Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
Ultimately, the state shouldn't be regulating private associations and relationships. I like the way the Quakers used to do it. They'd have a meeting and the couple would exchange promises, a Quaker marriage certificate was given and they signed their Bibles and husband and wife. They often refused to seek a state license to marry or file their marriages with the state. The marriage was entirely a private association. And even the termination of their marriages were handled privately unless there was a criminal violation of the law such as assault or kidnapping.
We really need to begin drawing a distinction between "Civil Marriage" and "Holy Matrimony". Some religious communities will unite couples in "Holy Matrimony" and leave it up to each couple as to rather they want to legalize their marriage with the state. In a sense, these churches have taken marriage back and defined it in accordance to their convictions within their fellowship.
|
I agree, and for the record, I am pro-gay Marriage. Allow gay people to be civilly married, for reasons such as taxes, inheritances, medical proxies, estates, etc., in no means that you need to believe they are married in the eyes of God.
And I don't think any of the gay people I know would have any interest in forcing a minister who believes that they are biggest hellbound perverts in the world to marry them in a church. There are plenty of gay-affirming churches these days.
Ultimately it doesn't hurt you! (fundamentalists, not you personally Auquila). Oh, it erodes the family, it erodes good Christian Values.....
Do you protest allowing Muslims to marry in the United States, what about Atheists, who are going to raise little Atheist children?
You can't control the world. You can't legislate your morality. God gave us free will, and this country gave us freedom of (and from if the case may be) religion.
Hybrid Mode
