Why is endorsing gay marriage/civil unions bad? - Page 7

AreYouReady? · #61 05-13-2012, 10:11 PM

For the most part, most Christians equate state permission (license) to marry legally as the only recognized marriage. Some just cannot differentiate between the act of marriage in God's eyes verses the state's legal permission/license to marry.

houston · #62 05-13-2012, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

For the most part, most Christians equate state permission (license) to marry legally as the only recognized marriage. Some just cannot differentiate between the act of marriage in God's eyes verses the state's legal permission/license to marry.

Understood.

Jay · #63 05-13-2012, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houston

I am too stupid to understand politics. Anyway, I have a question.

Why are those of you who are for separation of church and state trying to control the state? Worse case scenario and the state mandates that you perform SSM, Christians should stop obtaining marriage licences and go common law.

You fail to understand the point. We do not wish to control the state, but to force the state to abide by the rule of law (the Constitution). The state has been encroaching on our personal and religious freedoms for more than 100 years, and it is time that we draw the line somewhere. Otherwise, where will we be in another 5 years?

houston · #64 05-14-2012, 12:04 AM

What does the constitution say about marriage?

Jay · #65 05-14-2012, 12:50 AM

The point is that you can not change the definition of marriage without fundamentally reshaping the nature of society. The problem that is run into is simply that they do not have the power to change that definition at the whim of the legume sized cranial contents. That is why there is a struggle over this issue.

If you start to redefine marriage, you also must redefine the role of gender, sexuality, religion, politics, free speech, free association, and many other items. The problem is that they have decided to redefine to their hearts content regardless of the destruction done to the rest of society.

deacon blues · #66 05-14-2012, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Personally, I have two main thoughts on this issue, and they are surprisingly liberal:

1. I wish churches had jurisdiction over marriage ceremonies. Religious ceremonies should be held for those who want them, and everyone else can form secular (civil) unions. Giving this power back to the church and having the state only take care of paperwork and names and dates is the way it should be, IMO.
2. I don't really care WHO wants to form a civil union--whether its for the sake of sharing a household, sharing incomes, sharing dependents or sharing a bed--I really don't care. That's a legal issue that has nothing at all to do with the sanctity of God-ordained marriage between a man and a woman. IMO, if roommates want to file a civil union for the 4-8 years they attend college so they can share household expenses, etc., they should be able to do so. It's a practical matter.

When I was about 13, we lived next door to a monogamous gay couple. One of them worked at the hospital as a nurse, the other one was a businessman. They had two very fat, spoiled, sweet basset hounds. I don't remember my parents ever being rude to them or complaining about them living next door. I certainly was never bothered by them, and I find it interesting that my parents didn't seem particularly bothered by them either.

My point is: I don't see the point of Christians digging in their heels and trying to prevent people from sharing bank accounts and filing joint income tax returns.

You can allow for shared bank accounts and filing joint tax returns without defining the relationship as marriage. And I don't know many Christians who are arguing that.

deacon blues · #67 05-14-2012, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

BTW

One comment though: What you have described in the bolded is marriage

Then someone needs to educate you on what marriage means.

deacon blues · #68 05-14-2012, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Let's see...Who has bought what hook, line and sinker? Thousands of years of almost unanimous belief that marriage is one man and one woman and then sodomites come along and say its not fair that they can't be marries so we just automatically cave in and say they're right? Or could it be that your messiah president has crossed the line and now you're stuck having to defend him/it?

This one is going to cost him politically. It might cause the media to tingle, it might cause Hollywood to right fatter checks, but there are 32 states that have written some form of defense of marriage act or constitutional amendment or a ban on gay marriage. 32 states against and only about 6 for and the other states with nothing either way. The presidential election is not a strictly popular vote. Its a state by state election. It was a stupid political move and its going to cost hime some states.

So again what makes gay marriage good? What makes polygamy good? What about a man who says he and his dog have consentual relations and love each other? Some woman and her horse? Perversion takes on many forms frog...who are we to judge who should or shouldn't get "married"?

BUMP for frog

Aquila · #69 05-14-2012, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

The issue is not just 'gay marriage', but the desire for the endorsement, approval, and celebration of their lifestyle by the community at large. For this reason, they will not stop once they have gay marriage but will seek to have the approval of any and all houses of worship. It will eventually be mandated that if you wish to perform marriage ceremonies for heterosexual couples, then you must also provide the same service for homosexual couples. This is already begun here in the States. Hutchinson, KS is proof of this. The homosexual lobby has recently stated that merely tolerating or approving of homosexuality is blatant homophobia.

I know a local Catholic church that will not perform a marriage unless both are confirmed. A local Lutheran church will not marry anyone unless they are at least a member in good standing for six months. Churches are private organizations that are free to set their own standards with regards to marriage. I say... if they try to force a church to perform a gay wedding... protest. We seem to sit here thinking that if they pass a law we have to obey it. We DON'T. The gay lobby has the floor because they appear to be persecuted. We need to get some GUTS. If they try to do that... PROTEST BIG TIME. Perhaps even FLIP SOME TABLES in City Hall. Accept that a few Christians might have to go to jail for disrupting the peace or property damage. I'd also say, don't harm anyone physically. But get radical.

I just dare them to try to force churches to peform a ceremony they don't believe in. It could also help us form aliances with other churches, mosques, and synagogues that don't agree with forcing houses of worship to perform gay marriages. I think it would be good for the church... we'd have headlines everywhere... and in them... we'd be the one's being forced into something we don't believe in.

Aquila · #70 05-14-2012, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

For the most part, most Christians equate state permission (license) to marry legally as the only recognized marriage. Some just cannot differentiate between the act of marriage in God's eyes verses the state's legal permission/license to marry.

True. I read about one pastor (I think it was in Colorado) that told his congregation NOT to get marriage licenses and register their union with the state.