Marriage is not a religious institution. Religions might stylize their own brands of marriage, but in a archetypal sense, it's a largely centered around biological reproduction and raising young. One can make a strong argument it's not even a human institution, but for the sake of the point, I'll keep it focused on it being a human social construct.religious institutions like marriage.
Do you have evidence or proof that the institution of marriage was created outside of a religious practice?Marriage is not a religious institution.
From what I've seen, the earliest historical references to marriage stems from the ancient Israelite / Hebrew traditions. So, no. But that kind of restriction is like asking for a definition of a word without using a dictionary....do you have proof that it was created within entirely within religious practice, without using the Bible?
Most assuredly!Regardless, I think we can agree that the government should butt out of it, religious or not.
So it isn't about preventing marriage, it's about getting the state out of it entirely."[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all," Turner said.
For 99% of individuals who do not work in things involved in weddings, it really does not affect anyone. And then, there's the two or three cases that got national attention because they went to court.It's the nuclear option, to be sure, but anyone who's in the least bit surprised by this hasn't been paying enough attention, in my opinion. When gay marriage was being pushed on people on the grounds of fairness and equality, some people rightly expressed concern about how this would impact peoples' ability not to be involved in it. They were marginalized and assured that gay marriage would only affect gay people.
Yeah! Nice try to overthrow the country, LIBERALSNow that this lie has been exposed for what it is
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests