Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

It’s a legal contract

 

I agree it is obvious, that’s why it is so strange that many here are saying it isnt.

 

Demonstrably incorrect. Marriage has existed long before it was a legal institution. That is simple historical fact. Even licensing in the US is only an early 20th century concept. The only truth to your statement is that if you are not legally married in the US then you cannot receive legal benefits in the US.

 

That is a strawman, but I'm willing to assume it was an inadvertent one. I never made a claim as to what the government calls a marriage type other than legal. A legal marriage is one that is made per civil/secular law and is recognized by the government. Who else does or does not is irrelevant to that. A religious marriage is one that is made a per the religious tenents of the religion(s) of those involved. Who else does or does not recognize it is irrelevant, including religions other than those involved. A social marriage is one made where a society, not necessarily the greater country at large, recognizes the marriage of those involved. Who else does or does not recognize it is irrelevant.

 

The origins of both marriage and religion (in general, not specific to any one) are so lost in history, there is no telling which came first. Chicken and the egg. Correct that in the US there is a civil/legal marriage. I am not disputing that. I am disputing that it is the only type/form of marriage that exists.

Incorrect. The fact that the government instituted it's own version of marriage for the sake of legal purposes in no way diminishes any significance a religious marriage holds, or even a social marriage for the non religious. Most people who do marry, do so for reasons other than the legal benefits. Even if they had no legal benefits they would still marry. They did so before it became a legal institution, why would they not after it stopped being such?

We might if the religious organizations were to start recognizing same sex marriage as many are doing now, not to mention the rise of the various non Judeo-Christian religions who have never prohibited same sex marriage. The legality of a marriage just wouldn't a part of the conversation of what is or is not a marriage.

 

The same part that gives them the power to make regulations over airspace, and traffic laws, and so many other aspects that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Where in the Constitution are they granted the power to regulate the TV and radio transmissions?

See above.

How does the legal institution of marriage impact upon the religious institution? Which specific religion is the legal institution based upon?

 

Quote it.

 

My point is that there is nothing preventing it. Otherwise by your argument, the government should not be making the laws that govern airspace, traffic and road regulation and a large variety of things for which we do have laws.

Let's try a different tack. Does the government have constitutional authority to regulate the use of transmission frequencies? Not content of said frequencies, just their use.

I do note that you failed to address the rest of the post.

 

Are you trying to make a point here if you are please get to it.

 

Did you see me say that religion is mentioned in the 14th Amendment?

Before you ask me am I saying something read what I said then you will know what I said and not have to ask.

 

I made it long ago, you just missed it. You said that one should have good reasons for pushing against norms, not just pushing for pushing's sake. Whether or not the pushing is for the betterment of society will always be opinion. There is no objective criteria for the betterment of society. The closest we ever get is being able to objectively measure whether we have made progress to an opinion of what is for the betterment of society. Those who do not believe in the change being pushed will always claim that the push is for pushing's sake. Those who do believe in the change being push will always claim the push is for good reason.

 

Okay so explain how burning witches at the stake was good for society.

I reject faux post modernist garbage. Societies absolutely can be objectively better.

if you are pushing for witchcraft trails you are objectively pushing against the betterment of society. So I reject your assertion as patently false.

They can be wrong. I can point it out many times in history.

 

Is that because it was a difficult process? I thought that it was easy to get legally married.

Why would a judge would be involved?

 

It's not even PARTLY a religious institution as far as the LAW is concerned! It is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT a LEGAL institution! (As far as the law is concerned.)

Marriage DOES have zero legal protections or benefits and IS strictly a religious rite if a marriage is a purely religious one not recognised by the state.

 

Is that all it is?

 

I like your answer, “It's not even PARTLY a religious institution as far as the LAW is concerned! It is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT a LEGAL institution! (As far as the law is concerned.)” and “Marriage DOES have zero legal protections or benefits and IS strictly a religious rite if a marriage is a purely religious one not recognised by the state.”

 

What religions are these?

 

Guess I am irrelevant. I don't recognize same sex unions as marriage. I am not alone. Laws change all the time.

 

The United Methodists are having a battle over this right now. Believe it or not, Chris, there are mainline religions that do not recognize Jesus for who He claimed to be.

 

Religions or denominations?

 

You didn't actually know this before I said it?

 

Actually they can be the same thing. .....but I think I know what you are saying. Probably better said "denominations".

 

How can they be the same thing?

 

Everyone has their different reasons. For us, we just didn't need the legal benefits for many years until we got to the point we started looking to buy a house. Then the legal status of married was helpful, and not even with the government benefits, but because you're seen as less of a credit risk when married, and the legal paper is the proof.

Judge, justice of the peace, clerk of the court. Different places use different officials.

 

For the first part, United Methodist I know is making that move. I'd have to research to see which others are. I do know, locally speaking, some congregations are doing so, whether their central organizations are or not.
For the second part, Wiccan and other various other pagan religions.