Then why do non-religious people get married? Why do people get married for non-religious reasons? Why does the state not require that marriages be performed in churches? Why are people allowed to be married in courthouses? Simple questions.
Marriage can be (personally) viewed as a "religious" institution, and have the 'essence' of various religions applied to it... but it surely is NOT limited to being about things-religious.
Often wondered about this myself. See, a whole lot of people never step foot in a church to get married. They get hitched right at the court house and by a simple clerk. Never have to see the inside of a church at all. Some people are just slow I guess. Gays are fighting for secular state recognized marriage, not a church wedding.
Throughout history marriage was between the 2 people who wanted to get married. No church, just telling people they were married.
Actualy it was only in the last few hundred years that wanting to marry had anything to do with it. Before then, a father would sale his daughter to another man. The woman had no say in the matter and had no rights. That is bibical marriage. In fact, some cultures, such as Middle Eastern and some i asian ones still consider the woman to be property of his father and a woman can be forced to marry anyone that her father wants her to. Many Mormon colonies actually still practice this in America. That is why they got in trouble, because they were forcing minors to marry and have sex.
The silence is deafening. I suppose it is difficult for some to come up with an argument when red herring is made too difficult?
Marriage has never been about religion. It has been about the union of two people to form a family or unit. There is no apparent reason for the institution other than the tax benefits and all the legal hassle put upon partners rather than a married couple. Religion or some god has no part.
As others have said marriage itself is not religious but it is simbolic of marriage because religious people most often get married in their religious building. I would think that they also would like to act like, or show that the marriage is ordained by God. In that way they feel that the marriage will last forever.
I just wondered something. Is marriage and religion inseparable in very religious nations like muslems? I imagine most religions would like it if marriages were forsed to be santioned by them. But than again I bet governments and any instatution would also. I dont know just thinking and trying to help.
Marriage in essence, was and still is, a proclamation of commitment by a heterosexual couple to join together in life. Concurrently, marriage is designed to give the offspring of the married couple the most favourable environment to grow up in yin - yang. It can`t be sensibly denied that a domestic environment involving role models of both sexes is the most functional, and desirable for a child to grow up in. Some may have an added religious belief in the system of marriage, which is optional. In recent years, some with their own personal axes to grind have unsuccessfully attempted to deride and undermine the institution of marriage, to satisfy their own hangups and problems. The argument that some marriages fail, is akin to tilting at windmills with a marshmallow tipped lance. All human endeavor has a failure rate, this fact however, is no justification for planning for a less favourable outcome. Three simple tips. 1: Don`t quote exceptions as rule. 2: Don`t confuse human failure, or unfavorable circumstance with institutional failure ie. if a criminal breaks the law, don`t blame the law. 3: If planning to raise children without the domestic involvement of parental presence of both sexes, think of the children, get a dog.
Does a women need to be married to become pregnant? No she does not. Marriage has nothing to do with having children since this is the case. Marriage is not religious in any way shape or form as people can and do get married without benefit of clergy. A female and male are not required to raise a child. There currently exist many single parent homes and many homes where the people raising the children are same sexed and not even the biological parents at all. These facts come into conflict with your debate points. Your point 3 which I bolded is highly amusing as more than half of the heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Maybe they should marry dogs.
And. . .why is a mariage licence required to make a religious mariage LEGAL? The fact is that without a mariage licence, mariage doesn't exist in the eyes of the law. So. . . .you can't get legally married in Church without a civil licence, but you can be married simply by performing a civil union. I would say that based on this, "mariage" is NOT primarely a religious contract, but a civil contract.
I can`t get multi quote to work. Replies below : (1) Marriage may have nothing to do with conception, but being a commitment between two heterosexuals (sneeringly called "breeders" or "birthers" by some people with low social skills), marriage is designed to provide the ideal environment for children to grow up in. (2) Marriage is obviously a religious issue for many people, as is diet, moral conduct, etc. (3) Children who are deprived of male and female parential role models in their daily lives miss out on too much in their lives. Many single parents do put their heart & soul into raising their children, but it`s wrong & selfish to plan to deprive a child of their best chance at life. (4) You are obviously confused by what I said.
I am experiencing no confusion. 1. Since more than 50% of marriages break up and end in divorce at least half the children being born are deprived of at least one parent. So the great heterosexual experiment has fallen flat. 2. Marriage is a legal issue for everyone before it is a religious issue. The state must grant a license. The church can not and will not marry any couple that does not have the states approval in the form of that license first. Religion is secondary. 3. Children are growing up in various types of homes as the mother or father after the divorce are not around. So moot point you make.
I`m not making any moot point, your problem is that you fail to recognise my points, or you have distorted them. I have repeatedly stated that failed marriages, or unfortunate circumstance, is no justification for planning to deprive a child of the presence of parential figures of both sexes in their day to day lives. Children need more than just love, much more, and a child who doesn`t have parential role models of both sexes in their daily lives is disadvantaged. I feel obligated to repeat that circumstances do alter cases, marriages break down, or there can be a death of a spouse, and in many cases a single parent will sacrifice their life for their children. This is entirely different to planning to deprive the child of these important role models. I can`t agree with you on the religious issue either. There are those who see the religious aspect of marriage as their primary motivation. I respect their beliefs, as I respect yours, but I would be less than honest with you if I didn`t point out the flaws in your argument. Heterosexuality, and heterosexual life style differing from homosexuality and homosexual life style, calls for differing declarations of commitment from the parties involved.
Marriage is what you make it. Non-religious people are married everyday without stepping foot in a church, it is not a religious institution as many like to mindlessely repeat, but a legal contract. If people want to inject religion into it, they are certainly more than welcome to. But to exclude people from enjoying those same legal benefits because of religion is wrong and inexcusable.
Correct. I think that the significance of a child being born or raising them... has made it something that human beings have (over much time) sought to honor with religion (not the other way around). Of course. Maybe more of them should be. Otherwise, what good are their heterosexual-marriages? They might as well be "gay". Indeed that is the case. Yep.
