Where is marriage defined?

It's simple, if the concept of marriage was created by the church to join two people under god, then they own it. It's actually an error in the separation of church and state, we shouldn't be able to have non-religious weddings, it should be civil unions for anyone not religiously affiliated with a church. Same for whatever equal ceremony Mormons have for joinings, or Native Americans, and so on and so forth.

It is in fact an attempt to integrate another culture's religious ceremonies into everyday America. They succeeded decades ago, and now they are fussing about sharing.

However if the concept of marriage was not created by the church, or a religiously affiliated party, then screw everything above, and I agree.

Marriage is a State and Federal right. You don't go to Church/Synagogue/Mosque to get a Marriage License, you go to City Hall, etc. You don't file paperwork at Church, you file it with the State. In other words, Marriage AND ALL ITS BENEFITS come from the Governments, both local (State) and Federal. You get divorced LEGALLY with Lawyers, not preachers. NOT ONE SINGLE BENEFIT comes from your religious belief's, they all come from the government.

They speak of protecting marriage, yet 2 straight people who have never, ever met can agree to meet at a specific location, get their license and marry, just having met the first time then. How is that sacred or respectful? We have "no contest" divorces, meaning you don't even have to have a "real" reason to divorce, except you now want to be single again. How is that respecting marriage? You can get married easier than getting a Driver's License!!!!!!! Seriously, how does that respect marriage?

This Defense of Marriage is a smoke-screen. NO one is defending marriage from straights and their the ones abusing the h*ll out of it.

1. If you're referencing the US, the legal composition of marriage is defined in various state statutes. Religious scripture is not law and is not considered as such. For those who think religious scripture is law, I would suggest they attempt to use it in a court of law.

2. No harm, at all. It's simply only a matter of time that genderless marriage is legal in the US.

Actually, not even the Bible defines it that way, considering many of the Old Test men had several wives... If one were to get technical, Abraham committed incest as Sarah was his half-sister... then he slept with his wifes handmaiden who had Ishmael (who supposed is the beginning of the Arabic people)... David had more than one wife... Solomon had 300 wives and over 700 concubines.... none of these men were punished for having more than one wife.

There is one verse that actually states that there should only be one wife.... for a BISHOP. It's a "law" applied to priests only.... not everyone.

For all of those citing "Adam and Eve" as the basis for one man, one woman marriage framework:

I seriously think you have not stopped to consider that Adam likely had sex with his daughters as well as Eve, in order to increase the amount of children born. If Adam did not have sex with them, then their own brothers did, thus making incest the likely case no matter what.

If Adam and Eve are your defense as the example of traditional marriage, then you also have to allow that incestuous marriage is the basis of traditional marriage.

There is no rational or legal basis for denying gay marriage. It's nothing more than some rectum-derived rule from a dusty old holy book with no basis in fact or in law.

In the law books of each state.

In the book of genesis, in the bible. It says Adam and Eve, Not Adam&Steve..

Im not saying same sex marriage is wrong though, i have nothing against it.

spiritually,

-> you asked at R&S and i provided a spiritual answer.

common sense shows that men and women are incomplete without one another.

Human reproduction requires one man, one woman

Gen. 1:28

J

the dictionary