beautiful wrote:Marriage has a barbaric history that has been revamped time and time again so I don't see any harm in allowing a man + man and woman +woman to get married.
Not sure about "barbaric", but why not let everyone share the pain?
beautiful wrote:If you are speaking of the bible, take the icon Jesus. His mother and father weren't married at the time when she was pregnant and that is something worthy of being stoned to death. I'm sure many others were stoned to death and hunted down due to pre-marital sex.
Jewish law forbids premarital sex and in fact limits contact between the sexes before marriage, but it's not a sin and wasn't punished by stoning. Nor was consenting sex automatically cause for marriage, although r**** was.
beautiful wrote:Think of the brand illegitimate child and what that did to people and how that has changed for the better. Now children aren't picked on for being the child of pre-marital sex in which that is pretty low to pick on a child who had nothing to do with it.
People also don't always marry out of love but for other reasons like tax benefits, should they not be allowed to marry because it's ruining the face of what marriage is supposed to stand for?
I think the purpose behind "b*****" wasn't to punish the child, but part of a systematic plan to get peasants married to care for their children. A b***** prince, provided the Queens relatives weren't politically important could be just as powerful as the legitimate sons. As I recall early European religious and secular leaders were of the opinion that one in the peasant class was nearly mindless and unable to make choices on their own. Princes always had their right to make their own rules, provided it didn't make too much trouble with the lower classes.
beautiful wrote:Should wiccans, satanists, buddhists, scientologists be allowed to marry?
Scientology should have neutering as a requirement for entry to the faith.