To Christians (and others) from a Christian

MarineTpartier · Aug 17, 2012

lpast said:
Hey your entitled to believe whatever you want and I respect that...you and I are at different ends with this...thats all...I understand your position more clearly now...

I appreciate that. I respect your opinion as well.

MarineTpartier · Aug 17, 2012

Goshin said:
Can you offer proof that this is a majority condition of polygamist households, and that it is directly related to the nature of polygamy rather than factors relating to those few who practice it in defiance of government edict?

If so I will concede the point.... otherwise I have to say, if you and I and society has no right to tell two people of the same sex that they cannot form a legal domestic partnership, then who are we to tell three or four people that they cannot do so, if they do this voluntarily?

Child abuse and spouse abuse are already crimes... when it is found it is punished... so who are we to define another person's way of living as inherently wrong unless we can prove that abuse is inherent to the nature of their polygamy? If we're saying everyone has a right to legal access to domestic partnership (ie "marriage"), then who are we to tell three people they cannot marry? Is it not more free and equal to let them marry/partner if they wish, and then to punish any spousal or child abuse IF IT ACTUALLY OCCURS?

I think I'm finding a chink in the armor of these arguments here.... it seems that "everyone has a legal right to access to marriage EXCEPT polygamists because we ALL disapprove of them". :wassat1:

For such a small sect of the population, there is a vast amount of horrible stories, focus groups, help groups, etc that are dedicated to it. Polygamy often times leads to child abuse, no two ways about it. Its kinda crazy in our society that some citizens will demonize a person who cheats on his wife with another woman, but will defend that guy if he chooses to marry the other woman (or teenager in a lot of these cases) all in the name of freedom. SSM is a freedom issue, no victim results from it. Polygamy however, often results in a few sick guys "breeding" a new trove of teenage girls they can "marry" in order to have sex with them. That's not victimless. Last time I checked, I haven't heard of some gay guy/woman keeping over one hundred kids below ground and sleeping with them at random.
Child Abuse and Polygamy
Utah Paying a High Price for Polygamy
Child Protection Project | Your Source of Information on Institutional Child Abuse
theHOPEorg.org
Polygamy Survivor Stories
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/may/08053008

Omgitsme · Aug 19, 2012

Goshin said:
I've recently come to the following conclusion, as something I could live with:

1. Get government out of the business of defining or enforcing "marriage" as much as possible. Instead allow any two individuals (or perhaps any number) to legally contract as a household and domestic partnership, with a contract that spells out in reasonable detail what each partner owns or has rights to in the relationship, and how this contract may be broken or voided, and how property would be divided if the contract is broken, and provision for any children of those involved in the contract. Basically, let every such domestic partnership be contracted out like a pre-nup agreement.

2. The term "marriage" is now the property of society. If you're part of a domestic partnership then all entities you interact with must recognize that you are part of such a legally contracted household. However, the term "marriage" is something you can choose to use or not, and whether individuals, the community, society as a whole, or any religious institution wishes to recognize your domestic partnership AS "marriage" is up to them. That is, you automatically get any tax benefits, legal benefits, next-of-kin issues and so on, but individuals communities and religious/other organizations decide whether they will recognize your union as "marriage" by their definitions or not.

This way everyone is equal in the eyes of the law... but it leaves the option open for those of us who are religiously obligated to view certain unions as "not marriage" to say so, and those churches that cannot accept SSM as marriage to continue to maintain their standards. Our opinion would have no legal force per se, only social impact.

Well your solution does make homosexual and heterosexual couples equal under the law and lets those who believe marriage to be a religious institution keep the word marriage. So I have no problem with that idea. However I dont think that will ever happen nor do I believe that the word marriage is religious in nature so I personally think its kind of pointless to change the legal institution of marriage to domestic partnership or civil union or whatever. But it is a good compromise if you ask me.

Darrell · Aug 20, 2012

MarineTpartier said:
I said JOP. Justice of the Peace. Or judge. Whatever you want to call it. So, what you have to do is come up with $300 or get on a boat with your scenario. Once again, marriage may not be seen as a religious institution all over the world, but it is in the US.

To some, but not to all.

cpwill · Aug 20, 2012

MarineTpartier said:
I have an issue with my fellow Christians concerning SSM. How can any of you support gov't enforcement of marriage? While I agree that homosexuality, and in turn SSM, are wrong, do you not realize that our lawmaking and justice systems are systems of precedent? You are setting a horrible precedent by supporting all of these "Christian" Republibots who rage against SSM. Allow me to school you.

well, let's see.

1) By supporting DOMA, politicians are violating the 1st Amendment. Why? Because I have never heard any politician be able to express why they support things such as DOMA for anything other than religious reasons.

In no way does that constitute a violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not mean that our leaders cannot be religious, nor does it mean that they cannot allow their faith to inform their decisions. Such a thing would, in fact, be a religious test for office, which is unconstitutional. The First Amendment simply says that there Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. No National Church. The Founders were fine (legally) with States having churches, and several did. They were equally fine with religious Congresses and Executives - they declared national days of fasting, opened Congress with prayers, had chaplains, etc. The notion that as soon as something touches religion it becomes a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is a ludicrous abuse of that document.

There is no conclusive data to say that gay marriages end in divorce any faster than straight marriages.

Given that the majority of the people vote gay marriage down every time it is given to them, this is roughly for the same reason that we have no conclusive data that people watched fewer movies in the latter half of 2012; simply because the data to demonstrate one way or the other doesn't exist. However, if your fight is to reduce divorce, then you need to explain why.

Therefore they are forcing their religious beliefs upon all of us, whether you agree with it or not.

No they aren't. No one is forcing any set of beliefs upon anyone. Neither you nor any homosexual is required to believe or pretend to believe other than what they do. The only thing being limited is, in fact, the state.

2) When we allow the Federal Gov't to get a foot in the door on any issue, they eventually shove their way into the room. Look at healthcare if you need an example.

The Federal Government has had "a foot in the door" in marriage for approximately 230ish years now. Let me know when they decide to use that as a springboard to take over 1/6th of the economy.

So, by allowing the Federal Gov't the latitude to infringe on one particular group's right to be married or not be married

Homosexuals do not have a right to have the state issue them a marriage license for any relationship that they wish any more than you or I do. I cannot marry my cousin, two men cannot marry each other.

Allow me to illustrate this. Lets say Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon, comes out and says he supports polygamy. Would we be okay with that? No, we wouldn't.

Why not? Why do you have a right to deny polygamists the right to marry?

That IS a version of marriage that has been proven to result in spousal and child abuse.

So it is your argument that A) Marriage is about producing and raising children and B) government should punish some for the crimes of others?

It also creates a very messy legal dispute if one wife wants to divorce and get child custody/property. However, by allowing DOMA, we have set the precedent for Mitt Romney to allow polygamy. Why? Because we allowed the Federal Gov't to get its foot in the door of the room that is marriage.

Gosh, if only we had some kind of separation of powers at the Federal Level....

3) Why do Christians not support total seperation of gov't from marriage?

Because we want our society to be properly founded upon the family, which is in turn is centered around strong marriages raising children. Christians are not anarchists, and conservative Christians in particular tend not to accept the notion that government can or should move in to fill all the functions that are best performed by the family.

Marriage, after all, is a church institution. IMO, Christians should be pushing for civil contracts (civil unions whatever you want to call it) between people when they wish to have the ability to file taxes jointly and/or have the ability to enter into child custody/property disputes involving the justice system. Actual marriages should only be performed by churches or other institutions. This would satisfy both sides. Christians could keep the exclusive right to say that they performed a proper, Godly, marriage. Homosexuals would be able to enjoy the legal benefits of "marriage" as well.

Yes, those are called "General Powers of Attorney" and "Civil Unions"

Thoughts?

Hope I helped answer your questions.

MarineTpartier · Aug 20, 2012

cpwill said:
In no way does that constitute a violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not mean that our leaders cannot be religious, nor does it mean that they cannot allow their faith to inform their decisions. Such a thing would, in fact, be a religious test for office, which is unconstitutional. The First Amendment simply says that there Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. No National Church. The Founders were fine (legally) with States having churches, and several did. They were equally fine with religious Congresses and Executives - they declared national days of fasting, opened Congress with prayers, had chaplains, etc. The notion that as soon as something touches religion it becomes a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is a ludicrous abuse of that document.

A very true statement and I cede the point to you my friend. However, I still await an answer as to why DOMA is a law. What reason did the legislature and the POTUS have to pass such a law other than religious reasons.

cpwill said:
Given that the majority of the people vote gay marriage down every time it is given to them, this is roughly for the same reason that we have no conclusive data that people watched fewer movies in the latter half of 2012; simply because the data to demonstrate one way or the other doesn't exist. However, if your fight is to reduce divorce, then you need to explain why.

So now, what is the opinion that gay marriages end in divorce faster based upon? My point is that particular view isn't valid. No one can say whether gay marriages end faster in divorse than traditional marriages and further, the little data we do have says that the divorce rate is relatively the same.

cpwill said:
No they aren't. No one is forcing any set of beliefs upon anyone. Neither you nor any homosexual is required to believe or pretend to believe other than what they do. The only thing being limited is, in fact, the state.

What then is the legitimate reason to make gay marriage illegal?

cpwill said:
The Federal Government has had "a foot in the door" in marriage for approximately 230ish years now. Let me know when they decide to use that as a springboard to take over 1/6th of the economy.

The statist is methodical, not revolutionary. You know that.

cpwill said:
Homosexuals do not have a right to have the state issue them a marriage license for any relationship that they wish any more than you or I do. I cannot marry my cousin, two men cannot marry each other.

So marrying your cousin is equivalent to two men marrying? Clarify this point please.

cpwill said:
Why not? Why do you have a right to deny polygamists the right to marry?

Because, unlike gay marriage, there IS data proving polygamy results in child abuse, domestic abuse, and neglect.

cpwill said:
So it is your argument that A) Marriage is about producing and raising children and B) government should punish some for the crimes of others?

I have no idea where you draw A) from. B is proven. Polygamy is overwhelmingly abusive.

cpwill said:
Gosh, if only we had some kind of separation of powers at the Federal Level....

Yeah, if only. What with executive orders and privileges being thrown all over the place, legitimate laws being ignored (such as DOMA, whether we agree or not), the President killing Americans on foreign soil at his whim, etc.

cpwill said:
Because we want our society to be properly founded upon the family, which is in turn is centered around strong marriages raising children. Christians are not anarchists, and conservative Christians in particular tend not to accept the notion that government can or should move in to fill all the functions that are best performed by the family.

Your statement agrees with me yet has the tone of disagreement. You are advocating my point. I don't thing the gov't should have anything to do with family, of any kind.

cpwill said:
Yes, those are called "General Powers of Attorney" and "Civil Unions"

GPA isn't really in the realm I'm talking about. Its not a permanent contract. So, civil unions should be the standard for all couples's seeking "marital rights". It just wouldn't be marriage to the gov't. The gov't would just be responsible for the legal portions of the marriage, not dictating who can and can't be married.

cpwill · Aug 20, 2012

MarineTpartier said:
A very true statement and I cede the point to you my friend. However, I still await an answer as to why DOMA is a law. What reason did the legislature and the POTUS have to pass such a law other than religious reasons.

The answer is that A) we can't read minds and B) it doesn't matter. They are free to have whatever reasons they want for their votes, it does not effect the legitimacy of the law an iota.

So now, what is the opinion that gay marriages end in divorce faster based upon? My point is that particular view isn't valid. No one can say whether gay marriages end faster in divorse than traditional marriages and further, the little data we do have says that the divorce rate is relatively the same.

What data? And why should we define marriage in such a way as to seek to reduce divorce?

What then is the legitimate reason to make gay marriage illegal?

Gay Marriage is not illegal. The people of any state are free at any time to choose to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

The statist is methodical, not revolutionary. You know that.

I do. For example, the statist is currently engaged in attempting to break down the ability of the family to provide an alternate base of social power. Part of the way that you go about this is by defining marriage as broadly as possible. If something means everything, after all, then it means nothing.

So marrying your cousin is equivalent to two men marrying? Clarify this point please.

Both of these are relationships that the people of the various states have decided not to issue marriage licenses. Their authority to do so is the same in either case.

You appear to be confusing the moral argument for allowing homosexual unions with the legal arguments surrounding it.

Because, unlike gay marriage, there IS data proving polygamy results in child abuse, domestic abuse, and neglect.

Sort of. There is data demonstrating that it is more prevalent. There is also lots of data demonstrating the exact same for single-parents. The most likely indicator in America of whether or not a child will be sexually abused is whether or not mom has a live-in boyfriend. When you decide to seek to take all children from single-mothers, let me know, and we'll talk about which solution is "statist".

I have no idea where you draw A) from

You are arguing that marriage should be defined in such a way as to exclude arrangements that you say are statistically worse for children. The problem being that compared to the golden standard of two married biological parents, all family arrangements are "statistically worse for children".

B is proven. Polygamy is overwhelmingly abusive.

Polygamy is more often abusive. Yet you described government not giving you something (a marriage certificate) as a punishment. That is an unusual position for a libertarian (as they usually are not in favor of the notion of positive rights) to take, but there we are. Now you need to explain why you are willing to "take away the rights" or "punish" people who are not guilty of any crime, but based merely on the suspicion that they might be more likely to commit one.

Yeah, if only. What with executive orders and privileges being thrown all over the place, legitimate laws being ignored (such as DOMA, whether we agree or not), the President killing Americans on foreign soil at his whim, etc.

all with the apparent consent of Congress, which has not moved in such a place to hamper his ability to do so, and with the thus far implicit support of the Courts who have not utilized their veto power. Killing terrorists is generally popular, Executive Orders are part of the powers of the Presidency, and while I agree that it's wrong (illegal) for the Administration to refuse to enforce laws it doesn't like, that is why those cases find their ways to the courts.

Your statement agrees with me yet has the tone of disagreement. You are advocating my point. I don't thing the gov't should have anything to do with family, of any kind.

On the contrary, weakening the family as the basic building bloc in our society by having the government increase our sphere of action wherein we are fundamentally individuals dealing with the State for all our needs is in no way the solution for a Christian who is conservative. The family structure in America has already degraded to dangerous levels, and there are serious questions about whether or not some communities have degraded to the point where return is really plausible. We should be engaged at this point in strengthening the support that government extends to the family structure, not weakening it.

GPA isn't really in the realm I'm talking about. Its not a permanent contract.

And as you point out above, neither is marriage. But that is neither here nor there, as renewing it is hardly expensive or difficult.

So, civil unions should be the standard for all couples's seeking "marital rights". It just wouldn't be marriage to the gov't. The gov't would just be responsible for the legal portions of the marriage, not dictating who can and can't be married.

It is already de facto as you describe. No one says that homosexuals cannot have weddings, cannot love together, live together, call each other husband or wife, tell others they are married, do everything else that married couples do to include those legal protections. We are simply saying that a minority - however vocal - does not have the right to force its' definition of marriage upon the majority against its' consent.

MarineTpartier · Aug 21, 2012

cpwill said:
The answer is that A) we can't read minds and B) it doesn't matter. They are free to have whatever reasons they want for their votes, it does not effect the legitimacy of the law an iota.

I agree that the law is legitimate. It was passed through the legislature and signed by the POTUS. Further, it infuriates me that President Obama has deemed that HE believes section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional so HE is telling the DOJ not to enforce said section of the law. I'm not for the POTUS simply shirking a law. But I haven't heard WHY it was passed. That's what I want to hear. I haven't heard a logical reason for passing it, only an ideological one.

cpwill said:
What data? And why should we define marriage in such a way as to seek to reduce divorce?

I know, I know, it's the Huff Post lol. They link to a study though. And it's hard to find a conservative rag that will show some actual data on gay marriage/civil unions. Also, I'm not saying we should "pad" the stats. Where are you getting that I'm saying that? Married individuals can divorce when/where/why they want to. I don't care.
Frederick Hertz: Divorce & Marriage Rates for Same-Sex Couples

cpwill said:
Gay marriage is not illegal. The people of any state are free at any time to choose to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

On the state level, only 6 states allow gay marriage and other states do not recognize those marriages. I'm not saying the Federal gov't should dictate that all states must legalize gay marriage. I am simply saying that it's wrong for those states to make it illegal. Federally, gay people cannot receive most of the benefits of a traditionally married couple including all federal benefits including filing taxes, insurance, and Social Security benefits.

cpwill said:
I do. For example, the statist is currently engaged in attempting to break down the ability of the family to provide an alternate base of social power. Part of the way that you go about this is by defining marriage as broadly as possible. If something means everything, after all, then it means nothing.

But on who's standard does marriage mean what you think? Yours? Right now, it means between a man and woman because the government says so. Most people in our nation don't have an issue with gay marriage and agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. So if the majority of the nation has no issue with it, are we not being forced to adopt other citizen's standards?
Opinions on Gay Marriage Unchanged After Obama Announcement - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

cpwill said:
Both of these are relationships that the people of the various states have decided not to issue marriage licenses. Their authority to do so is the same in either case.
You appear to be confusing the moral argument for allowing homosexual unions with the legal arguments surrounding it.

Ah, got ya. The reason for cousins marrying is for health reasons (birth defects, etc). The reason for disallowing gay marriage is what?

cpwill said:
Sort of. There is data demonstrating that it is more prevalent. There is also lots of data demonstrating the exact same for single-parents. The most likely indicator in America of whether or not a child will be sexually abused is whether or not mom has a live-in boyfriend. When you decide to seek to take all children from single-mothers, let me know, and we'll talk about which solution is "statist".

You are speaking of disallowing people to have sex. There is no legal requirements for that ie documents to file with the gov't. I am speaking of disallowing multiple people to be married, which does have legal requirements ie a marriage license, filing for taxes, etc.

cpwill said:
You are arguing that marriage should be defined in such a way as to exclude arrangements that you say are statistically worse for children. The problem being that compared to the golden standard of two married biological parents, all family arrangements are "statistically worse for children".

You show me stats for your argument and I guarantee there are stats proving polygamy is FAR worse. As a matter of fact, I know there are because I just debated this with someone else.

cpwill said:
Polygamy is more often abusive. Yet you described government not giving you something (a marriage certificate) as a punishment. That is an unusual position for a libertarian (as they usually are not in favor of the notion of positive rights) to take, but there we are. Now you need to explain why you are willing to "take away the rights" or "punish" people who are not guilty of any crime, but based merely on the suspicion that they might be more likely to commit one.

Well, I'm not a libertarian. I do share a huge majority of their views, however, I deviate occassionally. In this case, it is being proactive against something where the risk FAR outweighs the benefit. I will admit that not allowing polygamists is wading into POSSIBLY infringing on their rights. However, I would rather POSSIBLY infringe on their rights than allow hundreds of children to be farmed underground, which has happened in Texas and Utah. The risk vs reward for that is a few men and women being free vs hundreds of children being abused. Our gov't must protect the innocent, which is well within the realm intended by the Framers. When the innocent are routinely abused in certain situations, such as children in a polygamist sect, the gov't must protect them. I believe it's akin to not requiring adults to wear a seatbelt vs requiring children too. I don't believe adults should be required to wear a seat belt. On the other side of that, not all children are hurt in a motor vehicle accident, but the aforementioned seatbelt law would protect them just in case because they can't make a logical decision on their own.

cpwill said:
all with the apparent consent of Congress, which has not moved in such a place to hamper his ability to do so, and with the thus far implicit support of the Courts who have not utilized their veto power. Killing terrorists is generally popular, Executive Orders are part of the powers of the Presidency, and while I agree that it's wrong (illegal) for the Administration to refuse to enforce laws it doesn't like, that is why those cases find their ways to the courts.

Don't get me started on Congress bro. This debate is already ridiculously lengthy.

cpwill said:
On the contrary, weakening the family as the basic building bloc in our society by having the government increase our sphere of action wherein we are fundamentally individuals dealing with the State for all our needs is in no way the solution for a Christian who is conservative. The family structure in America has already degraded to dangerous levels, and there are serious questions about whether or not some communities have degraded to the point where return is really plausible. We should be engaged at this point in strengthening the support that government extends to the family structure, not weakening it.

So, in your opinion, the gov't is the answer to fix our nations family problems?

cpwill said:
It is already de facto as you describe. No one says that homosexuals cannot have weddings, cannot love together, live together, call each other husband or wife, tell others they are married, do everything else that married couples do to include those legal protections. We are simply saying that a minority - however vocal - does not have the right to force its' definition of marriage upon the majority against its' consent.

See stats above. The majority isn't on your side. And 44 states say that homosexuals cannot be married and the Federal gov't allows no benefits. This why all gov't should not be involved in marriage. They should simply provide legal status by civil union to ALL couples.

Black Dog · Aug 21, 2012

Marriage should be available to all consenting adults in our secular system, sex should not matter. As a Christian I think it is a sin, but no worse than any other sexual immorality or sin in general for that matter.

The government is already in the marriage business and they are not getting out. Since our laws are secular as well as our government, laws should protect ALL equally, it should be a no brainier even for Christians.

joko104 · Aug 22, 2012

tessaesque said:
Any county court house in Texas will marry you.....

There are tens of thousands of officiants and ministers willing to perform marriages for gay couples. It just business to them.

Bob Blaylock · Aug 22, 2012

joko104 said:
There are tens of thousands of officiants and ministers willing to perform marriages for gay couples. It just business to them.

That's what happens when religion is turned into a commodity to be sold for money—you get ministers who teach and practice doctrines driven by their own financial motives rather than by God's word.

Paschendale · Aug 22, 2012

Consider the views of this Christian. What If Jesus Meant All That Stuff?

FluffyNinja · Aug 23, 2012

Paschendale said:
Consider the views of this Christian. What If Jesus Meant All That Stuff?

Great article. Quite a bit to think about. I think many Christians today are beginning to feel this way and are revising their "approach" when sharing their faith with others (emphasis on "sharing'.......as opposed to "forcing" their beliefs on " and "condemning" others). :shrug:

Thanks for the post.

Black Dog · Sep 1, 2012

FluffyNinja said:
Great article. Quite a bit to think about. I think many Christians today are beginning to feel this way and are revising their "approach" when sharing their faith with others (emphasis on "sharing'.......as opposed to "forcing" their beliefs on " and "condemning" others). :shrug:

Thanks for the post.

Another huge problem is they go completely OT and just ignore Christs teachings.

FluffyNinja · Sep 1, 2012

Blackdog said:
Another huge problem is they go completely OT and just ignore Christs teachings.

Agreed. Good point. Every part of the Good Book must be put into and interpreted in its correct context. "Selective interpretation" is definitely a problem among both Believers and "Persecutors" these days.

Black Dog · Sep 1, 2012

FluffyNinja said:
Agreed. Good point. Every part of the Good Book must be put into and interpreted in its correct context. "Selective interpretation" is definitely a problem among both Believers and "Persecutors" these days.

Absolutely. What bothers me most is it seems to be getting worse on both ends of the spectrum (as the article points out) as time goes on.

FluffyNinja · Sep 1, 2012

Blackdog said:
Absolutely. What bothers me most is it seems to be getting worse on both ends of the spectrum (as the article points out) as time goes on.

It's tough. I am A Christian and truly believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but I cringe when I hear/see other Christians who subscribe to and continually harp on only one particular message/story from the Word. I have a hard time defending these people and it just paints a bigger stereotyped target on ALL Christians. Makes it so much easier for the opposition to lump us all together.

nota bene · Sep 2, 2012

All we can do is live by the Word and mind our own manners. If you're working on the timbers in your own eye, there isn't so much time to worry about the splinters in others'. Nothing we can do but pray. We can't control what those who stereotype think; we can only try to make sure that our own little lamp is lit.

4Horsemen · Sep 17, 2012

tessaesque said:
Religion doesn't own marriage. Marriage predates all known major religions.

For like the 4123849023783456th time.

link please, if not, this^ is just trolling.

4Horsemen · Sep 17, 2012

Originally Posted by FluffyNinja
Agreed. Good point. Every part of the Good Book must be put into and interpreted in its correct context. "Selective interpretation" is definitely a problem among both Believers and "Persecutors" these days.

He who twists scripture for their own gain and acceptance are doomed to Hell.

tessaesque · Sep 17, 2012

4Horsemen said:
link please, if not, this^ is just trolling.

From the catholic church
Archbishop of Burgos: marriage existed before any religion :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

From another representative of the church
Catholic Chicago Blog - Reflections on

Tying marriage to paganism:
BBC - Wales - History of religion: before the Romans

(Just because it isn't a fact you knew, doesn't mean it's trolling to post it, btw).

4Horsemen · Sep 17, 2012

tessaesque said:
From the catholic church
Archbishop of Burgos: marriage existed before any religion :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

From another representative of the church
Catholic Chicago Blog - Reflections on

Tying marriage to paganism:
BBC - Wales - History of religion: before the Romans

(Just because it isn't a fact you knew, doesn't mean it's trolling to post it, btw).

Unfortunatley I don't respect the Catholic opinion on marriage, sorry..

tessaesque · Sep 17, 2012

4Horsemen said:
Unfortunatley I don't respect the Catholic opinion on marriage, sorry..

Then find your own sources. Google's got plenty of them.

It isn't my job to prove you wrong on a fallacy that exists in your own perception or understanding of marriage's history.

Black Dog · Sep 17, 2012

tessaesque said:
From the catholic church
Archbishop of Burgos: marriage existed before any religion :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

From another representative of the church
Catholic Chicago Blog - Reflections on

Tying marriage to paganism:
BBC - Wales - History of religion: before the Romans

(Just because it isn't a fact you knew, doesn't mean it's trolling to post it, btw).

I figured it was common sense. I mean the Babylonians, Egyptians etc. had a form of marriage. That is of course unless you take the creation epic literally. I think that is where the debate is between secular society and the Abrahamic religions. If we were created according to genesis, then it would be the territory of said religions. If not and you go by known history, it is not.

tessaesque · Sep 17, 2012

Blackdog said:
I figured it was common sense. I mean the Babylonians, Egyptians etc. had a form of marriage. That is of course unless you take the creation epic literally. I think that is where the debate is between secular society and the Abrahamic religions.

Studies indicate that prehistoric man may have had a sort of binding ceremony that created a tribe-wide recognition of "ownership" over a female partner, which would equate to the later "marriage" exercised by the pagans.

So yeah, it was everywhere, well before most modern religions were even a gleam in anybody's eye.

To Christians (and others) from a Christian

Haters gon' hate

Haters gon' hate

Active member

Haters gon' hate

Haters gon' hate

King Of The Dog Pound

Electrician

Uncanny

All Warm and Fuzzy

King Of The Dog Pound

All Warm and Fuzzy

King Of The Dog Pound

All Warm and Fuzzy

Bring us a shrubbery!

Bring us a shrubbery!

King Of The Dog Pound

Bring us a shrubbery!