Marriage Vs Marriage.. A question

[Byte Stryke]

yeah I thought about this "incident" as I typed that before..

When I first read this story I thought
" Man that's wrong"

Then thinking of this issue I think " you can't tell the church what to do"

Luckily it looks like the government didn't get involved and the church has delt with it internally . which is how I hope that this whole gay marriage thing works out ...
kinda like the baker who wouldn't do the gay wedding cake. if he won't do it go somewhere else.

primary differences are that churches enjoy government support through tax exemption and are not privately held (usually)

The Business, I believe he is fully within his rights to do as he wishes, for whom he wishes and when he wishes.

[Troublco]

I don't believe that gay marriage is OK. However, I also don't believe it's my job to judge anyone else. (Judge not, lest ye be judged!) It's my personal belief, and nothing more. I'm not going to tell someone that they're going to hell because they're gay, or anything like that. I've known a few gay folks, and for the most part they live their lives like anyone else. I personally think a fair number of Christians have the wrong idea about some things, and this is best demonstrated by the Westboro Baptist Church. Whether they do it simply as a vehicle to sue folks for money or because they truly believe the tripe they spread, they project a very bad image of Christians to society as a whole. I don't agree with almost anything they do, but they do have the freedom to their opinions. The thing they need to think about is that when their time comes, they will be judged for their actions by the only One they ought to be concerned about...God.

Ultimately, I think that the current Gay marriage debate has more to do with special rights than any sort of equality...but that's just my opinion.

[lpgasman]

I think that's more for citizenship.
Even if not married a hetro couple living together is able to put their (opposite sex) partner on their ins & health benefits. Whereas a same sex couple cannot.

Not where I work, they needed to see a copy of my marriage license.

[tmckay2]

I don't agree with it morally but legally and politically it shouldn't be an issue. Either government should have nothing to do with marriage or everyone should be able to marry whomever they want. I do however understand being against polygamy due to the ability to abuse the system that way.

[mevshooter]

The divorce rate is ACTUALLY closer to 20+%. The whole "well half of my friends are getting divorced" argument is such a micro observation that it doesn't hold water in the grand scheme of things.

The whole "for every 2 marriages in this country there is one divorce" is a combination of statistics that do not accurately paint the portrait of the divorce rate.

But anyways...

[Aloha_Shooter]

Asking this question is like asking why 2A supporters aren't satisfied with squirt guns (can't use cap guns, they make noise!).

The reality is that all complaints from the homosexual lobby could be addressed without trying to redefine "marriage" by opening and enforcing legal powers of attorney. Want someone to be able to handle your affairs and visit you in the hospital? A general durable power of attorney should do it all -- if a hospital or employer or bank doesn't want to honor the GDPOA, fix things so they have to.

That's not what the homosexual lobby wants -- they want not just tolerance but endorsement of their lifestyle as normal, even desirable. I couldn't give a hoot in hell if two guys or two girls want to live together or what they want to do behind that door but I object to these stealth tactics designed to make society (and therefore me) endorse lifestyles. Society will or will not accept lifestyles and choices on its own:

Elizabeth: Why can't a woman have two husbands?

Pardner: Because you can't.

Elizabeth: Well, why?

Pardner: You explain it to her, Ben.

Ben: l'd like to oblige, Pardner, but l'll be damned if l can think of a reason. Out here we make up our own rules as we go along.
A man with two wives wants to sell one at auction, nobody thinks twice. lf a town needs females, hijacking 'em seems the natural thing to do.
And if two pardners want to share a wife, why not? This ain't Michigan. lt's gold country. Why, hell, it's the golden country! Untouched and uncontaminated by human hands!
People can look civilisation in the eye and spit!
You don't have to please anybody, don't have to love thy neighbour. lt's wild, human and free, and all over this nation, they preach against it every Sunday. But l don't think God's listening. You know why? Because he's here, in glorious California!

Apparently, Lerner and Loewe were far ahead of their time but the difference is that Ben, Pardner and Elizabeth weren't trying to make anyone accept their arrangement -- and in fact, it broke down once Elizabeth realized she didn't want conventional families to see their unusual "family".

IMHO, marriage has diminished enough in recent years without distorting its meaning.

[Rucker61]

Asking this question is like asking why 2A supporters aren't satisfied with squirt guns (can't use cap guns, they make noise!).

The reality is that all complaints from the homosexual lobby could be addressed without trying to redefine "marriage" by opening and enforcing legal powers of attorney. Want someone to be able to handle your affairs and visit you in the hospital? A general durable power of attorney should do it all -- if a hospital or employer or bank doesn't want to honor the GDPOA, fix things so they have to.

That's not what the homosexual lobby wants -- they want not just tolerance but endorsement of their lifestyle as normal, even desirable. I couldn't give a hoot in hell if two guys or two girls want to live together or what they want to do behind that door but I object to these stealth tactics designed to make society (and therefore me) endorse lifestyles. Society will or will not accept lifestyles and choices on its own:



Apparently, Lerner and Loewe were far ahead of their time but the difference is that Ben, Pardner and Elizabeth weren't trying to make anyone accept their arrangement -- and in fact, it broke down once Elizabeth realized she didn't want conventional families to see their unusual "family".

IMHO, marriage has diminished enough in recent years without distorting its meaning.

Yeah, like letting coloreds and Asians marry decent God fearing white folk. That was the start of the marriage diminishment all right.

[cstone]

If you define "traditional marriage" as one adult man married to one adult woman, then redefining marriage to one adult person to another adult person, then the harm would be dependent on whether you believe the former definition was of more value than the later definition.

This I believe is a value judgment. Some see no real difference, and for them there is no harm. Others see the redefining of terms as being of great difference and depending on where you stand on the redefinition, you may see the change as harm or improvement.

Marriage is a legal institution. For some, it is also a religious rite or ritual or covenant between man, woman, and God.

As for the issue of what a church may or may not choose to sanction, I will rely on the First Amendment and agree with the statement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and note that this restriction has also been extended to state and local governments. As for the point of tax exemption, I will stand by Chief Justice John Marshall in Providence Bank v Billings when he stated "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Using both of the above statements, I believe that no establishment of religion should be taxed by federal, state, or local government. IMO, this makes good Constitutional sense to me. YMMV

While I believe there are many people of faith in the United States, IMO the USA is not a Godly nation. Just my opinion.

Be safe.

[J]

A bit of derailment, but occasionally the gay rights movement helps hetero people as well. For example, when I started my business I wasn't sure what to do about health insurance. Come to find out my now wife's company (not wife at the time) had benefits offered for "Domestic partners". Due to equal opportunity, they couldn't offer that only to gay, non married couples. So, after showing we lived together, shared a bank account (which we opened for that purpose) and had an xcel bill together, BAM!! I'm eligible for coverage under her employer plan.

It is post tax deductions for that coverage, and it is now pre-tax since we are married and the tax code allows married people to do healthcare pre-tax. But post tax coverage was better than none or independent coverage plans.

Again sorry to derail, but there are times when the pro-gay movement can help people who are hetero as well.

[theGinsue]

Ok I lied I guess I do have something to add...you really cannot take a single verse out of the Bible and use it for or against any viewpoint. Historical context and the context within the original language are really crucial to understanding any Bible verse. Christians are as wrong for solely using the Leviticus verses as justification against being gay as non-Christians are for using verses to have the "gotcha" moment towards Christians for not following the Old Testament to a T. Context, context, context...

Truth.

Not being argumentative here or looking for a fight, but I need to clear up a common misunderstanding that doesn't directly relate (per se) to the OP's question...

I Just want to know when we get to line up and stone all of the whores and Heretics for these traditional marriage types!

As for the Christian beliefs, you are referencing Old Testament writings. Christianity beliefs these are good for historical understanding and for guidelines for living, but no longer for the "law" or rules of behavior. CHRISTIANITY's belief is that the life, death, resurrection & ascension of Christ started a new Covenant between God & man. This Covenant is what is written in the New Testament and is why you see such a difference in how God is described in the OT (considered by many as vindictive) and the NT (considered a kinder/gentler God). Trying to show that Christians are hypocrite's because we claim that the bible is the word of God yet we no longer stone adulterer's shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of Christianities beliefs.

I didn't bring this up to engage in theological debate in what is supposed to be a non-religious based discussion, but I felt it important to address this misconception where it was stated because it comes up a lot.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled non-religious discussion thread, already in progress.