Do you agree that Marriage is a Religous institution between a man and a woman?

as has been stated here countless times?





what if someone were to create a religion that stated marriage was between any two consenting individuals?





or do we only recognize the definition given by certain religions such as christianity? isn't this endorsing a state religion?Do you agree that Marriage is a Religous institution between a man and a woman?
Strictly up to the couple having the ceremony performedDo you agree that Marriage is a Religous institution between a man and a woman?
Marriage is far more that a Religious institution. It is a biological union that our species relies on for its very survival.





No, I have no problem with homosexuality and know more than a couple of homosexual couples who are in a more stable relationship than many heterosexual people I know.





I believe in domestic partnerships that are as legally binding as marriages with all rights and privileges thereof. However, I do believe that for basic biological reasons that same sex marriages and dual sex marriages are different in nature and should remain as separate concepts.
If I want to get involved in an institution, I'll sign myself up for Durham prison.
I believe marriage should be among two people who truly love each other and not just for the sole purpose of getting something from the other. Such as health benefits,etc.
If you let gays get married, then you must let a man marry his daughter......fair is fair right? Where do you draw the line?
No. Atheists get married.
no, i think religion should have nothing to do with marriage. because if it is based on religion, then does that mean that only christian marriages are viewed as legit in a christians eyes? what about a jewish marriage? does that mean its not real to a christian? thats not fair, and its not legal. i think marriage should be a federally-governed thing, so that everyone has the same laws governing them in that aspect.
There ARE religions which say that marriage is an institution between any two consenting adults.





Unitarians*, the United Church of Christ are but two religions which advocate full marriage equity for all. Presbyterians are currently split over the issue as are Episcopals and both are moving towards full advocacy of marriage equity.





So the religious argument against marriage is indeed an advocacy of a particular religious view by government which is strictly forbidden by the first amendment.





*And before anyone starts saying that these are fringe religions, remember that 3 of the first 6 presidents of the United States were Unitarians. Episcopals and Presbyterians are the heart of traditional American religious tradition.
It would not be a recognized religion like Scientology is a farce also.





Doctrine events and rules make a religion not a choice to try to void standard religion to fit someones life style.
I do not believe marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Why do straight people get to fall in love and choose the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with but gay people cannot.





I do like your point about religion and state. Isn't that why our forefathers started a new government, a place where their rights and beliefs would not be persecuted?
Marriage is not JUST a religious institution. It is also a legal union between a man and a woman. Obviously, even un-religious people can get married.





';What if someone were to create a religion that stated marriage was between any two consenting individuals?';





Great. But so what?





';Or do we only recognize the definition given by certain religions such as Christianity?';





We recognize unions according to laws which are made by elected legislatures. Most legislatures happen to have mostly Christians in them.





';Isn't this endorsing a state religion?';





No. Maybe some liberals think that way, and maybe they think that way because of some sloppy writing by the Surpeme Court. But I don't see it as ';endorsement.';
Yes. US law comes to us from the English Common Law. Be thankful for our forefather's addition of separation of church and state.





That said, the state (not fed, you might notice) has expressed its involvement in marriage. Originally for the purpose of providing a remedy in the law to wives and children of a non-supporting husband (Law of necessaries), as well as keeping close blood relatives from breeding.
No.


It is a Religious institution that should be left up to individual religions.


The Government should stay out of it except when the marriage is done in a civil ceremony. The sex of the couples should then not matter as it is not a religious ceremony.
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people. Not by God. these groups of people and different religion make up there own rules and laws. So if there was another religion that creates there own type of religion thats on them. But God constitutes mar rage between a man and a women. God is the creator of mar rage. So if someone wants to go against God in there group of people and do as they may. Again thats on them and has its own consequences
Agnostic not big on big bucks organized religion. Marriage is commitment between two people.My only concern about same sex marriage is in area don't know. Currently are there any ethical taboos against doctor artificially helping anyone stating baby in test tube.
Marriage always has been between a man and a woman (of course in some cultures between a boy and a girl like King Tut), Period. Marriage between a man and a woman is the crux of the family and it has been for mellenia, in every single culture, nation, state and religion and non-religion, so I do not understand the homosexual movement to change this. I think that they are not satisfied with being homosexual, they have to push the envelope to see how far it can go. Besides, if the statistics are to be believed then marriage is on it's way out anyway, right?
Marriage is a secular institution that enjoins two estates into one.





No....it is not an endorsement of state religion if we allow only man 2 woman marriage.





Do the people have a governing interest in regulating the corporations? If yes, then they have an interest in regulating the state of marriage, because that is what marriage is.





It is not the position of the courts to dictate the will of the people. Convince 51% of the representatives of our republic, and convince the president to sign the legislation, and achieve Gay marriage through the Legislature, as that branch creates laws for regulation of corporations.





Marraige is not a religious institution. it is a secular institution.
No, if it is truly a religious institution as the nut jobs claim, then all of the legal benefits that go with marriage constitute an act of establishment of religion in violation of the first amendment.





The nut jobs should drop the issue or risk loosing the legal benefits of marriage.
More to the point, the Marriage is the vow- not the license. What people are arguing against isn't gay, or incestuous, or bestial marriages- those things can't be stopped. There's just no way to prevent people from declaring a lifetime romantic commitment to each other.





What they're arguing against is equal tax breaks for those people, and whether life insurance benefits extend to untraditional families. They're just trying to make it financially inconvenient to be unconventional.





Pointless.
if it is only a religious institution then it would be up to the religion who can marry. It is also a state institution, or else why the need for marriage licenses and tax codes geared toward marriage. There are many both state and commercial benefits that marriage brings
The question really should be, ';is 'marriage' a term that the government ought to be using at all?'; The answer is ';NO';.
I don't want a big government solution where the state tells anybody who they can love. It's not the states business, and it doesn't affect me. Marriage allows someone to convey property, and therefore it is a civil act.





If people want to worship trees it's OK with me.
well i think it's strictly a religious/personal matter and the legal system should stay out of it.
Marriage is generally considered religious, and not just Christian. There are different marriages for different religion, but, in America, since Christianity is prevalant, our beliefs on marriage is that it goes by Christian guidelines. Religion is still set into our laws and governing policies. Thats why the government has set up civil unions and such for people who cant or dont want to get a religious ';marriage';.
NO! Marriage is a mockery these days. Most people don't get married because of religious reasons. Marriage should be allowed for EVERYONE regardless of sexual orientation.
no. all religion is recognized by government.. it has to meet certain specified criteria though.. religions such as christianity and islam have been established faiths for many many years... and in those religions, marriage is only recognized as a union between a man and woman. no religion that i'm aware of that is established recognizes unions between ';individuals';.. you can't just ask for holiday pay from work because your ';religion'; says that on the third friday of march you have to sit in front of a tree and sing kum-by-ya.. not exactly about marriage.. but, same principle.





and i'm not saying that two people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to get married.. i'm all for it.. whatever floats your boat.. but, what i am opposed to is if those kind of unions get you the same benefits of marriage as a union between 2 of the opposite sex... i'm sorry, it's not right... and the laws reflect (or should reflect), the will of the people.. so, the government has every right to impose such laws because we permit it... it's called voting.
Marriage is a religious institution (it's a covenant with God to love each other forever) but I do NOT believe that any good relgion actually STATES that it's meant to be between only couples in which one is male and one is female. That was ADDED by people when the birth rate was EXTREMELY LOW and the more 'babies' that were made, the better life got. The 'gender' of a marrying couple is actually a 'civil' requirement in the U.S. (separation of church and state is in effect here) ...


I don't think we need a 'new' religion so that gays can marry ... I don't believe that we need a 'state religion' (ANY religion!) to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying ...


A 'marriage' takes place whenever two people 'fall in love' and start making love and living together. The 'wedding' is only the CELEBRATION of that union, but it also 'legalizes' the union in the 'courts of law in the land.' I think that most gays and lesbians I know would be perfectly HAPPY to be able to have a 'non-legal wedding' if they could do that in a church, but they also WANT the same 'legal benefits' of a marriage, such as rights of inheritance and the right to be able to visit with and to make the 'health decisions' for their partners if the partner is not able to make those for themselves. I think it is CRIMINAL that they CAN NOT do this, but 'family' who may have TOTALLY REJECTED the 'sick person' because of the 'sexuality' of that person are then 'welcomed' to make 'decisions' they are not as well informed about, because they truly DO NOT KNOW the person who could be dying. This can happen in heterosexual cases, too, sometimes ... but it is still CRIMINAL as far as I am concerned.
The giant inconsistency in their argument is they want to legislate it through the government by banning it.





Sorry cons - you can't have it both ways.
I just invented a new religion in which everyone worships me and marriage is between two men or two women. And any law that says otherwise is an abomination.
Marriage at one point was a religious thing and has evolved over the centuries. Today most modern governments rules are based on what was good for society in general and have nothing to do with religious ceremony.





Marriage is a commitment by two people to be together and raise children and it can be performed by a mayor, judge, minister, priest, a rabbi, a ship captain, or anyone who was given power by the state. I guess that more than 1/3 of the marriages have nothing to do with religion and more to do with love.





Your question seems to be geared to why don't we offer gay / homosexual marriage? Is society in general ready to accept this? The answer so far has been no. Its been put to a vote in numerous states as constitutional amendments and it has failed miserably.





The only state that I know of that allows gay marriage is MA and this is because a rogue judge delared it unconstitutional. Where in the constitution does it say that homosexuals can be married? This is not a decision based on the laws of a particular state, but by someone's individual agenda. Most laws say that men and women can be married.





Should marriage between a horse and a woman be legal? What about a man and sheep? Some people practice these things. Why isn't it legal?





What someone does in the bedroom should not dictate the laws of our society. You are trying to make an argument that it should.
yes