Like anything in culture, its nice to have religion in the background, The BACKGROUND

And yet today's form of marriage is far more disadvantageous to men, at least in the western world.. My how things change.

It's whatever you want it to be in this day.
Monogamous or not, producing children or not, in love or not, wan or woman can win the bread. It's just a contract between two adults.

its become to cheap with woman today

All of those options are better than two fags marrying each other, and you know damn well marriage almost always refers to a man and a woman, even if you can find exceptions in the bible. If you don't get it you're probably a fag yourself.

It was Adam and Eve not Adam Steve, dont you GET IT STUPID?

Whats next!

Marriage should be divorced from any sort of political ties. Marriage should be defined by whatever a church wants it defined as. You want to get gay married? You'll have to go to some heathen church which ignores the bible to hold a faggot ceremony. You want to get all the tax benefits/ whatever else comes with marriage? You sign a piece of paper that says you are married.

Trying to tell all churches they must accept gay couples and marry them is asking for trouble.

>>1887371
That's because of the court system, not because of the institution of marriage itself.

>>1887423
we don't but they don't even let us do the secular one

>>1887423
No one is asking for that. It would be nice but churches can always choose to not wed a couple if they choose to. This happens to straight couples too you know.

Gays want to be married and have the same protections under the law. No more no less.

>Polygany

It's called polygyny.

>>1887438
>>1887453

I try not to be cynical, but I can see it now. Once gays do get the right to marry nationally, the first church that refuses to do a wedding ceremony will be ostracized immediately, the congregation will get death threats, the church itself will get lawsuits filed, it'll be a huge fuss.

>>1887453
What protections?

I need empirical evidence that shows a society with gay marriage is a better one.

>>1887527
Sweden, Norway, The Neatherlands, Canada

>>1887544
Where is the evidence that gay marriage made those societies better?

Natural law is against open homosexuality.

fags plz, old testament is old

>>1887492
That happens now. Gay marriage isn't going to be the thing that starts making that happen. A church a few months ago decided it did not want to wed interracial couples. America was pissed. Not because he chose not to wed them but because he did so based on his views of interracial marriage. When you choose to go against a society's social norms you will get criticized. Don't pretend this doesn't already happen.

>>1887563
>appeal to "Natural law"

oh boy here we go

The institution of marriage is more about property. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>1887563
Can you show me irrefutable evidence of societies that better without it. Because I don't think you can. Our society would benefit from the economic increase of gays getting married. If gays had all the rights that straight Americans do we would gain so much more from society.

>>1887586
cross cultural instinctive morality is the most objective kind of morality

>>1887492

Not if all the church members are also against same sex marriage.

Besides plenty of churches can and do deny couples based on their standards.

>>1887576
Well I don't think interracial couples were denied as church policy, it was his own personal views.

Besides why can't church members protest their own churches? It's better then them just blindly going along with everything.

>>1887615
Decadence(or social liberalism if we politize it) kills societies.

Take the romans and the western societies of today.

>>1887627
what about churchs that do? unitarians and universalists? quakers and the like? not all christians are against it

Marriage should be a totally consensual relationship between one man and one woman in my opinion.

>>1887639
didn't the romans go into decline after christianization?

>Mfw modern slavery has its roots in agricultural service and slavery.
>Mfw the English word for family comes from the Latin word used to refer to slaves.

>>1887716
>modern slavery

Meant 'the modern family'

>>1887681
They adopted christianity to deal with religious feuds during the decline

The issue is this marriage is encouraged by the government because we want people to have kids. So lets cut out the middle man. Lets make tax breaks only for dependents, the status of the union has no effect on taxes. Basically all those faggots and weaklings that want to get together but don't want kids or are sterile and useful only as drones to serve society get no special treatment because they are not providing more members of society. The current tax system gives breaks to idiots that want to be married because of pansy shit like love rather than the business or procreation. So since we cannot read minds and determine peoples intent with marriage we have only one option to make it consistent with the writ of the law. We give tax breaks for those raising kids, we give higher breaks for those raising their own kids. This encourages both procreation and adoption but makes keeping your children economically preferable.

I think homosexual unions are a waste of time, but don't think I'm picking on gays. I also think heterosexual unions with no intent to create children or unions were a member is sterile are useless. Why encourage these when they give us nothing? These people can get tax breaks for adopting but they will receive less than those raising their own children. The usual circumstance of having step children will be considered the same as the standard condition of two biological parents raising their kids, as at least one parent organism is present.

Marriage should be a private mater. You want to get married find a church that will support your particular union. And get married. The state doesn't need to encourage or discourage it. Procreation is a concern of society and hence can receive a support from the state.

>>1887681
Actually the Romans went into decline because they began including many of there protectorates as full provinces and these new provinces sucked up revenue, however they were no longer able to conquer and tax new protectorates to make up the difference due to logistical constraints of the time. They also spent a great deal of money garrisoning their northern border in Europe. Then there was the problem of the decline of the army, with them using more foreign mercenaries. There stubbornness against adopting new modes of warfare. Their lack of adoption of steel and poor metallurgy in general, the only thing they ever excelled at was architecture and logistics. Lack of investment in roads, causing a slow down in trade and dearth of slave labor which they relied on. Resurgent nationalism in Asia Minor. A power struggle that split the Empire with the Byzantines surviving as the regional power much longer.

And for that matter the Romans were very religious, not some secular state. Caesar thought we was related to Venus, and maybe he was right who can say? Hell Jupiter began to take more and more monotheistic qualities as time progressed even before Christianity came in. One of the reasons the Christ cult became popular was because the cult of Jupiter was already so damn similar. There is a reason why God is depicted like Jupiter and Christ like Apollo in late-Roman art.

Religion has nothing to do with their decline.