Same-Sex Marriage — Post-Election Update

[The Voice of Reason]

What is the point of same sex marriage?

What is the point of self-righteous bigotry?

TVOR

 

[The Voice of Reason]

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.

Here we have an openminded Christian that earns our respect.
Solly -
I do not share your belief system, but I am very impressed with you. I look forward to more posts from you.

TVOR

 

[Pah]

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'm admittedly hazy about when it occurred but the poll tax and other restrictions were part and parcel, with school desegregation, of the opposition to what should have been plainly seen in the 14th Admendment except for the blind, unswerving allegiance to racial superiority within states.

I'm gladened that you recognize that access to public intstutions (figurative as well as actual) is a matter for equalization. Now you only need to be convinced of the error in thinking that marriage is not a public institution controlled by the state.

• all marriages are recorded by the states
• application to marry is made to the state
• clergy become state agents after they apply and their application is accepted by the state
• clergy attest to the vows taken by the marrying partners
• clergy returns the certification to the state
• the state records the document
• the couple is now considered married

Conclusion of fact - marriage is a public institution controlled by the state. You will notice that the same-sex marriage cases are being brought against state officials because it is entirely a state issue and perogative - not a church or member of the clergy.

I stand corrected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_clause

No problem - in fact, I almost quoted from that site

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.

It is not really a question of "Public Policy Exception" in my mind. They (any court) must rule if a case is brought with standing and is "mature" (a legal term that means the case is pertainent and a current injury) and seeks to resolve an injury to the plantiff , all based on applicable (US or state) Constitutional law. The Pledge is a national issue becuase it was established by the US Congress. The technical finding of standing was in a federal court that ruled on the custody laws of California. And here, I'm not sure for this particular case, but if the state had a law that mandated the Pledge, the case would have had to exhaust the state courts before reaching a federal court. Whatever the course of the case, the issue was a federal law (even though a state law may have implemented the federal law) thought unconstitutional and a state definition of custody.

Hope this helps.
Bob

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

I think that gay-marriage is largely symbolic and of less importance than making available more rights/benefits to committed gay-couples through civil unions.

As I understand it, homosexuality is both chosen and not chosen and that part of the reason this issue generates more heat than light is that both sides stress the one aspect and not the other. The parallels with the civil rights movement are imperfect. For a view of the sort of homosexuality that were prevalent at the time of the Roman Empire, I recommend Satyricon by Federico Fellini.

I write about the issue of gay-marriage at my blog here and here.

dlw

 

[desi]

"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.

Rapists and murderers should be in jail, not married. Adoption is a way of raising children.

Adam and Eve were married as God defined the relationship between them as husband and wife in Genesis. This was the beginning and it defined marriage as we know it. If people mess with how God put it... :bonk: well no wonder divorce is rampant and homosexuality is mainstream.

 

[desi]

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

God telling Eve her husband is her master.

Luther was a misguided priest who caused more trouble than he probably had a mind to by fracturing the church.

Clergy don't have to apply for a license to do a marriage. Marriage is an agreement between two people and God. The state only recognizes it if paperwork is done. Are you suggesting a person isn't really alive unless the state has a copy of a birth certificate?

Churches do all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons, some I agree with, others I don't.

 

[desi]

The purpose of marriage is:

Are you for real, desi, or are you putting us on? :biglaugh:

What would you have us believe the reason for marriage is?

 

[desi]

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.

No, it means the father and mother should stay together of their own mind for their children and themselves. You have no idea what your life would be like if your parents had taken their vows to each other, and their commitment to you, seriously. Keep the faith!:jam:

 

[desi]

What is the point of self-righteous bigotry?

TVOR

:sarcastic Hi Spammy.

 

[Pah]

God telling Eve her husband is her master.

I'm unfamiliar with that. Which verse is translated that way or is it an assumption on your part that "help-mate" directs subservience

Luther was a misguided priest who caused more trouble than he probably had a mind to by fracturing the church.

Hehehe, I would agree with you thinking that all religious organizations do the same.

But that still does not change the history of the tradition.

Clergy don't have to apply for a license to do a marriage. Marriage is an agreement between two people and God. The state only recognizes it if paperwork is done. Are you suggesting a person isn't really alive unless the state has a copy of a birth certificate?

And neither do clergy that that marry same-sex couples. There is a corresponance there that might disturb you. The way you describe marriage, there is no need for any church or clergy. Would that thought distrub you as well?

But what we are talking about is the requirements of the supreme United States authority, the state, a godless rule. Regardless of the strength of your faith, you must first obey the laws of the state. Without the state, there is no marriage since the state has control over it.

It is an interesting suggestion you make, not I. For if there is no recognized birth, there can be no citizenship. There probably can be no murder of such a legal non-entity. I would love to see this discussion in another thread.

Churches do all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons, some I agree with, others I don't.

Me too! But it seems that you would deny the reality of your religious Christian history.

Bob

 

[The Voice of Reason]

:sarcastic Hi Spammy.

Is that the best you've got? I point out that you are acting like the pluperfect bigot, and you respond by calling me a name?

Uncanny, this rapier-like wit of yours.

TVOR

 

[Feathers in Hair]

No, it means the father and mother should stay together of their own mind for their children and themselves. You have no idea what your life would be like if your parents had taken their vows to each other, and their commitment to you, seriously. Keep the faith!:jam:

[sarcasm] *sniffles* That is so beautiful... My parents could have stayed together and my dad could have kept telling me that I was freakishly intelligent loser who would never keep a job and never have any friends and I could have succumed to the overwhelming abyss of depression instead of just barely holding on to the edges of hope and then commited suicide the first chance I learned that was an option.

If only they had taken their vows to each other and their commitment to me seriously!
[/sarcasm]

 

[Quoth The Raven]

To create and raise Godly children.

Well, we screwed that one up royally, so it's just as well my other half and I aren't married.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

God telling Eve her husband is her master.

Well...that just screams,'you're married.' doesn't it.:banghead3
Oddly enough the god in my copy of the bible didn't tell her that. I think I like that god better than your's...your's sounds like the type who would say it was fine for the husband/master to beat his wife with a lump of wood because his steak was overcooked.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

C'mon, Lady Lazarus -
You know that Desi's God only wants what is best for you - that is why He has endowed Desi to be his spokesperson here on Earth - to let you know when you have crossed that line into "independent thinking". Remember - Desi is only telling you that you don't know what God wants because you obviously don't know God as well as he does. Trust me - it's all for your own good. :sarcastic

TVOR

 

[Master Vigil]

"Rapists and murderers should be in jail, not married."

So what would you rather have be married; rapists and murderers, or two people who love each other?

"Adoption is a way of raising children."

Ah, this is the best part. You see, anyone can make babies. But that does not make them parents. Raising the children is what makes parents. So even if 2 people of the same sex cannot make babies. Who cares, let them adopt and raise children with love that their "real" parents would never give them. Just because they are gay does not mean they will make bad parents.

"Adam and Eve were married as God defined the relationship between them as husband and wife in Genesis. This was the beginning and it defined marriage as we know it."

Interesting, so I'm guessing people were never married before that myth was written down by the jews? Or perhaps those in ancient china and japan never knew what marriafe really was because they never heard that myth? Hello, it is a MYTH!!!! So I would say it is not marriage defined by god, it is marriage defined by the culture of the people who wrote it. Which of course we are seeing now that that culture was wrong in many instances. Slavery, male dominance, etc... I am sure you are ok with throwing those things out of the bible, so why not throw out the deal with homosexuality?

"If people mess with how God put it... :bonk: well no wonder divorce is rampant and homosexuality is mainstream."

Or perhaps, if people would stop taking some book literally and stop messing how god really put it, than people would not be so bigoted to hate those who are different. To try to strip those people of all their rights, and in the end condemn them to a hell which they might not even believe in. Like I said before, Love transcends all things physical. Gender is physical, marriage is love. Therefore marriage transcends gender. Shall I put it in bold for you?

Love transcends all things physical. Gender is physical, marriage is love. Therefore marriage transcends gender.

 

[Solly]

In a recent poll in the UK, only 1% described themselves as homosexual. If marriage/civil unions were legalised, how many marriages would this mean, and how would this overturn a society in which nearly 50% of marriages of heterosexuals end in divorce? One of my brothers is twice married, one of my sisters too; the other lived in a relationship, now separated. My sister in law has just separated from her partner - not married. My wife's parents are divorced. Which is causing the greater harm?
I don't know the figures in America, but I gather divorce is something like 50%, and soceity is harmed by this. What harm are homosexual marriages going to do, except add to the divorce rate in time?

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

50% of all marriages end in divorce was the statistic. Now some people like Liz Taylor tend to get married and then divorced quite often.

I have three uncles who have been divorced, two of them remarried and have families with their second wife.

Divorce scares the h-ll out of me, but I don't see how gay-marriages persay serve to strengthen marriages.

The percentage of constitutional homosexuals are always going to be rather low. One would think that the rampant heterosexuality in our media is the more likely culprit. Too bad, we're not being led to do anything about that over here in the US.

dlw

 

[t3gah]

The real God will sort all of this out for all who are worthy in his eyes. We'll all find out one day or we won't. So don't you frett you youngins.

[God] hrm... adam & eve? or adam & steve?
[God] This is a tough decision.
[God] the women will have the innie and the man will have the outie.
[God] they'll both take care of each other and love one another
[God] During Noah's ark incident 8 people were enough to satisfy my quota for the 'those saved' ratio.
[God] Oh, I forgot about Lot and his daughters. Well, that's not really 3 it's only 1. That will suffice.
[God] Then there will be those in 70 and 607, which again will be enough in my book which is the only one that counts.
[God] Then there's the count during Immanuel's time. That will be fine.
[God] In the end if I get the same quantities or ratios I've been getting it's all aces.
[Micahel] What about me?
[God] Prince is Prince. What's the difference between 1 subject and millions as long as they know who's boss?
[Michael] hrm, ok.
[God] In the end it will be divine justice. We'll resurrect whom we want and leave the rest of the dust where it is now. OF course this time around I'll resurrect only those I know by my foresight, that they will never cross me. Just like tha earthly saying: Let God Sort Them Out.
[God] I love being God because as they said for me, God is love.
[God] Now lets blow up another celestial body to prove that it's the Big Bang.

​

As for same-sex marriages. Let them be I say. The bible says what it says for those who want to be Christians and real followers of the Christian God. Those that don't shall be what they shall be. Together.

 

[Master Vigil]

Sorry T3gah, that post made absolutely no sense. I almost didn't read it, but decided I would just to see if you snuck something in there. What I especially disagree upon is that you think you can delegate what should be followed for real christians. What would be a fak christian god? Could any god pass the fakeness test? What would be the criteria? And why would you choose that criteria? And why would your criteria be any better than another's criteria? Especially since you are finite and all and have no understanding of infinite or divine?