DiscussMormonism.com

Many opponents of same-sex marriage say that their opposition isn't to homosexuals per se. They say that they are defending the God-Given institution of marriage, which they say God defines as being between a man and a woman.

Forget for a moment that we don't live in a theocracy. Forget for a moment that an increasing number of churches, temples and synagogues support gay marriage.

If marriage is a God-Given institution, isn't it logical to assume that only people who believe in God should be allowed to marry? A greater percentage of Americans don't believe in God than are homosexual. If people are concerned about preserving the 'sanctity' of marriage as a God-given institution, why is no one talking about prohibiting agnostics, atheists, Satan worshipers, Buddhists, et al from marrying?

So if you are truly concerned about defending marriage as a God-given institution, what legal remedies will you support to prohibit people who don't believe in God from marrying?

I find it interesting that Mormonism thinks marriage is important enough that they don't prohibit people who aren't worthy to go to the temple from getting married by the bishop. If you're legally married but not temple married, you're still not considered a fornicator in the Mormon church.

"Thou shalt not kill" is also considered to be of a divine nature, but we believe that you should prosecute atheists who murder anyway.
The OP is obtuse and a poorly argued point....and a blatant example of a loaded question.

subgenius wrote:"Thou shalt not kill" is also considered to be of a divine nature, but we believe that you should prosecute atheists who murder anyway.
The OP is obtuse and a poorly argued point....and a blatant example of a loaded question.

ajax18 wrote:I find it interesting that Mormonism thinks marriage is important enough that they don't prohibit people who aren't worthy to go to the temple from getting married by the bishop. If you're legally married but not temple married, you're still not considered a fornicator in the Mormon church.

Facepalm

subgenius wrote:"Thou shalt not kill" is also considered to be of a divine nature, but we believe that you should prosecute atheists who murder anyway.
The OP is obtuse and a poorly argued point....and a blatant example of a loaded question.

One does not have to be religious to believe that killing is wrong.

As far as being 'obtuse' and 'poorly argued', those are descriptions of my argument, not a refutation.

If my argument is obtuse, it should be fairly easy to refute. So go ahead and refute my argument. Should be a piece of cake for an un-obtuse person.

Then we surely can apply your same reasoning found in the OP to the ironic nature of atheists and the lgbt using white wedding dresses, rings, vows, the kiss and countless other religious traditions in their ceremonies.

As for refuting your argument you have done it already.

Besides, your argument is a feeble attempt at confusing ones belief in God with ones membership in a church.

So i reiterate, that though a person believes that it is a divine law to not murder does not imply that they believe only "believers" should adhere to it.

subgenius wrote:Then we surely can apply your same reasoning found in the OP to the ironic nature of atheists and the lgbt using white wedding dresses...

I'm pretty sure the white wedding dress is not derived from any religious tradition, but rather Queen Victoria's personal choice to wear one at her wedding spinning off into a fad that has become tradition. The religious assignment of meaning to the dress = virginity is a fairly recent addition. The white dress is a cultural thing, not religious in and of itself. Kind of like marriage...

MeDotOrg wrote:If marriage is a God-Given institution, isn't it logical to assume that only people who believe in God should be allowed to marry?

Or would want to.

honorentheos wrote:I'm pretty sure the white wedding dress is not derived from any religious tradition, but rather Queen Victoria's personal choice to wear one at her wedding spinning off into a fad that has become tradition. The religious assignment of meaning to the dress = virginity is a fairly recent addition. The white dress is a cultural thing, not religious in and of itself. Kind of like marriage...

He appears to also be making fun of the idea of atheists and gays being virgins upon marriage since they wouldn't care about that. Your post is spot on, but also its worth pointing out very few people in the USA are a virgin upon marriage. That statistics on that are staggering. It's less than 3%. So any difference between the likelihood of an atheist or gay person and a religious person being a virgin at their wedding is going to be trivial. Yet subgenius isn't having a chuckle about the thought of an evangelical wearing white on their wedding day even though their non-virginity rate is right beside the groups he's trying to crack a joke about.

It's weird that he's trying to subsume all ceremonial aspects of weddings as religious, even when their origin is likely secular in nature. I find it strange that he can't see why aspects of religious ceremonies cannot be re-purposed outside of their original context. Does he not have a Christmas tree? But I think most people understand that process.

honorentheos wrote:

subgenius wrote:Then we surely can apply your same reasoning found in the OP to the ironic nature of atheists and the lgbt using white wedding dresses...

...(snip)...The white dress is a cultural thing...(snip)...

aside from being beside the point...exactly what is the "cultural thing" with a wedding gown in America?

by "cultural" you really mean "symbolic"...symbolic of what? surely not symbolic of virginity, so it must simply be a tradition....while you would try to claim "cultural", most literate people realize that cultural is merely the flavor of tradition...for example, white dress versus red dress is cultural...wedding dress is tradition...it is a tradition of gender roles and a tradition of marriage...just a marriage is a tradition...a tradition of unification and a tradition of being between a man and a woman...
so yes....ironic.