{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Myth of Tyrant:
1/11/2013 10:29:24 PM
3
Disclaimer: I am steeped in Christianity as a person in almost every aspect of my life.
I believe that the whole business of government being in the marriage business at all is ridiculous. All government "marriages" should be civil unions, be it between man and man, man and woman, woman and woman, man and toaster, whatever. That's what they are, civil unions. Unions created for legal effect by a civil system, not a religious one. That one semantic change would completely diffuse the justification behind a majority of same-sex resisters. Marriage should be the sole construct of the religions that give them context and meaning, and it should be up to them to decide on how to proceed with the issue.
That being said, I am heavily in favor of religious institutions taking a long, hard, comprehensive look at their doctrines, purpose, texts, beliefs and mission in order to really understand if they should be excluding people based on how they were made.
In summary: all marriages should be civil unions at the government's interest level, and marriage should be defined by religions, who should really work to be inclusive, but on their own terms.
English
-
Marriage has been around for longer than your religion. I don't get why people have a problem with the use of the word marriage, it's not like it's exclusive to [b]your[/b] religion. Some religions accept gay-marriage and some don't. But the state should not discriminate people because of things like sex, skin color or sexual orientation. Gay- marriage should be legalized.
-
While marriage has existed in various forms or another since surely the earliest religions, we're talking about it here in its current form, as an extension of the culture of the United States and the laws created to reflect that culture. I'm not against homosexual marriage in of itself, I just think there's an important consideration to be made in the treatment of religious ceremony against government necessities. There's no reason for it to be a government creation in any sense, because it only stirs up arguments and makes the passage of homosexual marriage difficult. The fact that the United States can't pass laws allowing for homosexuals to marry is usually because of doctrinal concerns (however accurate or ignorant they may be). My belief is that the whole definition needs to be changed to diffuse that argument entirely. While I would love my community to accept homosexuals with open arms in every aspect, I would rather see homosexuals be put on an even keel with heterosexuals at a civil level first, because that's where the issue lies mostly. Hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, estate taxes, et cetera all lie in the context of civil marriage, not religious.
-
Does Marriage predate judaism? Adam and Eve?
