1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957The "blessed union" comes from the two people being married. It either exists and they nurture and grow it, or it dies and a couple of lawyers get paid to sort out the mess.
I would tend to say that the state may have the "power" to give one a "union card" that says one is "married." But I don't think the state has the power to give anyone a "blessed union." That comes from somewhere else.
Like Rwingett, my wife and I were married by a magistrate. We signed some papers, got some stuff stamped by a beauracrat in a stuffy office, and then said our vows and that was it. That was 11 years ago. So far so good. No church, no preacher, and no silly family members. The whole thing couldn't have gone any smoother.
And bonus points to you for using the term "relational mafia". Well done.
Originally posted by rwingettMaybe you can answer this question for me. What is the exact difference between a civil union and a marriage. I thought the difference was that the justice of the peace dispenses "civil unions" and the priest/pastor/reverend dispenses "marriages." Apparently you think of your civil ceremony as a marriage. I am not married and I have never found anybody who can explain the legal distinction between marriage and civil union. Can you?
I don't want to be blessed.
The state has all the power to marry people, not the church. The priest is merely the means by which the state usually delegates it's power.
Originally posted by bvbA civil union is something that falls short of being a full fledged marraige.
Maybe you can answer this question for me. What is the exact difference between a civil union and a marriage. I thought the difference was that the justice of the peace dispenses "civil unions" and the priest/pastor/reverend dispenses "marriages." Apparently you think of your civil ceremony as a marriage. I am not married and I have never found anybody who can explain the legal distinction between marriage and civil union. Can you?
Marraiges themselves can be brought about by a civil service or by an ecclesiastical one. They are simply two routes to the same end.
It's important to note that a civil union and a civil service are not the same thing.
Originally posted by rwingettI'm talkin bout "blessed" being an object and not a verb, as in "I sure am blessed."
I don't want to be blessed.
The state has all the power to marry people, not the church. The priest is merely the means by which the state usually delegates it's power.
Surely you would not object to something good fallin yo damn atheistic way.
Originally posted by kirksey957I do not refer to good things as being "blessed". The word is stricken from my vocabulary. It's like "spiritual". The word is so fraught with religious connotations that I think It should be completely abandoned unto the religious crowd, whether that is necessarily so or not. I'm sure you could use "blessed" in a secular way, but it just isn't worth the effort.
I'm talkin bout "blessed" being an object and not a verb, as in "I sure am blessed."
Surely you would not object to something good fallin yo damn atheistic way.
Originally posted by rwingettThat brings up an interesting issue: the language we use. I recently came across a young Episcopalian minister who is now in the Bronx who is trying to bring the gap between traditional Episcopalians and young people influenced by the hip hop culture. www.hiphopEmass.org.
I do not refer to good things as being "blessed". The word is stricken from my vocabulary. It's like "spiritual". The word is so fraught with religious connotations that I think It should be completely abandoned unto the religious crowd, whether that is necessarily so or not. I'm sure you could use "blessed" in a secular way, but it just isn't worth the effort.
Originally posted by bvbWho says gays can't marry?
Why is it that gays are not allowed to be married yet athiests and murderers are allowed to marry? It seems to me that Christians that condemn gay marriage need to explain why they are not marching in the streets against marriage of athiests and murderers as well.
A homosexual person can even marry another homosexual person - just not one of the same sex.
Originally posted by FalconClawsOK! So what about heterosexuals who get married when they know that either one or possibly both people in the marriage is/are infertile. Should they be excluded from marriage because they can't "multiply?"
The church stands for marrige with the purpose of multiplication, something inpossible for gay couples. But atheists and murderers when married have a infinitely bigger chance of have done so for multiplication. And even though their past actions where bad, church says you should forgive and not care about peoples past and stuff, so "technicaly" it makes ...[text shortened]... t wants to marry in a church if he doesnt belive in what he is doing, but thats another thing.
Homosexual (same sex) couples do have children, sometimes by the female couple inseminating one or both with donor sperm, which may obtain from a sperm bank or from (often gay) men. A gay couple can get a woman to bear their child, or they may negotiate with a lesbian couple in many ways, sometimes agreeing that females born out of their actions are raised by the lesbians, and the males by the gays. There are many alternatives available.
Originally posted by CLICKHERExYet the Church still advocates abstinence.
what the church wants is plenty of children raised in their particular faith so as to maintain their position of power and prestige in the community, hence the Catholic position on the pill, abortion and homosexual (same sex) marriage!
And despite what you might think, common sense would tell that "the pill" would reduce the number of children from a couple.