Marriage existed before any governments did. So when they start trying to pass laws to redefine what governments never defined to begin with but which God defined, they're now violating the Constitution and passing laws to establish their own version of a State Religion, then treat those who will not violate any religious belief contrary to it as criminals.
You want a state religion that criminalizes all other religious beliefs but the one you agree with - that's Saudi Arabia. The rest of us want the liberty to exercise our religious beliefs and not be criminalized by the government and its state religion.
30 comments
Marriage existed before there were Christians to define it. Even then, marriage could be polygamous, nonconsensual, or objectifying, all with the approbation of the Bu¥Bull.
Now, I'm not saying consensual, equitable polygamy is wronf or anything, but none of these characteristics of past marriage would make past people's hair stand on end.
"The rest of us want the liberty to exercise our religious beliefs and not be criminalized by the government and its state religion."
Well, that's pretty much what you've got in the US now. No one is restricting your religious beliefs. The problem comes when you try to "criminalize all other religious beliefs but the one you agree with" or make laws based in your religion.
some form of pair- (or more-) bonding between individuals existed long before any formal governments, yes. you might call this "marriage", i suppose. but it did not always take the form that the modern day thing we call "marriage" does; it's had countless forms, myriad different sets of limitations, and has changed with the times quite often.
fairly soon after governments arose, they started regulating what forms "marriage" could take. not because they had any het on for marriage in particular, but because it became the job of government to regulate all the limits and forms of social living; to set and re-set the laws that shape society. that's what government's for, in large part.
marriage, like government, was created by humans and has been redefined, re-shaped, countless times over the millennia by humans. government is currently the formal method we use for such re-shaping. marriage is not exempt from it; no, the fact that marriage predates formal government does not grant it any exemption. wearing clothes, or conversely not wearing clothes, also predates government; this does not mean government can't set dress codes.
Marriage existed before any governments did.
And governments existed before Christianity and Judaism, so marriage existed before your god did. And what does "God defined" mean? Draupadi's marriage to all five of the Pandava brothers?
passing laws to establish their own version of a State Religion
Could we think of any examples? How about Tennessee last week declaring the Bible to be the State Book?
they're now violating the Constitution and passing laws to establish their own version of a State Religion
Yes, those Republicans sure are a pesky bunch, aren't they?
@Indicible
"Marriage existed long before christianity even existed. So, your claim your god defined it is quite unsubstantiated."
I really don't know if there's a way to get that message across to them anymore. They deny this historical reality vehemently and the media never corrects this assertion.
Right now the GOP clowncar is starting up and every candidate named and expected to sign up are all claiming marriage is a Christian institution and are backed up by nearly every religious leader.
And no one is stopping you, all this whining and fear is based on one false premise, that RightWing Christians are in charge of everything.
"Marriage existed before any governments did."
Demonstrate this with evidence, please.
Nope. It's pretty well defined by government at this point. Government treats married couples differently, whether or not the were married in a religious ceremony.
Isn't there something in the Constitution about laws being applied equally to all people?
You're perfectly free to practice your religious beliefs. You are free to not be in a homosexual marriage, and your church is fine to not perform such. You are not fine to tell other people they can't either.
Marriage also predates all modern religions. Your God can claim no more credit for the idea than your local senator can.
You do not have a right to inhibit the rights of others based on personal belief. That's not liberty; that's the very thing you just referenced as a negative in the previous sentence.
"which god defined"?
You mean "defined" with multiple wives and concubines and women being forced to marry their rapist like it says in the bible? I mean if Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives and concubines and it was ok with your god then, why isn't it ok now? Are you suggesting we shouldn't follow your bible?
But what about those religions who want to peform same-sex marriages?
By the government allowing same-sex marriage, surely they are just getting out of the way of the religions and leaving them free to have whatever marriages they want?
You couldn't have gotten your point more backwards if you were from Bizarro World. I mean, first you say that marriage is not a government institution and the use that to prove that violating your definition of marriage is against the Constitution. And then you complain that we're trying to force our religion on people by allowing them the freedom to marry and you finish by ccomparing marriage freedom with Saudi Arabia (where they kill gays, BTW). The sign Mister Spak posted makes infinitely more sense than you do.
People existed before marriage did. People are the ones whom defined marriage. Therefore, governments, which are made up by people, can define marriage.
Marriage does not predate politics, imbecile. Official unions (as opposed to just shacking up) were born from arrangements to expand status and influence between wealthy parties or to symbolize an alliance otherwise there would not have been a purpose to official recognition by other bodies.
In fact marriage as we know it was opposed by the early incarnations of modern churches believing granting ceremony to peasants was an insult to the institution and rendered the arranged marriages of the ruling classes (who were thought to have been granted divine right) meaningless. But that's when money started talking and their tune changed drastically.
"You want a state religion that criminalizes all other religious beliefs but the one you agree with - that's Saudi Arabia. The rest of us want the liberty to exercise our religious beliefs and not be criminalized by the government and its state religion."
I think a certain amout of irony is evident in this statement.
No, you're the one trying to force YOUR religious beliefs into law.
"I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, therefore the law should reflect that belief and no other."
That is literally what you're doing. Also, might I point out that there is no Biblical basis for that belief? The Bible clearly allows one man many women.
That depends on what you mean with government. There were marriages back when we were hunter-gatherers, yes. But they probably had some kind of tribe council, a tiny government.
Whoa, stop there, dearie. There were marriages long before your very recent god was first worshiped.
Your Constitution has equal protection (amendment 14, I think). You denying some people to marry is what's in violation of the constitution, stupid.
Yeah, because no Christians have ever treated those who refuse to adhere to THEIR religion as criminals, right?
image
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
