If that's the only way protecting the sanctity of marriage is coming across, I really think that's sad. Totally agree on the whole thing about people only listening to the parts of the Bible they want to.
I most certainly agree. Also, if they're so worried about the "sanctity" of marriage, then maybe they ought to focus on what conflicts most with the ideals they hold. What about those wedding chapels you find - as the movies and TV would have us believe - on every other corner in Las Vegas? The ones that attract drunks and others who marry and divorce within a week? Or maybe those who marry for money, or convenience? Doesn't sound very "sanctified" to me. Marriage, in the beginning, wasn't really a religious thing at all. Religion was added in along the way somehow, but it wasn't the basis. In olden days, marriage was - basically - a business arrangement. Families usually set them up so that they somehow profited from the union. Yes, there was more than likely some that love was involved with - but definitely not all. It's always been something legal, not religious; though, I think, religion was added to it to show a great deal more devotion. After all, you're pledging yourself to another not only in front of other mortals and your law, but in front of your supreme being. I'm okay with that. I like that part. We may have come a long way from back then, since many marriages today(if not most) are made for love alone. And yes, what about that separation of Church and State? Though my parents and I may not agree religiously anymore(if we ever really did), I was still raised with a certain notion. When you grow up, you'll fall in love. When you fall in love, you should get married. Marriage is complete devotion to your partner - legally, religiously, and in your own mind and heart. Also, that love is blind. If two people of the same gender happen to be in love with one another, I think it would be preserving that sanctity to allow them to marry and perpetuate the idea of in-love=marriage.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2005-10-21 12:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-21 04:27 pm (UTC)--Mav
no subject
Date: 2005-10-21 04:50 pm (UTC)Totally agree on the whole thing about people only listening to the parts of the Bible they want to.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-21 09:21 pm (UTC)Marriage, in the beginning, wasn't really a religious thing at all. Religion was added in along the way somehow, but it wasn't the basis. In olden days, marriage was - basically - a business arrangement. Families usually set them up so that they somehow profited from the union. Yes, there was more than likely some that love was involved with - but definitely not all. It's always been something legal, not religious; though, I think, religion was added to it to show a great deal more devotion. After all, you're pledging yourself to another not only in front of other mortals and your law, but in front of your supreme being. I'm okay with that. I like that part. We may have come a long way from back then, since many marriages today(if not most) are made for love alone. And yes, what about that separation of Church and State?
Though my parents and I may not agree religiously anymore(if we ever really did), I was still raised with a certain notion. When you grow up, you'll fall in love. When you fall in love, you should get married. Marriage is complete devotion to your partner - legally, religiously, and in your own mind and heart. Also, that love is blind. If two people of the same gender happen to be in love with one another, I think it would be preserving that sanctity to allow them to marry and perpetuate the idea of in-love=marriage.
But that's just my opinion.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-29 08:04 pm (UTC)