Confronting the Issue of “Gay” Marriage

Interesting insight

"Democracy"?
We are a Republic. lol.

Truth. Why do secular run from it? How do they take an issue like Marriage to the courts? By saying they already know they are the minority so can't be represented. And in the same breath say we are a democracy?

America has balances of powers. I think it is time the citizens of each state start asking their Congress and Senate what their jobs are and whom they represent. Which one represents the People? Which one represents the State? Judeo-Christian Beliefs, true.

How did secular get honesty mixed up with I have to be myself and than all dress alike? Most everyone wants to be good. So what they are doing is making them selves happy. Not judging. Just using common sense.

Thanks for your post R.R. Tons of Bible Doctrine. Might scare people I said that but it is a simple fact. Thanks for the meat and potatoes.

+1

Protect marriage in California get active here

So, what does religion have to do with the government?

No one is asking that Christian churches allow same-sex marriage within their walls. No one's even asking that the Christian church views their marriage as legitimate, religiously. They're asking that they be given the same government based benefits as heterosexual couples.

If religion, the bible, etc. is the only thing you have to go on, in order to say that same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal, that's a very poor argument indeed. I don't see anyone throwing a fit that I, a Pagan woman, married into a Scientologist family. Why? Because I, the Heathen, and he, the Heathen, have different genetalia. Yet, since neither of us is Christian, what difference does it make to those who are? Last I checked, in accordance with your Bible, Paganism/Heathenry was just as much as sin, if not vastly more so, as homosexuality.

Likewise, no one threw a fit because a hermaphroditic friend of mine got married. Why? Because he looks like a man, and lives like one, so we'll just close our eyes to the fact that his body has more estrogen in it then his wife's did, and he will never be able to produce sperm?

IF people were asking that the Christian churches be required to perform or recognize a marital union that went against their doctrine, I would be the first to say that they had no right to ask such a thing. I would be the first to say that no religious institution should be required to religiously or spiritually recognize something that goes against their beliefs, and that no government should demand that they do (whether or not I like or accept those beliefs). But, again, no one is asking that. They are simply asking that the government not discriminate based on the religious doctrine of even the majority of it's citizens. Considering what this country was supposed to be about, I don't see what the issue is.

Now, if you can come up with an argument against same-sex marriage that is entirely secular in nature, rather then "The Bible says we shouldn't, so the government should be held to the standard of our religion even though we're not a theocracy," I'd love to hear it. Until then, I can't see any reason why the government should be allowed to pass a law stating that the only people who can receive the government benefits of marriage are the people that the Christians can feel okay about being given the label of "married".

"If religion, the bible, etc. is the only thing you have to go on, in order to say that same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal"

Pangeacat can you tell me of anything you might know of from before time? If you do than I can tell you about the seed of Abraham. This has nothing to do with procreation as much as building hospitals, stop throwing babies in the fire, government, one wife, etc...That is the seed that took root. That is God's seed. It is all over the world.

And besides the Bible does not tell you what you can't do. It tells you WHAT marriage is. The verses were actually named in the article.

"Until then, I can't see any reason why the government should be allowed to pass a law stating that the only people who can receive the government benefits of marriage are the people that the Christians can feel okay about being given the label of "married"."

Silly goose, The people brought this issue to bare in California. Not the Government. The people are WHAT makes the Government, you abuse it, we get to use it. It was called a petition started from a grass roots organization. The kind those big lobbyists and unions hate. You know the ones who lie to the people about who the Government is.

It was actually dangerous to carry. I know I did carry that petition. I called it traditional marriage. Probably arrogant. I probably just should have called it "It Is What It Is".

We are a Republic, everyone is "Represented" in a Republic. Those are our Congressmen. The Senator represents the State.

"government benefits."

Couldn't care less about.

With all due respect to a Lady of course

Shalom, Beautiful

Sorry, I found that funny.

The Bible defines marriage, for you. But, it doesn't define marriage for everyone else. And, it didn't define my marriage, though again - no one was throwing a fit over my getting married.

In your belief system, since the Bible is viewed as the 'Word of God', then it is older then anything else. Since I don't subscribe to the idea that it is the 'Word of God', nor do I subscribe to the idea that even though there were religions written and honored long before the Bible, the Bible is still 'older' somehow. So, with that whole seed of Abraham and 'older then time' argument, there is no point in it. Since you and I subscribe to vastly different realms of spiritual thought.

Again though, who cares, in this situation, who believes what religion? What difference does any of that make? The fact of the matter is that the government is there to govern the people, not pick and choose between religions. In fact, they're supposed to stay out of religion completely! Which is a good thing, even for you.

So your religion states that marriage isn't possible between two men or two women. Fine. Then don't allow two men or two women to have a ceremony in your church. And, don't recognize their marriage as valid in the eyes of your God. Fine. I take no issue with that at all.

But, if the government is going to take it upon itself to grant certain tax privileges and power of attorney privileges, and beneficiary privileges to heterosexual couples, why shouldn't it grant the same to homosexual couples?

As a human being, you have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" apparently. That's what our system states. If my "pursuit of happiness" lies in living my "life" with another woman, and making sure that she receives recognition from the government as having the right to make medical decisions for me in the event of my inability to do so, and I want to make sure that we receive a tax break since we're living with one another just as much as any heterosexual couple is, and blah blah blah... what right does the government have to say, "Yeah, but it makes the Christians uncomfortable to know that you're happy, so..."?

The government is the entity that decided it was going to get involved in marriage in the first place. If they would stay the hell out of it, there would be no argument here, not from me. But, no, they decided that they needed to be involved in marriage, AND they decided that they were going to take on the guise of 'separation of church and state'. Since they are the ones who decided all this, they are the ones who need to make sure they aren't biased, based on religion alone.

I saw the verses in the article. Again, this isn't a theocracy. Whether you consider it a republic, a democracy, a democratic republic, or poop on a stick, it's still not a theocracy. Part of Ireland is a theocracy, the U.S. is not.

As for "traditional marriage", I guess you'd have to define "traditional". A traditional Christian marriage may have been between one man and one woman. But, a traditional Jewish marriage could be argued polygamous (read the OT). A traditional marriage in many many many cultures could be deemed polygamous actually (Chinese, Middle Eastern, Mormon obviously...). A traditional Native American marriage would depend on the tribe. In many tribes, a hermaphrodite or obviously transgendered (very effeminate male, or rather masculine female) individual would be revered, trained as a spiritual leader, be given the clothing of the opposite gender from the one most dominantly portrayed outwardly on the individual, and have a spouse from both sexes. So, again "traditional" marriage will vary greatly, dependent upon the culture and religious ideals within it.

Fight against the fact that the government has decided that it needs to be involved with marriage in the first place. Fight against government involvement in marriage at all. If the government weren't involved, then there wouldn't be an issue here.

I agree, pangeacat. The government has no business involving itself in a contract between two private individuals. If they did not confer benefits to married couples, we wouldn't have this problem.

The California problem is different. Gay couples can already get married and they have all the same benefits that "traditional" married couples have...they just don't call it "marriage." That is the only difference between homosexual "marriage" and heterosexual marriage in that state. But again, it's not the government's responsibility to give special privileges and benefits to married couples, whether they are gay or not.

I think unmarried couples ought to sue for rights too - then we will see how truly ridiculous this practice is.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.