Marriages between one man and one woman

[ptwild]

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.

That's basically what I was saying. So what if they want the financial benefits of being "married." That is not the same kind of marriage as the Chrisitian marriage. I only recognize those marriages entered into by Christians as being the Godly union of two people, the other type of "marriage" is nothing more than a legally enforceable contract. Marriage is more than an agreement to live with one another, to file a joint tax return, to have children . . . It is an actual union created by God himself which no man (whether it be an old white guy in a black robe and a gavel in his hand, or any other bloke) may put asunder.

[deafnva77]

But they want to steal the "Marriage" label from christians and pervert our religion.

[ptwild]

But they want to steal the "Marriage" label from christians and pervert our religion.

By taking something that is traditionally viewed as "Christian" (although technically we took it from the Jews) and applying their own meaning to it, homosexuals are not perverting our religion. They are merely taking a word commonly used by christians and applying it their situation. If anything they are perverting the traditional use of the word, but we do that ourselves all the time. It is very common in the legal field to refer to any two things closely marred to one another as "married'. As in, "the principal is so married to the agent that the two should be treated as one entity."

Do you think it perverts our religion for Hindus, atheists, agnostics or any other non Christian group to get married?

[deafnva77]

God recognize their marriage as well. (I believe there were marriages in the bible outside of christianity/jewish) Because God design a man and a woman.

[ptwild]

God recognize their marriage as well. (I believe there were marriages in the bible outside of christianity/jewish) Because God design a man and a woman.

Well if God is not going to recognize the marriage of two gay men (I agree that he will not), then why do you care if they won't to waste their time going through a ceremony or filling out whatever licensing documents married people are required to fill out.

I don't think gay people want to force God to recognize their marriage, they just want the benefits that are afforded to married people.

[Colin Stolzer]

Societies laws are to maintain order, and help sort out disputes, property disputes being one of them. If a couple, who cannot legally get married, lives together for 30 years, they should have an option for the same laws to apply to their property as applies to a married couple. We live in a diverse society. A diverse society must accomodate a diversty of people. I'm not saying a church has to say a lifestyle is ok, I'm saying society needs to address these situations thorugh laws. Civil unions are a great way to do that. If the ONLY basis for a law is that it is a sin in the Bible, and that is the reason to make the law, then that is violation of separation fo church and state. If there are other good reasons, I'd be happy to listen to them.

I have been reading through this and I would like to point out a serious flaw in your statement. "Societies Laws" in this country are whatever the voting majority or their elected representative decide it is. So for example California's Prop 8 that was a majority "no" vote on sodomite marriage, is societies law. Society decided not to accommodate a minority by allowing them a state sanctioned privilege(s). What you want is the majority to bend to the will of the minority. Society is not required to accommodate everybody, society should do what is in the best interest of the whole, and in this case the general population decided it was not in their best interest to accommodate the sodomites. And that has nothing to do with separation of Church and State, and you also don't understand the founding fathers statements concerning separation of church and state. You should go do your homework and read the whole letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, concerning Church and State and then apply it in the context he wrote it in.

C

Colin

[deafnva77]

Well if God is not going to recognize the marriage of two gay men (I agree that he will not), then why do you care if they won't to waste their time going through a ceremony or filling out whatever licensing documents married people are required to fill out.

I don't think gay people want to force God to recognize their marriage, they just want the benefits that are afforded to married people.

yes they do, that's why they are not happy with the word "union" they want christians to recognize their marriage.

[anime4christ]

Well if God is not going to recognize the marriage of two gay men (I agree that he will not)' date=' then why do you care if they won't to waste their time going through a ceremony or filling out whatever licensing documents married people are required to fill out.[/quote']
I care because their whole reason for wanting "gay marriage" is because they want everyone to accept their behavior as normal, unsinful, and equal to that of straight people. Do you want to take part in their cause to trumpet to the world that homosexuality is not sin? I don't, so I don't support them.

[no name joe]

I have been reading through this and I would like to point out a serious flaw in your statement. "Societies Laws" in this country are whatever the voting majority or their elected representative decide it is. So for example California's Prop 8 that was a majority "no" vote on sodomite marriage, is societies law. Society decided not to accommodate a minority by allowing them a state sanctioned privilege(s). What you want is the majority to bend to the will of the minority. Society is not required to accommodate everybody, society should do what is in the best interest of the whole, and in this case the general population decided it was not in their best interest to accommodate the sodomites. And that has nothing to do with separation of Church and State, and you also don't understand the founding fathers statements concerning separation of church and state. You should go do your homework and read the whole letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, concerning Church and State and then apply it in the context he wrote it in.

C

Colin

We are not a pure democracy, so majority rule does not always apply. A majority cannot violate the constitutional rights of a minority. For example, the defense of marriage act, passed by congress, is very unconstitutional. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution provides that each state is to recognize legal contracts formed in another state. This clearly applies to marriage, as the Supreme Court has applied this clause. The Defense of Marriage Act says states are not required to recognize a homosexual marriage or union formed in another state. So, if a couple was married in Massachusetts, and moved to my state where the State constitution provides "marriage shall be between one man and one woman" (an amendment I voted against), if they sued, I believe they would prevail and my state must recognize the marriage because it violates the federal constitution.

Right now, I am not arguing what the law is in California, right now, gay marriage is illegal in California and other states. I am arguing what should be the law.

I fully understand separation of church and state. I've studied this extensively in my education. If the ONLY reason a state passes a law is based on a religious text, then that is the State promoting a religion, and violating the rights of another. For example, if the citizens voted that every day at noon, all state citzens must pray the Lord's prayer, and if they do not, they will be thrown in prison, that law violates the US Constitution, and will be thrown out. It is a comlicated issue, and I don't have time right now to go into it all.

All I am saying is that civil unions are a good idea and should be passed into law in every state. I recognize that it will not be done anytime soon, but I do believe it is a good idea.

[deafnva77]

Everything is influence with a person's belief, rather they are judges, lawyers, etc. You can say "murder" came from a religious text.. but it also has to do with what is good for the society (I even had people who told me that they became democrat because of their religion)

[Bakershalfdozen]

I realize we are not a Theocracy, but as a nation, we should NOT seek to accommodate the sodomites.

God destroyed a non-Jewish civilization for practicing Sodomy. Why do we think America will be exempt?


Genesis 13:13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.


And this totally sounds like America (except we do tend to help the poor and needy)...


Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.


So no, we should not recognize homosexual marriage.

[John81]

One man, one woman marriage is a long standing tradition and holds a long legal standing in America. There is no need to change the laws in such matters simply to accomodate the "alternate choice" some might make.

Homosexuals are free in this country to live together, play house, and engage in gross and unbiblical conduct. They have full standing before the law and even some special status standing in some cases.

Marriage is what it is; adding onto this would be a distortion and perversion of marriage and open the door for massive legal challenges from every other "alternate sexual choice" group out there. Polygamists and adult/child sex advocates, among others are awaiting homosexuals gaining "marriage rights" throughout the land so they can flood the courts with lawsuits. Virtually all legal experts agree that if homosexuals are given full "marriage rights" throughout America, that all other perverts will have to be given the same because legally that can't give such "rights" to homosexuals and deny the same for others. This might take several years in the courts, but eventually they will win just as the homosexuals will.

[deafnva77]

Obama White House Calls for Repealing Defense of Marriage Act
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
By Matt Cover




President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, Malia Obama, and Chief Justice John Roberts during swearing-in ceremony (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) ? President Barack H. Obama is poised to be the most pro-homosexual chief executive in history.

Unveiling his agenda Tuesday on the newly refurbished version of the White House Web site, Obama called for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as the extension of more than 1,000 federal marriage benefits and of adoption rights to homosexual couples.

The new administration laid out its plans on the Web site--whitehouse.gov--at 12:01 p.m. EST, during Obama?s swearing-in ceremony.

The site?s ?Civil Rights? section lists a number of items long on the homosexual agenda, including expanding federal hate-crimes laws, repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military and extending the definition of workplace discrimination to include sexual orientation.

In the section entitled ?Support for the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered) Community,? the Web site says Obama wants full inclusion of homosexual couples under federal law.

?President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples,? the Web site says.

?Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100-plus federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples.? the Web site says.

Among those federal legal rights are the ability to file joint tax returns, own property, and buy health insurance together.

Obama also favors granting adoption rights to homosexual couples, saying that children benefit from a healthy home, regardless of whether the ?parents? are homosexual or not.

....



http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/a ... rcID=42233

people, make sure your children have someone to go to in case you die.

[ptwild]

yes they do, that's why they are not happy with the word "union" they want christians to recognize their marriage.

Well of course they want other people, i.e. Christians, accountants, IRS agents, to recognize their "marriage," but that is totally different from them wanting to force God to recognize it, which they can't. They can no more force a Christian church to marry them than any two other people.

[JerryNumbers]

Its very amazing at how many people that post here that defends, supports, homosexual marriages, and how many will not separate from sinners and encourage others to do the same.

We've got people here who do not know basic Bible principles.