For a long time they have been may tries to separate religion from marriage and view them as separate and different institutes. You might say they can't force you to get to their church and marry from there but still if we don't stand against this the church will try to tell us who to marry why to marry and if we listen to them even how to marry. Wait a second why should i be told who to marry after all am the one going to marry. The wants church this privilege in order to tell you what to do and control your life. The church used these policies to oppose interracial marriages for a long time some even do it today besides that, another big thing is the gay rights because remember they want to choose for even if they might know nothing about your attraction or sexual orientation. isn't it time for all of us humans to know that we have the human right to choose who we want to marry. Isn't this not human rights issue shouldn't we try to stand firm with our ideology.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Religious marriage can just hinder people from living the way they want their love to be. to love is freedom and the attachment is more powerful that religion or marriage can give.
Besides that religion as an institute does not view men and women equally it has biases on the base of sexism and this will affect the life of the people in the relationship, since religion supports the idea of male masculinity.
Religion shouldn't interfere with marriage. Marriage is a contract between the couple and the state. The church should only be involved if the couple both want it to be. The church shouldn't have the right to say someone's marriage or love is wrong. The people who follow the church shouldn't even be saying a type of love or marriage is wrong just because a racist and homophobic book said so either.
It is just a sign to show how much religion is involved in trying to control the life and choices of others. This make you appear weak and make you as if your are some one with out a preference and decision making strategy in life.
My marriage is completely separate from any religion. It depends on the country and even the state in which you live.
The problem isn't that religion controls marriage - it does not. The problem is that each religion *wants* to control marriage as if it were their exclusive domain. They attempt this by codifying their religious beliefs about marriage into law.
But i think you agree with the fact that religion wants over population because it is centered in the idea that you need to be many to survive and thus they want you to make reproduction the main reason for marriage. In my understanding marriage is something beyond that.
I don't think that religion wants overpopulation. Religion is an idea...an organization. It is not sentient in any meaningful sense and does not have wants and desires. Humans do.
I think religious people want more religious people and that religious institutions have created and fed this desire so that they have more power and money. I don't think that overpopulation is the goal. Indeed, I don't think those with this mindset think that far ahead. It's greed for temporal power, which isn't precisely a deep thought.
it wants more and more people who will follow its ideology and for many years people stayed in the same religion until death since they were many rules forcing them to not convert from one religion to another. and as a result more children meant more followers. most religions don't understand where we are at today their mentality and strategy is based on the past and not where we are today.
It should have been separated here in the United States the instant the local governments starting issuing marriage licenses.
that is a great move toward marriage and social acceptance and equality. But remember that we need to see our change becoming global and make it part of our worlds main structure
I think religious marriage are even more prone to divorce and broken family.
yeah that is what is expected when marriage is not something of personal choice but instead a result of societies drive.
The Church and it communities -
The religious aspect of the bonds made between heterosexuals was to assure monogamy in a world that was at the time anything but. Strength in the family unit was considered important as the single unit of measure upon which whole communities were built upon. Children from those units were given stability and upbringing by that structural concept. They felt safe and self-assured, confident in who they were and strong in their community ties. They were, in that sense, defenders of their culture and easy conscripts should events warrant that. The Church established this Standard.
Gay Marriage in a Church standardized community -
Both parents would need to raise a child in the same manner as in the above. The one item of development the child needed to know was missing: procreation. In this sense the parents have no constructive offering to a child. Moreover, the child must understand it is the orphan in a world of standardized family units and must be made to accept that. Then there's the troubles related to contrasts the child sees between its same-sex parents and other heterosexual parents within its community. This creates very large distinctions in a system that is basing it's strength of community upon standards for acceptable family units and behavior thereof. A standard is a single set of rules, procedures and methods design to achieve set goals. Splintering that standard did not work for the church. Gay were therefore prohibited from the sanctity of marriage and assimilation into a Standard that did not describe nor allow for their relationship.
Standards - Splintering them and their cause and effect.
As mentioned above, standards are rules, procedures and methods established that best achieve goals. The goal was a strong sense of community based upon the building blocks of the family unit. The parents of those family units were given very special treatment and support by the Church, and encouraged to procreate. Large families of young boys received preferential treatment because those boys would eventually be conscripted as soldiers in the army. That was the ultimate goal - strength in numbers. Vast armies ruled the world and defended sovereignty.
Splintering that family unit at the core - gay marriage - did not produce children. At best a gay couple might foster an orphaned child but those children were typically absorbed into the community or made wards of the state. They were taken care of. There was no use for gay people inside the Standard family unit community profile. Had there been, there would have been no Standard eventually and no sense of community bonds. Children would have been raised to believe same-sex marriage was okay at the cost of procreation, which also meant the community's need to amass itself with the strength in numbers was cast aside.
In other words, the needs of the many would have been sacrificed to allow the wants of a few. That desire has not changed and remains a reverberation throughout history by the gay community.
Continued application of the Church Standard - Yes.
Do we need a Church now to establish the Standards of the family unit, the value of communities built upon them and continued effort to protect that Standard? Some say yes, we do. It's been lost on the world we now live in and that is the cause for global unrest.
Is this siding with the Church? Remember, those rules (Standard) were written by the hand of man not so much to have a writ ascribable to a god but to have a plan to protect the earthbound creatures trying to survive treacheries of its own species. But, if those rules are ascribed to a god, people indoctrinated into believing they will burn for an eternity in bad places for breaking them will tend to follow them. Told that a local magistrate wrote them begets secular favoritism where shopkeepers and influential community folk bribe the magistrate to look the other way - aka favors for favors. That doesn't work if all men must appease a singular, all knowing god.
Continued application of the Church Standard - No.
But, here we are now in a much more secular world society that's capable of the rationale that originally created a god. We have nations now. We have cultures. We have Standards that still apply and some that are admittedly archaic and need to be reviewed. The (above) Church influence creating strong communities by banning a gay presence in it doesn't have a place any more. Not really. I think the sanctity of the marriage needs to be reduced to simple legal documents and nothing more. The Church knows this, too. But, it still holds sway over the masses in the most traditional of ways.
In the deepest spiritual matters of the heart, whole nations were, and remain, dependent upon the Church for guidance. That's still alive and well. Robes, cathedrals vaulting up to the heavens, rituals, pageantries, calendar events, and the entire cast of characters created and developed to be part of every family unit's religious training is not going to go away any time soon. Man needs to evolve into a brave new world of mortality minus the ego he is so ostentatiously afflicted with.
Comprehensive answer, with some angles I hadn't considered. I have thought of it more as if homophobia was simply incorporated into the religions, not that it was engineered as a intentional tactical decision.
But the more one reads about religion, the more obvious it becomes that religions are political, tactical, militaristic ways of controlling the masses.
They also full of greed and desire to control
Very nuanced point because at the end of the day morality is nothing more than agreed ingroup and outgroup treatment and religion is a good way to establish in and out groups.
To some degrees it is also against interracial relationships and marriage
marriage ought to be a matter between the two parties being married and the secular government. religious ceremonial marriage ought to be no more than an option to be chosen or not by the couple getting hitched. it's purely optional.
i didn't want god in my marriage when my husband and i were married by a JP at the Ft. Bend County Courthouse in Texas in 1977, and i said so to the dude. nevertheless, he persisted -- he mentioned god once; if it had been a Star Trek episode, it could -- it would -- have been edited out. i tried to censor him -- i opened my mouth right then and there and prepared to let loose on that pseudo-government official. however, before i could do so, my hubby-to-be poked me in my side with his very large elbow, silencing me -- John didn't like scenes almost as much as i didn't like god at my wedding. we laughed about the whole scene ever after, but to this day i remain as angry as ever. i mean, really -- what self-righteous arrogance! i would never presume to ignore a citizen's direct request -- what gave him that right?
now, 40 years later, i'm just as determined to have "in god we trust" removed from our secular country's currency and to completely eliminate the Pledge of Allegiance from public schools -- as if under-age children can be deemed to pledge as though they were informed adults! and to eliminate the phrase "under god" from the official version recited by adults, such as when C-SPAN cuts to the floor of the Senate and i am forced again and again to hear secular blasphemy -- it appears between "one nation" and "indivisible" at present, yet it's logically impossible for our nation to be both under god and indivisible at the same time!
i also want to see the national motto officially declared to be what it originally was informally -- "e pluribus unum" -- "out of many, one" -- which accurately reflects our nature as a country of immigrants come together as one indivisible nation. them's fightin' words, i say -- words worth fighting for.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?: