RS - "Scarecrow made the connection that while he or she wasn't religios(sic), that he RECOGNIZED, and by extension, believed in the religious connection in a marriage."
Just because I understand the root cause does not mean I agree with it. I do understand these are the rules of our society if I don't like them I should seek a new society.
It is my belief that since the concept of marriage is so widely varied by various religious organizations that the U.S. Government (and state Governments) should not be endorsing any form of marriage.
1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Then remove divorce court and all the civil rules used by so many to dissolve a marriage.
BY ALL Means do so. We are really know showing hat this is all about money and not love. In all reality, Who needs the government to sanction your love?
2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"Scarecrow57, you can't be non-religious but recognize a very important sacrament of religion, such as marriage.
That is hypocritical."
It is not at all hypocritical. I can understand the roots of the institution, but I don't have to agree with them.
As an example. I understand our forefathers left England to escape Religious persecution. They founded his country based on their beliefs. I may not agree with the foundations, but I understand those are the rules by which we live.
Sort of like I don't agree with putting a skirt on the QB, but those are the rules and that is how the game is played.
swizzer, just have another glass of Barry's rainbow koolade and a handful of Cheetos. You'll be OK later
0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
drugsrus, I don't care that you 'know' what something is or isn't. Unfortunaltey for your point, that's not the argument.
Scarecrow made the connection that while he or she wasn't religios, that he RECOGNIZED, and by extension, believed in the religious connection in a marriage.
Of course you don't get the connection, drugs. Of course. Why am I not surprised these trivial things need to be explained for you ounce by ounce.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
swizzer are you really that dumb ?? I'm not Jewish but I know what a Bar mitzvah and a bat mitzvah is and I recognize their importance to the Jewish faith. I'm not a Muslim either but I know that they pray 5 times a day to the east.
You can be non-religious and yet recognize their sacraments and traditions.
It is called being educated. While you are in a classroom you need to apply yourself and learn something.
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Scarecrow57, you can't be non-religious but recognize a very important sacrament of religion, such as marriage.
That is hypocritical.
Then remove divorce court and all the civil rules used by so many to dissolve a marriage. Civil laws are the only common thread used to regulate the marraige industry.
Topper, I am not a religious person. But I do realize that the concept of marriage is a religious one. Hence, the state should not be endorsing one religion over another. Marriage needs to be something that is not recognized by the government. Remove it from the tax code, remove it from the benefits code and remove it from the laws.
Scarecrow57, religions charge for marrying two people as well. What's your point? You think weddings in a church are free? If you only knew what my princess's bridal party alone cost...
Scarecrow: Let's hear more about your religious ideals while you wait to bash the next minority in line or someone with a different opinion.
2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"Marriage with religion as the sanctioning body is diluted by the fact that there are more religions than you can shake a stick at. "
DING!!!! DING!!!! DING!!!! We have a winner folks!!!! Which is exactly why government should NOT be endorsing any marriages. Why is that marriage has to be monogamous??? Why not also recognize polygamous marriages????
1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
swizzer, then maybe we could get married and I could become a spouse beater.
0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"Scarecrow57, what about those that choose to get married in a civil way, like by a judge or mayor? Where's the religion there? The reason why those officials are allowed to wed people is because the law says so; not a religion."
This is true, but back before the government got involved in another money making scheme (aka Marriage Licenses) it was strictly religious.
drugsrus, you n'never heard it put that way'?
Too bad, get used to it. And at last check, the law does not care what you think.
4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
ToT, the European Union and any other major European coalition you can think of were around for decades before President Obama was even in politics much less president.
And no, Europe doesn't hate us, needs us just like we need them, and certainly will not let a thing like this you continue to beat stop them from befriending us.
Why you continue to think this is almost perplexing to say the least.
High quality global journalism requires investment. It has taken a long time, but the world’s fantasies about Barack Obama are finally crumbling. In Europe, once the headquarters of the global cult of Obama, the disillusionment is particularly bitter. Monday’s newspapers were full of savage quotes about the perfidy of the Obama-led US. Der Spiegel, the German magazine that alleged that America’s National Security Agency has bugged the EU’s offices, thundered that “the NSA’s totalitarian ambition?.?.?.?affects us all?.?.?.?A constitutional state cannot allow it. None of us can allow it.” President François Hollande of France has demanded that the alleged spying stop immediately. Le Monde, Mr Hollande’s hometown newspaper, has even suggested that the EU should consider giving political asylum to Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower.
0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I saw the news broadcast of the two women that got married in CA last week. They were the two that brought suit.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Hill, where did that "I now declare you spouses for life" come from - I never heard it put that way
swizzer, your head is stuck somewhere the sun don't shine. Please answer the question of how does one determine who is the wife in a same sex marriage??? Social Security survivor benefits only go to the wife. -- This is a can of worms that is open and we will never get the lid back on.
Marriage with religion as the sanctioning body is diluted by the fact that there are more religions than you can shake a stick at. And, each one is claiming that theirs offers the true pathway to salvation. If there are only religious interests involving marriage, what do the scriptures say about divorce? In my church the answer is simple, "no can do". So, if your "until death do us part" doesn't work out and the bliss goes south, don't come running to divorce court with your hypocritical hat in hand. Your claim that the government should stay out of marriage should be honored. May you and your spouse live to be 100!
5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Druggy : The correct answer is (E) None of the above. If I'm not mistaken, the correct verse is "I now declare you spouses for life". (If I may interject, until the crap hits the fan!!!)
5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
It is hard to argue the separation of church and state and argue marriage as part of the state. Marriage dates back to BC and was a religious ceremony. In the 8th century marriage was treated as a sacrament, then in the 1500's a canon law was written to show marriages sacrament. Marriage is and has been defined by the ones who started it, a religion. The government intruded into something that it said it had no business in by its own admission claiming separation of church and state dating back to Jefferson and carrying on to former KKK member Justice Hugo Black , nominated by the lefts hero FDR. It is not up to the US government to define marriage as they are not the creator. The creator is the church and they, and only they are the ones that can define it. If they want something similar, ie civil unions, that is fine, but marriage has already been defined by its creator.
2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
drugs, you're arguing SEMANTICS? That's what this comes down to? Not an issue of civil rights or equal protections under law, but semantics?!
It's clear why no one everm ever takes you seriously.
Times are changing alright.
3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
and swizzer, I asked a question - how do you disagree with a question??
I'll ask again - What am I missing ??
8 East Fulton St. , Gloversville, NY 12078 | 518-725-8616