Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
Vasudevan Deepak K wrote:
A marriage is a holy function. It makes a guy unite with a girl in service to the Lord.
Marriage is in service to the lord? Just WTF VDK? It becomes very difficult to understand you at times.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
Marriage is in service to the lord?
Did you check this URL? http://www.trsiyengar.com/id46.shtml[^]
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson -
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
Marriage is in service to the lord?
Did you check this URL? http://www.trsiyengar.com/id46.shtml[^]
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis LevinsonI did.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
Some marriages end in divorce, because those marriages haven't ultimately united those souls. It is not marriage which unites two souls, it is love, which does that. Marriages may have a great role to play in India, but that still is for the society.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
. It is not marriage which unites two souls, it is love, which does that.
Right. :) And if two persons love each other then and then they get married. If there is not love then no marriage and if no marriage then no divorce. :laugh: From my point of view marriage is nothing but promise (ethical and of course legally) to each other. If person has wrong intentions then there is no need of talking about this...
"Save water,It's precious" :) "Don't forget to vote" ;) ;P ;)
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
. It is not marriage which unites two souls, it is love, which does that.
Right. :) And if two persons love each other then and then they get married. If there is not love then no marriage and if no marriage then no divorce. :laugh: From my point of view marriage is nothing but promise (ethical and of course legally) to each other. If person has wrong intentions then there is no need of talking about this...
"Save water,It's precious" :) "Don't forget to vote" ;) ;P ;)
Cosmo Thought wrote:
From my point of view marriage is nothing but promise
Love is the promise. If the love is true, then the promise to stay together is already there. Marriage is only for the society, as I already stated.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
On MercuryNews.com[^] You wouldn't believe how ridiculous the arguments against same-sex "marriage" are—especially the ones made by the protesters.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
modified on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 9:30 PM
Marriage is a unique institution; it was not invented by man but by God and as such all debate about redefining it is moot. None of use own the definition so none of us can change it. We can lie to ourselves and attempt to exceed our authority but it makes no difference. You are married if God considers yo married and not if he considers you not and that's an end of it. Anyone who wants to invent some other form of union or statute or institution can do so if they have the power but it is not marriage.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
A marriage is a holy function. It makes a guy unite with a girl in service to the Lord. At least in the Hindu scriptures, there are four stages of life. The first one is 'Brahmacharya', 'Grihasta'. Wedding indicates joining into the second stage of life. The other two stages ('Vanaprastha' and 'Sanyasa') come during older age. I also would like to share an article which speaks about the good facts about marriage and about restricted and religiously-allowed sex habits: www.trsiyengar.com/id46.shtml[^]
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis LevinsonVasudevan Deepak K wrote:
It makes a guy unite with a girl in service to the Lord.
Which Lord? Dont you have about 20? Anyway, this is not so. Marriage is a social tool to keep men in order. Without it society would be chaotic.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Vasudevan Deepak K wrote:
A marriage is a holy function.
Says who?
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Vasudevan Deepak K wrote:
It makes a guy unite with a girl in service to the Lord.
Which Lord? Dont you have about 20? Anyway, this is not so. Marriage is a social tool to keep men in order. Without it society would be chaotic.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Marriage is a social tool to keep men in order.
And to keep marriage itself in order with the marital relationship peaceful for long years, a mutual understanding and a true love is the one which is a desired feature.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson -
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Says who?
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Vasudevan Deepak K wrote: A marriage is a holy function.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he'll eat for lifetime. Pradeep Joe
Joe wrote:
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he'll eat for lifetime.
Show him where Tesco is and he doesn't have to sit in the cold by a river all day.
-
Oakman wrote:
The only sane reason for a marriage to exist is that it is a legal binding together of two people in an economic partnership for the purpose of raising kids.
Why just for raising kids? It legally defines a support unit between two people. Who has the legal say to make decisions for the other if they become incapacitated. Many heterosexual couples don't have children these days, should their marriages be dissolved?
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Thats a valid point. The government's only interest in any cohabitation situation is the issue of dependency. If one individual is taking care of another individual, than they should probably have some accomodation of that effort from the government in regards to their taxes. Aside from that, it really makes no logical sense for the federal government to concern itself with why two people are living together.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
fat_boy wrote:
Marriage is a social tool to keep men in order.
And to keep marriage itself in order with the marital relationship peaceful for long years, a mutual understanding and a true love is the one which is a desired feature.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis LevinsonVasudevan Deepak K wrote:
And to keep marriage itself in order with the marital relationship peaceful for long years, a mutual understanding and a true love is the one which is a desired feature.
Love has nothing to do with it: that is romantic hog wash which lasts for about 5 minutes until reality settles in along with the thought you might be stuck with this person for a very long time.
-
Marriage is a unique institution; it was not invented by man but by God and as such all debate about redefining it is moot. None of use own the definition so none of us can change it. We can lie to ourselves and attempt to exceed our authority but it makes no difference. You are married if God considers yo married and not if he considers you not and that's an end of it. Anyone who wants to invent some other form of union or statute or institution can do so if they have the power but it is not marriage.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Marriage is a unique institution; it was not invented by man but by God and as such all debate about redefining it is moot. None of use own the definition so none of us can change it. We can lie to ourselves and attempt to exceed our authority but it makes no difference. You are married if God considers yo married and not if he considers you not and that's an end of it. Anyone who wants to invent some other form of union or statute or institution can do so if they have the power but it is not marriage.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Quick, pass the sick bag: that is the largest sack of bullshit I've read so far. Are you actually married? Do you have a clue? Who the hell are you to impose your beliefs on other people? There is no god: marriage is a man made institution and is an arbitrary (and temporary) union of 2 people for whatever reasons they deemed fit at the time they decided to do it. You need to get off that high horse before you fall off.
-
Marriage isn't about the government saying its okay to fuck any more. It certainly isn't about God saying its okay to fuck. The only sane reason for a marriage to exist is that it is a legal binding together of two people in an economic partnership for the purpose of raising kids.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
But it does bring up the broader issue of whether or not we are a culture in any meaningful sense of that word and what institutions within our society should have some degree of authority to define the parameters of that culture. Marriage is about as fundamental to the definition of 'culture' as there is. To maintain that marriage is whatever any two, or more, individuals say it is, and that the rest of us have no option but to accept such associations is to say that we are not a culture in any way at all. I have no problem with such an open, cultureless, society as long as one of the other principles of that society is that I am free to discriminate against any part of it I like, in whatever way I like for whatever reason I like. But if I can be forced by the very same government which is not supposed to define marriage to accept whatever bizarre forms of marriage get created, than what is the difference in that and just leaving society the way it is and force marriage to remain between a man and a woman? Either way, the government is imposing itself upon the definitions of culture.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Marriage is a unique institution; it was not invented by man but by God and as such all debate about redefining it is moot. None of use own the definition so none of us can change it. We can lie to ourselves and attempt to exceed our authority but it makes no difference. You are married if God considers yo married and not if he considers you not and that's an end of it. Anyone who wants to invent some other form of union or statute or institution can do so if they have the power but it is not marriage.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Quick, pass the sick bag: that is the largest sack of bullshit I've read so far. Are you actually married? Do you have a clue? Who the hell are you to impose your beliefs on other people? There is no god: marriage is a man made institution and is an arbitrary (and temporary) union of 2 people for whatever reasons they deemed fit at the time they decided to do it. You need to get off that high horse before you fall off.
Sorry mate, I never got on it. I'm simply reporting the facts, not asserting them on my own authority, has nothing to do with my personal experience, or in fact with me at all. I'm not imposing anything, God is by virtue of being God. You invent the concept of foobulbar then you own it, you get to say what is and isn't foobulbar and when and where it applies. If I come and along and disagree then it doesn't change anything, it's not my concept to change. How much more so with God who's concepts determine the very fabric and operation of the universe. Trying to redefine marriage is like trying to redefine causality, a futile exercise in self agrandisement and self delusion.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Joe wrote:
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he'll eat for lifetime.
Show him where Tesco is and he doesn't have to sit in the cold by a river all day.
digital man wrote:
Show him where Tesco is and he doesn't have to sit in the cold by a river all day.
Show him France and the government will feed him for free.
-
You are of course welcome to have an opinion even if, as in this case, it has no apparent basis in fact or reason. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
You are of course welcome to have an opinion even if, as in this case, it has no apparent basis in fact or reason. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew, if you wish to accept ancient biblical writings as the basis for your belief, then do so. Not everybody accepts those ancient biblical writings as fact.
Absolutely, although the logical implication of my accepting something that says it is the truth and everyone should believe it is that I believe that everyone else should believe it too. If I didn't believe that I would be at least a self contradictory hypocrite whatever the fashionable meta-belief system of the time says about 'imposing' ones beliefs. In other words pretending not to actually believe what I believe is against my religion ( and also objectively irrational ) even if it is the only acceptable behaviour in current society. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.