What would happen if same-sex marriage were legalised?

[BondiHarry]

I am afraid to.read the.response of those that share my faith. I can't afford the.time off to.show them their bigotry. Namaste, wiccan child. Let me twll yiu what.our faith has written in our bible.

Holding fast to God's word is bigotry? We are to love our fellow man, saint or sinner, and treat each as we ourselves would be treated. I fail however to see where love comes in by encouraging or endorsing behavior which will lead to God's wrath and condemnation.

God loved and provided for his enemies

However God NEVER facilitates sin, but condemns it.

, and Christ commanded us to love like god does.

Love as God defines it, not as men have redefined it.

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Romans 13:9)

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. (1 Corinthians 13:6)

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

I fail.to.see how this behavior in our faith is providing or showing love. Remember 60 years the.church made the same bs noise over interracial datinv, and our.faith, with.the.democrats related the.kkk. lot of.pride In hellish.behavior in all of.that. this ban gay marriage campaign, is the.exact sort of bigotry.

If we share the SAME faith then we believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman for this is what the Bible teaches.

The Issue for gay marriage, is protected rights as a hetero marriage would have.

Actually, it isn't. Gays do have certain rights extended to them by God but none of those rights come through marriage since marriage as taught by God is the union of a man and a woman.

Example, married women, both disowned from their families, had legally written wills for.orotection. one stayed home, the other.provided. the.provider was hospitalized. The family had an injunction filed so she coukdnt visit her spouse. A spouse she had cared for for 30 plus.years, and hadnt spoken to her family.for.nearly as long, they disowned her.

The.family challenged the.will, won't in the name of "god" and kicked the woman to.the curb, homeless and mindless. Praise godd, right? That is.exactly what is.des robed in mat 25k sheep and goats parable. The church doesn't have to sanction their marriage. But if they work against helping them to be.protected, not only.are.they hateful and bigoted, they violate the.grace god.gave them.

The family was wrong to do what they did. Since their daughter chose to gift her assets to her partner in sin, that should have been honored as the daughter had that right, it was her property and the family in essence stole from the other woman.

Gal 5:6 says theology isn't important, but faith working.through love.

Don't forget Galatians 5:5 ... "For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith" ... there is that aspect of true faith.

How is.that.loving, "christians"? You make me and anyone else in our faith guilty by association. You make me sick, how your hubris feeds your.Sarx.

What that family did would offend Jesus just as what the two women did in 'marrying' each other and likely engaging in fornication would offend Him.

 

[Gishin]

Why are non-christians allowed to get married?

 

[BondiHarry]

Why are non-christians allowed to get married?

Let me reword that, 'does God honor and reward the lost man when he does right?' Yes, He does.

A marriage is a marriage whether it is between two believers, a believer and a non-believer or two non-believers.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let me reword that, 'does God honor and reward the lost man when he does right?' Yes, He does.

A marriage is a marriage whether it is between two believers, a believer and a non-believer or two non-believers.

So there's no reason not to let a marriage be a marriage whether it's between two men, a man and a woman, or two women.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Could we simply admit that churches really are just no longer in a position of authority to really dictate the matter. Does it vary from country to country? Sure but I'd imagine that if the power of Christianity to influence legislation to not allow gay marriage is such a pro religion country as American is waning. Then I'm betting it'll happen elsewhere. Repeating what the Bible says on the issue is a bit of a dead horse really. People know, and the same people know it really doesn't have anything to do with law.

 

[David Brider]

However, the short version is this, we live in a fallen world, the man of God is to deny himself, take up his cross daily and follow Jesus, do no evil to his fellow man and not be a busybody others mens matters.

If you don't want to be a busybody in other people's matters, then you could make a start by conceding that it's none of your business if same-sex couples want to get married, or if government chooses to introduce legislation to allow same-sex couples to get married.

OK?

David.

 

[David Brider]

Same sex attraction is not a choice, even though they are born that way. Homosexuality: the lifestyle built by acting on those attractions most definitely is chosen.

Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle. Homosexuality is same-sex attraction.

David.

 

[David Brider]

By definition, marriage is a man & woman. So a better question is "why redefine marriage?"

By definition, marriage is two consenting adults making a lifelong commitment to spend the rest of their natural lives together on the basis that they love each other. Given that no redefinition is needed to include same-sex couples in that, and given that same-sex couples are just as capable of love and commitment as opposite-sex couples, the most sensible question is: why not let same-sex couples get married?

 

[Gishin]

Let me reword that, 'does God honor and reward the lost man when he does right?' Yes, He does.

A marriage is a marriage whether it is between two believers, a believer and a non-believer or two non-believers.

I didn't get married in a church, I just signed a piece of paper.

 

[BondiHarry]

If you don't want to be a busybody in other people's matters, then you could make a start by conceding that it's none of your business if same-sex couples want to get married, or if government chooses to introduce legislation to allow same-sex couples to get married.

OK?

David.

I've stated repeatedly that if gays want to pair off, exchange rings and vows and declare themselves married they are free to do so ... how is it people like you keep missing it David? As for what the Federal government does we do have something called the Cosntitution and under it the Federal government HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INVOLVE ITSELF IN MARRIAGE and certainly no moral authority to compel anyone to subsidize or facilitate the immoral behavior of other people.

 

[David Brider]

Government doesn't dictate to us what true religion is, why should it dictate anything about what true marriage is?

Which would sound far more of a convincing argument were it not for the fact that you're perfectly happy to let government dictate what "true marriage" is as long as it doesn't legislate in favour of same-sex marriages.

The problem (even ignoring what God says about marriage) is that there is the demand that the rights of property and conscience of those who disagree with homosexuals should be violated in order to accomodate 'gay marriage' ... this is an unreasonable and immoral demand.

And yet you've yet to come up with any meaningful explanation of how your rights of property and conscience will be violated if same-sex couples are allowed to get married. As such, it just comes across as vague paranoia; hardly a substantial argument.

 

[heterodoxical]

Because the definition no longer justifies itself.

Wow. I have no issue with the marriage of same sex couples. but, art what a piece of tripe this comment was. You can marry to boards together. The word has a broad range of.definition. but in the. Legal sense it.is.man and woman. The alphabet community, g,L, b,q,etc...was offered in the bush first term same sex unions with all legal.rights as a married couple. They turned it down.

When a group of.people hijacked a word and.redefine it.to.force somethin on others, they have.erred. gay, marriage, etc....rainbows....

You can't turn red into green to.avoid a.speeding ticket. While I.support the.marriage union whatever ifs.called, YOU AREN'T THAT IMPORTANT THAT WE.WRIGHT THE.DICTIONARY FOR YOU:

 

[Jase]

Wow. I have no issue with the marriage of same sex couples. but, art what a piece of tripe this comment was. You can marry to boards together. The word has a broad range of.definition. but in the. Legal sense it.is.man and woman. The alphabet community, g,L, b,q,etc...was offered in the bush first term same sex unions with all legal.rights as a married couple. They turned it down.

When a group of.people hijacked a word and.redefine it.to.force somethin on others, they have.erred. gay, marriage, etc....rainbows....

You can't turn red into green to.avoid a.speeding ticket. While I.support the.marriage union whatever ifs.called, YOU AREN'T THAT IMPORTANT THAT WE.WRIGHT THE.DICTIONARY FOR YOU:

Um, who defined marriage as only one man and one woman? Marriage was primarily polygamous in nature through most of history. It also almost always involved underage girls who had absolutely no rights, so technically it was 1 man 1 slave girl.

And the only legal sense where it's defined that way is DOMA which is an unconstitutional law. The Constitution does not define marriage.

 

[David Brider]

I've stated repeatedly that if gays want to pair off, exchange rings and vows and declare themselves married they are free to do so.

They are only free to do so if government introduces legislation enabling them to do so.

As for what the Federal government does we do have something called the Cosntitution and under it the Federal government HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INVOLVE ITSELF IN MARRIAGE

My understanding is that all cases of legalising of same-sex marriage in the USA so far has been done at State level. Presumably this would continue to be the case, so any constitutional limits on what federal government may or may not do are irrelevant.

...and certainly no moral authority to compel anyone to subsidize or facilitate the immoral behavior of other people.

If same-sex marriage is legalised, how does that compel anyone to subsidise or facilitate any immoral behaviour?

David.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I've stated repeatedly that if gays want to pair off, exchange rings and vows and declare themselves married they are free to do so ... how is it people like you keep missing it David? As for what the Federal government does we do have something called the Cosntitution and under it the Federal government HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INVOLVE ITSELF IN MARRIAGE and certainly no moral authority to compel anyone to subsidize or facilitate the immoral behavior of other people.

And in the not too terribly distant future. I suspect that said gay folks will indeed be able to get married in every state of the U.S. Good for them I say. I hope many of the marriages last and are joyous.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

By definition, marriage is two consenting adults making a lifelong commitment to spend the rest of their natural lives together on the basis that they love each other. Given that no redefinition is needed to include same-sex couples in that, and given that same-sex couples are just as capable of love and commitment as opposite-sex couples, the most sensible question is: why not let same-sex couples get married?

I think the 'by definition' argument is no-where near as strong as proponents of so-called traditional marriage think it is. For one, it is a subtle appeal to tradition. Marriage is 'by definition' what tradition has defined it to be. The thing about traditions though, and the social institutions that underlie them, is that we can change them. They aren't fixed. So even if marriage was (notice the past tense) defined as being between a man and a woman, because that tradition can no longer justify itself, it is most certainly open to revision. This isn't something new. Only a few decades prior to this debate the tradition of marriage being an unequal partnership with the man as head came to face a similar problem: it couldn't justify itself, and so the institution evolved accordingly and society is (arguably) better for it.

 

[heterodoxical]

Um, who defined marriage as only one man and one woman? Marriage was primarily polygamous in nature through most of history. It also almost always involved underage girls who had absolutely no rights, so technically it was 1 man 1 slave girl.

And the only legal sense where it's defined that way is DOMA which is an unconstitutional law. The Constitution does not define marriage.

Which do you want fo.discuss, constitutional law, or linguistics? We have records, writings of early Egypt marriages, sumarian, etc... no, you are.right, they did not call It the.english.word marriage. And If your position hinges on that, go.back.to.third grade. In Greece, Athens,Sparta, same sex relationships were not unusual were not usually hidden, were.sometimes expected, and even then there is never a mention of a relationship we would call a marriage. " women to breed, boys for needs" Is a close phrase recorded as.the mindset of the time. Tell me, linguistic hijacked, who.determined GAY was no longer iting its meaning and needed to be.changed? The Same marketing crew that wants the.same sex union called a marriage. While I support their.righfs, changing the.languafe to suit your owletulant desires is more intellectually dishonest than 90% of rhe."funds" arguments on here.

The idea that marriage was mostly polygymous,is a.fabricated piece of optimistic history rewrite. I.would argue.if your statement was true, the Greek classic story of Helen of Troy, would have been.written much differently. And that was written at least 400 years before Christ was born. Those sang funniest foiled you and started this plot even before.Alexander the .great conquered the.world.

 

[heterodoxical]

So there's no reason not to let a marriage be a marriage whether it's between two men, a man and a woman, or two women.

You mean other than the precedent that you give one group that they can change the mwanings of words to fit their agendas? I guess jot. Suppose, not comparing them, that nambla redefinessles marriage, are you.going to allow your 14 yr old boy the.right to marry a 40 yr old man? I mean, the word needed redefining, less watch how many groups they to manipulate that precedence.

The church is wrong over this conversation. The church is why.the.word marriage was introduced anyway. Legally if you marry in one state it is valid in all states. They could have already had the same rights, in the bush admin, but the.church forced their hand.

Most homosexuals don't have clue what its going on here, they just know to yell victim really loud. Most "churches" create strawman arguments that are illogical as well as against their own faith. Like the long note to me above, which will be.glad ro answer tomorrow on a real.keyboard, not my fone, they are clueless what they say.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Because with your footing folks. That's a mighty large slippery slope fallacy there. Don't want anyone t'fall.

 

[heterodoxical]

Could we simply admit that churches really are just no longer in a position of authority to really dictate the matter. Does it vary from country to country? Sure but I'd imagine that if the power of Christianity to influence legislation to not allow gay marriage is such a pro religion country as American is waning. Then I'm betting it'll happen elsewhere. Repeating what the Bible says on the issue is a bit of a dead horse really. People know, and the same people know it really doesn't have anything to do with law.

No, we should admit the churches threw out Christ's commands and got self righteous and important. Follow the govt, they are.god appointed. Show me where Christ EVER tried to legislate the.faith? What he.did.do, was teach is.to love neighbor, not just brother, to provide for your enemies needs. He even said he could not judge here on earth and if he.did, Jesus was directed to by.the.father. until one of you.have gods spirit land on your shoulder, and start doing miracles, remember you.don't speak with the Father, like Jesus did.

The church is in sin, by following their heart, not god's. Besides that, the.church forgets that being homosexual is not the sin In the bible.