather.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
12 Mar 12
Originally posted by VoidSpirit"...marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two or more individuals."
stop deluding yourself. marriage was not originated by religion, it was hijacked by it.
marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two or more individuals. it has been so since its inception.
Those individuals being the patriarchs of the families/clans/tribes involved, until fairly recently.
But I would say it is nothing less than that.
13 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThe simple fact of the matter is that American society is not as religious as it once was. Anyone can attest to this. At one time, you had prayer in the schools and everything was closed on Sundays. Today, if you pray in school then you get sent before a firing squad and sued and Sundays are just another day.
Marriage in the U.S. is not very common nowadays?
Wiki tells us that 83 percent of Americans identify with a religious denomination, 40 percent state that they attend services nearly every week or more, and 58 percent say that they pray at least weekly. Are these people "secular"? Are these people 'not bothering' to get married before they start families?
about "government perks"? What figures do you have for years such as 2000, 2005, 2011?
Nevertheless, I have seen the decline of marriage with my own eyes. At one time, women would feel pressured to get married if they got pregnant. Today, some girls have each kid by a different dad and don't think anything of it. Also, people wait longer to get married. I think the social norm, with or without religion, is to sleep around till you are older and ready to have kids.
Like it or not, single parent homes are on the rise and marriage is on the way out.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by FMFInjustice between people? What about a person who enters a marriage who has a great deal of wealth and is targeted by another who merely wants that wealth by marrying them? The state can settle differences like they do for anyone else. The fact that they have sex together should be of no consequence.
A government recognizing and enforcing contractual obligations and offering the possibility of recourse if there is injustice between people, contributes to economic security and stability, of course. It is not a "government perk". Is this your main defence of your ultra-cynical stance?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by whodeyHmmm I wasn't clear I will admit.
Do what they like? What do you think this is, a free country? 🙄
RBHILL was suggesting that marriages should be the sole preserve of churches who
presumably get to determine who can get married to whom and under what circumstances.
One of the major points and purposes of an elected government is to protect people from
institutions and corporations who might otherwise exploit or discriminate against them.
Giving the 'churches' (and again, which churches?) the power to determine who gets to get
married means that the churches are now the arbiters of who gets some quite considerable
benefits and rights that go along with the legal marriage contract.
Given this power they could (and in fact do) discriminate against certain members or groups
of society who for irrational and arbitrary reasons they decide shouldn't get to marry and get
the benefits that go with that.
Part of being in a 'free country' is in fact the government making sure that the majority doesn't
trample all over the 'rights' and freedoms of any minorities.
In the USA that would include atheists and LGBT couples. (as well as I suspect quite a few theists
of non-Christian persuasions).
So yes marriage should in a free country be available to those of any faith and no faith, and to those
of any and all genders and sexual orientations.
Whether or not churches should be made to perform those ceremonies is a separate and open question.
13 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgePeople should be free to have whoever they wish marry them. Also, if anyone has qualms about marrying a couple, they should not be forced to do so and stand by their intuition, whether it be good or bad.
Hmmm I wasn't clear I will admit.
RBHILL was suggesting that marriages should be the sole preserve of churches who
presumably get to determine who can get married to whom and under what circumstances.
One of the major points and purposes of an elected government is to protect people from
institutions and corporations who might otherwise exploit ot churches should be made to perform those ceremonies is a separate and open question.
It's simple really, afford people the freedom to live their lives and have government go take a flying leap off a bridge somewhere.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by whodeyThe government's recognition and certification of marriage where I live goes some way towards affording women - who are relatively vulnerable and discriminated against in this culture - a degree of protection and security because of their legal status.
It's simple really, afford people the freedom to live their lives and have government go take a flying leap off a bridge somewhere.
13 Mar 12
I am an athiest. My wife is a christian. We have two sons. I marred my wife because I love her, and I wanted my children to grow up in a stable environment. This can easily be achieved without marraige, but I went the traditional route. I allow my kids to go to church with their mother and grandmother. Although I don't agree with their religion, I am tolerant of people who do believe (as long as they don't try to change my way of thnking). It is my wish for my children that they question life, and don't rely on something spoonfed to them to use as a crutch. If they choose to believe in god, that is fine with me. America was founded on freedoms such as religion. I would like to think that they would be smart enough to see through the christian charade, but if they aren't I still could not love them more than I already do.
Hell, if they turn out to be like RJ (only smarter and less cheaty 😕 at least I will have intellegent debate in my twilight years
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by FMF"-is often the woman" . I beg to differ here. While the man might have the physically advantage, it is often the woman that has the upper hand when going into a relationship, (legally i mean) -at least it is my part of the world (australia,especially brisbane).
The institution of marriage is a stable economic unit in which two people commit to support and provide companionship to each other and, if they choose, to raise children, and offer some financial security to both partners, which is especially crucial for the weaker or more economically vulnerable partner, which in many cultures - and in heterosexual marriages - ...[text shortened]... elatively easy. I think there are plenty of reasons to get married even if one is not religious.
I have some concrete examples of thistendency, but I wont bore the forum with them, unless they specifically ask. Ok?
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by galveston75It is a good ideal for those that are suited to that type of relationship. Good on them,I say, but as divorce rates are around 50% (again,in my part of the world), I would have to conclude that a lot of young people have gone and gotten married , quite often from spiritual pressure from society and parents (who goto church and that),without really thinking it through properly.
So why did God institute the marriage arrangment?
Again I have concrete examples- one that actually involves my sister and a JW she married. (Again, all you need to do is ask and I will give you the example)