Marriage vs religion?

Question

should the laws concerning marriage be dicated by a religion? (just for the record i say no wholeheartedly, but i would like some info from either side to back things up)

Answer 1

I think not. I think there should be a lawfully valid civil celebration of marriage. I also think that marriage can be instituted by the various religions and churches in their various ways.

There must continue to be a separation of church and state, but a legitimization of the institutions of both.

Good question!

Answer 2

are you on here posting these right now? i'm getting notified of more questions as soon as i click out of your last one.

and yet again i have answered this before as well... i'm glad i save these things.

g*y marriages

hmmm.... strange, marriage crosses all cultures by many definitions, and yet one or two dominant rligions wish to claim it as their own. what a curious idea. the way i see it, marriage is intended to be a permanent committment in love and trust. christianity may or may not have coined the technical term marriage, but that does not imply ownership of it or the rights held within.

i find it to be a personal no political, non religious choice to enter into union with another soul. so i dont think either state, nation, or church really owns control over it. that being said however, we do have pollitical recognition for married couples. we recognize hindu weddings, and bhuddist weddings and so on and so forth... (outside of recognition of the judeo christian god) are they not outside of the judeo christian tradition? should we exclude them from the definition of marriage?

a g*y marriage is still a committment to love, and should by rationale fall under the same definitions and privaleges of any ceremony for this purpose. if the argument is over the word, well then why dont we truly look at who owns the word? does one group hold ownership to it? i dont think they do.

and i would like to pose the same point that i often do in these types of discussions.... hermaphrodites are a natural anomally, neither male nor female. they hold no choice in the matter of their physical existence, and can never truly exist as hetero or homosexual... should they be banned for marriage as well? it would seem neccesary wouldnt it? and how about people that have actually crossed from one gender to another? if they were born with male features and became female then deciding to marry a male in a straight relationship... is this within your bounds of marriage? what about the transexual woman who having all features of a human male marries a woman.... this is still a homosexual marriage that is legal and binding up unto the point that they are able to afford their gender transition to align their body with their own mind and spirit.... but when that allignment occurs their marriage, years of committment and love, suddenly is no longer valid.

we already know that hermaphroditism and transexuality are geneticly inborne conditions with varying degrees of symptoms throughout life...

so marriage is only for the whole born natural people and birth anomalos individuals hold no such rights to this institution. if i am understanding correctly this is what you are saying.

the church does not dictate love and relationships in any context which is beyond the church, and since it is not the states role to officially sanction or uphold the rlues of any one church as they are supposed to be religiously non biased .....then it its simply not the churches place to force their definitions and regulations upon the state, as they are two entirely whole and seperate institutions as laid forth in our constitution.

marriage is for for joining in love, and since the state happens to recognize this then it falls upon said state to recognize it in all its forms.

my religion for instance promotes both hetero and homo sexual MARRIAGE as well as polyamourous MARRIAGE, and if the state is willing to say that i cannot do that then it is simply disciminatory to my religion.

these are my thoughts that should be held to be self evident, if all men are created equal, then ones beleifs cannot be made to tower over anothers, or find enforcement in a system created for all.

and yet i find myself reiderating my primary point.... the world consist of more than one religion and more than one religion has marriage. "the covenant before god" exists for the christians which are only 33 perent of our population in america. the other 67 percent of this nation adhere to differents faiths.

so is it democratically appropriate that we let 33 percent govern us?

especially in a time where wicca is even finally recognized as a religion in our military.