Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No doubt, and quite rightly so. Same sex marriage is a Christian sin, and faithful Christians are right in regarding it so. No doubt there are strong and convincing theological arguments supporting that view.
According to some, marriage is a sacred institution that cannot be changed based on the whims of society.
I can understand, but I don’t see venerating icons the same as destroying a sacred institution.
For Christians, holy matrimony is a sacred institution. I don't really see anyone trying to change that. And I still don't see any theological argument that supports the idea that the rules Christians impose on eligibility to receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony should apply to participants in a civil marriage contract awarded by a secular state.
Well, only if it might be "disturbing" for someone if they did. That's the law in Texas. As you know, some far-right people are disturbed that kids learn about what went on back then.
For the leadership of that denomination, being politically-correct is more important than being a Christian.
Therein lies the problem. Initially, marriage was not a civil institution. So it was only within the Church, or within whatever religion one followed. So the problem we see in Greece and other nations did not exist. Only when the state usurped the institution of marriage for itself, did it become an issue.
Sure, and they don't actually call that "marriage" in many cases. Things like property, children, etc. need to be considered and the state has an interest in such things. But the state doesn't have to be in the marriage business to do that. And it solves all these issues when some religions want the state to be enforcing their particular beliefs.
Very interesting comment and, indeed, many anti-SSMers have declared that they don't care if the state issues civil unions to gays as long as they don't call it "marriage." There is certainly nothing wrong with that idea. Couples wanting to marry first go to the town hall and get a "License of Civil Union" then they can go on to any kind of a ceremony they think appropriate, for religious or other reasons,
Perhaps, but that would reveal a lack of understanding. Leftists, as with those on the far Right, are politically authoritarian. The Religious Society of Friends, to the contrary, are not authoritarians. Focusing instead on the intrinsic value of every individual as equal and wonderfully made in the eyes of God. Cultural Marxism, along with religious nationalism, see the world through lenses of power structures and control. The Quaker sees the leaders of these power structures or institutions and doesn't take his or her hat off for either of them. The reason being that he or she fundamentally considers them to be peers, not deeming others to be higher or lower than one's self.
It goes without saying that a gay couple who wanted to live their lives together before SSM was legalised did so anyway. In countries where it hasn't been legalised they are doing so right now. So what changes when it does become legalised? Well, they get rights in regard to each other that they didn't have before. And that's about it.
Seems like a reasonable solution to me. And of course, anyone who wants to call it a marriage is free to do so. This depends on the people in the civil unions having the same protections and rights as those in a religious marriage.
I understood the proposal to be that nobody, straight nor gay, gets anything from the state except a licence of civil union. The Church makes claims on the term "marriage" which it won't relinquish? Fine. Let them have it and anyone who wants to be "married" can go to a church for it.
But...they demand to define the word themselves. And anyone who is isn't 'married' according to their specific definition can't use the term. That is literally it. They know they can't stop people living their lives together but they insist that it shouldn't be called a marriage.
