Personally, I think marraige should be between a man and a woman. What do you think?
Printable View
Personally, I think marraige should be between a man and a woman. What do you think?
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=254361
Another discussion
//edit One thing people don't get is: it cannot be left to the states. WHy? Because if one state passes it, all the other states MUST recognize it. It's not a state issue, it's a federal issue in this case. John Kerry stating that it's a state issue is getting around answering straight questions directed at whether he supports the amendment or not. One may dislike Bush's point of view, but you know EXACTLY where he stands.
Since we have not had, or needed a constitutional statement
prohibiting homo marriage, we may conclude that it has never
been permitted in the past, being considered unthinkable.
And yes, marriage is a state institution in the USA, not Federal,
although we recognize the marriages performed anywhere on Earth.
I think that any attempt to amend the Constitution puts the normal
people on the defensive, attempting to prohibit something new
and trendy.
Gay marriage will collapse of its own weight when people come to their senses.
Leave the Constitution alone. It is not an instrument for micro-managing
social policy.
:cool:
"I think that any attempt to amend the Constitution puts the normal
people on the defensive, attempting to prohibit something new
and trendy."
but the 'normal' way of like is under attack. judges and mayors are defying state law. Laws that the people voted in place. it these people are allowed to do this in one state they will go on to make a mockery of the entire nation. ifs a rediculas cause. equal rights is one thing but this goes way beyond that. bearded brides and **** in a tux with a minister in a sailing harness is not marriage.
I think that "land of the free" means you should be able to have FREEDOM to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't step on the rights of others. I have no desire to marry a man, but if the guy next door wants to marry his lover why should that concern me? and why should that be illegal?
There is one way to settle it fairly and that’s to do away with state sanctioned marriages altogether and just have civil unions for everyone. Then if someone wants to be “married” it can be done in a church or other place but not in itself recognized as legal. Do you think that would make them happy? I do.
the idea is not to make it a crime but just not legitimize a "marriage" between the same sex. This in no way defames a union between two of the same sex and i actually salute the person that has the guts to come out and say "this is what i am. if you dont like it oh well.” That IS great and deserves respect.
just like i 'usually' hold in high regard acts of civil disobedience. It normally takes the courage of one’s convictions to risk jail time and fines to protest what you believe or don’t believe in. that’s not the case with the mayor and judges in frisco. They risk nothing and just give the law and all opposed the finger because its going to be their way no matter what the people voted for in the past or no matter what anyone else wants now.. These are the people that above all others should live the law. Not make a mockery of it to bolster their political aspirations in a gay town.
Hasn’t marriage as we know it taken enough of a beating. Its lost so much of its meaning already and I think this will just kill it. If equal rights and privileges are given with a civil union then why is the “word” marriage so important. To me Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Its something sacred. If gays want to have their own “sacred” let them make one don’t step on mine. Why would someone who’s “out and proud” living their new like style want to do something so middle American as get married…I think its just to screw with us or maybe themselves. if most Americans disagree that doesn’t make me wrong this is a free (somewhat) country and I can feel as I so please but I will abide by the democratic process. Which is more than these frisco politicians can say.
Quote:
Originally posted here by Tedob1
Hasn’t marriage as we know it taken enough of a beating. Its lost so much of its meaning already and I think this will just kill it. If equal rights and privileges are given with a civil union then why is the “word” marriage so important. To me Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Its something sacred. If gays want to have their own “sacred” let them make one don’t step on mine. Why would someone who’s “out and proud” living their new like style want to do something so middle American as get married…I think its just to screw with us or maybe themselves. if most Americans disagree that doesn’t make me wrong this is a free (somewhat) country and I can feel as I so please but I will abide by the democratic process. Which is more than these frisco politicians can say.
I'm heterosexual, but I support gay marriages simply because I honestly see it turning into a form of descrimination if they are banned. You accuse them of stepping on the sanctity of your belief of marriage, but I think there is little room for argument considering the monsterous divorce rates facing our country today. Maybe if it wasn't so easy for a man and a woman to get married, there wouldn't be this problem, a lot of people jump into it out of wedlock, religious obligation, and to rid themselves of abstinence.
Secondly, giving them every single right, but calling it a "civil union" seems odd. It just seems like a play on words and a sense of insecurity. If you will concede all the rights, then how are your preserving the sanctity of marriage?
Finally, in some sense, it doesn't matter what results as long as it isn't an amendment. Review the amendments, the only one governing social policy ended up being repealed because of the outlash it created.
I guess I just don't understand how this effects all us? It really doesn't bother me, and I don't see how it bothers others claiming they are redefining marriage. I know my definition isn't official, but I see it as a legal recognization of a relationship not bound by blood.
i couldnt agree more "the mormon" send all the gays to canada bcuz marriage is for man and woman not man and man or woman and woman!
mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.
1. a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b. The state of being married; wedlock.
c. A common-law marriage.
d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
----
In my opinion, as an non-US citizen, it should be outlawed everywhere. It is unnatural; it is not marriage. It goes against the very foundation of 'marriage'. It raises all kinds of issues, especially in regards to child-ownership and whatnot.
I guess we should just make it illegal then to be homosexual since if you are, descrimination is inherent. As a US citizen, I know this country has jumped these hurdles before, we as a nation are probably just not ready to do so yet.Quote:
Originally posted here by Abtronic
mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.
1. a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b. The state of being married; wedlock.
c. A common-law marriage.
d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
----
In my opinion, as an non-US citizen, it should be outlawed everywhere. It is unnatural; it is not marriage. It goes against the very foundation of 'marriage'. It raises all kinds of issues, especially in regards to child-ownership and whatnot.
I find the situation rediculous in that everyone found a common cause when it comes to something harmless. We as humans rarely unite on anything unless its to bash a group of people.
The sanctity of marriage has been under attack much long before this situation ever occurred.
Something hilarious is how no one will answer this question: How does it personally effect you? IMHO, it personally does not effect a good 80-90 percent of us, which is a satisfying number to me considering you need less of that to get an amendment passed.
The foundation of marriage, ha! What about the foundation of this nation? People came here because they were ostracized and persecuted for their differences.
Interesting. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned how not too long ago it was illegal (yes, illegal) for a white woman and black man to be married. And remember there was a time when women weren't allowed to vote nor were blacks "human". Heck, it was only a few years ago when a woman living with a guy but not getting married was a "slut". My SO (common-law) is of chinese decent. If this was the turn of the 20th century, I'd hate to imagine what things would be said (not that I'd really care what the old biddies down the street said anyways).
I can't help but see some similarities in this. IMHO (and for what it's worth), I don't think that gay marriages will make marriage more sanctified or less sanctified. Regardless of who the "lovebirds" are, it is love that makes it sanctified. Not a church. Not a religion. Love. Period.
Now on the question of the sanctity of marriage, how about this: an amendment that makes it against the law to abuse your partner. Spousal/partner abuse is still not fully recognized and requires the victim to press charges. Personally, I think that threatens the sanctity of marriage far more than a couple of queers showing they care for each other. How about proving you can financially support someone else? Or that you don't have addiction that could harm someone else?
Anyways, I'm perhaps rambling but in the grand scheme of things, I think there are far more pressing issues than this. People bemoan all that's wrong in the world and sit and point the finger at others but forget that the most powerful and moving thing that will hold things true is themselves.
*shrug*
I'm for it. I myself am strait, but gays should have every right to get married. The fact is they(most from what I understand) would like spousal(sp) inheritance and all that jazz. Why not give it to them? I have heard people that argue it is harmful in "some" way which is complete BS. Almost anything can be twisted to hurt someone, but the fact is that this is not intended to hurt people which more or less counts. I do not really forsee it hurting people. They should most likely have restrictions on gay adoption, for the kids sake, especially since they are not of consenting age and don't really have a choice..
-Cheers-
What's wrong with 'gay' marriage
Interesting so like someone said since it is love which so call sanctifies it then I guess that having multiple partners to marry is ok. Especially if your in love. Hate to be in their shoes when this comes up.Quote:
how about marriages involving more than two people? What possible reason could we find for "discriminating" against threesomes, foursomes, fivesomes, etc.?
The article you presented is interesting, but it still is only based on guesses, and possibilities in his view. This has been the case forever too, I'm sorry to go here, but we can't deny this sentiment, "Free the slaves? What? Make 'em citizens? What? Let them vote? What? Whats next? What, no Jim Crow? What? Whats next, integration? Oh ****, my daughter in the same classroom with the negro? What?"
We, the US (cuz I know there are others here, but I speak as a US citizen), fears everything new, different, and at odds with our current beliefs.
I'm not 100 percent gun-ho about gay marriages, but to the extent people oppose it, its rediculous when considering the society they defend.
I still question this, how does it effect you personally? What exactly is the sanctity of hetorsexual marriage?
My answers, it does not effect me, and by legitimizing homosexual relations with marriage might actually aid in a reduction of HIV, etc.
I think there is very little sanctity of heterosexual marriage left. People speak of the obscene choices homosexuals make, but we turn the other cheek at adultery, early marriage and high divorce rates. Hypacrits?
Don't the Mormons' practice polygamy?Quote:
Interesting so like someone said since it is love which so call sanctifies it then I guess that having multiple partners to marry is ok.
Not officialy. The Church of LDS (latter day saints) stopped recognizing those kind of mormons, saying they were their own church, the FLDS (fundamentalist latter day saints). Just to throw in my two cents, it is my unwavering opnion that this is simply progress. as MsMittens said, beggining of the century to the somewhat recently, itv was condemned upon for a white woman and black man to get married. now look how many interracial couples there are. if you arec a religous person, and believe that a marriage between two men or two women is "sinful", then fine. that is your right to belive that. but just because president bush is a harcore christian intent on presering the "old ways" doesnt mean hundreds of thousands of gay couples shouldnt be given the rights of regular married couples.
slick
I wasn't going to get into this discussion, but I think everyone needs to look at tha basis of the general anti-gay feelings in America. Understand that I am putting forth these thoughts in an attempt to explain the mindset, and not to inflame the issue.
I think that most of us will agree that the US judicial system was based upon the Bible, and that most of the people that claim to be religious in America are Christians. That being said, there is a story in the Bible (Old Testament) about two cities, one named Sodom and the other named Gomorrah. Now, these cities were destroyed by God, with fire and brimstone, because the cities were unrighteousness in the eyes of God, and one of the main themes in this passage is about the unrighteousness of homosexuality.
Now this destruction of two cities, because of the wickedness contained therein, is ingrained upon the mind of every Christian that has read the passage. When individuals attack the values and morals that are the basis of the Christian faith, and with the disregard of these values and morals happening to coincide with the reasons for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, this scares the crap out of most Christians. While God is just and slow to anger, it is shown many times throughout the Bible that God can be angered, and when angered His wrath is overwhelming. Christians beleive that if you allow unrighteous acts to occur uncontested, the God's wrath may be turned upon where they live, and no one wants to see their home, friends, and community destroyed.
Another factor here is that Christians are called to help sinners understand that God does love them, but that God does not want them to live in sin. Therefore, understand that truly devout Christians will oppose gay unions, marriges, and relationships, for this very reason.
And as a side note, I do not know of any major religion where it's base philosophy and teachings condone or encourage homosexauality. In fact, all of the religions I am aware of name homosexuality as something that is anti-whatever-religion.
Seperation of church and state. There is no viable reason that gays should not be married unless you turn to religion. It pisses me off when religious groups and such try to make other people do what they feel is right? On the other end, taking God out of the Pledge of Allegence was extreme as well. Doesn't this get old? The taking down of the Confederate flag from the SC statehouse.. Anti-abortion laws, there is no end to it.
-Cheers-
I agree with your argument OverdueSpy or at least where you are coming from, though, I do not believe it is just and I inevitably side with silver-bullets.
Of course, many aruge religion was the basis of the founding of the US, but slowly, surely, and rightfully, government needs to move away from religious tennets for direction. I'm not saying lets become an atheist-communist nation, but religion should not govern the people, even if indirectly. Many people feel if we lose religion guidence than we lose the morales of our society. I believe that is wrong and it doesn't give us a lot of credit as citizens. Morals can definitely be achieved without religious guidence.
For example, without religion, we should be able to allow gay marriages, but stop at the point of threesome + marriages.
I don't see how through religion you are suppose to love your fellow man, but if he has a different lifestyle, then you can condemn them. And the part about, God loves them but does not want them to live in sin; it reminds me of a news special I watched where people would kidnapp homosexuals and take them to a hospital to convert them back through heterosexual pornographic images and pyschological conditioning. In a religious statement, "they were just redirecting their path away from sin" eh?
So, OverdueSpy, I understand where you are coming from, but like Silver-Bullets said, its getting old. We fight wars to get rid of religious fundamentalists in other nations yet we have many running our own...
What is wrong with the generally supported idea of "Civil Union"?
Nothing imho, but I question, if they will concede alll the rights and such, why not call marriage? Is it insecurity?
I see marriage as it is. This is something new, why not treat it that way. Give equal rights and equal access and call it "Civil Union" There is a large support base for that.
Fine with me. When the time comes, my spouse and I will be married.
But, from the homosexual point of view, will we be better than them psychologically because we are married and they aren't?
I don't know, can't answer that. I guess this where my aruguing stops if we concede at civil union because now we need the opinion of a actual homosexual couple I guess.
Good call Road. I would go for that. It seems like a relatively good comprimise.
-Cheers-
Do you mean jealousy?
I think the differences between Civil Union and marriage depend on the people getting together.
Example: I've had several girlfriends that if i had wanted to spend my life with, they would want a big church ect.. Where i would be fine just going to a court to become married.
I think the same is true for gays. I know homosexuals that are religious and would want a marrage in a church (granted some churches would not allow that, but others would, not everyone thinks god hates gays) others would be happy walking down to the court house to tie the knot
I think that is a good idea. All you religious and rights people clog stuff up so many times. Sometimes it's for a good reason, usually it's not though. This is one of those bad times.Quote:
Give equal rights and equal access and call it "Civil Union" There is a large support base for that.
-Cheers-
Humm seeing that I wouldn't recognize a jewish, mormon, baptist, presbaterian, justaice of the peace, ect. type marraige as a true marrage, and I am smart enough to be able to handle the difrence between a legal marrage and a true marrage why should I object to gays getting the right to marry in the legal sense?
Now I would be all for the civil union idea...if we eradicated all forms of legal marrage and grafatherd every one who bought a marrage license into civil unions. Lets make marrage purly a religious thing and allow the various religiouns decide who they accept and reject as married in their church and have a seperate legal object for tax, insurance and all the other advantages marrage gives you under the law.
Umm road closed you got this one wrong, if you are married in one state another dosn't have to accept it, in fact in the past we have had cases where spouses have been seperated do to diferences in state laws. Now that hasen't happened in recent memory, in fact the last time it happened was before utah got rid of piligamy but with some states looking at accepting gay marrage it looks like that issue is going to rear its ugly head again.Quote:
//edit One thing people don't get is: it cannot be left to the states. WHy? Because if one state passes it, all the other states MUST recognize it. It's not a state issue, it's a federal issue in this case. John Kerry stating that it's a state issue is getting around answering straight questions directed at whether he supports the amendment or not. One may dislike Bush's point of view, but you know EXACTLY where he stands. [/B]
Nope don't think so, although one could argue that an item is legal in one state and illegal in another, the fact is this. The constitution implicately states that legal "documents" produced in one state are to be viable in "all" states. Here I'll post it, it's Article IV and there is some buzz around it although I made a conclusion long ago that it wasn't "really" a state issue:
Full faith and credit, is the key. If that was not the case your then perhaps your drivers license, and current marriage or birth certificate would not be valid outside of state boudary.Quote:
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
That may be over simplification but it makes sense to me. You can't argue this legal point today. Perhaps in the past that may have been the case, you even used the Mormon tendancy toward polygamy.
The Mormons were definitely persecuted, not even remotely accepted for their polygamy lifestyle as compared to gays, early on they were hunted by militias and the saints sought out for the purpose of murder. Eventually they were all driven to Utah, as we know. Utah DID NOT become a state until the mid to late 1890s. In 1862 an anti-polygamy law was passed with Lincolns approval. Hmm what was that.... ah the Morill Act I think. It gets worse for them, later a law was passed that actually placed them in Jail. I am getting long, but to make a long story short, that practice was NEVER legal and that fact invalidates the argument. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint stopped supporting and sactioning polygamy in the 1800s, in fact Wilford Woodruff made this statement in part...
This is how I understand the issue. Polygamy was never legal.Quote:
Inasmuch as Laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort. I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
interesting point, a friend just went to get an IL license haveing moved here from kentucky. well he had to send away for a noterized copy of his birth certificate as Il will not accept an out of state ID as proof of age. Also note that some states do not put your image on their drivers license, those licences cannot be used as official id in any other state.Quote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
Full faith and credit, is the key. If that was not the case your then perhaps your drivers license, and current marriage or birth certificate would not be valid outside of state boudary.
.
Hmm interesting, that seems to be a direct reflection of the Patriot Act. So I wonder - if someone presses the issue would a constitutional amendment be necessary to enforce those items when the Patriot Act expires or is rescinded? I don't think the founders envisioned the ability to make exact duplicates of identifying papers. Their goal was to ensure that as a union of states, legal documents could be transferred. It’s also interesting to note: the Article IV even went so far as to include warrants of arrest and court orders. There is another key, court order. That protected a state from having a murderer cross state lines and be exonerated.
Back from a business trip everyone. Oh let me start by replying to Iceborg's reflection.
Quote:
Originally posted here by Iceborg
I agree with your argument OverdueSpy or at least where you are coming from, though, I do not believe it is just and I inevitably side with silver-bullets.
Of course, many aruge religion was the basis of the founding of the US, but slowly, surely, and rightfully, government needs to move away from religious tennets for direction. I'm not saying lets become an atheist-communist nation, but religion should not govern the people, even if indirectly. Many people feel if we lose religion guidence than we lose the morales of our society. I believe that is wrong and it doesn't give us a lot of credit as citizens. Morals can definitely be achieved without religious guidence.
I understand your point, however i must respectfully disagree. The US has been moving away from a religous based society for many years now. When I look around and see the propogation of unmoral acts and it's general acceptance, I become very concerned about the state of our great Union. If you condsider that the individual that commits an unmoral act is normally justified by the unmoral citizens, because the individual was abused in some fashion as a child, had their feelings hurt by someone elses actions or words, or was down on their luck. The individuals without solid morals identifies with and understands the persecuted individuals dilema. The cycle goes on from parent to child and does not break because morals, when heard by these individuals are considered to be rubbish. And why should values be anything but rubbish to these individuals? From their prespective, there are no consequences to the unmoral acts, except for possible incarceration. For morals to be effective there must be consequences that directly affect the individual feels about him/herself.
Why stop there though, it is still a preference and a display of love right. I guess I should be able to marry my dog also. PETA should go along with this, since all animals return and show love and affection for a loving owner. Sorry about the sarcasism]Quote:
For example, without religion, we should be able to allow gay marriages, but stop at the point of threesome + marriages.
You are correct forcing their path away from sin was terribly wrong, and I would bet that a follow up would find that these individuals have returned to their former lifestyles. An individual has to want to change in order for the change to be significant and permanent. Please understand that I am not about to condemn homosexuals, however I realize that their lifestyle is an abboration in the eyes of God, but it is not for me to judge. Christians are supposed to hold their brothers and fellow man accountable for their actions, however in the Christians view, this can only be achieved by understanding right and wrong according to the Bible. Yes I will condemn an individuals actions, but I will not stand here and pronounce their soul as being unsaveable because of that sin. Christianity is about forgiveness that is achieved through repentance, the renouncemant of further sin, and the quest to live ones live without sinning. We all fall short of this goal. Luckily God will forgive my momentary weakenesses but normally He has to get my attention for not following Him.Quote:
I don't see how through religion you are suppose to love your fellow man, but if he has a different lifestyle, then you can condemn them. And the part about, God loves them but does not want them to live in sin; it reminds me of a news special I watched where people would kidnapp homosexuals and take them to a hospital to convert them back through heterosexual pornographic images and pyschological conditioning. In a religious statement, "they were just redirecting their path away from sin" eh?
You are right again, it is getting old.... about 2000 years old that is. I disagree about Christians fighting wars to get rid of religious fundamentalists, minus the horrible acts of the crusades. We fight wars to stop agressive governments that are bent on conquest, blatantly over opressive, or attempting to commit genocide to a people. If we fought a war in this day and age to get rid of jundamentalists, Afghanastan, and Iraq would be the 8th wonder of the world. I can sea the travel agents spam now, COME SEE THE SEA OF GLASS!Quote:
So, OverdueSpy, I understand where you are coming from, but like Silver-Bullets said, its getting old. We fight wars to get rid of religious fundamentalists in other nations yet we have many running our own...
ahh but if state x wants to prosecute some guy who was captured in state y state x still needs to extradite him, and state y can refuse, that is a littel of what happened in the DC sniper case. States still have some of there rights leaving us with an odd mix of federal and state rules contradicting each other. Hell the only reason that every state has a drinking age of 21 is the threat of whitholding federal funds from the states.Quote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
Hmm interesting, that seems to be a direct reflection of the Patriot Act. So I wonder - if someone presses the issue would a constitutional amendment be necessary to enforce those items when the Patriot Act expires or is rescinded? I don't think the founders envisioned the ability to make exact duplicates of identifying papers. Their goal was to ensure that as a union of states, legal documents could be transferred. It’s also interesting to note: the Article IV even went so far as to include warrants of arrest and court orders. There is another key, court order. That protected a state from having a murderer cross state lines and be exonerated.
Overdue spy, whos religious definition of marraige are we going to go by. My church dosn't recognize any marrage that was preformed outside of the church (ie if you where not married by a catholic preist you are not married) I a msure other religions have similar stipulations. So our choices are haveing a state much like isral where most people have to leave the country to get married or do we run with a secular instatution of marrage?
Oh one question for you Overdue spy, what will your opinion be when the episopalians start preformeing gay marriges?
I guess a state could make an issue out of extradiction but it is pretty much spelled out in the constitution that they will make the criminal available at the request of another state and legal documents of one state hold value in the next. They may need to have some level of proof to be valid, but still ok.
RoadClosed: there is where you run right smack int othe states rights issues, you get some states arguing that their constitution overides the US constitution and what not, things get real ugly where state law and federal law overlaps.
Just wanted to say that I miss voted. I personally think that if two people want to get married then I am happy for them.
I think that the seperation of church from state is in question if an amendment is put in place. Let religion govern the sanctity of marriage. The government should worry about others things. Like how they are gonna over spend this year. More over how they are gonna tax us for it, yet still manage to run up the defecit.
bballad - I'm going by God's definition of marriage found in the Bible. I think the Catholics intend well by not recognizing marriges performed by other denominations. This is by the way of increasing the numbers of their attendees, which I feel actually inpacts negatively upon the general view of the Catholic Church. Now, I have never read in the Bible, where it states that a Catholic priest is the only person that can marry a man and a woman. "shrug" No you should not have to leave the country to get married unless you want to married to a person of the same sex, a second concurrent spouse, or a particularly plump sheep. Of course these marriges will not be recognized in the United States.
As for the Episcopalians (sp) conducting gay marriges, I hope they come to their senses before it comes to that. I would not want to be within 100 miles of a gay marrige that is to be conducted within a House of the Lord. Just in case.
Overdue spy, whos bible are you going by? Mormon bible piligamy ok, most poligamy not ok....the nwhat about all the other religions, or do they not count in your book? these type of questions are why we have a seperation of church and state in this country, and why marraige should be a compleatly secular contract between two people, or compleatly nonsecular with no benifits or peniltys under the law.