Originally Posted by
Sinue_v2
I stand for traditional marriage. It is a sacred bond reserved solely for a man and woman's parents; a tool to be used as a means to secure business contracts, broker peace between families, and the raising or lowering family social status within an outdated and defunct caste system. Those who wish to marry for petty selfish reasons such as "love", and carry out clandestine ceremonies shall be severely punished, to wit, by excommunication followed by exile or execution.
(btw, where exactly are we drawing the line here? Are we going all the way back to traditional polygamy... in which case, go Mormons I guess. Or are we standing up for traditional marriage by banning miscegenation? I kind of picked a middle point between the two, but if you're not going to ban interracial marriage, then the current "traditional marriage" is only like 40 or 50 years old, which makes it kind of hard to argue for it's sanctity and reverence. Or hey, here's an idea... why don't we allow everyone to get married to whomever they wish regardless of race or sexuality, and we draw the line at preserving the "sanctity" of marriage at not cheating on your fucking wives and husbands! Or is that too much to ask? Are just not ready yet to stop fucking whoever we want, and then rather than stand behind the idea of a sanctified marriage we just pay lip service to it by choosing an arbitrary class of people to say "no, this is sacred, you can't have this" to?)
Seriously though, I have no problems with gay marriage or same-sex couples adopting children. As private organizations, I don't think Churches should be required to recognize or marry gay couples against their doctrinal teachings (and I don't know of anyone who seriously advocates that they should), but by the same token, the Church should have no authority or weight in the discussion over secular state-sanctioned marriage ceremonies. Live and let love.