Same-sex marriages are now legal in Florida

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Same-sex marriages begin in Miami-Dade County | The Miami Herald

I think it's about time. Took 35 other states changing their tune before The Sunshine State realized that marriage is a civil right not bound to gender.

 

[woodpecker]

Same-sex marriages begin in Miami-Dade County | The Miami Herald

I think it's about time. Took 35 other states changing their tune before The Sunshine State realized that marriage is a civil right not bound to gender.

I am amazed a Christian such as yourself would make such a statement!

Marriage is not a civil right. God created marriage, a covenant between a man and a women.

We live in a country that has a governing authority and is to submit to the people. The people's being of many religions and beliefs.

Each of us to vote and proclaim what we as individuals believe to be best for our goodwill and the good of country. Being a born again Christian we must first submit to God and His ways, not the country, and God does not condone same sex marriage, nor should you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Marriage is not a civil right.

In the United States it is.

The United States Supreme Court ruled back in the 1960's that marriage is a basic human right and therefore antimiscegenation laws--such as those in Virginia and other states--were illegal.

If marriage is not a civil right, then we must be willing to say that the State has the power to decide who may marry whom. For example forbidding blacks and whites the right to marry as was the case 50+ years ago, or perhaps deciding that <insert group here> and <insert group here> can't marry.

It's a double-edged knife. Either the State must safeguard civil rights for everyone, or else that civil right isn't safe for anyone.

The only thing that stands between people and tyranny is the guarantee of civil liberties; and if we permit anyone to be denied such basic rights then we accept tyranny instead of the just rule of law.

As a Christian you have a moral duty to be on the side of justice, on the side of the oppressed, and on the side of the downtrodden.

How could a Christian advocate injustice and tyranny against the marginalized and the oppressed?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[woodpecker]

There is no tyranny or injustice done in the case of marriage and civil rights. I do not bow down to the sinful direction this country is headed, that is not tyranny but a right I have being a US citizen, to submit to God or country.

As christians we are to submit to authority, and as a US citizen I have my right to support or not a civil law .... Gods will first and then man

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Same-sex marriages begin in Miami-Dade County | The Miami Herald

I think it's about time. Took 35 other states changing their tune before The Sunshine State realized that marriage is a civil right not bound to gender.

It's a new dawn, it's a new day, and they're feeling good.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

I am amazed a Christian such as yourself would make such a statement!

Why is it any surprise to you? Many Christian churches have become tolerant if not outright accepting of homosexuality. Check out what happened at the last General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church.

Marriage is not a civil right. God created marriage, a covenant between a man and a women.

Yes, marriage (the legally recognized union of two consenting persons) is in fact a civil right.

God did create a unionizing covenant refered to first in Genesis that is recognized by most churches as a marriage. However, that has no bearing on constitutional law.

We live in a country that has a governing authority and is to submit to the people. The people's being of many religions and beliefs.

Yes and no. What I believe you are not understanding is the separation of powers and that law is not enforced subjectively. Nor does our government utilize total democracy, this could go on for a while.

Each of us to vote and proclaim what we as individuals believe to be best for our goodwill and the good of country. Being a born again Christian we must first submit to God and His ways, not the country, and God does not condone same sex marriage, nor should you.

One, I disagree regarding what God might condone.

Two, religion is personal and may govern one's life on that individual level. I could not argue against that. But it seems that you are advocating that Christians should vote for legislative changes that reflect specific Christian values.

That would in turn create a state religion or at least cause the enforcement of Christian-approved behaviors. I certainly am not an advocate of religious oligarchy.

 

[imind]

There is no tyranny or injustice done in the case of marriage and civil rights. I do not bow down to the sinful direction this country is headed, that is not tyranny but a right I have being a US citizen, to submit to God or country.

As christians we are to submit to authority, and as a US citizen I have my right to support or not a civil law .... Gods will first and then man

we can both submit to god's will and ensure all people enjoy their civil rights...you don't have to marry a person of your same gender. i don't recall anywhere in the bible that states we are to force others to follow our beliefs.

many christian conservatives are a breath away from becoming the taliban...

 

[hankroberts]

"Yes, marriage (the legally recognized union of two consenting persons) is in fact a civil right."
Really? You might want to rethink that. I'm presuming here that you equate marriage, as a 'civil right' with the constitutional rights (partially listed in the Bill of Rights)?

And it is worthy of note that homosexuals are not denied the privilege of marriage; they are denied the privilege of redefining 'marriage' to be something it is not.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

"
Really?

Yes Hank, really.

I'm presuming here that you equate marriage, as a 'civil right' with the constitutional rights (partially listed in the Bill of Rights)?

That's correct.

And it is worthy of note that homosexuals are not denied the privilege of marriage; they are denied the privilege of redefining 'marriage' to be something it is not.

Again, correct. However, the framing of the issue is often misconstrued to be one of an individual, most often a homosexual, "redefining" marriage.

That is not the case.

The issue is that the state essentially "redfined", or rather, limited the definition of marriage which denied the civil right of marriage to certain persons.

So in this case we are actually speaking of a government over-reach which was simply corrected. This was not a "redefinition".

 

[ananda]

A civil marriage is not the same as a Scriptural marriage.

Just because two men, a daughter and her father, or a woman and a roller coaster gets civilly married, doesn't mean that they are Scripturally married in the eyes of the Bible's God.

 

[Inkfingers]

This behaviour is 'normal' for Babel.

The Christian Churches (as opposed to the apostate 'churches') need to start giving serious consideration that a great deal of the world is now a case of living "behind enemy lines".

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

A civil marriage is not the same as a Scriptural marriage.

Just because two men, a daughter and her father, or a woman and a roller coaster gets civilly married, doesn't mean that they are Scripturally married in the eyes of the Bible's God.

Sure, I agree with that. Though, unions to inanimate and non-consenting things (things other than human adults) aren't really within the context of the discussion.

 

[ananda]

Sure, I agree with that. Though, unions to inanimate and non-consenting things (things other than human adults) aren't really within the context of the discussion.

I think it is. It should be about time that marriage should be recognized as a civil right not bound to gender ... or family, with animals, or inanimate objects ... right?

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

This behaviour is 'normal' for Babel.

The Christian Churches (as opposed to the apostate 'churches') need to start giving serious consideration that a great deal of the world is now a case of living "behind enemy lines".

Are you saying that legal acknowledgment of the right to same-sex marriage is somehow a negative thing for the church?

And what would that mean for the church? How is anything functionally or effectively different due to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

I think it is. It should be about time that marriage should be recognized as a civil right not bound to gender ... or family, with animals, or inanimate objects ... right?

I think you are missing the point and trying to interject rhetoric intentionally.

 

[Inkfingers]

Are you saying that legal acknowledgment of the right to same-sex marriage is somehow a negative thing for the church?

Yes.

And what would that mean for the church? How is anything functionally or effectively different due to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

It means that the Church is affirming Babylon when we are told to come out of it and to not "have fellowship with darkness".

We need to let Babylon be Babylon, whilst preaching against what it does and refusing to affirm it in our behaviour.

 

[hankroberts]

However, the framing of the issue is often misconstrued to be one of an individual, most often a homosexual, "redefining" marriage. That is not the case.
Actually, yes, it is the case. Marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman: as long as the institution has existed it has been defined this way. Homosexuals are not prohibited by any law from engaging in marriage: they are legally free to enter into a marriage just as you or I am. The problem is not that they are prohibited from marrying: the problem is that they want to change the meaning of that term to something it has never meant. So, yes, my point is true.

The issue is that the state essentially "redfined", or rather, limited the definition of marriage which denied the civil right of marriage to certain persons.
No, sir, that is not true. The state merely acknowledged the existing and long standing meaning of the term. Nowhere is there any suggestion that the state decided what a marriage meant; they merely acknowledged the existing meaning of the term. And the privilege of marriage is available to any adult citizen with normal mental capacity.

Now to address the original issue:
I'm presuming here that you equate marriage, as a 'civil right' with the constitutional rights (partially listed in the Bill of Rights)? -That's correct.

If one asserts that marriage is a fundamental human right, the same as the ones listed in the Constitution, then you are in a quandary. Where exactly do those rights come from? That is, if I have a fundamental human right to marry, then where did that right originate? According to the Founding Fathers those rights are granted by our Creator, God. However, if the right to marry is God-given then we do not get to change what constitutes a marriage; we are endowed with the right to engage in marriage as God describes it.
The point here is that we do not get to invoke God given rights, and then change the meaning of those rights at a whim. Either this is a God given right, and we must adhere to His understanding of it; or it is not a Right, and we are free to redefine the term if the majority of society so chooses. But we cannot have it both ways.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Yes.

How?

It means that the Church is affirming Babylon when we are told to come out of it and to not "have fellowship with darkness".

We need to let Babylon be Babylon, whilst preaching against what it does and refusing to affirm it in our behaviour.

What exactly do you mean when you refer to Babylon?

 

[createdtoworship]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE6Q-nqczSo

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Actually, yes, it is the case. Marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman: as long as the institution has existed it has been defined this way.

I disagree.

Homosexuals are not prohibited by any law from engaging in marriage: they are legally free to enter into a marriage just as you or I am.

They were prohibited from engaging in civil-unions otherwise referred to as marriages if the other party was the same gender.

The problem is not that they are prohibited from marrying: the problem is that they want to change the meaning of that term to something it has never meant. So, yes, my point is true.

The problem was that they were not afforded the same rights given to those seeking traditional marriages.

No, sir, that is not true. The state merely acknowledged the existing and long standing meaning of the term. Nowhere is there any suggestion that the state decided what a marriage meant; they merely acknowledged the existing meaning of the term.

Alright, fine.

The commonly held understanding of the term did not account for same-sex marriages. The term "marriage" being the legal union of two consenting adults not otherwise prohibited due to health related issues.

This "redifining" simply acknowledges same-sex partners seeking marriage as being equal to traditional partners.

And the privilege of marriage is available to any adult citizen with normal mental capacity.

Again, unless the other party was of the same gender.

If one asserts that marriage is a fundamental human right, the same as the ones listed in the Constitution, then you are in a quandary. Where exactly do those rights come from?

The founders believed that mere existence (of a man) gave those rights.

That is, if I have a fundamental human right to marry, then where did that right originate?

It originated at existence.

According to the Founding Fathers those rights are granted by our Creator, God.

And that did not mean the Christian God. Many ofvthe founders were anti-cleric, deist, and humanist.

However, if the right to marry is God-given then we do not get to change what constitutes a marriage; we are endowed with the right to engage in marriage as God describes it.

And I will disagree.

The point here is that we do not get to invoke God given rights, and then change the meaning of those rights at a whim.

We also do not get to limit who those rights apply to.

*beyond punitive judicial or public health reasons determined by our society through legislation*

Either this is a God given right, and we must adhere to His understanding of it; or it is not a Right, and we are free to redefine the term if the majority of society so chooses. But we cannot have it both ways.

You have limited the statement of "God-given" to mean only the Christian God. That was not the founder's intention.