Marriage needs to be protected especially anyone that marries Newt Gingrich .
2 tell the truth - 12 years ago
Re: "marriage is nothing more than just another rule made up by organized religion"
This too is false. WE are discussing civil marriage. ("The Church" came to marriage much later.) The kind where a couple goes to City Hall and gets married by a Justice of the Peace, or a marriage commissioner. Not a word of 'God-talk' is required.
Heck, even 'religious' marriages are not valid until the couple and the officiant sign the STATE-issued documents, and until the officiant intones the words, "And now, by the authority vested in me BY THE STATE ...".
2 tell the truth - 12 years ago
The charge that "People will begin to marry animals, objects, etc. If you change the definition now" is nothing but false, empty scare-mongering at its worst.
There is this legal thing called CONSENT. Neither animlas nor children nor inanimate objects are deemed capable of giving consent.
WE, meanwhile, are talking about loving, consenting, adult, HUMAN relationships.
DO BETTER!
JAGCAT - 12 years ago
marriage is nothing more than just another rule made up by organized religion & politicians. If there was such a thing as true love, a couple would be a couple ,man-man , women- women, man-women. Animals don't get married, they mate, some for life, others for reason's I won't go into. Rules & regulations, mostly made up by religous fanatics trying to control the thoughts of man & women for centuries. Times have changed, we have progressed in mind development & found that rules of the past don't formulate into today's life style. I think a union of two people should be like a pagan handfasting, in that you vow to each other for a year & one day. After that you renew your vows for another year & a day and so on. Lets just respect each other for whom we are , and as long as you don't overly offend someone , let it be.
robert crenshaw - 12 years ago
Yes, if it is not defended, it will open a door to make a mockery out of the definition of marriage. People will begin to marry animals, objects, etc. If you change the definition now, why not change it later to include animals, objects and imaginary friends. Look to the example of what is happening in many public buildings where made up holidays have to know be recognized; Festivus?
Marriage needs to be protected especially anyone that marries Newt Gingrich .
Re: "marriage is nothing more than just another rule made up by organized religion"
This too is false. WE are discussing civil marriage. ("The Church" came to marriage much later.) The kind where a couple goes to City Hall and gets married by a Justice of the Peace, or a marriage commissioner. Not a word of 'God-talk' is required.
Heck, even 'religious' marriages are not valid until the couple and the officiant sign the STATE-issued documents, and until the officiant intones the words, "And now, by the authority vested in me BY THE STATE ...".
The charge that "People will begin to marry animals, objects, etc. If you change the definition now" is nothing but false, empty scare-mongering at its worst.
There is this legal thing called CONSENT. Neither animlas nor children nor inanimate objects are deemed capable of giving consent.
WE, meanwhile, are talking about loving, consenting, adult, HUMAN relationships.
DO BETTER!
marriage is nothing more than just another rule made up by organized religion & politicians. If there was such a thing as true love, a couple would be a couple ,man-man , women- women, man-women. Animals don't get married, they mate, some for life, others for reason's I won't go into. Rules & regulations, mostly made up by religous fanatics trying to control the thoughts of man & women for centuries. Times have changed, we have progressed in mind development & found that rules of the past don't formulate into today's life style. I think a union of two people should be like a pagan handfasting, in that you vow to each other for a year & one day. After that you renew your vows for another year & a day and so on. Lets just respect each other for whom we are , and as long as you don't overly offend someone , let it be.
Yes, if it is not defended, it will open a door to make a mockery out of the definition of marriage. People will begin to marry animals, objects, etc. If you change the definition now, why not change it later to include animals, objects and imaginary friends. Look to the example of what is happening in many public buildings where made up holidays have to know be recognized; Festivus?