(November 20, 2013 at 8:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Eq, you did not explain why you do not want separation of church and state plus you have no proof that nonreligious marriage ceremonies existed prior to religious ones.
Part of a separation of church and state is the church not stealing things that belong to the state when they go, Chad. As to proof, given that the concept predates recorded history, I would suggest that, in doing so, it predates extant religions, and therefore cannot be considered the property of any of them.
My whole point is that your argument relies upon the idea that all religions, completely at odds in most other regards, somehow can come together and take ownership of this concept, simply because it's convenient to current day religions. But considering that, equally, you have no proof that religious marriages were the first, or only ones, the idea that you can take exclusive ownership over this concept is ridiculous.
If you really want to make this argument that only the originators of marriage can use the term, why are you making the arbitrary distinction of stopping at religion? According to that logic, even in the best case scenario for your religion, christians wouldn't be able to get married either; the Jewish people would own the term.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!