Freedom of Marriage
By: csectioncomics
| |
Click to expand
Links are not allowed.
You are allowed to post every 14 seconds on the same page.
You are allowed to post every 14 seconds on the same page.
Remaining character count: 4000
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#221 to #1
-
anonexplains (05/10/2013) [-]
Not trying to kick start the whole anti-gay church marriage argument again but The Catholic church doesn't accept relationships that don't have a foreseeable future, and take the vows seriously. The most I've ever heard of is a third marriage in a church, and thats because the woman was widowed after the second marriage, the first was just a **** up.
Although there are gay marriages with a forseeable future and never been divorced/ married before. It's the government you should be bitching to, not the church (Well maybe westbro, they're all cunts). The marriages shown in that picture are the kind that happen in a office, which gays can do, except its called a civil partnership instead of marriage.
Although there are gay marriages with a forseeable future and never been divorced/ married before. It's the government you should be bitching to, not the church (Well maybe westbro, they're all cunts). The marriages shown in that picture are the kind that happen in a office, which gays can do, except its called a civil partnership instead of marriage.
#61
-
Crusader (05/10/2013) [+] (59 replies)
Just going to point this out
Polygamy, as allowed in Islam isn't as simple as "I want another wife"
There are some restrictions
- The woman getting married has to consent
- All previous wives have to consent
- You must give each wife the same amount of time, love and money as the others
- There is a limit of 4
The reason it is allowed at all is because at the time when Muhammad (or Ali depending on your sect) recorded the Qu'Ran, there was a lot of war, and therefore a lot of widows, a widowed woman couldn't go out and get married normally and was forced to beg in the streets, which ended badly for any kids, so it was recorded that if your brother, or cousin, or friend died you were allowed to take care of his wife, but again only if the previously listed criteria are met.
Polygamy, as allowed in Islam isn't as simple as "I want another wife"
There are some restrictions
- The woman getting married has to consent
- All previous wives have to consent
- You must give each wife the same amount of time, love and money as the others
- There is a limit of 4
The reason it is allowed at all is because at the time when Muhammad (or Ali depending on your sect) recorded the Qu'Ran, there was a lot of war, and therefore a lot of widows, a widowed woman couldn't go out and get married normally and was forced to beg in the streets, which ended badly for any kids, so it was recorded that if your brother, or cousin, or friend died you were allowed to take care of his wife, but again only if the previously listed criteria are met.
#311 to #310
-
grocer (05/10/2013) [-] From Bukhari vol. 7, #65:
"Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her
when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine
years old. Hisham said: "I have been informed that Aisha remained with the
prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).""
"Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her
when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine
years old. Hisham said: "I have been informed that Aisha remained with the
prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).""
#326 to #311
-
envinite ONLINE (05/10/2013) [-] I'm not really aware with the subject but here is what I found :
- The Arabs don't really count their age (since Arabs have a different calendar, and Muslims didn't celebrate birthday), the '6 or 9 years' could be counted not since birth (http://forums.understanding-islam.com/showthread.php?1405-Aisha- s-marriage-to-the-Prophet&s=d1888128afffacd0e8f285a754b24d17)
- Aisha is 17-20 years old when Muhammad marries him, according to Shia histrory books. She was 9 years old according to Bukhari hadist
- Or some math **** that was TL;DR, but comes up with her age at 17-18 when Muhammad marries her. (www.danielpipes.org/comments/191392)[greenish-gray]
- And some source that says Aisha is 9yo, but I really doubt it's legitimacy because it has something like this : (http://www.faithfreedom.org/testimonials.htm)[greenish-gray]
I'm a muslim, but I'm not really interested in history. I just come for its good lesson.
- The Arabs don't really count their age (since Arabs have a different calendar, and Muslims didn't celebrate birthday), the '6 or 9 years' could be counted not since birth (http://forums.understanding-islam.com/showthread.php?1405-Aisha- s-marriage-to-the-Prophet&s=d1888128afffacd0e8f285a754b24d17)
- Aisha is 17-20 years old when Muhammad marries him, according to Shia histrory books. She was 9 years old according to Bukhari hadist
- Or some math **** that was TL;DR, but comes up with her age at 17-18 when Muhammad marries her. (www.danielpipes.org/comments/191392)[greenish-gray]
- And some source that says Aisha is 9yo, but I really doubt it's legitimacy because it has something like this : (http://www.faithfreedom.org/testimonials.htm)[greenish-gray]
I'm a muslim, but I'm not really interested in history. I just come for its good lesson.
#353 to #326
-
grocer (05/10/2013) [-] I've done a fair amount of research on the Islamic religion. The Islamic calendar is shorter than the Gregorian calendar most widely used today. This means that although Sahih Bukhari states that Aisha was 9 year old, it is possible that she could have been 8 at the consumnation of the marriage.
Please use direct quotes from the Hadith or the Qur'an if you wish to debate Islam. Conspiracy theorist websites are unreliable.
Please use direct quotes from the Hadith or the Qur'an if you wish to debate Islam. Conspiracy theorist websites are unreliable.
#367 to #353
-
envinite ONLINE (05/10/2013) [-] I remember when I was in private middle school, my religion teacher says that Muhammad DID married Aisha when she was still 'underage' (note that this could be from 9-17 years old), but he DID NOT had sex with her until she become 'mature'.
Also note that marriage =/= sex. He might be married with Aisha when she was still underage, but he DID NOT had sex with her until she reach the 'legal' age. The reason why I discuss this with you is because you stated first that they had sex when Aisha still 9, which is false.
Also note that marriage =/= sex. He might be married with Aisha when she was still underage, but he DID NOT had sex with her until she reach the 'legal' age. The reason why I discuss this with you is because you stated first that they had sex when Aisha still 9, which is false.
#450 to #367
-
grocer (05/10/2013) [-] As I said before "Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her
when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine
years old" Sahih Bukhari 7:65
Consumnation = The action of making a marriage or relationship complete by having sexual intercourse.
I think Sahih Bukhari (the main hadith that muslims are required to follow), is a more reputable source than your middle school teacher.
Also the Islamic definition of mature basically means the start of puberty (first period). So yes, in Islamic terms, Aisha would have been mature, and would have started puberty. Yes she started younger than the average girl, but she was still 8 or 9 years old.
when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine
years old" Sahih Bukhari 7:65
Consumnation = The action of making a marriage or relationship complete by having sexual intercourse.
I think Sahih Bukhari (the main hadith that muslims are required to follow), is a more reputable source than your middle school teacher.
Also the Islamic definition of mature basically means the start of puberty (first period). So yes, in Islamic terms, Aisha would have been mature, and would have started puberty. Yes she started younger than the average girl, but she was still 8 or 9 years old.
#195 to #190
-
gharshi (05/10/2013) [-] sexual intercourse or not, he broke his own rule. having wives =/= having sex.
also, Zainab divorced BECAUSE he fell in love with her. he fell in love with his sons wife and married her when she got a divorce.
oh and here is the name of 13 of his wives who are famous. it is assumed that he had more, but it is not counted as 'fact' because of lack of evidence.
Khadija bint Khuwaylid
Sawda bint Zamʿa
Aisha bint Abi Bakr
Hafsa bint Umar
Zaynab bint Khuzayma
Hind bint Abi Umayya
Zaynab bint Jahsh
Juwayriyya bint al-Harith
Rayhana bint Zayd
Safiyya bint Huyayy
Ramla bint Abi Sufyan
Maria al-Qibtiyya
Maymuna bint al-Harith
oh and by the way, he had a sexual relationship with one of his slaves named Mariyah. he was not married to her.
also, Zainab divorced BECAUSE he fell in love with her. he fell in love with his sons wife and married her when she got a divorce.
oh and here is the name of 13 of his wives who are famous. it is assumed that he had more, but it is not counted as 'fact' because of lack of evidence.
Khadija bint Khuwaylid
Sawda bint Zamʿa
Aisha bint Abi Bakr
Hafsa bint Umar
Zaynab bint Khuzayma
Hind bint Abi Umayya
Zaynab bint Jahsh
Juwayriyya bint al-Harith
Rayhana bint Zayd
Safiyya bint Huyayy
Ramla bint Abi Sufyan
Maria al-Qibtiyya
Maymuna bint al-Harith
oh and by the way, he had a sexual relationship with one of his slaves named Mariyah. he was not married to her.
#451 to #421
-
Crusader (05/10/2013) [-] Widows are marginalized in every culture, just not to the same degree, it's because in most cultures, up until recently, a woman couldn't work, she could work in a shop with her husband, but it was extremely rare for a woman to run a business, or even work in one.
You would find the same at the time in Europe, in fact, the middle east in places like Jerusalem was more accepting of working females than Europe, and allowed some widows to work, but it was more that they couldn't work and raise the kids.
You would find the same at the time in Europe, in fact, the middle east in places like Jerusalem was more accepting of working females than Europe, and allowed some widows to work, but it was more that they couldn't work and raise the kids.
#365 to #61
-
anonexplains (05/10/2013) [-]
Except in Islam women are treated horribly, especially in the Middle East. If a man rapes a woman it's her fault for "provoking" him to do so. If a woman takes the man to court she can end up being stoned or going to prison for "adultery" when the man's charges usually aren't that severe.
#86 to #61
-
facepalmftw (05/10/2013) [-]
Well to be fair, Islam also claims Christians and Jews to be "people of the book" who, though they are not true believers, have the concepts down and should be treated with kindness, not murdered like infidels.
And yet, there are a ******** in Jews and Christians being slaughtered in the name of Islam.
And yet, there are a ******** in Jews and Christians being slaughtered in the name of Islam.
#98 to #86
-
lamarisagoodname (05/10/2013) [-] people get butchered in the name of everything, it should slander the people that follow that religion, not the religion itself. When Saladin liberated the holy lands, he asked the Church to pay the ransom for their prisoners of war (as was the ethics of war back then) at which point the pastors packed up their gold and fled. Muslims, being economical powerhouses as a cause of the muslim trade laws (Malaysia actually declared their Islamic belief because of how well the muslim traders treated them) paid out of their own pockets to bring the christians back to their homeland (at which point many entered Islam because their religion practically abandoned them)
If you take nothing from this story in case you dispute it etc look up the proper rules of Jihad and Jizya and you'll get a better perspective on the issue.
I will admit, it's certainly getting a lot harder to put up a good image for Islam because of the actions of other sects but all proper muslims I've seen are really friendly, hard working and patient people and it's a very small minority (pic related) that western media focuses on so much.
If you take nothing from this story in case you dispute it etc look up the proper rules of Jihad and Jizya and you'll get a better perspective on the issue.
I will admit, it's certainly getting a lot harder to put up a good image for Islam because of the actions of other sects but all proper muslims I've seen are really friendly, hard working and patient people and it's a very small minority (pic related) that western media focuses on so much.
#147 to #98
-
jakefenris (05/10/2013) [-] I've met and interacted with two for an extended period of time. Both were dead set that they had the correct answer for absolutely everything, and nothing could persuade them otherwise. One of them, told me that without his religion he'd go on a killing spree of all the people who had wronged him. I can't say how hard one of them worked, but besides wasting an hour on saturdays, the other worked pretty hard. Though he always took his sweet time getting to where we needed to be.
#160 to #86
-
Crusader (05/10/2013) [-] Catholics claimed that Muslims and Jews were their brothers, and then slaughtered them in the Crusades, in the name of God and for the profit of the Pope.
Germans said that the Russians were there friends and then went to war with them.
There will always be a few nutcases that go crazy, the problem is, those are the only ones you hear about because they are rare, and since you only hear about them, you think they are common.
Germans said that the Russians were there friends and then went to war with them.
There will always be a few nutcases that go crazy, the problem is, those are the only ones you hear about because they are rare, and since you only hear about them, you think they are common.
#158 to #94
-
Crusader (05/10/2013) [-] It is.
If you are talking about the requirement of additional clothing in the form of a burqa, niqab, hijab, etc.
That is done for the woman, it was so her beauty didn't make her a target, it made it so any attraction to her would be for her personality.
They kept the rule, but culture are superseded religion in that aspect.
If you are talking about the requirement of additional clothing in the form of a burqa, niqab, hijab, etc.
That is done for the woman, it was so her beauty didn't make her a target, it made it so any attraction to her would be for her personality.
They kept the rule, but culture are superseded religion in that aspect.
#91
-
infinitereaper (05/10/2013) [+] (17 replies)
Every man dreams of that elusive 3 way relationship.
me?
I would be happy if cat's would just stop running away from me....
me?
I would be happy if cat's would just stop running away from me....
#112 to #91
-
emptysuperman (05/10/2013) [-] I've made out with two girls at once and had a threesome with a guy and a girl, but never had a threesome with two girls.
Ugh, why couldn't I have had a threesome with two girls and made out with once guys and two threesome girls? ....wait...
Ugh, why couldn't I have had a threesome with two girls and made out with once guys and two threesome girls? ....wait...
#117 to #2
-
anonexplains (05/10/2013) [-]
Actually, the fear back then was that since black couples tended to give birth to brown children, they were afraid that America would become brown and that white power would die off. TOTALLY DIFFERENT. (not supporting it, just saying that the point is wrong)
#279 to #256
-
Fgner (05/10/2013) [-] Of course, tests have concluded that there is absolutely no correlation between the sexual orientation of the parents and sexual orientation of the child. So one could hardly even call it a "fear", simply ignorance.
Also, who cares. gays tend to adopt. I'd rather have a larger gay population than I would crime-prone orphans kicked out of the foster care system.
Also, who cares. gays tend to adopt. I'd rather have a larger gay population than I would crime-prone orphans kicked out of the foster care system.
#383 to #279
-
anonexplains (05/10/2013) [-]
That is interesting because gays claim that it is a genetic factor as in they are "Born" that way. So doesn't there have to be a correlation if a parent has the gene you are more likely to inherit it. Also cite you sources I've seen studies where children of gay couples are themselves homosexual in 63% of instances while in the general population less than 5% of people are gay
#265 to #249
-
neoexdeath (05/10/2013) [-] **neoexdeath rolls 82** Sees people getting oppressed
Drops liberating dubs on their country.
Drops liberating dubs on their country.
#103
-
thecharliesheen (05/10/2013) [+] (12 replies)
Utah fag here, and in a part of Utah we used to live in, there are a ******** of polygamist families. Perhaps I can shed some light on why it's so looked down upon.
A lot of the women are abused, and forced into the marriages at very young ages. They have "different days" they get 'the husband', often resulting in violent fights between the wives. Many of them live on compounds in rural areas far away from decent police stations, so these fights go pretty unnoticed, as does the abuse. The children are forced to work most of the day, and despite the sweltering heat or freezing cold, are forced to dress in long, cotton dresses (think pioneer) with jeans underneath. All in all, it's a pretty big cluster **** .
I lived right next door to one for a while, and all I'm going to say is that some pretty ****** up **** went on over there.
A lot of the women are abused, and forced into the marriages at very young ages. They have "different days" they get 'the husband', often resulting in violent fights between the wives. Many of them live on compounds in rural areas far away from decent police stations, so these fights go pretty unnoticed, as does the abuse. The children are forced to work most of the day, and despite the sweltering heat or freezing cold, are forced to dress in long, cotton dresses (think pioneer) with jeans underneath. All in all, it's a pretty big cluster **** .
I lived right next door to one for a while, and all I'm going to say is that some pretty ****** up **** went on over there.
#443 to #188
-
thecharliesheen (05/10/2013) [-] You could definitely be right. However, in my personal experience, I have NEVER met a polygamist who hasn't done it for religious reasons or the reasons I listed. I've never met an honest-to-god normal family that just had 2 wives. It's always the overly dominant husband with 5 wives that look like they're straight outta Plymouth with kids that look like they haven't eaten in 3 years.
I guess you definitely could be right, I was just describing my experience.
I guess you definitely could be right, I was just describing my experience.
#444 to #176
-
thecharliesheen (05/10/2013) [-] Like I said, that's what we have here. If you read the reply above this one, I stated that this is just my personal experience. I'm not saying all polygamy is bad, I was just trying to state why there's such a negative stigma attached to it here.
I never said "Polygamy is bad", I just said "well, this is why people don't like it". When people here picture polygamy, that's what they picture.
I never said "Polygamy is bad", I just said "well, this is why people don't like it". When people here picture polygamy, that's what they picture.
#445 to #133
-
thecharliesheen (05/10/2013) [-] Of course we did, especially when we saw it. Unfortunately, the police here are quite incompetent and took several days to respond, and by then, the husband had coerced the wives into denying everything, and the kids stayed quiet out of fear. We were never allowed onto their compound, but we did try to stop it.
#240 to #103
-
anonexplains (05/10/2013) [-]
Yes that was on the daily planet keep posting, watchers love it. Have it all. Fights WERE INDUCED BY THE WHORES / brony **** . U DEW THAT? I CANT TAKE THIS, MADEBUP **** $$$ THE BEST, TRYING TO HURT ME BY SUDDENLY SLAMMING THE BRAKES IN CAR/ HURT ALL ON WATCHER VIDEO ALSO. CUM @ US ************ THIS YEAR BEE $$ DEE..CRUISE, MOHEGAN SUN U IN D HONDA, 10 BLOW YEARS BUTT U MADE GRANDS LIE/ SEE YA/ EVIL. I DONT WANT MAN IN LOVE VE WITH 2 BUTT TRUTH IS CUMMING OUT- QUIETLY / ON BEDROOM / HOUSE TV VIA WATCHERS ROUTING ???? NOT MY DIAMOND RULESTHEIR AFRAID.. IM DUNN.FRIENDS ALL ON
#3
-
jdmanisdaman (05/09/2013) [+] (35 replies)
You have the right to be homosexual, But there is NO such thing as gay-marrige. Marrige is between a man and a women, there is no other definition. Marrige, outside its religious means absolutly NOTHING. Why do homosexuals care about about marrige, no one is stopping them from being together, and marrige is just a title outside of religion. If all they really care about is being together why do they demand to change the definition of a word?
#4 to #3
-
cirquededc (05/09/2013) [-] You spelled "MARRIAGE" wrong every single time you wrote it. You also wrote *Absolutely wrong, but that was only once and therefore forgivable. Also I honestly don't agree with your opinion there so I'm going to thumb you down, feel free to reciprocate.
#5 to #3
-
liffian (05/09/2013) [-] Though I'm not religious in the slightest I'm kinda with this guy. sort of.
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman and is a completely religious statement. A civil partnership has all the benefits of marriage and shows the same unity just without the title 'marriage'.
I don't think it was fair for a law to be passed that forced a religion to change. Everyone deserves the right to be happy but I feel like this was just a law passed for a title that doesn't come with any benefits to it.
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman and is a completely religious statement. A civil partnership has all the benefits of marriage and shows the same unity just without the title 'marriage'.
I don't think it was fair for a law to be passed that forced a religion to change. Everyone deserves the right to be happy but I feel like this was just a law passed for a title that doesn't come with any benefits to it.
#67 to #5
-
Crusader (05/10/2013) [-] It doesn't force a religion to change.
What about atheist marriages, done without god.
Those are still considered marriages by law, why shouldn't two gay people have that same ability?
Marriage religiously is a man and a woman, but there are many religions, such as buddhism, that allow homosexuality. So how come there can't be a secular definition of marriage that is simply "Two people making a legal bond"
Yes there are civil unions, but it is still "separate but equal", it's like with black people, they had their own fountains, so why should we let them use ours?
See how ridiculous that sounds?
What about atheist marriages, done without god.
Those are still considered marriages by law, why shouldn't two gay people have that same ability?
Marriage religiously is a man and a woman, but there are many religions, such as buddhism, that allow homosexuality. So how come there can't be a secular definition of marriage that is simply "Two people making a legal bond"
Yes there are civil unions, but it is still "separate but equal", it's like with black people, they had their own fountains, so why should we let them use ours?
See how ridiculous that sounds?
#14 to #5
-
eiaisqzbsesb (05/10/2013) [-] How would you feel about a law that made it possible for a legitimate priest to chose weather they want to wed two of the same sex or not?
Like, not forcing, just giving the oppurtunity? Because there are a lot of religious gays out there, and there are also quite a number of priests willing to wed them.
Like, not forcing, just giving the oppurtunity? Because there are a lot of religious gays out there, and there are also quite a number of priests willing to wed them.
#85 to #14
-
Ruspanic (05/10/2013) [-] Churches and ministers can do whatever they want with regards to performing marriages, but only the government decides which marriages get legal recognition and benefits.
Ministers can deny service to interracial couples if they want to. Hell, if you become a minister you can demand all your marrying couples hang upside down during the ceremony.
You also don't need a minister or a ceremony to get legally married and receive benefits.
There are some forms of marriage (between consenting adults) that are actually illegal, besides not being legally recognized - like polygamy. Which I think is ******** . The government (state governments in this case) doesn't have to give legal privileges to every couple or group that claims to be committed, but it should at least allow them to live together and stuff.
Ministers can deny service to interracial couples if they want to. Hell, if you become a minister you can demand all your marrying couples hang upside down during the ceremony.
You also don't need a minister or a ceremony to get legally married and receive benefits.
There are some forms of marriage (between consenting adults) that are actually illegal, besides not being legally recognized - like polygamy. Which I think is ******** . The government (state governments in this case) doesn't have to give legal privileges to every couple or group that claims to be committed, but it should at least allow them to live together and stuff.
#6 to #3
-
darwinw (05/09/2013) [-]
I don't know why you're being thumbed down, you make an excellent amd very widespread believed point. Redefining marriage seems to be a way of creating a suedo equality, a gay couple in a civil partnership have all of the rights of a married couple. The change is just to try and start a ********** against religion, very odd, especially in countries supposedly under God (US, UK)
#58 to #6
-
anonexplains (05/10/2013) [-]
I dont know about UK but its not true in US. Civil unions aren't recognized in every state as marriages are. Federal govt doesnt give tax benefits to unions and laws are murky when it comes to healthcare, next-of-kin, adoptions, wills, etc. Even if they were equal, it's still inherently discriminatory because you refuse to label it as the same the thing. Its similar to "separate but equal".
#21 to #6
-
DJstar ONLINE (05/10/2013) [-] noooooo it's a stupid arguement!!!
there are soooo much more to being married than just the unity of love being solidified. If i get health benefits from work, my partner gets jack squat if he/she gets shanked in the parking lot! but with marriage, you can use your health benefits for your partner! there's way more benefits that aren't coming to mind.
there are soooo much more to being married than just the unity of love being solidified. If i get health benefits from work, my partner gets jack squat if he/she gets shanked in the parking lot! but with marriage, you can use your health benefits for your partner! there's way more benefits that aren't coming to mind.
#83 to #3
-
Ruspanic (05/10/2013) [-] Churches can define marriage however they want. They can even refuse to marry interracial couples, for ****** sake. But that's none of the government's concern.
Government should have little or no interest in tradition. It has a duty to create public policy for the benefit of its citizens (generally speaking), and insofar as legal marriage benefits make people happy or give them more freedoms or help ensure stable families without cost to other important priorities, it makes sense to grant those benefits to committed and mutually consenting adults. Not just tax benefits, but things like joint property ownership and hospital visitation rights and adoption eligibility and the right to make decisions for each other in case one is incapacitated or dies or something.
You're right, gay couples can be with each other regardless of how the law defines marriage, and indeed marriage itself can exist and has existed independently of government. But it's not about the ability to love each other or to be together, it's about receiving the same legal benefits as straight couples, because as far as the government is concerned, there's no practical difference between a same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple, all other things constant.
Government should have little or no interest in tradition. It has a duty to create public policy for the benefit of its citizens (generally speaking), and insofar as legal marriage benefits make people happy or give them more freedoms or help ensure stable families without cost to other important priorities, it makes sense to grant those benefits to committed and mutually consenting adults. Not just tax benefits, but things like joint property ownership and hospital visitation rights and adoption eligibility and the right to make decisions for each other in case one is incapacitated or dies or something.
You're right, gay couples can be with each other regardless of how the law defines marriage, and indeed marriage itself can exist and has existed independently of government. But it's not about the ability to love each other or to be together, it's about receiving the same legal benefits as straight couples, because as far as the government is concerned, there's no practical difference between a same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple, all other things constant.
#65 to #3
-
Crusader (05/10/2013) [-] Let's see
1 - Tax benefits
2 - Healthcare benefits
3 - Social benefits (being married carries a whole different meaning than being together)
Not to mention that yes, marriage does exist outside religion. Considering no religion has the exact same meaning of marriage as the next, not to mention there are many cultures that accept gay marriage. Not to mention there are secular marriages, atheist marriages, that means marriages that have NO RELIGIOUS MEANING.
Yes, there is a spiritual meaning behind it, that you are dedicating the rest of your to your partner to each other.
To say that marriage doesn't exist outside of religion is like saying faith doesn't exist outside religion, sacrifice doesn't exist outside religion, and so on.
1 - Tax benefits
2 - Healthcare benefits
3 - Social benefits (being married carries a whole different meaning than being together)
Not to mention that yes, marriage does exist outside religion. Considering no religion has the exact same meaning of marriage as the next, not to mention there are many cultures that accept gay marriage. Not to mention there are secular marriages, atheist marriages, that means marriages that have NO RELIGIOUS MEANING.
Yes, there is a spiritual meaning behind it, that you are dedicating the rest of your to your partner to each other.
To say that marriage doesn't exist outside of religion is like saying faith doesn't exist outside religion, sacrifice doesn't exist outside religion, and so on.
#26 to #3
-
anonexplains (05/10/2013) [-]
The argument works both ways. If marriage is just a title, why should only religious straight people get it?
Besides that, there ARE legal benefits to being married. Do you know already how many homosexual people have lost their lifetime partner because they couldn't share health insurance? It's REALLY depressing. Watching your loved one slowly suffer just because some religious coot who is mislead in life thinks that you're gonna cause the end of the world by marrying..
Besides that, there ARE legal benefits to being married. Do you know already how many homosexual people have lost their lifetime partner because they couldn't share health insurance? It's REALLY depressing. Watching your loved one slowly suffer just because some religious coot who is mislead in life thinks that you're gonna cause the end of the world by marrying..
#8 to #3
-
nibxi (05/09/2013) [-] I agree but I also strongly disagree. You have a point but really nobody does marriage for the sake of religion in the first place, so about 90% of straight marriages are more or less meaning "NOTHING" as you had stated. Sure people go get married at a church and all but thats for the sake of tradition, not out of the religious need to do so.
So where is "NOTHING" drawn as a line for marriage? When two people of the same sex want to be 'married' or when two people of different sex, be they any religion or lack-there-of, want to be married for that sole sake of being with each other and not for religious recognition?
So where is "NOTHING" drawn as a line for marriage? When two people of the same sex want to be 'married' or when two people of different sex, be they any religion or lack-there-of, want to be married for that sole sake of being with each other and not for religious recognition?
#118
-
Forfunaccount (05/10/2013) [+] (5 replies)
How sweet!
Tim Taylor and Al Borland from Home Improvement finally got married!
Tim Taylor and Al Borland from Home Improvement finally got married!
#155
-
watanigga **User deleted account** (05/10/2013) [+] (1 reply)
Why are those women smiling? Everywhere I go in a middle-eastern country, they're always fat and angry.
#312
-
thechosentroll (05/10/2013) [+] (3 replies)
What if he had two wives and a husband? Wouldn't that even things out and make it ok?
#426 to #324
-
anonexplains (05/10/2013) [-]
But think about the possibilities...
Also, if you're getiing too much **** from a marriage that doesn't fulfill you, or you on't love her or ... idk, something else, you should probably think about getting a divorce. Just a friendly advice from someone who worries about your sanity
Also, if you're getiing too much **** from a marriage that doesn't fulfill you, or you on't love her or ... idk, something else, you should probably think about getting a divorce. Just a friendly advice from someone who worries about your sanity
#23
-
sketchysketchist (05/10/2013) [-] **sketchysketchist rolled a random image posted in comment #69 at Ponyta-ime ** MFW society just doesn't enjoy letting people be happy.
#319
-
goodcheese (05/10/2013) [+] (11 replies)
eh, as long as everything is consensual who gives a **** who you marry.
#474 to #457
-
sirbustyabals (05/11/2013) [-] Her life was so ****** because her parents were never there. I guess the moment her father paid attention to her is when she became an adult. He just uses her for sex and she can't see that. That's why I don't find incest normal. A father is not suppose love his daughter that way, he's suppose to take care of her from the monsters in this world. How can he if he is the monster? There are some things that just can't be accepted into society.
#87
-
bronywhat (05/10/2013) [+] (14 replies)
I support a person's right to marry absolutely anything at all. Go ahead, try to call me intolerant.
#130 to #90
-
cadencee (05/10/2013) [-] The 5 year old would not be old enough to consent. Neither would animals so his statement would have to be rephrased to be any human over the age of 18 with capability of consent. The capability of consent would be up for discussion of course and there would have to be a considerable grey area.
#143 to #142
-
cadencee (05/10/2013) [-] Which is why i said that the capability of consent would be up for discussion with a large grey area. The same rules apply for sexual intercourse yet is it illegal for the mentally handicapped to have sex at all? And just because someone is stupid does not make them mentally handicapped. Your entire comment seemed rather poorly thought out.
#149 to #146
-
jakefenris (05/10/2013) [-] According to this it varies, would probably need to look up the criminal code, but I'm not interested or awake enough for that.
You need to login to view this link
You need to login to view this link
#161 to #87
-
fabelousnagger (05/10/2013) [-] www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96341-Japanese-Man-Marries-Videogame-Girlfriend
japan is already there
japan is already there
