-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Same-Sex Marriage Post-Election Update
- Thread starter Pah
- Start date
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
"To create and raise Godly children."
And yet america seems to have no problem allowing rapists, sex fiends, serial killers, etc... marry and create children (whether or not they are godly, no human can judge). So whats wrong with allowing two people who do seriously love each other take part in marriage and raise children? If serial killers and rapists can do it, why not any one else? The gender is not important. It is the love the 2 share. I ask what love you have for those 2 who love each other?
And yet america seems to have no problem allowing rapists, sex fiends, serial killers, etc... marry and create children (whether or not they are godly, no human can judge). So whats wrong with allowing two people who do seriously love each other take part in marriage and raise children? If serial killers and rapists can do it, why not any one else? The gender is not important. It is the love the 2 share. I ask what love you have for those 2 who love each other?
Dr. Nosophoros
Active Member
Do you include comments of your own Pah or do you just post "public service " messages to see the reaction?
Anyway , I could give a crap about gay marriage, homosexuals have been in history for years whether mainstream public accepted them or not. I despise male homosexuality as unnatural ***** but I would never try to legally force anyone to adopt or enjoy heterosexuality against their will. Sexuality is what it is, it's up to us to decide.
I couldn't care less if two gays want to get married, me and my wife considered ourselves married (in a ritual of our own) long before we got a license from the state- it's just a matter of legality not real relationship.
Anyway , I could give a crap about gay marriage, homosexuals have been in history for years whether mainstream public accepted them or not. I despise male homosexuality as unnatural ***** but I would never try to legally force anyone to adopt or enjoy heterosexuality against their will. Sexuality is what it is, it's up to us to decide.
I couldn't care less if two gays want to get married, me and my wife considered ourselves married (in a ritual of our own) long before we got a license from the state- it's just a matter of legality not real relationship.
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
"The gender is necessary to create children by definition."
What stops them from adopting a child. If a man and a women adopt a child, is this ungodly?
"In the absence of a father/mother, an older child and a single parent can raise a younger child. Does that mean the older child and single parent should get married in your view?"
What does that have to do with same sex marriages? Marriage is not solely about children. It is about love, and if two people love each other. They should be able to marry. Like I said, if rapists and serial killers can do it. Wonderful people should be able to as well.
"In the beginning God created Adam and Eve and they were married, how secular is that?"
In my understanding, adam and eve weren't married in the united states. So it doesn't matter what some myth says about people who probably didn't exist. Let's talk here and now. Love transcends all things physical. Gender is physical, marriage is love. Marriage transcends gender.
What stops them from adopting a child. If a man and a women adopt a child, is this ungodly?
"In the absence of a father/mother, an older child and a single parent can raise a younger child. Does that mean the older child and single parent should get married in your view?"
What does that have to do with same sex marriages? Marriage is not solely about children. It is about love, and if two people love each other. They should be able to marry. Like I said, if rapists and serial killers can do it. Wonderful people should be able to as well.
"In the beginning God created Adam and Eve and they were married, how secular is that?"
In my understanding, adam and eve weren't married in the united states. So it doesn't matter what some myth says about people who probably didn't exist. Let's talk here and now. Love transcends all things physical. Gender is physical, marriage is love. Marriage transcends gender.
Pah
Uber all member
desi said:
I didn't see that. Could you tell which verses told of their marriage?
Could you also tell me about Luther, in his reformation, making marriage a purely secular matter if it was to remain a sectarian marriage?
Could you tell me why clergy today, before they can perform a marriage ceremony, must apply to the state for a license to do so if not for secular control of marriage?
Could you tell me why the Church in premodern Europe only blessed a marriage as a favor (Boswell's Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, in chaper 5) if it was anything other than a secular (read that civil) marriage ?
Bob
Solly
Fides Quærens Intellectum
In the UK marriage is defined by the state, and regulated by it.
In the marriage room of our town hall, where civic marriages are carried out, there is a sign that states that Marriage as defined by the state is a union of two people, a man and a woman, for life.
The last bit has obviously fallen by the wayside, without much protest in the US or UK, where divorces amongst 'Chistians' is sometimes higher than in the community at large. The former part is silently challenged by Muslims who still practice polygamy.
The middle part is challenged wherever a same sex union takes place in the spirit of marriage.
In church, a marriage is not legal unless a representative of the state, the local registrar, is present to witness the crucial 15 minutes when the necessary part if gone through. Without that you are not married, no matter how many rehearsals you have gone through.
The upshot of this? The state defines marriage. The state can redefine marriage, ie by raising the age at which one can be married, for instance.
I firmly believe that God's expecation is that a man shall marry a woman, and that they shall multiply, and that they - together - comprise the image of God in humanity. However, that does not preclude that fact that not everyone is or will be a Christian, nor can we force them to be, since there is no rationale outside of the Bible by which Christians might argue their case. In fact, the case having been challenged, the argument was lost then and there. It is incumbant on Christians, and other religions who value heterosexual marriages, to show that theirs is better, at least. Something we often fail to do.
Yes, i do believe that homosexuality is not God's will for humanity, it is part of the fall; but I think an awful lot of heterosexuals might start looking a lot closer to home before they make political capital out of this.
In the marriage room of our town hall, where civic marriages are carried out, there is a sign that states that Marriage as defined by the state is a union of two people, a man and a woman, for life.
The last bit has obviously fallen by the wayside, without much protest in the US or UK, where divorces amongst 'Chistians' is sometimes higher than in the community at large. The former part is silently challenged by Muslims who still practice polygamy.
The middle part is challenged wherever a same sex union takes place in the spirit of marriage.
In church, a marriage is not legal unless a representative of the state, the local registrar, is present to witness the crucial 15 minutes when the necessary part if gone through. Without that you are not married, no matter how many rehearsals you have gone through.
The upshot of this? The state defines marriage. The state can redefine marriage, ie by raising the age at which one can be married, for instance.
I firmly believe that God's expecation is that a man shall marry a woman, and that they shall multiply, and that they - together - comprise the image of God in humanity. However, that does not preclude that fact that not everyone is or will be a Christian, nor can we force them to be, since there is no rationale outside of the Bible by which Christians might argue their case. In fact, the case having been challenged, the argument was lost then and there. It is incumbant on Christians, and other religions who value heterosexual marriages, to show that theirs is better, at least. Something we often fail to do.
Yes, i do believe that homosexuality is not God's will for humanity, it is part of the fall; but I think an awful lot of heterosexuals might start looking a lot closer to home before they make political capital out of this.
Feathers in Hair
World's Tallest Hobbit
I'm sorry, but does that mean we should force a father and mother pair to stay together so that the child will be psychologically sound? If my mother hadn't divorced my borderline-personality father at the time she did, I would not be on this planet today.desi said:
Dadball
Member
I believe same sex marriage is a states rights issue. As it is with marriage between men and women, states are not required to recognize a marriage in another state, as the reason the Supreme Court did not hear the Mass. case. I don't think ammending the US Constitution or Ruling by a higher court will serve the will of the people. 11 states voted on this in Nov, I wish more states would do the same.
If Adam & Steve want to live the way my wife and I do in this state, if it is state law, I will abide by it. If voted on and turned down like other states, I will abide with that.
If Adam & Steve want to live the way my wife and I do in this state, if it is state law, I will abide by it. If voted on and turned down like other states, I will abide with that.
Pah
Uber all member
Dadball said:
It's a state issue the same way school segregation was a state issue in spite of the 14th Amendment.
States are required to recognize any contract, marriage, or law issued in another state in accordance of the "full faith and credit clause" of section 1 , Article IV of the US Constitution.
Additionally, the state amendments are moot if there is a US Supreme Court case that voids them on any other grounds.
Bob
Dadball
Member
I disagree. The Brown v the Board of Education the SC ruled that "seperate but equal laws" violated the 14th amendment based on race and the public schools. I agree that this would apply to anyone being discriminated against with respect to public institutions. Marriage of any kind is not a public instituion.
I stand corrected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_clause
I don't believe the the SC will rule on same sex marriages or DOMA based there reluctance to involve themselves in a "Public Policy Exception" and that the states have jusidiction over marriage, and the SC by practice does not like to invlove themselve in states jurisdiction. Take the case of the "Under God" ruling, or lack there of. They would not rule based on the fact that the father did have the authoirty to bring suit for his daughter based on Califorinia law. An area this SC did want to get into.