Darth J wrote:Hmm. So the group marriages and polygamy that have existed in various cultures throughout history, and arranged marriages, and concubinage.....that's all part of the modern American conception of marriage existing since time began, right?
Sure, accept for your "modern American conception part.
It's always still been between man and woman.
Oh. I thought Heavenly Father ordained marriage first in the Garden of Eden. But you're saying people invented marriage and then superimposed religion over it?
I'm saying "generically" speaking, religion or not. Man has covenented together with woman creating their partnerships. "Marriage" as a term though came together once religion became involved. And religion has always defined "Marriage" as between man and woman.
Why should the state be involved in these religious sacraments at all? Why not just stop recognizing marriage as a legal relationship?
Well, as you likely know the state got involved because of divorces.
Personally speaking, I don't think the state needs to be involved on the marriage side, and only get's involved if there is some sort of conflict for which testimony, witnesses, evidence, etc. needs to be called to resolve said conflicts. Most divorces don't need a court/judge involved at all. I also don't even think alimony should be allowed, unless it's been shown that someone has spent their whole life with someone and they are completely incapable of supporting themselves, and the spouse has money that can support them for a while when they rebuild their qualifications, and then it ends. I'm also against Child Support unless it can be shown that the person who doesn't have the kids was abusive in any way. And in relation to that divorces also shouldn't be granted simply because they "feel like it" until the children are out of the home.
Anyway, sorry for that rant, I'm just in such a situation myself, and only me and my children are suffering for it, while the one who sinned in a plethora of ways get's to do what they want.
But the government does regulate marriage now, right? So are you saying that marriage should not be a legal relationship at all? Do you think that Elena Kagan should rule on marriage as the legal relationship that actually exists in the real world today, or marriage as a religious sacrament involving your pseduo-history and vague, unverifiable fables about what marriage is? If she were to rule to on marriage as the religious sacrament that you are describing, wouldn't that violate the Establishment Clause? What if she were to allow religion to come into the picture, but base her ruling on the premise that Catholic doctrine about marriage is right, but LDS doctrine about marriage is wrong? If Justice Kagan were to rule on the legality of marriage based on its religious overtones, whose religion should she pick?
I think she and the rest should "rule" that if gays want to create a "new" institution, they need to actually create it, not co-opt someone else's, redefining the word, meaning, and institution.
That would be the "tolerant" thing to do for ALL party's involved, don't you think?
You're quite sure all religious people are opposed to same-sex marriage, and all religions teach that homosexual behavior is offensive to their deity, I take it.
Never said anything so stupid, so don't know why you bring such a straw-man claim of me up.
Although, I think I know, so I will answer. Religions "accepting" gay marriage etc. is a new thing, not old. Though yes, rare instances of history, groups, and periods have more allowed it. But again, Marriage is defined between man and woman. If people want to create a new definition and standard, then they if they were "tolerant" would create their own word and definition.
We are being more than accommodating here, but they want to infringe on OUR Rights to get theirs.
That's the very definition on "infringing on peoples civil rights".