Christians and "civil unions"

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Where in the Bible do you get the idea that a secular government should be given that type of authority?

So just to make sure I have this straight you are saying just as government should not say homosexuals should not get married they also should not prevent a man from marrying 10 women and 5 men and all of them living together. Correct? Just a simple yes or no would do.

The Bible says the government can legislate morals and it never says there are limitations.

[FONT=&quot]Romans 13:3-4[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.[/FONT]

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I believe in a limited government, as that was what this country was founded on...not the socialist society that we have been migrating to.

Well I can agree with you here.

 

[GraceSeeker]

So just to make sure I have this straight you are saying just as government should not say homosexuals should not get married they also should not prevent a man from marrying 10 women and 5 men and all of them living together. Correct? Just a simple yes or no would do.

No.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I believe in a limited government, as that was what this country was founded on.

Exactly!

 

[Big Drew]

Government should not be marrying or forbidding the marriage of anyone, IMHO.

The concept of a marriage license is only about 250 years old, and was started in Great Britain, for tax purposes.

If we look at it from a Biblical standpoint, we see nothing in the Bible about Jacob going to the courthouse to get a marriage license for him and Leah or Rachael...what we do see is him asking the father for his daughter's hand...now this may not be the best example, because we know that Jacob got messed over big time...but, this was the common custom of that time, and up until the 1700s...and I'm sure it still is in uncivilized countries...ask for the woman's hand, have a ceremony, consummate...and you're married. Now we've added to the government has added to that...and we must abide by the law of the land...but traditionally it made no difference, and I don't believe it does in the eyes of God now.

This is why I say gays can do whatever they want, but it doesn't change the fact of what God's word says on the matter...that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[mcswan]

The Bible does form my worldview. And based on my understanding of God's revelation therein, NO, I don't think the situation you described would be OK.

BUT, I don't live in a land where all my fellow citizens share my worldview. I live in a land where people are governend by the consent of the governed (that is, the people in total, not just in part). The constitution of this country specifically afford me protection from the government making any laws respecting religion. I take that seriously. And I also take marriage seriously. And by my worldview, I see it as a covenant that two people -- one man, and one woman -- make between themselves and God. That's it. That's my definition.

But I don't want the government coming in and agreeing with me and giving their stamp of approval on that definition and saying that since they agree that I can perform these ceremonies. For, if the government can grant permission, it can also take away permission. If the government can affirm, it can also deny or prohibit. I don't want the government regulating the church in any way. And that includes them regulating marriage or giving marriage the government's imprimatur.

Where in the Bible do you get the idea that a secular government should be given that type of authority?

I like your views on this issue.

The thing we need to remember is that marriage is a sacred, moral covenant between a man and a woman and God, but it also involves, by necessity, legally enforceable contract obligations. Those contract obligations are the area of appropriate government involvement, but the element of morality is not.

Civil unions should be nothing more than legally binding contracts without ANY morality being considered. But that is not what those who advocate for same sex marriage want as an end result. They want the government administered 'marriage' or 'civil union' to also carry the stamp of moral approval. That isn't acceptable to me or my church.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Am I really in the Fundamentalist forum? Doesn't seem like it when it seems like the majority are OK with homosexual unions which is essentially no different than gay marriage. I guess being labeled a Fundamentlaist on this web site doesn't mean much. I guess you can beleive it is OK to have a man marry or "union" 10 women and 5 men and live together. This opinion is not an option with what I would call a true fundamentalist.

 

[GraceSeeker]

it seems like the majority are OK with homosexual unions which is essentially no different than gay marriage.

I don't see anyone saying that they are OK with that either. Please learn to read what we are writing. Not one person here as yet to express agreement with homosexual unions or gay marriage. We disagree that saying it is OK or not OK is the business of government.

 

[Big Drew]

Am I really in the Fundamentalist forum? Doesn't seem like it when it seems like the majority are OK with homosexual unions which is essentially no different than gay marriage. I guess being labeled a Fundamentlaist on this web site doesn't mean much. I guess you can beleive it is OK to have a man marry or "union" 10 women and 5 men and live together. This opinion is not an option with what I would call a true fundamentalist.

We must be reading different posts, because I haven't seen that at all, nor have I posted it.

What defines marriage, in your opinion?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I don't see anyone saying that they are OK with that either. Please learn to read what we are writing. Not one person here as yet to express agreement with homosexual unions or gay marriage. We disagree that saying it is OK or not OK is the business of government.

You guys are saying the government should let it happen. Unless you are now saying homosexual unions should not be allowed. This isn't what a historical fundamentalist would say.

 

[Big Drew]

You guys are saying the government should let it happen. Unless you are now saying homosexual unions should not be allowed. This isn't what a historical fundamentalist would say.

I'm saying the government should stay out of marriage altogether...doesn't seem to resemble what you perceive me to be saying.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

We must be reading different posts, because I haven't seen that at all, nor have I posted it.

What defines marriage, in your opinion?

Marriage is a man and a woman being united as one. We need to talk from the world's standpoint though. Homosexuals want their marriages or unions to be accepted. So called churches are more than ready to give them this. Not long ago homosexual acts where illegal in many states. In fact I believe it still technically is in some but not enforced. This country is going down hill fast and gay marriages or unions will just drag it down faster. I hope God comes soon. I see little discernment taking place amount the Christians in this forum.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I'm saying the government should stay out of marriage altogether...doesn't seem to resemble what you perceive me to be saying.

You are OK with gay unions which to many is really no different than marriage.

 

[Big Drew]

Marriage is a man and a woman being united as one.

And that's what I believe as well, so we're in agreement.

As long as there has been a world there's been sin...and as long as there has been a church there has been heretics...Nothing new under the sun...

As I said, I'll speak out against sin and heresy...but I can't change people's hearts and minds, only God has that capability.

 

[Big Drew]

You are OK with gay unions which to many is really no different than marriage.

Please show me the post where I said, "I'm OK with gay unions."

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

And that's what I believe as well, so we're in agreement.

As long as there has been a world there's been sin...and as long as there has been a church there has been heretics...Nothing new under the sun...

As I said, I'll speak out against sin and heresy...but I can't change people's hearts and minds, only God has that capability.

Then why legislate moral issues like rape, sex slaves and murder? We can't change people's hears and minds. Your argument goes both ways.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Please show me the post where I said, "I'm OK with gay unions."

So government should not allow gay unions? Yes or no? Is you say no then you are OK with government allowing it.

 

[Big Drew]

So government should not allow gay unions? Yes or no? Is you say no then you are OK with government allowing it.

Government shouldn't do anything in regards to morality...when a person is only harming themselves, why should it matter to the government or the people, aside from the individuals loved ones?

Seriously.

Government should have no authority over marriage, just as they should have no authority over someone being a drug addict.

I don't condone sex outside of marriage, or smoking marijuana...but, when the only person being harmed is the individual, or individuals who have consented to the immoral act, then the government should stay the heck out of it.

The other examples you have used fail, because they bring harm to other people.

Murder= dead person
Rape= mentally and emotionally unstable victim
Sex slave= see rape

If someone is being harmed, then yes, there should be government intervention...but when no one is, stay out of it...it sure would save me and you some tax money.

And, before you say it, I'm not picking and choosing...this is not a theocracy...if you want to see a theocracy take a look at countries that are under Sharia Law...because that's essentially what would happen...people would be thrown in jail for being gay, for lying, for taking God's name in vain.

Do you want man to decide people's fate, or should we leave it in the hand's of God? He is the ultimate judge...the unrepentant pothead, the unrepentant homosexual, and the unrepentant liar are going to perish just as sure as the unrepentant murderer is...

But here and now, what happens in the world is the world...we, as Christians, are not of the world...but that doesn't mean anything to those that are.

How do you propose we put a stop to something that's been going on since the beginning of time?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Government shouldn't do anything in regards to morality...when a person is only harming themselves, why should it matter to the government or the people, aside from the individuals loved ones?

This is my last post since I have other things I should use my time on. You make a wrong assumption that drugs and homosexual doesn't hurt anyone else. I know this as a former drug user. Drug use hurts many just as homosexuality has many victims. I'm sure Lot would agree with me.

 

[Big Drew]

This is my last post since I have other things I should use my time on. You make a wrong assumption that drugs and homosexual doesn't hurt anyone else. I know this as a former drug user. Drug use hurts many just as homosexuality has many victims. I'm sure Lot would agree with me.

Who does a pothead hurt? Themselves...maybe their family, because they're upset about the situation.

Who does a homosexual hurt? See above.

I'm sure you would say that drinking is immoral...yet it's legal...and it hurts many more people than smoking weed or or being gay does...but in the eyes of the law, not a thing wrong with it...until harm has been inflicted, or the potential of harm to another has taken place...