Not lose, more change how it is recognized. I want the state out of our Churches. For instance I would prefer our Church to pay taxes and then be able to speak about politics.
No one has said that obtaining a legal marriage is a uniting of souls in the sight of God. Hence why a civil marriage is not the same as a religious marriage. December 25th is the day selected by the church back in the 4th century as a celebration of his birth, not to be his actual birthday. It was selected to usurp the many pagan holiday for the solstice. There is no definitive record of Christ's birth. And really not even of his death/ressurection, which is why Easter floats every year.
What does the state recognition of a legal relationship have to do marriage vows under a selected deity? The whole problem stems from some people thinking that a civil marriage is somehow the equivalent of a religious marriage. Not a perfect analogy, but think of them similar to computers. Religious marriage is an Apple, and civil is a PC. You can insert your own computer related pros and cons from there. Actually as I think about it, pagan and poly marriages are closer to Linux.
If you are using the Gregorian Calendar perhaps it is Dec 25th. The Julian Calendar is different. But the rest of your post is accurate.
I never saw marriage as a religious event. I know marriages happen in churches. But why would that make marriage religious? It reminds me in a way of birthdays. Merely the selection of a day, such as Xmas, the not birthday of Jesus, as a birthday, it does not make birthdays religious.
This may help to know why some believe as we do: http://www.archpitt.org/the-holy-mystery-of-matrimony-according-to-byzantine-rite-practice/
Marriage is an institution in many religions. Sorry that is simply a fact. However, despite what many within the mainstream religions might like to think, marriage does.not exist as an institution only there. And that is one of the reasons to be accurate when discussing marriage, particularly with regards to legal status. Your birthday example is rather unclear. Can you reword it?
Hardly, as I shall prove below. Did I now? Let's review: I practically quoted you, with the only difference being the use of 1st and 2nd person. Exactly what dumbing down could possibly have happened when the only changes were pronouns?The perceptual deficiency is firmly on your end. And yet, for some reason, you continue to respond as if I were talking to you. How strange? Does that mean you are hearing voices, or in this case reading imaginary text? That would be in Post 625. A reminder that my assertion is that you presented subjective values as objective, going so far as to call them objective. You have yet to refute this assertion in any manner, but instead have resorted to ad hoc attacks. I cited the source of my proof, even linked to it. You have yet to provide anything other than ad hocs. So once again, if your assertions... ...are objective and not subjective, you should be able to prove them with facts. I await your next dodge.
Seriously? This is what you are using in support? So what? All marriages under the Jewish faith were nothing? I guess so. Would this be the same Paul that was encouraging them to not marry at all? 7:1 and 7:8. Additionally, marriage is not a gift it is a concession, as per 7:6. 7:7 says Paul is noting his ability to resist the lure of sexual relations. Procreation does not require marriage at all, as all the bastard children throughout history have proven. Unless there is a claim that such individuals are soulless... Bold mine. Which didn't happen until the late 12th Century. Why wasn't it a sacrament for close to 1000 years? Additionally, the Church didn't require a couple to be married in the church in order to have the marriage recognized by the church until the early 13th Century. There is just so much in here that doesn't make sense, and that is coming from a Christian.
This is one of many sources on why many Christians feel as they do. Feel free to disagree or not. Though I must say I found the information enlightening.
Assuming you think there's something wrong with hypocrisy, why do you suppose there isn't a law against that? You betcha. The obvious question being why you didn't actually quote me. Well I do confess to being unable to look at a road apple and see a fudge brownie - which presumably counts as blindness to your ilk.
And as predicted, the dodge. Look, if you can't support your claims as I have then just say so. If you have facts, then use them. And yet you still present nothing to show what I presumably did to dumb it down. Amazing how you are all ad hoc and no facts Not sure where blindness came from. All I see is someone who can't back up a claim with facts. So once again, if your assertions are objective and not subjective, you should be able to prove them with facts. I await your next dodge.
It's so bloody obvious I shouldn't have to - and I'll be damned if I'll lower myself to the task on your account. So you can figure it out, or you can go to Hell for all I care.
And once again the dodge. You can't factually support your claim of those statements being objective so you retreat to claims of obvious and ad hocs. And the idea that it is obvious is also subjective. So once again, if your assertions are objective and not subjective, you should be able to prove them with facts. I await your next dodge.
If there is a Hell. My belief is that the concept of Hell is simply a choice to live outside of God's grace. That grace doesn't exclude loving acts between people.
All feelings aside, marriage is a religious function. Some support it others do not. Just like all things religious you may not agree with all their edicts but you have no say. You can not force religions to comply with your life style. Most religions will not perform or accept gay marriage. The government can not force them into acceptance either. This is something that can not be resolved and discussion is fruitless. This is simply a subject that politicians and instigators use to stir up division.
