The FAQCT is that marriage, after beign taken over from the church BY the government, and bastardized to the point of being unrecognizable- isstrictly about money- period- The government PAYS married couples to HAVE CHILDREN to create future taxpayers- and they give incentives to encourage hetero couples to reproduce- The government can and does prevent marriage for many reasons (no you may not marry your hairbrush- no you may not marry two women at same time no you may not marry your dog etc etc etc) and beign married is NOT a right- it is a privilege for hte purposes of procreation (although hte government does allow sterile couples to marry- however they are allowing these marriages based o nthe fact that the majority will be healthy marriages that do NOT endanger society via diseases, drug use, abuse of othersw as is the case with a lot of gay people[ Yes, there are soem gay ‘couples’ that stay true to each other don’t do drugs, or have extramarital sex and will never develop aids or other nasty diseases- but statistics prove these folsk are in the minority in the gay comunity)
Gay peopel feel as though they are entitled to the privileges and incentives of married couples- but the FACT is that they are NOT qualified to receive the same incentives and financial privileges because they contribute nothign to future generations as far as procreation goes
The other FACt is that kids who are adopted in gay marriages grow up unstable and insecure and end up costign hte states farm ore often than do kids of two parents of opposite sex- this is a statistical FACT- over and over again it is proven- Why in the world would we want to encourage soemthign that is so harmful and detrimental to most kids who through NO fault of hteir own are thrust into two mommy or 2 daddy atmospheres? Does thel eft hate children? Why woudl they intentionally want ot harm kids htis way?
Of course I agree with your entire post that was obviously typed in a fit of rage...LOL Calm down my FRiend.
There is a little more to it than that, the Catholic church could not impose total legal control over the regions that they controlled until the mid 1500s in regards to marriage, and even that left our England.
“Concluding in 1563, the Council of Trent decreed that
marriages previously contracted by verbal consent alone and without parental consent would be held valid, but in the future all marriages not celebrated in the presence of a priest and witnesses would be null and void.
This, in essence, abolished informal, private marriage on the European continent.
In England, after the Act of Supremacy in 1534 and England’s break with the Roman Catholic Church, England no longer recognized the canon law of the Roman Catholic
Church.
Therefore, at the time of the Council of Trent, because the English Reformation had already taken place, the results of the Council of Trent did not apply to England.
The Church of England, and the ecclesiastics who had jurisdiction to determine the validity of marriage, while generally requiring formal marriages, continued to allow marriages per verba de praesenti.
The canons of the Church of England, like those of the Catholic Church, created a distinction between a valid marriage which was legally binding on the parties and an
“illegal” marriage which, because it was not solemnized through the intervention of the church, was subject to ecclesiastical penalties. In addition, even though the Church of England recognized these marriages as valid, the lay or temporal courts under the civil law did not bestow full marital rights on the parties to such marriages, perhaps to impede the growth of clandestine marriages. The lay courts required publicity of the marriage in order
to endow the parties with certain marital rights.”