Marriages between one man and one woman

[dwayner79]

I really don't understand what greed has to do with homosexual and us recognizing their marriage. This is unbelievable that people support this. I hope you are willing to give up your governmental "marriage" title from your wife for homosexual's sake. Because it isn't going to stop there.

I recommend re-reading Alimantado's post. I think you missed his point.

Greed is a sin. Do we legislate against greed? No.
Homosexuality is a sin. Do we legislate against homosexuality? Yes.
Why? is Homosexuality a worse sin in God's eyes?

Also, I couldn't care less about what term the government uses. Here's an example. After our wedding, we forgot to sign our marriage certificate. We signed it the next day at Church. Does that mean we were fornicators that night? Absolutely not. Because what makes me married is not the government, it is God and the church. If the government were gone tomorrow, you think Christians would stop getting married? If the government wants to make unions, then so be it. I will participate in the legal aspect of marriage within our society, but that is not what makes me married. Having that ceremony before God and the church is what makes me married whether the government sees that or not.

So while I would prefer to keep the term marriage as the meaning of Christian marriage, I think we have lost that battle. Its time for Christians to begin celebrating Christian marriage, with a new term.

[deafnva77]

They can say that because the gov't "marry them"

The gov't can call anything in any term they want. They can use the term "Union" but gays do not want to use that term and still go around and say "We're married" they want the gov't call it marriage.

Marriage should be kept because when a man and a woman is sexually active, they could end up creating a child. when two people are not married, it is easy for that child to never see his father. His father can walk out and never look back. But marriage make it difficult for him to do that and so the father and son relationship is bonded. Even if they get divorce, the relationship with his kids is still there.

[ptwild]

dewayner: I couldn't agree more. The government has nothing to do with Christian marriage. The only way the government is involved is they have bestowed certain privileges on married peoples. To the government, it doesn't matter whether the marriage is Christian, pagan, Hindu, Mormon and in some states, gay. Their marriage is not the same as our marriage, they just use the same word.

deafnva: I understand that you don't want gay people calling their "union" marriage, but that isn't really the issue. Again, as I understand it, you just don't like their use of the word. Which is fine, but it doesn't touch the substance of the matter. And I haven't seen where any specific gay rights advocates are pushing for their right to use the term marriage. They are pushing for the rights that are bestowed on others that are considered married by the government. The actual word is a non issue for both sides.

[deafnva77]

if my aunts can do a union that give them the same rights as marriages, gay people will not want to be put in that categatory. Because they probably feel that union is meaningless for their relationship and want people know they are in love and sexually active. Therefore they want to be put in the same categatory as heterosexual marriage.
So yes, they will push for the term marriage.

[deafnva77]

btw, does anyone have a problem with incest marriage? They don't.

[no name joe]

There are two different aspects to marriage....one is social, and one is religious. I'm not talking about marriage in the eyes of the church at all. I speak only to the social institution of marriage. What is the purpose of the social institution of marriage? Well, it is to promote two people living together in life relationship, and providing order as to the property rights between the two of them. When people get married in the social sense of the word, and they get divorced, the property is divided....generally equally....between the two. If one spouse dies, who gets the property? If people are married in the eyes of the state, then generally the spouse and children would receive the property.

We need laws governing property rights upon the dissoution of a long term relationship. Heterosexual couples have the right to marry in the eyes of the State, and opt to have state's laws apply to the rights in the property acquired during marriage. Shouldn't the same be true for a homosexual couple? Right now, in many states, homosexual couples do not have this option. They should. Recognizing the relationship in the eyes of a state does not affirm or degrade their relationship, it merely recognizes what is there, and then applies its laws as to property rights, rights to make medical decisions, child custody rights, etc.

This has nothing to do with whether people believe homosexual sex is a sin or not. It has everything to do to provide laws to govern property rights, etc. when disputes arise either between the couple, or between the family and a surviving spouse. A civil union is what is needed. I strongly believe that having laws like this would benefit all of society.

As someone above mentioned, homosexual relationships are not a threat to traditional marriage. If that were the case, why, when this was not an issue, were divorce rates around 50%? Marriages have much larger problems....and whether gay couples have a civil union has nothing to do with whether the marriage of anyone else lasts.

I fully support the right of homosexual couples to adopt. I know two homosexual couples who have adopted children. These children came from foster homes, and before that from homes where they were abused and neglected. Now they live with two parents who love them and care for them. When we get into laws of foster parents and adoption, many many children come from terrible situations. There are not enough good homes as there is for all of these children. Why must we make the pool smaller? Why, if a homosexual couple who can provide a stable home and love and care for a child who has nowhere else to go, be denied an adoption of foster parent? Like I said, there are many children out there who are in great need, and have no home. Would you rather a child have no parents and bounce around from foster home to foster home all of his or her childhood, or be neglected, or have a good, stable homosexual couple take care of them? I would opt for the latter.

One more point: I'm tired of hearing people say God destroyed Sodom and Gomorah because of homosexuality. That is a gross misinterpretation of Scripture. Read the stroy again. He destroyed them because they were wicked, not because gay people lived there. They were a society devoid of law and order. Look at the story again....a mob came and wanted to rape the visitors to Lot's house. Instead, Lot offered his daughter for them to gang rape all night long. This is far from God destroying them because their were gay people in society. This was a society where rape of innocent people was permitted and encouraged. That is wicked and that is why God destroyed them, not because a gay couple wanted to live together and engage in consensual homosexual sex.

Comparing incestual relationships to gay marriage is ridiculous, as is comparing it with an adult/child relatinoship. Incest can harm society by creating severly handicapped children, that is why is is not permitted. Adult/child relationships are far from consensual. There are plenty of reasons not to permit those.

[ptwild]

if my aunts can do a union that give them the same rights as marriages, gay people will not want to be put in that categatory. Because they probably feel that union is meaningless for their relationship and want people know they are in love and sexually active. Therefore they want to be put in the same categatory as heterosexual marriage.
So yes, they will push for the term marriage.

I really don't think you understand how civil rights law works. It has nothing to do with the term being used. For example, in our tax code, if a single person sells his/her home after five years of ownership, they are not taxed on any profits up to $250K. If two married persons sell their home after five years of marriage, they are not taxed on any profits up to $500K. Gays don't care whether this benefit is bestowed upon people who are "married" or in a "civil union" or whatever the law calls it. They want the benefit. If that benefit is bestowed upon married people, then they want their union to be CONSIDERED the same as a marriage. It has nothing to do with the actual term being used.

And please explain how two gay men being married/ in a civil union will, or can, have any affect on your already existing and established marriage? How could you even let it effect your marriage?

[deafnva77]

I really don't think you understand how civil rights law works. It has nothing to do with the term being used. For example, in our tax code, if a single person sells his/her home after five years of ownership, they are not taxed on any profits up to $250K. If two married persons sell their home after five years of marriage, they are not taxed on any profits up to $500K. Gays don't care whether this benefit is bestowed upon people who are "married" or in a "civil union" or whatever the law calls it. They want the benefit. If that benefit is bestowed upon married people, then they want their union to be CONSIDERED the same as a marriage. It has nothing to do with the actual term being used.

And please explain how two gay men being married/ in a civil union will, or can, have any affect on your already existing and established marriage? How could you even let it effect your marriage?

you got to be kidding. Ask them, do they do it for benefit or love?

The marriage could cause problems because it devalue the family and children think they can do anything they want.

[ptwild]

btw' date=' does anyone have a problem with incest marriage? They don't.[/quote']

That depends on how you define "incest." In some states you can marry someone as closely related as your second cousin, in other states such a marriage is prohibited. So it depends on what the actual law means. As long as the two people are distant in relation to the point that there is little to no chance of birth defects, then I see no problem with it. However, this really has nothing to do with gay marriage. The governments of the several states have legislated "incest marriage" for two centuries and no one has meaningfully challenged it to date (at least not that I'm aware of).

[deafnva77]

actually, they had scienific proof that this doesn't cause problems.

Plus, these two are in love (and I'm talking about brother/sister or sister/father). Why would you want to prevent their marriage because they CAN have babies.

[ltl]

This post and ltl's post do raise interesting questions about when to legislate. Is blasphemy or adultery illegal in the US and if not should Christians support/propose legistlation to make them illegal so as not to send out the "opposite message" that they think both are ok?

The same could be said for things that are perhaps not so explicitely identified as sin, such as greed. Should there be laws making greed illegal? Could a Christian who answered 'no' to that question be identified as one who supported greed, in the same way that Dwayner and others on here have been identified as supporting homosexuality?

These are genuine questions, btw; I'm not trying to characterize any position as absurd.

I think, rather than focusing on what a govt has to say - we should look at what churches as a whole say. The best way we express our opposition to the sins of this world today is not by enforcing this law and that law, but rather what WE believe and do. James 1 said true religion is "visiting the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27)

Two things we should do - do God's will faithfully (love Him, and love others as ourselves) and separate ourselves clearly from sin. That I believe is the way to say "no" to the world.

One thing we have forgotten here when we talk about "marriage is between a man and woman" is why are there even some churches today who deny this? Or even the gospel altogether? No wonder so many churches today, liberal or conservative, are called "hypocritical" by the world because of inconsistency in their life with God's Word. Very sadly, many of us are guilty of this as well...

[no name joe]

actually, they had scienific proof that this doesn't cause problems.

Plus, these two are in love (and I'm talking about brother/sister or sister/father). Why would you want to prevent their marriage because they CAN have babies.

That is not true. When a brother and sister produce a child, the chances for genetic defects are extremely high. The gene pool is closed, and many recessive gentic problems can surface very quickly. This is true anytime you have a closed gene pool.

The problem diminshes when you reach second cousins, thus in many states, marriage between second cousins is permitted.

[ptwild]

you got to be kidding. Ask them, do they do it for benefit or love?

The marriage could cause problems because it devalue the family and children think they can do anything they want.

How can it "devalue the family"?

Gay people can already live together just like any two married people. They own property together, hold hands in public, they can even have a public ceremony in which they pledge their love and committ themselves to a "marriage". I mean they can literally do anything two heterosexual humans can do as far as outward appearances. So you are telling me that if they do something which the public can't see (such as file a joint tax return, or inherit from an intestate estate) that some how your family will magically be "devalued"? That sounds like you are the one with the problem (no offense). I can go ahead and tell you that all the gays in the world can get married on tv at the same time and it will have NO effect on my family. I'll still love my wife and kids.

[deafnva77]

So you are going to prevent their marriage (incest) because of that? I find it just as gross as homosexual. What's worst is that homosexual can't get pregnant and they are allow to marry, but not them because they can have babies.

man+woman = child = yep allow to marry

man + man = no child = yep allow to marry

brother + sister = child = nope, not allow to marry.

[ptwild]

actually, they had scienific proof that this doesn't cause problems.

Plus, these two are in love (and I'm talking about brother/sister or sister/father). Why would you want to prevent their marriage because they CAN have babies.

Who is "they" and what is "their" proof? It is a fact of life that if two siblings, or parent and child, conceive a child, that child will most likely suffer some form of birth defect. That is the exact reason behind the law's which prevent the marriage of closely related people. And, even without the law that declares such a married void, it's punishable as a crime.