America is now an agnostic state for the most part. At least in 2015. In a few years religion our government and fundament religion will be one and the same...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The fact that the churches didn't take it out of the hands of the state back when they could have tells you that they didn't believe it was solely a religious institution.
No it doesn't. It only tells you they didn't fight it because it didn't warrant it. Who would've thought even 20 years ago the government would be wanting to change the definition.
So often you reach for conclusions that aren't there, and make up your own as you go. This is one of those.
(Don't take this as an attack on churches, it's not meant to be). Why are churches the ones defining marriage? If so many benefits come (or don't) with marriage, such as status for income taxes, health care insurance, life insurance benefits, survivor-ship benefits, etc. etc., which are government (state or federal) issues, why is the church involved? Did we become a theocracy and I missed it?
(Don't take this as an attack on churches, it's not meant to be). Why are churches the ones defining marriage? If so many benefits come (or don't) with marriage, such as status for income taxes, health care insurance, life insurance benefits, survivor-ship benefits, etc. etc., which are government (state or federal) issues, why is the church involved? Did we become a theocracy and I missed it?
You're missing my point. It doesn't matter what they thought the gov't would or would not do in 20 years. If the churches thought that marriage was a church-only thing and the gov't was involved in marriage then the churches should have told the gov't to get out of the marriage business, period. But the churches didn't do that. The churches didn't mind the gov't being involved in the marriage business one bit UNTIL the gov't started to define marriage in a way that churches didn't like. It was only then that churches started to tell the gov't that it (the gov't) shouldn't be in the marriage business.
If you want the gov't involved in marriage when the gov't defines marriage how you like and you don't want the gov't involved in marriage when the gov't defines marriage in a way you don't like then that means you DON'T think marriage is a church-only business. If you truly thought marriage was a church-only business then you would NEVER want the gov't involved in it, regardless of how the gov't defines marriage.
Because marriage is a religious institution that government hijacked. Government didn't become involved until they wanted to tax... errrrr, license it.
Government didn't hijack marriage, rather religion were and government were so tight that whatever religion did naturally went into government. I suspect that government was marrying people as soon as government came into being and that religious people weren't protesting. What do you think would have been the reaction at the beginning of the US had the government said that they weren't going to marry people? Religious people wouldn't have said "That's great," rather they'd have been pissed off.
Government didn't hijack marriage, rather religion were and government were so tight that whatever religion did naturally went into government. I suspect that government was marrying people as soon as government came into being and that religious people weren't protesting. What do you think would have been the reaction at the beginning of the US had the government said that they weren't going to marry people? Religious people wouldn't have said "That's great," rather they'd have been pissed off.
Well, Jesus attending a wedding at Cana when he was walking on this earth. Perhaps then he should have told those people to protect marriage now or face the redefinition of marriage by people half a world away in 2k years. I guess Jesus didnt do it because he wanted the US government to define marriage.
You just pull stuff out of your rear end don't you? Marriage was between families and/or church until the 1300's. It wasn't until then that the Church of England got involved.
Maybe you can send them a strawman and see if they laugh at you too?So, I guess next year I'll send my tax return to the church instead of the IRS to see if a can still file as Married Filing Jointly. I hope they are okay with my dependents too.
The Church of England is a CHURCH. Everybody back then was religious. If religious people didn't want the state involved in marriage then the people running the state, who were religious, wouldn't have involved the state in marriage.
Heck, I thought this was a free country with religious freedom.
You sure you want to make that point? You are, after all, trying to tell gay people whether or not they can be married based on a religious belief that they don't hold. Don't they deserve religious freedom?
Somebody else tried to make a point that all marriages should take place in a church. I'm an atheist, does that mean I shouldn't have the right to get married?
Then we should assume you didn't have a church wedding,You sure you want to make that point? You are, after all, trying to tell gay people whether or not they can be married based on a religious belief that they don't hold. Don't they deserve religious freedom?
Somebody else tried to make a point that all marriages should take place in a church. I'm an atheist, does that mean I shouldn't have the right to get married?
You sure you want to make that point? You are, after all, trying to tell gay people whether or not they can be married based on a religious belief that they don't hold. Don't they deserve religious freedom?
Somebody else tried to make a point that all marriages should take place in a church. I'm an atheist, does that mean I shouldn't have the right to get married?
Then we should assume you didn't have a church wedding,
Why do you raise the point that it was "done by an ordained minister"?That's exactly right. It was done by an ordained minister, but it wasn't in a church and there was no scripture involved. In fact, my wife had the minister add in references to WVU ... like "in sickness and in health ... even WVU induced sickness" and other things like that.
Why do you raise the point that it was "done by an ordained minister"?