I see it as this. It's religious to the religious, and civil to the non-religious. I do not think it should be a requirement (To go to church, have the bible read, may god watch over you, yada yada) to gain the same recognition from the government, but instead have an alternate application-ish type that will grant the same tax exemptions, end life decisions, inheritance, etc, w/o the religious involvement. This would also satisfy any religious denomiation against homosexuality, since they would not be forced to perform something they view (however bigoted) as wrong, and yet allow homosexual couples to enjoy the same benefits as everyone else.
It used to be, but it is definitely not now that Atheists get married.
Marriage probably existed separately from religion as a political or business tool. Pfft, Atheists have been getting married for hundreds of years, your point isn't particularly valid.
just because the gov't doesn't acknowledge marriages done outside of its jurisdiction doesn't mean that its not a marriage. what were marriages back in the days before paperwork and bureaucracy? ...were they not marriages? the actions you've talked about are governed by the government, so it would make sense that if you want to do something by the gov't then you'd have to play by their rules... if you want gov't benefits and the like then you must be acknowledged by the gov't..............................still doesn't mean you can't be married outside of the government for religious reasons.
Can't, would violate the First Amendment in regards to the establishment clause.
he was talking about how married couples may look at the act of marriage... you're talking about how the government looks at it. at this point it is a matter of perception. The government standard is the standard for the government... We the people may look at it however we want to.
if you take all points of view into account then it incorporates religion for all those concerned with it.
has to be entirely for your argument to work. ...no ~99.9999% and rounding up either.
there are people today that get married and call it a religious bond... the inheritance/power thing doesn't stand very firmly when neither party had any to start with.
just because the government says not to beat your wife/life partner doesn't mean that you can't do it. ...it just means that there will be repercussions dealt by them/it for doing so. I'm sure there's a fancily named fallacy for that kind of thinking.
In some countries it is, but not in the U.S.. In some African countries, they will not accept you if you're not married. I think that being married is a religious thing, but two people being intimate with each-other.
Its similar to the "home is where you make it" phrase.... marriage is what you make it. I know people who've tattooed the names of either Jesus or biblical verses (ie. John 3:16...but a different verse) around their ring finger so that the ring they wear will rest on the tatoo.... symbolizing their faith being the basis of their marriage. That, to me, is a religious bond - marriage combo....
Marriage is a way to make a bond official, and not least, legally binding. It has mostly been taken care of by religions, especially in christianity because it promotes monogamy and marriage is one of the best way to ensure people follow that.
But it also had, especially in the past, a very important political role; just think of all the inheritance intrigues in royal families, and the possibility to rise in position by marriage.
I think if you look at the history of marriage, religion is a non-avoidable factor, though not the only one; and today it slowly looses importance as a whole.
