I have read several articles, blogs, news reports, and a multitude of other opinions regarding marriage. I have found that the two main categories’ being debated is: Religion v. Government and Heterosexual v Homosexual. I have yet to find any understanding for the reasoning behind such a huge debate.
Today I would like to explore the Religion v. Government aspect of marriage.
Marriage has become a piece of paper to insure both parties receive a fair share of property, funds, and other material aspects when the marriage ends. This paper provided by the government insures that both parties of this union receive government benefits for married couples. Hasn’t the government already insured that all marriages are a financial contract between two people?
The religion aspect of marriage is nonexistent. When we look at marriage from a religious point of view then we must first remove all government involvement. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that you sign here to be married and when you divorce you sign here. If we are debating marriage based on religion then shouldn’t the debate first be about eliminating divorce unless adultery is committed, and not allowing marriages for anyone who has been divorced or is not a virgin? Why are we allowing judges instead of priest/pastors/ordained ministers to perform wedding ceremonies if this union is a religious union?
The facts remain that in today’s world government and religion play a role in marriage. The main difference between the two is simply the choice of the couple being united. Religion only plays a role based upon the decision of the couple to have it as a part of the ceremony. Government plays a role no matter if the couple chooses for it to or not. You can’t be married unless the government says so, but you can marry without ever attending a church.
Tomorrow we will discuss Heterosexual v Homosexual Marriages which will bring more light into why Religion v Government is even a debate.
Today I would like to explore the Religion v. Government aspect of marriage.
Marriage has become a piece of paper to insure both parties receive a fair share of property, funds, and other material aspects when the marriage ends. This paper provided by the government insures that both parties of this union receive government benefits for married couples. Hasn’t the government already insured that all marriages are a financial contract between two people?
The religion aspect of marriage is nonexistent. When we look at marriage from a religious point of view then we must first remove all government involvement. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that you sign here to be married and when you divorce you sign here. If we are debating marriage based on religion then shouldn’t the debate first be about eliminating divorce unless adultery is committed, and not allowing marriages for anyone who has been divorced or is not a virgin? Why are we allowing judges instead of priest/pastors/ordained ministers to perform wedding ceremonies if this union is a religious union?
The facts remain that in today’s world government and religion play a role in marriage. The main difference between the two is simply the choice of the couple being united. Religion only plays a role based upon the decision of the couple to have it as a part of the ceremony. Government plays a role no matter if the couple chooses for it to or not. You can’t be married unless the government says so, but you can marry without ever attending a church.
Tomorrow we will discuss Heterosexual v Homosexual Marriages which will bring more light into why Religion v Government is even a debate.