Secular Authority

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1404062' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:58 PM']And first cousin marriages are not incestuous marriages. And who advocated gay marriage?[/quote]
It was you who brought up opposition to "gay marriage" as an example of encouraging the state's alleged "interference" in marriage.

Again, there's no good reason for one to marry one's first cousin. This inbreeding can be very bad for the children. There is the reason the Church required a special dispensation for such marriages to be performed at all (usually when regarded as political necessity; but such situations do not exist in today's world, and royal inbreeding is definitely not something I think we should aspire to go back to).
And if someone really feels such an overwhelming need to marry his first cousin and inbreed, he can move to one of those states where this is allowed.

Basically, the fact of states not allowing some guy to marry his 12-year-old cousin is not a thought that keeps me up at night with worry.
Yes, there are some abuses of government power that we should worry about, but for me, laws against marrying cousins are pretty much near the bottom of my concerns.
I'd say state-recognized "gay marriages" and such present a much more serious threat to marriage than laws against marrying cousins.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1404063' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:59 PM']And I really think some time in prayer or therapy regarding your unhealthy fixation on homosexuality would be a good idea.[/quote]
Ad hominem.

[hyperdulia again]

I'm done with you strange little man.

And your right I have made an ad hominem attacks on you. Including in this post. I am sorry. I will do my best to resist the urge to engage you in future.

God Bless (and I really do mean it)

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1404322' date='Oct 17 2007, 08:27 PM']About the Church and State recognizing marriage.

Under older English common law, marriage (domestic issues) were covered by eccelesastical courts.[/quote]

Depending on how you look at it that's still the case.

[rkwright]

[quote name='RandomProddy' post='1404787' date='Oct 18 2007, 11:09 AM']Depending on how you look at it that's still the case.[/quote]
Sorry I should clarify. They are no longer the case in the sense that Church "courts" do not award damages for problems. You wouldn't go to a Church court for divorce damages.

[Theoketos]

I would say that a personalistic democracy need not be confessional to be legitimate. But a secular government confesses atheism and so is the worst possible form of government. Its laws, including those about my diet, become as arbitrary as the whim of tyrant.