Should people marry? It seems that God would forbid it.

I see that, in the interim between my previous response and this one, you've written a reply that actually acknowledges the reality of children.
However, since I just spent 20 minutes typing it and looking up some of the tax laws (rules for claiming dependents), I'm going to submit what I originally wrote, anyway. Just keep in mind it was written BEFORE your last response:

Originally posted by Digi
... [people] who don't want kids don't take care of them, and those who do, do. Nothing would change because a piece of paper wasn't signed.

Correct me if I'm wrong:
Does that signed piece of paper not help people who want to take care of kids receive government tax breaks?
Or money to help care FOR those kids?

Originally posted by Digi

What is marriage if not love (and ****ing)? It's legislating those things. Period. You can dress it up however you want, but that's what it is.

That's NOT what it is.
It's ALSO child-bearing and child-rearing.

Put differently, marriage is NOT just love and sex, but dealing with life AFTER you've loved and sexed.
Which doesn't seem to be something your calculus considers.

Originally posted by Digi

You misunderstood me, though. Forget kids for a second. If my gf and I got married and nothing else, I'd get a tax break and so would she ...

Your thinking seems to go 1 or 2 steps and then stop right before step 3.

You can't just "forget kids". They are the REASON for many of these laws.
It makes sense to ignore them only if you think it wisdom to ignore what actually happens when millions of people love and live together; what eventually RESULTS from their union.

WHY do you think the government would be giving you a tax break?
What was its purpose for putting clauses for such breaks into writing, often at times when the word "gay" meant "carefree" and "happy"? Think the government wrote those rules so that they could discriminate against people in 2014?

double post

Originally posted by Digi
The point I'm making is simple: there's no reason the government needs to be involved

From a practical standpoint, there could be no solution as simple as that one. But then you're taking away the benefits married people already have, and how much of the population is that? People are going to feel cheated somehow because social responsability isn't exactly in vogue when you feel rather poor.

I can't say I disagree with your take on it, though.

Many people who tackle this kind of problem will take the kind of stance that I raised in my previous post. You can see it as a simple issue with a straight forward solution, or as the all-encompassing statement that bends the very definition of a government. The problem is that laws are more married to the second kind of reasoning than the first. Somehow is not about solving a single problem but solving every problem at once.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Should people marry? It seems that God would forbid it.

Christian scriptures say that in heaven, there is no marriage.

When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
http://biblehub.com/mark/12-25.htm

As above so below, on earth as it is in heaven, indicates that when God returns to reclaim dominion from Satan, marriage will be abolished.

Why then do most religion of the Abrahamic root advocate marriage at all. Especially the polygamy. God does not favor marriage. If no two souls are to marry in heaven, then the law on earth should be that no two people marry.

We should emulate Jesus in all things and remember that as a Jew, he was almost forced by tradition to marry yet never did even though Gnostic Christian scriptures show him as loving Mary Magdalen more than his male disciples. Even kissing her on the (unknown parts). That is why I suggest that Jesus married Mary. Marriage was expected of all Rabbis.

This modern Gnostic Christian thinks marriage is the way to go, with a single mate, be that a mate of the same gender or not. Love is what is important. Not gender. That aside, I think that frees choice should reign in this issue.

Do you think we should abolish marriage and move closer to God’s heavenly law?

Regards
DL

1 Corinthians 7:1-40

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Ephesians 5:22-33

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

Genesis 2:24 ESV

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Proverbs 18:22 ESV

He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord.

Hebrews 13:4 ESV

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous

Originally posted by Bentley

From a practical standpoint, there could be no solution as simple as that one. But then you're taking away the benefits married people already have, and how much of the population is that? People are going to feel cheated somehow because social responsibility isn't exactly in vogue when you feel rather poor.

I can't say I disagree with your take on it, though.

Many people who tackle this kind of problem will take the kind of stance that I raised in my previous post. You can see it as a simple issue with a straight forward solution, or as the all-encompassing statement that bends the very definition of a government. The problem is that laws are more married to the second kind of reasoning than the first. Somehow is not about solving a single problem but solving every problem at once.

Bentley, no offense, as I know English is your second language, but you've got nearly exactly the wrong definition going for "practical";
revealed by just about everything else written in your paragraphs above.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prac·ti·cal

1.
of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.
"there are two obvious practical applications of the research"
synonyms: empirical, hands-on, actual, active, applied, heuristic, experiential, evidence-based
"practical experience"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What you're actually telling Digi is that his theories and ideas sound good as ideas and theories but they encounter too much resistance for them to actually BE workable in real life. In other words, that they're NOT practical in real life, at least not currently.

I would agree with that.

For there are more dimensions to marriage than love and sex, or even love and sex and religion.
Children first and foremost.

And there are also actual studies and evidence to back up many of the assertions I've made earlier in this thread.

Here's a link to one that is reasonably thorough:

http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/states/0086.pdf

... and which addresses a number of questions which have only barely been acknowledged in this thread so far:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• How has family structure changed in the past several decades?
• Are children better off if they’re raised by their married, biological parents?
• How do child outcomes vary among different family types?

1. Divorced Families
2. Widowed Parents
3. Never-married mothers
4. Cohabiting-parent families
5. Step-families
6. Same-sex couple families

• What really makes the difference for children—income or family structure?
• Does marriage itself make a difference, or is it the kind of people who marry and stay married?
• Does the quality of the relationship matter more than marital status?
Doesn't the quality of the relationship matter more than the piece of paper?
• What is the relationship between marriage and poverty?
• What more do we need to know?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Worth a few minutes of reading. I hope you'll do so.

But, whether you do or not, the conclusion all by itself is worthy of being posted here:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legal basis and public support involved in the institution of marriage helps to create the most likely conditions for the development of factors that children need most to thrive—consistent, stable, loving attention from two parents who cooperate and who have sufficient resources and support from two extended families, two sets of friends, and society. Marriage is not a guarantee
of these conditions, however, and these conditions exist in other family circumstances, but they are less likely to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/states/0086.pdf

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

The quotes you responded to were part of a conversation with someone else. But I'm not sure if you read my last post, but I'll reiterate that I'm not engaging you on this.

Originally posted by Bentley
From a practical standpoint, there could be no solution as simple as that one. But then you're taking away the benefits married people already have, and how much of the population is that? People are going to feel cheated somehow because social responsability isn't exactly in vogue when you feel rather poor.

I can't say I disagree with your take on it, though.

Many people who tackle this kind of problem will take the kind of stance that I raised in my previous post. You can see it as a simple issue with a straight forward solution, or as the all-encompassing statement that bends the very definition of a government. The problem is that laws are more married to the second kind of reasoning than the first. Somehow is not about solving a single problem but solving every problem at once.

To your first paragraph, have a grandfather rule. Problem solved. Everyone else can deal with it.

I literally know people whose mentality is that they'll probably get married to their SO eventually solely for the tax benefits. Neither party has any interest in the title or whatever other importance some people place on it. How is that not kinda f*cked?

But I get it. I'm taking a hardline philosophical stance that's hard to turn into anything practical. It's what internet forums exist for. I'm glad you see the point, though.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Should people marry? It seems that God would forbid it.

Christian scriptures say that in heaven, there is no marriage.

When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
http://biblehub.com/mark/12-25.htm

As above so below, on earth as it is in heaven, indicates that when God returns to reclaim dominion from Satan, marriage will be abolished.

Why then do most religion of the Abrahamic root advocate marriage at all. Especially the polygamy. God does not favor marriage. If no two souls are to marry in heaven, then the law on earth should be that no two people marry.

We should emulate Jesus in all things and remember that as a Jew, he was almost forced by tradition to marry yet never did even though Gnostic Christian scriptures show him as loving Mary Magdalen more than his male disciples. Even kissing her on the (unknown parts). That is why I suggest that Jesus married Mary. Marriage was expected of all Rabbis.

This modern Gnostic Christian thinks marriage is the way to go, with a single mate, be that a mate of the same gender or not. Love is what is important. Not gender. That aside, I think that frees choice should reign in this issue.

Do you think we should abolish marriage and move closer to God’s heavenly law?

Regards
DL

Apparently not

YouTube video

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Bentley, no offense, as I know English is your second language, but you've got nearly exactly the wrong definition going for "practical";

You're very likely right about that, but it's not a language issue, I argue without sticking to strict definitions and use colorful wording in every language I speak. Sometimes I also don't care enough about looking for the right word when I'm going to explain everything in the next paragraph. Thanks for the correction though.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Apparently not

YouTube video

Greatest I am needs to watch this video, its right up his alley.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Should people marry? It seems that God would forbid it.

another stupid interpretation...

"And Jesus said to them, The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage;
But those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,"
Luke 20:34-35

we are allowed to marry... marriage is actually a very sacred thing in the Bible...

"Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous."
Hebrews 13:4

people are not prohibited to marry, GIA... wake up...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, not really. The pope was heterosexual and not gay. Penises are offensive, but breasts are not.

I am not offended by penises and I am a heterosexual male.

You would think a pope would love everything that God created.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Digi
No, idiots who don't want kids don't take care of them, and those who do, do. Nothing would change because a piece of paper wasn't signed.

What is marriage if not love (and ****ing)? It's legislating those things. Period. You can dress it up however you want, but that's what it is.

Your next couple sentences are incredibly confusing. You need to clarify your pronouns, at the very least.

Anthropomorphizing governments now? Governments don't want anything. They're not sentient.

You misunderstood me, though. Forget kids for a second. If my gf and I got married and nothing else, I'd get a tax break and so would she. The LGBT solution has been to try to equalize it by adding gay marriage. I think equality should be achieved by not incentivizing it in the first place, because it's forcing people (poor people, at that) into a decision. Or the Penn Jillette example about his kids, which is another nefarious incentive and way for them to worm their way into a personal matter.

So let me put it this way: are you defending marriage now, after calling for its abolishment in the OP? And also after saying you think free choice should reign in the issue, which is mitigated by government's selective acknowledgement of marriage AND tax breaks? And do you condone legislating love? Do you think Penn should have had to marry to ensure he'd keep his children if something were to happen to his wife?

I did not anthropomorphize the government. I indicated that they give incentives for people who produce offspring.

I did not get a tax break when I got married. I actually lost money as do most who get married.

At least that is what happens in Canada. I would think that the same would apply to gays.

"So let me put it this way: are you defending marriage now, after calling for its abolishment in the OP?"

I never spoke against marriage, read my clear statement in the O.P., --- just before asking a question and not advocating against marriage.

Questions are not statements.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Digi
i ran out of edit time on my earlier post, but there's one more thing to add here:

I wonder if you actually watched the videos, because his thesis isn't to remove marriage. It's to remove governmental legislation on marriage. Religious marriage? Still intact. Civil contracts? Still intact. So your objection here presupposes a straw man that neither I not Jillette is advocating. We just want it to be a personal choice, not a nationally acknowledged state with financial, legal, and legislative implications.

Hard to take the government out of marriage with "Civil contracts? Still intact." That is government is it not?

The problem I see in cutting out the state is that they lose their responsibility to go after the deadbeat dads and perhaps some power as to what happens to the children. Divorce is a state run thing so for the state to be involved in the paperwork from day one seems consistent with good governance.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Bentley
Marriage has always been all about money or its equivalent.

No argument except for the numbers. I would give you 75% of the population. The rest would be love and not the money.

Love will gain as income adjusting or redistribution becomes more prevalent. 30 years I would say until the world become mostly socialistic.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
[B]Since we live on earth and earth is rotten and lonely place

B]

I offer my sympathy to you personal situation.

This goes a long way to explain your attitude.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Earth is not a "rotten and lonely place". Evil is in the action, not in the place. Also, there is the Gnostic Gospel of Mary Magdalene, that suggests that Jesus was married. Therefore it isn't stupid to say that Jesus was married. It makes no sense that Jesus was not married. You had to be married in order to be a Rabi.

http://gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

Thanks for this.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You're asking a Bible question and referring to Christian scriptures; seems only appropriate to respond with what the Bible itself says:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Corinthians 7-9
[Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)]

7 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7-9

A lot of equality there that ignores, --- he shall rule over you.

Strange that if th3e4 bible sells equality that the Suferjets blamed it for being a stumbling block to equality.

“He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord – how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world – how he may please his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:32-33).

That shows what is apparently God's wish.

Strange though that what you quoted is just basically a licence to screw. I do not see that as a good reason to marry. Do you?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Stoic
1 Corinthians 7:1-40

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Ephesians 5:22-33

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

Genesis 2:24 ESV

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Proverbs 18:22 ESV

He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord.

Hebrews 13:4 ESV

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous

“He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord – how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world – how he may please his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:32-33).

Now that the thumping is over, at least on my part, what is your position to the question?

Do we get closer to God's law or further away?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Bentley, no offense, as I know English is your second language, but you've got nearly exactly the wrong definition going for "practical";
revealed by just about [b]everything else written in your paragraphs above.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prac·ti·cal

1.
of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas.
"there are two obvious practical applications of the research"
synonyms: empirical, hands-on, actual, active, applied, heuristic, experiential, evidence-based
"practical experience"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What you're actually telling Digi is that his theories and ideas sound good as ideas and theories but they encounter too much resistance for them to actually BE workable in real life. In other words, that they're NOT practical in real life, at least not currently.

I would agree with that.

For there are more dimensions to marriage than love and sex, or even love and sex and religion.
Children first and foremost.

And there are also actual studies and evidence to back up many of the assertions I've made earlier in this thread.

Here's a link to one that is reasonably thorough:

http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/states/0086.pdf

... and which addresses a number of questions which have only barely been acknowledged in this thread so far:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• How has family structure changed in the past several decades?
• Are children better off if they’re raised by their married, biological parents?
• How do child outcomes vary among different family types?

1. Divorced Families
2. Widowed Parents
3. Never-married mothers
4. Cohabiting-parent families
5. Step-families
6. Same-sex couple families

• What really makes the difference for children—income or family structure?
• Does marriage itself make a difference, or is it the kind of people who marry and stay married?
• Does the quality of the relationship matter more than marital status?
Doesn't the quality of the relationship matter more than the piece of paper?
• What is the relationship between marriage and poverty?
• What more do we need to know?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Worth a few minutes of reading. I hope you'll do so.

But, whether you do or not, the conclusion all by itself is worthy of being posted here:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legal basis and public support involved in the institution of marriage helps to create the most likely conditions for the development of factors that children need most to thrive—consistent, stable, loving attention from two parents who cooperate and who have sufficient resources and support from two extended families, two sets of friends, and society. Marriage is not a guarantee
of these conditions, however, and these conditions exist in other family circumstances, but they are less likely to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/states/0086.pdf [/B]

Nicely done my friend.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Thanks for this.

Regards
DL

You are welcome.