Marriages between one man and one woman

[deafnva77]

Fact: What is wrong with being pro gay rights? I fully support society recognizing two consenting adults entering into a life commitment. Just because I disagree with their lifestyle does not mean they should not have equal rights.

We need to explain why this isn't a good idea. Too many people support this.

[Bakershalfdozen]

For starters,

Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

[anime4christ]

From a political and historical point of view:

Homosexuals already have the same rights as married people via a domestic partnership/civil union in some states, it's just not called marriage, so it has nothing to do with "rights".

Allowing homosexual "marriage" means redefining the word marriage itself and would cause a lot of confusion and require every instance of "marriage" in history books to be replaced with "heterosexual marriage". Plus, they would have a lot of fun explaining why "gay marriages" didn't exist until the 21st century. (btw, as for the homosexuals who try to say that marriage has been redefined before and bring in polygamous marriage into the argument: I like to refer to it as a person just being in more than one marriage simultaneously rather than it being one marriage between all of them; marriage has always been between a man and a woman.)

[futurehope]

[JerryNumbers]

Seems some Christians support the idea of homosexual marriages, that this is showing tolerance, but rightly what it is, its supporting sins against God.

We should never be so tolerant that we support any thing which is a sin against God, I don't find anywhere in the new Testament where Jesus nor His called support or where tolerant of sin.

Of course the one who is not practicing tolerance will not be popular nor loved in this world, but our Savior was not popular or loved either.

Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

1Th 4:8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.

Seems our modern day sinners here in America are becoming just as bold with their sins as the sinners who resided in Sodom and Gomorrah were at the time God rained fire and brimstone down from heaven and destroyed those cities.

[PastorHarrison]

There are indications that the Anti-Christ will himself be a sodomite and or indulging of sodomites. Without a doubt the Antichrist will be Muslim friendly although a Jew (I believe). There are daily indications that the world will be before it's done a type of Sodom and some say Sodom and Lot were shadows of the world prior to the final rapture....consider the pluralities - it is an interesting mental exercise if nothing else.

We as Christians are without options in this prosodomite world view. It is an abomination to our Father and we, as dead to self, are no longer entitled to expressing our old opinions but now only his position matters. As such supporting prosodomite legitimacy in any form or in any degree acceptable is a sin and a slap in the face of our father....and a grieving of the Holy Ghost within us.

Some Christians have forgotten that there will be no diverse opinions in heaven.... "...for ye are dead and your lives are hid with Christ in God".

[Marcus2Israel]

We need to explain why this isn't a good idea. Too many people support this.

There is a point where worrying about everyone's "rights" has to stop and worrying about what God's Word says has to start.

[no name joe]

I fully support the right of gay people to enter into a civil union so that society recognizes their relationship. This is very important, in my opinion, and there very good legal reasons for this.

Example 1: Henry and John, a gay couple, have lived in a committed relationship for 28 years. Henry is an orthopeadic surgeon earning $500,000.00 per year. John has stayed home, taken care of the house, cooked meals, did the chores, etc. Henry has saved most of his money in a separate investment account. The house was purchased before the relationship, and is only in Henry's name. Henry dies. We have an investment account worth $3,000,000.00, plus a house in his name worth $500,000.00.

Henry's family disowned him when he announced that he was gay. They have had little to no contact with him over the years. Because they were not old yet, thye had put off doing a Will. Who gets Henry's estate? It will be his family, who has shown nothing but hatred towards him for many years. John will not receive anything. If this were a married couple, the spouse would inherit everything. I can guarantee you his family will show up when they believe there is money for them.

Why should the same couple be treated differently in this situation because one couple is gay and one is not? I have yet to hear a good reason to deny the gay couple rights.

Example 2: same as example 1, except Henry goes into a coma and needs life support. Who makes the decision as to whether he lives and dies? It will be his family, not John, who is not legally recognized as his spouse.

Example 3: Mary and Jane have been together 10 years. The State refuses to allow them to adopt a baby together, so Mary adopts a baby by herself, though the baby knows Mary and Jane as her parents. The child is now 5 years old. Mary and Jane's families are not supportive of their relationship and have no contact with them. Mary dies. Mary's family now tries to get custody of the child, and rips the child from the only parent she knows. Because the relatinship is not recognized under the law, her family may end up getting custody unless we have a judge who is sympathetic towards Jane and is not intollerant of gay people.

These three examples show why I think it is important to have civil unions for gay people. They should have options just like straight people. I can disagree with their lifestyle, but legally they should have the same rights. The ONLY reason I have every heard not to have civil unions or some form of legal recognition of a long-term gay relationship is that it is a sin. I believe many things are a sin, most of which are not illegal. If there is a reason apart from the Bible that we should not legally recognize gay relationships thorugh civil unions, please give it to me and I will listen. For example, there is a law against theft. Yes the Bible says it is wrong, but we need a law to protect the property of individuals and maintain an orderly society (a reason apart from the Bible), thus we have laws addressing it.

A gay relationship does not hurt anyone. It is two consenting adults, and their actions do not harm anyone else. For reasons involving property rights between the two, who has the rights to the property if there is a "divorce," child custody matters, property rights at death, and who has the rights to make medical decisions of one spouse cannot do so, civil unions are an appropriate way to address these issues between gay people, and I fully support civil unions and think they are a very good idea.

[dwayner79]

As Anime said, there are two issues here.

1. Should any two consenting adults be able to have the civil liberties afforded to heterosexual couples. This would include, will inclusion, PoA, filling status for income tax purposes, etc.

2. Should that be called marriage.

As a libertarian leaning person, I do not want the government legislating morality, because they will always turn to legislating against Christianity. Our short American history aside, never has a country had "christian" morals long term. So yes, I couldn't care less if two men wanted to buy a house together.

Again, as anime brought up, its #2 that is a concern. Should it be called marriage. Words change their meaning over time. Its likely that marriage will fall victim to that tendency. Still, I would rather see government out of the marriage business all together. Give Civil unions to anyone. But its a little late for that, so likely, marriage will shift to mean government recognized pairing up of people, and the idea of Christian marriage will have to take on a new term. Perhaps covenant relationship, or something like that.

Suffice it to say there has always been, and always will be, a difference between a government issued license, and the Church's blessing of two people in union. For a while we have been fortunate in America to have those two pretty similar. That era is ending, and we might as well move on. Christian marriage has so much more to do then the legal union of two people in the states eyes. I think that by holding fast to the term, we are starting to blur the lines. Just break away from the term, and make it clear that we are committed with a deeper, God-ordained union. Its ashame, as I would love to have marriage be the term we continue to use, I just don't see it as practically happening. But terms are just terms. Its the actual meaning of those terms that is important, and the fight over the meaning of the word marriage seems to be one we have lost.

[JerryNumbers]

Some of God's children seem to worry more about peoples rights than they do following God.

I do not want to be consenting to anything that is a sin against God, but some do, but perhaps they don't realize they are consenting to sins against God. That is I will do nothing that makes it easier or to make it legally for them to partake of sins against God.

People do not have to be married nor have a civil union to include that person in their will nor to visit them in the hospital, that is their hoax to try and gain the right to practice their sins against God.

[ptwild]

Why does it matter what some law calls the union between any two peope, whether they be of the same sex or not. God established marriage as between a man and a woman and that is the only sacremental marriage wherein he joins two people together. Two gay people can say they are married and base that on an interpretation of a state law, but that doesn't mean their "marriage" is recognized by God. I'm all for letting homosexuals enter into civil unions which would allow their partner to be recognized as their spouse as far as income taxes, estates and the like are concerned. That has nothing to do with what we Christians mean by "marriage" whether the homosexuals want to call it marriage or not. It's not like denying them these rights are some how going to magically make them stop being gay.

The marriage of two gay men is no more valid than the marriage of two Hindus, two atheists, two Buhdists (sp) . . . Their marriage is not the same as our marriage, they're just using the same word.

[IM4given]

Example 1: Henry and John, a gay couple, have lived in a committed relationship for 28 years. Henry is an orthopeadic surgeon earning $500,000.00 per year. John has stayed home, taken care of the house, cooked meals, did the chores, etc. Henry has saved most of his money in a separate investment account. The house was purchased before the relationship, and is only in Henry's name. Henry dies. We have an investment account worth $3,000,000.00, plus a house in his name worth $500,000.00.

Henry and John CHOSE this lifestyle and they should have prepared for it - there are legal ways in which one person can put another person's name on bank accounts, investments, and mortgages - they don't have to get married to do that.

Henry's family disowned him when he announced that he was gay. They have had little to no contact with him over the years. Because they were not old yet, thye had put off doing a Will. Who gets Henry's estate? It will be his family, who has shown nothing but hatred towards him for many years. John will not receive anything. If this were a married couple, the spouse would inherit everything. I can guarantee you his family will show up when they believe there is money for them.

Henry abandoned his family and CHOSE to live an ungodly life. If he had any brains at all he would not have chosen to live in SODOMY with his male partner nor would he have tried to emotionally blackmail his family into accepting his chosen lifestyle. These men made their choices in life, and they must accept the consequenses of the choices they made - just like any of us have had to do.

Why should the same couple be treated differently in this situation because one couple is gay and one is not? I have yet to hear a good reason to deny the gay couple rights.

God created Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve. Go back and read your bible.

Example 2: same as example 1, except Henry goes into a coma and needs life support. Who makes the decision as to whether he lives and dies? It will be his family, not John, who is not legally recognized as his spouse.

His parents brought him into this world so why shouldn't they be the ones to make these kinds of decisions for him? Who knows, his brush with death might lead to him completely rethinking the life he has chosen to live?

Example 3: Mary and Jane have been together 10 years. The State refuses to allow them to adopt a baby together, so Mary adopts a baby by herself, though the baby knows Mary and Jane as her parents. The child is now 5 years old. Mary and Jane's families are not supportive of their relationship and have no contact with them. Mary dies. Mary's family now tries to get custody of the child, and rips the child from the only parent she knows. Because the relatinship is not recognized under the law, her family may end up getting custody unless we have a judge who is sympathetic towards Jane and is not intollerant of gay people.

The child who is growing up in such a situtation is learning a very warped concept not to mention ungodly family trafition. The grandparents are the child's blood relatives, and perhaps they can help this poor child learn about Jesus and start taking her to Sunday School, etc.

A gay relationship does not hurt anyone.

Yes it does - you just gave some great examples of how it tears up families, destroys relationships, and leads to a life of wreck and ruin. Sodomy is an ABOMINATION to God.

[IM4given]

From Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

marriage
MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.


Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.

1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.

2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.

[no name joe]

[deafnva77]

first of all, this will hurt a lot of pastors who refuse to marry gay people.. if they consider as hate crime to refuse to marry gay people.

Second, many other "Love" want their share of pie too. My Mil knows several people who created children through incest. They will want to get marry as well. And the mormon are strongly for polygamy, you seen what happened to the LDS in texas. Why people do all this? because they did it in the name of "love" just as homosexuals do.. and they all are consenting adults. (I wonder how many people feel comfortable teachers teaching about incest marriage to students as they do with homosexuals?)

And if you do away gov't marriage and stick with "union" then anyone can call their relationship "marriage" including teen who will have unprotected sex because they are "married" to their so-called husband. I mean, I did that even though I did not wed in front of my family and church. One of our friend wed us. But it wasn't permanent, although he did referred me as his wife after we broke up to his new girlfriend. Which kinda shock me because I never thought he would say that.

Plus, marriage has always been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Sometimes this is good because it help with their genealogy. I mean, I look back in my family tree and I trace people down through marriage to see who I came from (like who were my Indian ancestors) Sure, it doesn't mean it is accurate as people do lie about who is the father, but it does help a lot because when two people are marriage and the wife get pregnant, it is automatically assume the husband is the father because the mother is currently in the relationship (as in sexually active with him because of love) and commitment with that man. And yes, I know women cheat, so you don't need to bring that up. Most of the time the couple will divorce result of that if she loves another man.

Finally, no matter how hard they try, I will not see them as "married". It is a sin as always. sinful behavior does not marry people. Yes, they can make commitment and care for each other. But they still not married in the Lord's eyes.