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 problem is there are several different things wearing the name of marriage.
1. We have a state approved contract under state laws, called a marriage.
2, We have a religious ritual, ceremony, contract etc called marriage that comes under the rules of the religion.
3. We have a marriage license which grants that a person is abiding by state law and can engage in either 1 or 2 or both
Part 2 is the easiest to resolve. If a person is a member of a religion marriage within that religion is defined by the religion. Most religions define marriage as the union between a male human and a female human. Most religions also specify that human sexual act among humans are limited to between people who are married to each other in accordance to church definition. Marriage in one religion may or may not be considered marriage to another religion.
According to many religions a State only marriage contract (Civil Marriage) does not constitute marriage under the rules of the religion. In other words whoever marries under such may be legally married but would not be married in accordance with their religious belief. Here is were we have a sticky wicket. Marriage is/was a religious practice/ritual. But a civil marriage is not, it is a legal contract.
I think we can all agree no state has the right to interfere in what a religion considers to be marriage. Now the argument, does any religion have the right to interfere with what the state considers to be a legal civil marriage? I see it no different from the liquor laws, as I Muslim I consider it illegal for anybody to sell liquor. But, the state overides and goes in accordance with public demand. so, the state is legally permitted to allow people to do what I believe to be sinful. Is that any different from if the state decides to allow people to do what our religion sees as sinful? If you can say the state has the right to allow what my religion sees as sinful, do you really have the right to say the state has no right to allow same sex civil marriage, because it is sinful in your religion?
My religion does forbid homosexual relations also. But my argument is, this is a nation of hypocrites if it allows a civil act that violates some people's religious belief and refuses to allow a civil act that violates other people's religious beliefs.
So it is hypocritical to allow the sale of liquor but forbid same sex marriage. If the state is going to allow either, allow both. If the state is going to forbid one, forbid both.
My preference would be to forbid both. But I also say it is far worse for the State to be hypocrites and allow one but not the other.
I do oppose same sex marriage, but as a nation we should demand equal treatment of all people in regards to State law.
You would hit the ceiling if I were to demand Shariah law in the US to ban all liquor sales, but have no problem in demanding your own Shariah law to forbid same sex marriage.
Shariah(Religious) law is Shariah(Religious) law. No matter what religion it is enforcing. Christian Law is also Shariah.(Religious Law)
Please stop trying to impose the values of 1% of the population on the rest of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
Nothing is being imposed on you.
It is you imposing on them.
I believe we all do impose something on each other. When someone votes to ban guns does impose on others who believe in the right to bear arms.
Is it wrong of someone to vote for issue the way he or she believe society should be? Not in my opinion.
The vote is to see what the majority of people want in our society. Now, we have protections so the majority of the people do not abuse the minority.
So I do not see religious people voting against gay marriage. It is their right to vote as they wish but I am here to counter their vote I see as interfering with private decisions other people make on their lives.
So when someone votes for gay marriage are imposing on those that vote against it as far as I am concerned. That is why the government should stay out of marrying people and let that for the churches. This will avoid problems we have now. So when govenment jobs have benefits for relatives of workers they can name whomever they want they think are important in their lives. This takes out the religious moral influence out of the government. Take care.
As much as I abhor the principles of your religious beliefs, I admire your willingness to recognize logic, and see the difference between religious and secular law. Well said (for the most part -- your seeming advocation for reinstatement of the Volstead Act, along with all other religious laws, would be disastrous public policy that would ensure widespread social suffering).
If this is a secular nation let it be all secular, not partial. I did not intend to sound like an advocate for the Volstead act. Just trying to point out that the ban against Gay marriage on religious grounds is no different from any religious based law.
I agree. Except I feel civil rights are violated in a more fundamental way by the gay marriage ban than by any ban/restriction on alcohol.
Just on a personal note I see no difference between alcohol consumption and Gay Marriage. I find it hypocritical to allow one and forbid the other. The hypocrisy comes from the fact the laws permit what is forbidden by one religion, but turns around and forbids what is forbidden by a different religion.
I could almost guarantee same sex marriage would be permitted and possibly even mandatory if it was permitted in Christianity, but forbidden in every other religion.
We may have to start another thread about this. I agree with you though. Strange thing it was not forbidden in early Christianity and no where does the NT forbid it. The prohibition came a few hundred years down the line as Church canon or doctrine.
I've asked this question of numerous Christians but never received a coherent response. That's why I'm posing it to the unctuous, self-appointed "good Christians" -- whose presence on this sub-forum has been duly noted.
The rules of the Old Testament, in Exodus and Leviticus expressly, but in other books of the Old Testament as well (the only such reference to homosexuality and the banning thereof in biblical scripture), were codified as a way for man to practice his faith with god and keep his covenant with him sacred. Precisely, to atone for original sin and the stain on the souls of men that was caused by man's fall in the Garden.
According to scripture, because we were sinners, we had to abstain from eating pork and cloven-hooved animals, from wearing mixed fiber clothing, from sitting in chairs that a menstruating woman had sat on, and were ordered to put witches to death in order to "get right" with God.
Jesus came to earth and died for our sins in order to absolve us from the old covenants and the rules that came with him, to wash our souls free of original sin and allow us to live in harmony with god through accepting him into our lives and following his teachings (with not the slightest mention of gay people, for the record).
That is why we say he came to earth to bring a "new and everlasting covenant." That is why, as he is dying, he says "it is finished," meaning that his sacrifice for our sins has ended our old faith. That is why you can eat hot dogs and wear polyester and aren't required to burn goth kids claiming to be Wiccans at the stake.
So tell me, good Christians, please: why, exactly are you clinging so fiercely (and selectively) to these obsolete tenants and guidelines for behavior after god sent his only son to this earth to suffer and die for our sins so that we would not have to follow those rules anymore?
Why are you shunning the new and everlasting covenant that you are so quick to say you believe in because Jesus codified it through dying for us? Do you not think that Jesus' sacrifice was enough for you to give up those old ways, or are you just not creative enough to find something to justify your bigotry than 3000 rules that also allow you to sell your daughters into slavery?
Finally, this is not a theocracy. It's a pluralistic nation with many diverse inhabitants, and frankly, I'm astonished it's taken the U.S. this long to get around to even discussing legalizing gay marriage.
If you really want to impose your beliefs on the lives of others, move to Iran.
I'd love to get a real answer. I'm still waiting.
I am a Muslim ...
Individual freedom which reflected negatively on others and affect the community is not called freedom .
This behavior threatens the extinction of human kind & has a negative impact on our children .
I'm not asking to treat them cruelty or declare war against them, Instead we must guide them & help them to build normal families .
Even the most basic levels of taste and morality condemns that behavior .
From a Christian POW? The Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. It is that simple. Every time the Bible talks about marriage, it talks about man-woman union.
Or man and woman and woman and woman and concubines and slavewomen.
Or man and virgin girl kidnapped from her tribe after everyone she knew (apart from other virgin girls) had been slaughtered.
were we the ones that suggested we change the definition of marriage to suit 1% of the population?
If we want to talk about who is more hostile or wanting to impose their values (or lack thereof), just look at how many people were quick to jump on me after I posted that message.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Or man and woman and woman and woman and concubines and slavewomen.
Or man and virgin girl kidnapped from her tribe after everyone she knew (apart from other virgin girls) had been slaughtered.
Or man and his dead brother's wife.
Or man and his half sister.
Or.....
Hmm... I'm sensing a trend here.
Actually...the original form of marriage was 1 man, 1 woman. Ever hear of Adam and Eve? God allowed other forms of marriage because man is basically evil and was going to do his own thing anyway. That included putting women down. If you really want to argue by that point, knock yourself out.
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.
