Beautifulstarr123 said:

Marriage seems so corrupt nowadays, I don't even have the words to define it.

I'm reading a book on the emporers of Rome and I think any thoughts of corruption today is nothing in comparison to then.

OldFriends4Sale said:

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Any "official" same sex partnerships should be called a "Civil Union"; not banned, not unrecognized, and the same rights should be afforded to all parties, but it should not be called a "marriage". Just my opinion.

UncleJam said:

it seems to be a means to formalize a relationship that is difficult to dissolve and protects both parties. I think they should be allowed for any two single, consenting adults.

Husband and wife. Male and Female. Call everything else something else but not a marriage

UncleJam said:

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Any "official" same sex partnerships should be called a "Civil Union"; not banned, not unrecognized, and the same rights should be afforded to all parties, but it should not be called a "marriage". Just my opinion.

I respect your opinion....So a Gay couple should have the same "Marital Rights" as a Straight couple but their union should not be called a "Marriage"? The Military agreed that Gay Soldiers no longer needed to "hide" since they Fight & Die on the field together. No Straight Military Vs Gay Military, just Military.. Why not have the same attitude about Gay Marriage? Let Gays Get Married & Divorced just like Straight people. Lump it all under "Marriage" and it will save people money having to File Lawsuits in court cuz we all know eventually all 50 States will be cool with it.

datdude said:

I would define it as a test. Life is a test as well. One could pass the test or fail the test, it's a choice.

.

Unless facts are hidden from the other, then the test has been rigged and becomes a hustle. People seem to hustle people all the time.

tatocorcu said:

datdude said:

Husband and wife. Male and Female. Call everything else something else but not a marriage

You call it what you want. It's still a marriage.

Sure is.

Well there's polyandry. I think since most everything else is having it's troubles, that needs to have a closer look. I mean the world is populated enough and medical technology has brought down infant mortality greatly, so popping out a ton a babies as fast as possible isn't necessary anymore. Jealousy needs to be iradicated, imho.

KingBAD said:

hausofmoi7 said:

KingBAD said:

what love got to do with it???

i know folks that got married and never

even cared about the other one...

AND they stayed married "til death did they part"

matter of fact, some of the most stable

marriges in this society are made up of people

with no love in the home

That's very interesting. I have heard that people who choose a partner based on practicability and other non-love based factors have the longest marriages/relationships and are also happy. I wish I wasn't such a romantic, I think I would choose 4 passionate marriages over 1 long practical one. Ultimately 1 passionate long marriage is ideal, but I don't think I could substitute passion and love for longevity.

EXACTLY!!!!

so marriage is quite un-necessary,

even the thought of it.

Marriage is a business arrangement.

UncleJam said:

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Any "official" same sex partnerships should be called a "Civil Union"; not banned, not unrecognized, and the same rights should be afforded to all parties, but it should not be called a "marriage". Just my opinion.

1. Religious dogma will NEVER change the fact that marriage is a business arrangement.

2. Even if you wanted to make religious dogma count, it would still be proven as total bullshit. In the OT stories, the prophets Abraham & Jacob ("Israel") has more than one wife. King David's first union was with Jonathan (which would be classified as a gay marriage by 21 century standards). But David also have wives, including Bathsheeba, who was David's mistress at first due in part that she was another man's wife when David first laid eyes on her.

TonyVanDam said:

Marriage is a business arrangement.

Made easier if you really, really like the person.

Seriously....

Married for me is defined as, two people making a commitment based on friendship, love, respect, sharing, shared values, and above all a commitment to family. When you've been together for a couple of decades, you realize the two of you have built a history towards a future for others to build upon... through your children. It goes way beyond being a business arrangements or "stuff"...

==================

[Edited 1/8/15 17:33pm]

morningsong said:

TonyVanDam said:

Marriage is a business arrangement.

Made easier if you really, really like the person.

THAT^ and you have that same person signed the pre-nup!

TonyVanDam said:

UncleJam said:

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Any "official" same sex partnerships should be called a "Civil Union"; not banned, not unrecognized, and the same rights should be afforded to all parties, but it should not be called a "marriage". Just my opinion.

1. Religious dogma will NEVER change the fact that marriage is a business arrangement.

2. Even if you wanted to make religious dogma count, it would still be proven as total bullshit. In the OT stories, the prophets Abraham & Jacob ("Israel") has more than one wife. King David's first union was with Jonathan (which would be classified as a gay marriage by 21 century standards). But David also have wives, including Bathsheeba, who was David's mistress at first due in part that she was another man's wife when David first laid eyes on her.

My beliefs are not based on any religious dogma...and even if they were, the examples you gave are of human beings doing what human beings do; those men and women are not God, and God didnt write the bible. I do believe in God, and I also believe in nature. We have reproductive organs for reproductive purposes, and you cannot reproduce with a same sex partner. Go through the animal kingdom and you will find that only human beings will purposely shun the opposite sex and stay with their own. Sure...I know there are several examples of animals being so-called "gay", like a penguin in Amsterdam who only likes to play with the boy penguins, but if you locked him in a room with a female penguin in heat, he's gonna fuck. I know I'm sounding rather "simple", but to me it really is that simple. When you break it all the way down, homosexuality is not what nature intended. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Human beings are making a choice based on how they feel (and I do believe that people are "born that way" and can't just turn it off) but no matter how you slice it, it's not what nature intended. Again, I believe in God, and I believe homosexuality is not what he intended. That being said, this is the 21st century, and no one should be able to tell anyone else how to live their lives, what choices to make. As my mother always told me, "That's between you and your God!" The OP asked "How do you define marriage?" and I gave my opinion, like everyone else. I dont see anything wrong with a "compromise" like a Civil Union rather than a marriage, but I do understand why others dont agree.

UncleJam said:

TonyVanDam said:

1. Religious dogma will NEVER change the fact that marriage is a business arrangement.

2. Even if you wanted to make religious dogma count, it would still be proven as total bullshit. In the OT stories, the prophets Abraham & Jacob ("Israel") has more than one wife. King David's first union was with Jonathan (which would be classified as a gay marriage by 21 century standards). But David also have wives, including Bathsheeba, who was David's mistress at first due in part that she was another man's wife when David first laid eyes on her.

My beliefs are not based on any religious dogma...and even if they were, the examples you gave are of human beings doing what human beings do; those men and women are not God, and God didnt write the bible. I do believe in God, and I also believe in nature. We have reproductive organs for reproductive purposes, and you cannot reproduce with a same sex partner. Go through the animal kingdom and you will find that only human beings will purposely shun the opposite sex and stay with their own. Sure...I know there are several examples of animals being so-called "gay", like a penguin in Amsterdam who only likes to play with the boy penguins, but if you locked him in a room with a female penguin in heat, he's gonna fuck. I know I'm sounding rather "simple", but to me it really is that simple. When you break it all the way down, homosexuality is not what nature intended. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Human beings are making a choice based on how they feel (and I do believe that people are "born that way" and can't just turn it off) but no matter how you slice it, it's not what nature intended. Again, I believe in God, and I believe homosexuality is not what he intended. That being said, this is the 21st century, and no one should be able to tell anyone else how to live their lives, what choices to make. As my mother always told me, "That's between you and your God!" The OP asked "How do you define marriage?" and I gave my opinion, like everyone else. I dont see anything wrong with a "compromise" like a Civil Union rather than a marriage, but I do understand why others dont agree.

What a person believes & what a person knows are two different things.

TonyVanDam said:

Self-inflicted torture. Domestic prison. Unnecessary. Pre-dependent tax break.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

TonyVanDam said:

1. Religious dogma will NEVER change the fact that marriage is a business arrangement.

2. Even if you wanted to make religious dogma count, it would still be proven as total bullshit. In the OT stori8es, the prophets Abraham & Jacob ("Israel") has more than one wife. King David's first union was with Jonathan (which would be classified as a gay marriage by 21 century standards). But David also have wives, including Bathsheeba, who was David's mistress at first due in part that she was another man's wife when David first laid eyes on her.

What do you mean David and Jonathan had a gay relationship? That was brotherly love.

SOURCE:
http://www.wouldjesusdisc...athan.html

TonyVanDam said: