Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The bottom line is this: marriage, for you and your tribe, is defined as anything but what all nations of Christendom have always recognized it to be. Anything but the 800 lb gorilla you know it to be.
Marriage is not a contract, but a covenant. It's not "I'll do my part if you do yours", but "I'll do my part 'till death do us part". Contracts can be broken or dissolved by mutual agreement; a marriage is binding for life. The fact that since the 1970s our laws began to treat marriage as a mere contract (a contract still defined by specific parameters of the marriage covenant) is a radical departure from 1500 years of consensus in the West.
Granted, we have already cheapened marriage by accepting co-habitation, contraception, and casual divorce. But let me ask you this: would homosexuals be crusading for same-sex "marriage" if marriage were legally indissoluble, as it ought to be? I doubt it very much. They don't want marriage: they want the quick and dirty contract that civil marriage has become.
So, I have to partially grant your point: marriage is treated (wrongly in my view) as a contract in civil law today. You probably call that progress. I call it a colossal mistake that should be repudiated. But if we can't roll civil marriage back to what it should be, the least we can do is keep it from losing all resemblance to marriage as intended by God and recognized by all until the sexual revolution turned the world inside out.
First I'm a she, not a he.
Marriage in a religious sense is a covenant, in the legal sense it is a contract.
If you want your religious meaning to stand, then push to get government out of marriage completely. Then your church can decide what marriage is.
You people on the dark side really need to get your talking points straight. Perhaps you should call a meeting.
Yes.
How dare a group not have a cohesive opinion.
Darn those people for being individuals.
Quote:
The bottom line is this: marriage, for you and your tribe, is defined as anything but what all nations of Christendom have always recognized it to be.
No,the bottom line is this:
Christians (and religion) has never, ever had a monopoly on the concept of marriage. And they need to remove the cylindrical objects from their posteriors and buck up and just move on and stop fighting something that doesn't affect them.
Quote:
Marriage is not a contract
Yes it is.
Quote:
radical departure from 1500 years of consensus in the West.
There's alot of things that are radical departures from 1500 years of consensus.
LIke that whole "women being equal" thing.
Quote:
would homosexuals be crusading for same-sex "marriage" if marriage were legally indissoluble
Marriage is not a contract, but a covenant. It's not "I'll do my part if you do yours", but "I'll do my part 'till death do us part". Contracts can be broken or dissolved by mutual agreement; a marriage is binding for life.
HAHAHAHAHAHA... Christian marriage is binding for life...that is a good one. Have you seen the divorce rates?
The bottom line is this: marriage, for you and your tribe, is defined as anything but what all nations of Christendom have always recognized it to be. Anything but the 800 lb gorilla you know it to be.
Marriage is not a contract, but a covenant. It's not "I'll do my part if you do yours", but "I'll do my part 'till death do us part". Contracts can be broken or dissolved by mutual agreement; a marriage is binding for life. The fact that since the 1970s our laws began to treat marriage as a mere contract (a contract still defined by specific parameters of the marriage covenant) is a radical departure from 1500 years of consensus in the West.
Granted, we have already cheapened marriage by accepting co-habitation, contraception, and casual divorce. But let me ask you this: would homosexuals be crusading for same-sex "marriage" if marriage were legally indissoluble, as it ought to be? I doubt it very much. They don't want marriage: they want the quick and dirty contract that civil marriage has become.
So, I have to partially grant your point: marriage is treated (wrongly in my view) as a contract in civil law today. You probably call that progress. I call it a colossal mistake that should be repudiated. But if we can't roll civil marriage back to what it should be, the least we can do is keep it from losing all resemblance to marriage as intended by God and recognized by all until the sexual revolution turned the world inside out.
Wait. Are you a Christian? Are you lecturing someone else on people getting their talking points straight?
I'm reminded of this joke
Quote:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."
"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.
"Well, there's so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Are you religious?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian."
"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."
The bottom line is this: marriage, for you and your tribe, is defined as anything but what all nations of Christendom have always recognized it to be. Anything but the 800 lb gorilla you know it to be.
Marriage is not a contract, but a covenant. It's not "I'll do my part if you do yours", but "I'll do my part 'till death do us part". Contracts can be broken or dissolved by mutual agreement; a marriage is binding for life. The fact that since the 1970s our laws began to treat marriage as a mere contract (a contract still defined by specific parameters of the marriage covenant) is a radical departure from 1500 years of consensus in the West.
Granted, we have already cheapened marriage by accepting co-habitation, contraception, and casual divorce. But let me ask you this: would homosexuals be crusading for same-sex "marriage" if marriage were legally indissoluble, as it ought to be? I doubt it very much. They don't want marriage: they want the quick and dirty contract that civil marriage has become.
So, I have to partially grant your point: marriage is treated (wrongly in my view) as a contract in civil law today. You probably call that progress. I call it a colossal mistake that should be repudiated. But if we can't roll civil marriage back to what it should be, the least we can do is keep it from losing all resemblance to marriage as intended by God and recognized by all until the sexual revolution turned the world inside out.
And what pray tell makes a 'covenant' anything except a contract? Even if you bring in some mythical being that covenant is still a contract between people.
I really hate to break it to you but divorce has been going on for as long as marriage has been going on. The only difference has been the ease of attainment of the divorce.
Homosexuals, being no different than anyone else, except for their sexual orientation, I'm sure are well aware of all the implications of marriage. You speak of them as if they are some monolithic creature all acting the same, wanting the same things. While I'm sure that this dehumanizing view of them helps comfort you it is wrong. Its merely a tool you use to help you justify your unethical view and treatment of homosexuals. If you were ever to admit to yourself that they are no different than any other individuals in society, except for their sexual orientation, then you might realize that trying to deny them the same rights and privileges afforded to any other member of society is unethical.
Marriage in a religious sense is a covenant, in the legal sense it is a contract.
If you want your religious meaning to stand, then push to get government out of marriage completely. Then your church can decide what marriage is.
As to your sex, my apologies.
It isn't "my religious meaning" that matters, but marriage itself, which is something real and not a creature of the state. If marriage is, in reality, a covenant, then the state needs to recognize this reality in law. Just as the state recognizes male and female in law, or land and water, or the right to life. Anything less is fraudulent.
For the state to ignore a reality as important as marriage is also fraudulent in my view. The state's silence and inaction would be treating a public institution with broad social consequences - an institution in need of a legal and cultural framework - as something merely private and personal. The libertarian position on marriage is kind of like saying that the state shouldn't interfere with private property: let the people who believe in private property work it out for themselves; and let the people who don't form their own communes. But it doesn't work that way. A legal framework is necessary or the institutions are gravely weakened.
gay marriage is no more a right than straight marriage.
the agenda of militant gay is to get genuine minority status, marriage is just a stepping stone to that end.
minority status is expensive and our government is broke.
It isn't "my religious meaning" that matters, but marriage itself, which is something real and not a creature of the state. If marriage is, in reality, a covenant, then the state needs to recognize this reality in law. Just as the state recognizes male and female in law, or land and water, or the right to life. Anything less is fraudulent.
For the state to ignore a reality as important as marriage is also fraudulent in my view. The state's silence and inaction would be treating a public institution with broad social consequences - an institution in need of a legal and cultural framework - as something merely private and personal. The libertarian position on marriage is kind of like saying that the state shouldn't interfere with private property: let the people who believe in private property work it out for themselves; and let the people who don't form their own communes. But it doesn't work that way. A legal framework is necessary or the institutions are gravely weakened.
It is difficult to determine sex from text.
Homosexuals are a reality, homosexual marriages are a reality. Both have been since man first walked the earth. The government should recognize THIS reality in law if it is to recognize heterosexual marriages.
We want the same legal framework that is afforded to any other consenting adult marriage.
Why don't you tell me how it DID start then - and prove it?
Irrelevant. Genetic analysis shows us categorically and beyond a shadow of a doubt that we're NOT all descended from a single couple. That is not up for discussion. It is not a matter of opinion, nor subject to debate.
It is indisputable fact.
Adam and Eve as described in your myth never existed.
Irrelevant. Genetic analysis shows us categorically and beyond a shadow of a doubt that we're NOT all descended from a single couple. That is not up for discussion. It is not a matter of opinion, nor subject to debate.
It is indisputable fact
Really? You made the statement - defend it.
Besides I have never stated that we are all descended from a single couple.
I have questioned the evolutionists explanation for the origin of life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
