Should government regulate marriage??

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Let me chime in on this row of positive responses you have going.

Amen... great post.

To add a few of my thoughts...

The short sighted view that many people take is... control them... they are bad... or that is bad...

The government that can stop people that you don't want to be married from being married can, some day, force you to marry those you don't want to marry.

Then people will wonder how the government ever got this kind of power... you gave it to them... back when they were singing your tune. It mesmerized you into not thinking it out.

There are 2 sides to every coin. We forget that all too soon.

If we are to fight against marriages such as these... let us fight against them in the church. The world is, well, the world and sinners... you guessed it... sin.

It seems like you've really constructed a false dilemma here. American government isn't a "they" it's a "we" (even if special interests rule the day from time to time). Government regulates marriage at the state level because we wanted it that way.

In over 200 years of state regulation over the issuance of marriage licenses can you think of a single case where the state forced someone to take out a license with another party against their will? It has never happened. The license is issued when two starry eyed youngsters show up at the courthouse. You can't get a marriage license any other way.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

No it doesn't. lol

DON"T LAUGH AT ME!
(sorry!)

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't agree with women wearing pants... how does it strip me of justice if we allow women to wear pants?

I don't mind having a glass of wine with dinner... most of my Pentecostal buddies believe in total abstinence from alcohol... how does that strip them of justice?

I'm not a "victim" if my neighbor buys a Playboy magazine. Get real. lol

None of these examples is really applicable. Women are not licensed to wear pants, they just put them on. The same applies with each example. People are free to do these things whether you or I approve of it or not. And, gays are free to shack up or hook up and even file for benefits from just about every employer in America.

However, a marriage license is regulated according to the laws of the several states. It has been demonstrated repeatedly - again and again - that the vast majority of Americans in every state do not wish to allow the issuance of marriage licenses to "gay" couples.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why is it that so many of us are always a "victim" if we allow people to be free? Woe is me... I can't control others. I'm such a victim. LOL

HEY! (I'm okay... I'm cool)
The only victimization involved is that a license is issued for something that the vast majority of Americans have expressed a desire to regulate.

How are "gays" victimized by not being issued a marriage license?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bro... the Gospel will flow best in a free society. Here's what I mean. Their marriages aren't going to last. After five years of allowing "gay marriages" you'll most likely discover that the majority of gay marriages were launched as soon as it became legal. Then you'll notice that they tapered off and that most ended in nasty "gay divorces." Society will view them as tenuous at best an all their "promises" of happiness will be revealed for the failure that it is. In the wake of that mess we can point to the Gospel and say, "Look, marriage didn't solve your problem. Equal rights didn't solve your problem. Your answer is Jesus Christ." Let sin run it's course and the truth will be even more obvious. Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds.

Yes, and parking on my lawn won't solve my neighbor's problems; but I'm not willing to wait until he finds salvation to get that 4x4 outta there. We have codes in our society that people are expected to follow so that we can all get along the best we can.

I really don't need to see Ellen and others go through a bunch of public pain and humiliation just so that I can say, "I told you so."

- - - - Oh... and how does the assignment of a legal contract binding a party to its stipulated clauses give "freedom and liberty to all"?

[Aquila]

Dude, I just believe in liberty and justice for all, that includes gay people. Now, that's on the governmental or political level. When it comes to the church, I think we should preach it strong, come what may, and never compromise.

I believe in a free country. I've got a good friend who was gay and had a gay section Sergent when I was in the Army. For the most part, most are good hardworking people who just want to live their lives and have the same rights we have.

I will go this far, I'm not necessarily a fan of "gay marriage". But I can support the notion of civil unions to ensure that they have the freedom to live their lives as they choose. Face it, for most of them, this life will be the only happiness they'll ever have.

If sinners can't trust Christians to stand for freedom, who can they trust?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Dude, I just believe in liberty and justice for all, that includes gay people. Now, that's on the governmental or political level. When it comes to the church, I think we should preach it strong, come what may, and never compromise.

I believe in a free country. I've got a good friend who was gay and had a gay section Sergent when I was in the Army. For the most part, most are good hardworking people who just want to live their lives and have the same rights we have.

I will go this far, I'm not necessarily a fan of "gay marriage". But I can support the notion of civil unions to ensure that they have the freedom to live their lives as they choose. Face it, for most of them, this life will be the only happiness they'll ever have.

If sinners can't trust Christians to stand for freedom, who can they trust?

But again, how is the "freedom" of a gay person restricted because the county clerk won't sign out a marriage license to them? The gay couple is still free to pursue their gayness in whatever fashion they wish (within reason, like everybody else). They can shack up and split up or whatever they want to do.

We do have some responsibilities for regulating our society. I think most gays agree that the regulations involving the age of consent are important and we need them. We have already agreed to regulate these matters - what has happened that should persuade us to dramatically change things?

And, I'm not trying to hinder anyone's pursuit of happiness. In fact, for many if not most of them, the marriage restrictions are probably doing them a favor!

They already are free to live their lives and they already have the same rights as everybody else. What rights are they being denied?

I think the gays really need to take a step back in their discussion on this issue. They've been arguing with terminology that actually hurts their case. We're running head-long into a real mess without even having discussed the pro's and con's of the issue.

This is a lot like a trillion dollar stimulus package that hasn't even been debated on the floor of the House or Senate. We need to slow down and allow some of the wisdom that we do have to seep in to guide us in these matter. In the mean time gays have the same thing everybody else has except a scrap of paper.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Do you believe in liberty and justice for all?

nope

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by pelathais

"Government" has always regulated the issuance of marriage licenses. The license itself is a government document and you could be prosecuted criminally if you did anything fraudulant with it.

This isn't an example of "government interference" in our lives - but was one of the issues the founders of our nation wrangled with. It was determined to be an issue for the states to regulate to minimize the amount of Federal interference and control. But this was something that "We the People..." chose to regulate and was not imposed on us by some alien or foreign or authoritarian power.

I knew it was too good to last *sigh*

Well, I suppose you're right; however, you must understand that if the government can allow gays to marry and have the same rights as a man and a woman, then I suppose that the same government at some point can allow or disallow anyone to get married. I guess I just feel like the government is getting too much power to control our lives because "we" gave them that power.

Don't get me wrong, I do not personally support the lifestyle of homosexuality, but niether do I support "big government". The more we as a people relinquish our rights to politicians by who we vote for, the more they will unlikely give us back that power to control our own lives. Do you suppose abortion will stop? How about welfare support to those who never paid taxes? I believe the list can go on and on, but government isn't going to solve any of our issues.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

But again, how is the "freedom" of a gay person restricted because the county clerk won't sign out a marriage license to them? The gay couple is still free to pursue their gayness in whatever fashion they wish (within reason, like everybody else). They can shack up and split up or whatever they want to do.

We do have some responsibilities for regulating our society. I think most gays agree that the regulations involving the age of consent are important and we need them. We have already agreed to regulate these matters - what has happened that should persuade us to dramatically change things?

And, I'm not trying to hinder anyone's pursuit of happiness. In fact, for many if not most of them, the marriage restrictions are probably doing them a favor!

They already are free to live their lives and they already have the same rights as everybody else. What rights are they being denied?

I think the gays really need to take a step back in their discussion on this issue. They've been arguing with terminology that actually hurts their case. We're running head-long into a real mess without even having discussed the pro's and con's of the issue.

This is a lot like a trillion dollar stimulus package that hasn't even been debated on the floor of the House or Senate. We need to slow down and allow some of the wisdom that we do have to seep in to guide us in these matter. In the mean time gays have the same thing everybody else has except a scrap of paper.

A lot of that same sentiment was popular regarding blacks and whites marrying. The issue is that you have two adult citizens who want to enter a consensual civil contract with one another in what is supposed to be a free society. I'm no prophet, but I predict that like it or not, gays will get the right to full "marriage" if we are not careful. You see, if we grant them "civil unions" they will not have any grounds upon which to take it all the way to the Supreme Court because the "civil unions" will provide them all the rights they desire. However, if we resist this politically they will go to the Supreme Court and fight for "marriage". My prediction is that given the libertarian view of social liberties in our country they will win it. Granting civil unions will in fact protect "marriage".

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

I knew it was too good to last *sigh*

Well, I suppose you're right; however, you must understand that if the government can allow gays to marry and have the same rights as a man and a woman, then I suppose that the same government at some point can allow or disallow anyone to get married. I guess I just feel like the government is getting too much power to control our lives because "we" gave them that power.

Don't get me wrong, I do not personally support the lifestyle of homosexuality, but niether do I support "big government". The more we as a people relinquish our rights to politicians by who we vote for, the more they will unlikely give us back that power to control our own lives. Do you suppose abortion will stop? How about welfare support to those who never paid taxes? I believe the list can go on and on, but government isn't going to solve any of our issues.

I think I follow you here- I don't "suspect" you of promoting this thing. There's just a question about policy here.

And I think you're falling into the "If-by-whiskey" trap. Your definitions aren't consistent. The "man and wife" currently enjoy no more rights than any gay couple. There's a possiblity for an income deduction that can be applied depending on how you fill out your form - but even that's not a "right." Other than that, there's essentially no difference in fundamental rights.

We have never reliquinshed a single right to get to the point where heterosexual marriage stands today. The laws governing marriage date in many cases to pre-Revolutionary days. The current marriage standards do not represent some sort of creep by "big government" into our lives - they are age old customs based upon human biology.

More than 3.5 billion years ago, some single celled organism paired up with another of its kind and rather than cloning themselves individually they contributed together to the essence of the first "child" organism and "marriage" was born. We've been doing the "boy meets girl" thing ever since.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

And I think you're falling into the "If-by-whiskey" trap. Your definitions aren't consistent. The "man and wife" currently enjoy no more rights than any gay couple. There's a possiblity for an income deduction that can be applied depending on how you fill out your form - but even that's not a "right." Other than that, there's essentially no difference in fundamental rights..

If there's no difference, why worry about it?

[Sam]

In Ohio a couple who are legally married have joint ownership of property. If one dies, the property goes to the other. There is a term for that but I don't know it.

My wife and I have legal documents that we each have full power of attorney for one another. Any two people whether married or not could do that. Our wills state that the other inherits everything if one of us dies. Any two people whether married or not could do that. Our checking account has both names with an "or" between them so either one of us has access to the total checking account. Any two people whether married or not could do that.