Is marriage an institution of the State or an institution of God?
depends on which institution you are a member of and which you have placed your faith in . . . don't forget that there is a cultural component there as well.
If any of the moderators are listening, why did you change the title of my thread? It is not a big deal, but in the past you changed the direction of my thread by changing the title.
So you could safely say if you were to choose it to be a requirement of your Religion, then it is a Religious institution? Or not?
Religion doesn't have a stranglehold on marriage. Atheists are allowed to marry, after all.
Could Marriage be considered a religious requirement, for example a fundamentalist religion would consider two people living together, practicing sex as sinners
Marriage can definitely be a religious requirement, but marriage doesn't require religion in order to be defined as such.
So if the state says the homosexuals can not marry, than the state could be sending the homosexuals to hell?
You could argue that, but most churches would reply that gays don't have to go to hell as long as they decide not to be gay.
Marriage is a religious institution taken by the Government.
Now that the government has it, I don't think it has any place denying homosexual marriage (or polygamous marriage) just because some people have their religious senses offended. Oh boo hoo the scary gays are taking my institution away from me, ignoring that fact that:
Homosexual marriage is documented throughout history
It's not just your religion that has marriage
I mean, if gays all started the Church of Gay, would you really have any place to deny them marriage? You'd be denying them their religious rights, which of course is totally wrong because religion should control the Government and we should all revert back to a moral CHRISTIAN society. Anyone who isn't Christian should be converted or stoned to death. We need to take a hard line stance on this issue and make sure everyone knows the TRUE word of God.
The state. You have natural rights but having a recognized marriage is the perogative of society/state. No one has a 'right' to get married. It is this confusion between natural rights and legislated customs that cause the conflict.
All gays could get married in Afghanistan --- put 'em on a ship and hoist the sails. It could be the good ship Lollipop.
Neither. It is an institution of man. (And by man I mean Humanity.)
"There is a difference between accepting homosexuals as human beings, which I do, and allowing society as a whole to become homosexual.
Sound extreme? Consider this.
Homosexuality is the inability to form a permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex. It is commonly characterized by an obsession with sex and promiscuity. Sex becomes a surrogate for love. Doesn't this describe society today?
Homosexuals generally have sex but no families or children. The bankers want us to have fewer children, and indeed the birth rate has plummeted since the 1960's.
The Illuminists aren't afraid of gays, single mothers or children. They are afraid of proud strong men who have families to protect. This is behind the degradation of men. "
does Majority rule?
I don't understand , how is it no one has the right to get married
In a democracy, generally that is the case. The exception would be when courts rule on civil rights issues, which the majority may not support at the time.
We live in a Repulican Democracy
Yes, you do.
It should have been a democratic Republic though.
Secular/state marriage? Well, that's a tough one. It's simply a package of state provided benefits and risks, seemingly only existing for the sake of existing. And, these days it seems this package will increasingly be open to any arrangement of consenting adults, made up of any number of partners, possibly involving sex (or not)... So, yeah, I have no clue what kind of institution secular marriage is anymore. A benefits status, I guess.