Questions about bigotry.

[NotNow]

My point is that "marriage" should convey no legal authority.  It is no different than "baptism".  If two individuals want to make a legal contract between themselves, it should be handled like any other contract.  The current legal tangle of marriage is ridiculous and needs to be done away with anyway.  Marriage and divorce should be handled by churches as they are intended to be a promise to God.  Civil law should not enter into the picture.

[NotNow]

OK, then use the blue laws, or the Sabbath laws as your example.  Why is the state enforcing religious doctrine?  That is exactly what is happening with marriage.  Why do couples get a tax break?  Because the state is trying to encourage marriage.  My point is that the state has no business or authority to do so.  

Do I really have to say just because we have been doing it that way for a long time doesn't make it right?  If we are really looking for the proper way for the state to handle marriage or any household contract, I believe that government hands off is the right way.  Why "must" the government be involved?

[NotNow]

My point is that "marriage" should convey no legal authority.  It is no different than "baptism".  If two individuals want to make a legal contract between themselves, it should be handled like any other contract.  The current legal tangle of marriage is ridiculous and needs to be done away with anyway.  Marriage and divorce should be handled by churches as they are intended to be a promise to God.  Civil law should not enter into the picture.

are you serious?

Sigh....thirteen pages later....Yes!  Doesn't it make sense if you want to enter into a legal agreement with someone that you actually sit down and do it like any other civil contract, rather that rely on vague rules?

[NotNow]

This is the kind of silliness that makes these things go on for fourteen pages.  Do you have any real arguments against my points?  Or do you want to veer off by yourself into your own little world?

[NotNow]

About who Jesus is or is not speaking to?  No.  Your last few posts are dumb, let me know when that "critical thinking" thing returns.

[NotNow]

Let me restate it.  You are getting off on a tangent that is just dumb. 

  Do you have any real arguments against the points I made in Post #187?

[NotNow]

Huh?  Whether "Jesus" invented marriage is central to my argument?  How's that?

[NotNow]

Ummm.  Let me think. Hold it.  Hold it.  Oh gosh, since you know how people talk to God, perhaps you could tell me which government "invented" marriage?

[NotNow]

Of course, you are really arguing FOR the state administration of a social contract called "marriage".  Why?

[NotNow]

Marriage predated recorded history.  The earliest civil entry of marriage that I know of is in the Code of Hammurabi:

"If a man takes a woman to wife, but has no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him."

I like that one.

But of course, none of this has anything to do with the point of the thread, but I really liked your horticulture joke and I wanted to help you out here.

[NotNow]

OK, so make a Marriage, INC.  if you want.  My point that the government should not favor any household arrangement stands.

As for religious objection to homosexuality, it stands as well, as marriage is a side issue.

You can "marry" anyone now.  What the debate is over is the legal preferences granted to those that are "married".  There should be none.

ERGO (I like that too). Your point is...pointless.

[ChriswUfGator]

OK, so make a Marriage, INC.  if you want.  My point that the government should not favor any household arrangement stands.

As for religious objection to homosexuality, it stands as well, as marriage is a side issue.

You can "marry" anyone now.  What the debate is over is the legal preferences granted to those that are "married".  There should be none.

ERGO (I like that too). Your point is...pointless.

No it's not.

His point is that you're claiming marriage is some church institution, when it actually predated the invention of the religion by literally thousands of years. Come on, quit ducking the point, surely you see your viewpoint is a bit ridiculous. Unless Jesus was so amazing he invented a time machine when he wasn't inventing marriage. Pfffffffffft

FYI from the earliest recorded mention, 1800 years before Christ came along, it was a LEGAL not RELIGIOUS function.

[NotNow]

I don't think religion began when Jesus was born.  I don't think that "marriage" was "invented" in Babylon.  

But whether marriage is religious or not, the real discussion is the legal benefits of marriage, isn't it?

And your own argument mirrors mine, there should be no unequal treatment under the law.

Just as a side note, almost all of the legal mentions of marriage were to address the legal rights of the woman, who was held in a different view than men through most of history, and who in most societies required men to survive.  The same reasons drove us to the laws we have today in the US.  These ideas are outdated. 

[ChriswUfGator]

I don't think religion began when Jesus was born.  I don't think that "marriage" was "invented" in Babylon. 

But whether marriage is religious or not, the real discussion is the legal benefits of marriage, isn't it?

And your own argument mirrors mine, there should be no unequal treatment under the law.

Yeah that has been my argument all along. Yours, however, was that religion should be administered by the churches. And for the record, none of the churches we have in this country existed ca. 2000 B.C., did they? So quit backpedaling. You said what you said.

Marriage has always represented a conveyance of legal rights, and it continues to do so. Ultimately, I am glad we agree on the conclusion of the whole debate, as I do also feel it wrong to withhold legal rights from one group based on another group's religious beliefs. But marriage has been around longer than any presently existing religion, and Stephen was just pointing this out.

[NotNow]

OK, I'll concede that marriage has not always been a religious institution. 

But I still believe that the state should withdraw from favoring any individual or group of individuals in any way.  And that household or relationship legal contracts should be just that, contracts.