Legality of Same Sex Marriage

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Good question.
There is no such thing.

Remember Memphis, TN said God does not make mistakes.

I believe that too. Therefore, nobody is born into the wrong body.

lol....good catch!

[odooley6985]

No one commented or answered my question. What non biblical reason is there to ban gay marriage? Can we come up with one without mentioning one religious word? Until then, gay marriage wont be struck down. At least abortion is murder.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by MemphisTN

I sure would like to know what Jonathan and David were talking about when one said to the other, I love you more than the love of a WOMAN. No one can ever explain that one.

Actually, this was something David said about Jonathan after Jonathan's death.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, this was something David said about Jonathan after Jonathan's death.

I think David loved Jonathan like a brother. And I think he grieved for Saul as well. Kind of explains his heart, and why he was called a man after God's own heart.

[Aquila]

The government should get OUT of marriage. Frankly, it's not the government's business unless there is a breach of marital contract and the parties cannot agree privately on a resolution with regards to property and/or child custody should they wish to dissolve their relationship.

In the colonies, all a couple had to do was declare the desire to marry before witnesses and have their union documented in the family Bible (this is why many Bibles still have marriage certificates in the front of them). A great deal of these marriages were "self-officiated" without clergy being present. Then states began to require a public posting a few days before the wedding. Then states began to require a licensed officient (minister minion of the state). Then states decided that they'd prohibit interracial marriages and only allow a given interracial marriage if the couple applied for and were approved for a license. Then the state basically declared marriage "illegal" and thereby required ALL couples to seek marriage licenses through the state office. Thus the state became the final authority and arbitrator of marriage. However, marriage is a God given natural right to any human being and should be strictly between individuals, their families, and their God.

I believe like the Quakers. If a couple declares their intention to be married before at least two witnesses and sign a contract (like the marriage certificate in the front of a Bible)... they're married. No need for clergy. No need to seek a license or state approval.

Now, with gay marriage. It's their business. However, as with other unbiblical forms of marriage, the church should NOT be required to recognize said marriage as something pleasing to God. It is strictly up to the individual church as to if they will bless a couple's union or not.

Thus gays are free to live the way they choose.... and we should be free to condemn the union. The church is free to condemn ANY unbiblical union.

Welcome to liberty and justice for all.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Cindy

I think David loved Jonathan like a brother. And I think he grieved for Saul as well. Kind of explain his heart, and why he was called a man after God's own heart.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by odooley6985

No one commented or answered my question. What non biblical reason is there to ban gay marriage? Can we come up with one without mentioning one religious word? Until then, gay marriage wont be struck down. At least abortion is murder.

First, it seems to me that you are under the mistaken opinion that "religion" has no place in the political arena. This is what the world wants us to believe because that keeps us silent concerning morality. I disagree with that premise altogether. The theoretical "separation clause" was not to protect govt. from religious morality but to protect churches from a govt. sponsored religious paradigm where all others are outlawed.

It was the pulpit that helped foster and propel the abolition movement in this country as well as England. Preachers preached on the evils of slavery and helped create the atmosphere to overturn the institution of slavery. Thankfully those men used their influence to help shape a nation and government policies.

The church need not back down but stand strong in the face of every adversary. The family unit is the back bone of society itself and to deviate from the Biblical model is to encourage deviant behavior of all types. The Bible is still relevant today and the Biblical model for marriage is still the best and only choice. We have a right to voice our opinion of morality and I could care less what the propaganda machines think about it. I will stand firmly upon a Biblical foundation. This is not just a right but a Biblical imperative - to be salt in all aspects of society in general.

As to coming up with "non-religious" reasons to stand against homosexual unions the answer is self evident. Homosexuality is a biological perversion period end of story. The preservation of the species is dependent upon heterosexual unions. Nature, in the sense of human science (evolution), even teaches against these unions. The preservation of the species mitigates against this behavior.

Also, studies have shown over and over and over and over... That the best thing for children is a mother and a father (the biological parents) engaged in the child's life. I have a lot of data to back that up, to much to post here. The fact is that children are always disadvantaged when the biblical model (heterosexual familial model) is not adhered to. Since you don't like the phrase "biblical model" feel to replace it with the "traditional model.

By changing the definition of marriage it will open up marriage to all other forms of perversion as well such as bestiality. In the world today there are people who have married themselves, inanimate objects, and animals. A google search of weird marriages will turn some of these up so it is not a stretch at all to recognize that once marriage is redefined all other aberrant unions will demand their "civil rights" as well.

In summary homosexuality is a biological perversion. Even evolution teaches against it because evolution is about the propagation and survival of the species. This cannot happen with these unions. Homosexuals want marriage redefined because they want to adopt children and being "married" makes it easier to adopt. This is the heart of the debate - children.

Studies have proven over and over that children have the best opportunities when they are raised by their biological parents. These studies have looked at numerous family models and each time the conclusions are the same - children do best when raised by their biological parents.

Finally by redefining marriage it will open the door for all forms of aberrant "marriages". Everyone will demand their individual "civil rights" concerning their particular brand of "love". This includes NAMBLA.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

First, it seems to me that you are under the mistaken opinion that "religion" has no place in the political arena. This is what the world wants us to believe because that keeps us silent concerning morality. I disagree with that premise altogether. The theoretical "separation clause" was not to protect govt. from religious morality but to protect churches from a govt. sponsored religious paradigm where all others are outlawed.

It was the pulpit that helped foster and propel the abolition movement in this country as well as England. Preachers preached on the evils of slavery and helped create the atmosphere to overturn the institution of slavery. Thankfully those men used their influence to help shape a nation and government policies.

The church need not back down but stand strong in the face of every adversary. The family unit is the back bone of society itself and to deviate from the Biblical model is to encourage deviant behavior of all types. The Bible is still relevant today and the Biblical model for marriage is still the best and only choice. We have a right to voice our opinion of morality and I could care less what the propaganda machines think about it. I will stand firmly upon a Biblical foundation. This is not just a right but a Biblical imperative - to be salt in all aspects of society in general.

As to coming up with "non-religious" reasons to stand against homosexual unions the answer is self evident. Homosexuality is a biological perversion period end of story. The preservation of the species is dependent upon heterosexual unions. Nature, in the sense of human science (evolution), even teaches against these unions. The preservation of the species mitigates against this behavior.

Also, studies have shown over and over and over and over... That the best thing for children is a mother and a father (the biological parents) engaged in the child's life. I have a lot of data to back that up, to much to post here. The fact is that children are always disadvantaged when the biblical model (heterosexual familial model) is not adhered to. Since you don't like the phrase "biblical model" feel to replace it with the "traditional model.

By changing the definition of marriage it will open up marriage to all other forms of perversion as well such as bestiality. In the world today there are people who have married themselves, inanimate objects, and animals. A google search of weird marriages will turn some of these up so it is not a stretch at all to recognize that once marriage is redefined all other aberrant unions will demand their "civil rights" as well.

In summary homosexuality is a biological perversion. Even evolution teaches against it because evolution is about the propagation and survival of the species. This cannot happen with these unions. Homosexuals want marriage redefined because they want to adopt children and being "married" makes it easier to adopt. This is the heart of the debate - children.

Studies have proven over and over that children have the best opportunities when they are raised by their biological parents. These studies have looked at numerous family models and each time the conclusions are the same - children do best when raised by their biological parents.

Finally by redefining marriage it will open the door for all forms of aberrant "marriages". Everyone will demand their individual "civil rights" concerning their particular brand of "love". This includes NAMBLA.

I don't want Catholics or any religious nut using the police power of GOVERNMENT to FORCE me, or anyone else, to live the way they demand. No citizen should have their private lives, covictions, and/or conscience prohibited when it's not endangering anyone else's life, liberty, or property. My life. My business. Get OUT. Anyone wanting to use GOVERNMENT to regulate the private lives of any individual is using GOVERNMENT to essentially outlaw a man's private convictions of conscience. That's STATIST to the core.

We need to get the Democrats out of our pocket books... and the Republicans out of our bedrooms.

Give me LIBERTY... or give me DEATH!

Libertarian until the day I die... DON'T tread on me.

[odooley6985]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't want Catholics or any religious nut using the police power of GOVERNMENT to FORCE me, or anyone else, to live the way they demand. No citizen should have their private lives, covictions, and/or conscience prohibited when it's not endangering anyone else's life, liberty, or property. My life. My business. Get OUT. Anyone wanting to use GOVERNMENT to regulate the private lives of any individual is using GOVERNMENT to essentially outlaw a man's private convictions of conscience. That's STATIST to the core.

We need to get the Democrats out of our pocket books... and the Republicans out of our bedrooms.

Give me LIBERTY... or give me DEATH!

Libertarian until the day I die...

Well said. I agree. I just think its funny that people who want smaller government also want the government to tell people who they can and cant marry. I just feel the separation of church and state clause it up for interpretation. Many feel it was meant to keep the state out of the church. It also can mean the opposite.

[odooley6985]

Originally Posted by Pliny

First, it seems to me that you are under the mistaken opinion that "religion" has no place in the political arena. This is what the world wants us to believe because that keeps us silent concerning morality. I disagree with that premise altogether. The theoretical "separation clause" was not to protect govt. from religious morality but to protect churches from a govt. sponsored religious paradigm where all others are outlawed.

It was the pulpit that helped foster and propel the abolition movement in this country as well as England. Preachers preached on the evils of slavery and helped create the atmosphere to overturn the institution of slavery. Thankfully those men used their influence to help shape a nation and government policies.

The church need not back down but stand strong in the face of every adversary. The family unit is the back bone of society itself and to deviate from the Biblical model is to encourage deviant behavior of all types. The Bible is still relevant today and the Biblical model for marriage is still the best and only choice. We have a right to voice our opinion of morality and I could care less what the propaganda machines think about it. I will stand firmly upon a Biblical foundation. This is not just a right but a Biblical imperative - to be salt in all aspects of society in general.

As to coming up with "non-religious" reasons to stand against homosexual unions the answer is self evident. Homosexuality is a biological perversion period end of story. The preservation of the species is dependent upon heterosexual unions. Nature, in the sense of human science (evolution), even teaches against these unions. The preservation of the species mitigates against this behavior.

Also, studies have shown over and over and over and over... That the best thing for children is a mother and a father (the biological parents) engaged in the child's life. I have a lot of data to back that up, to much to post here. The fact is that children are always disadvantaged when the biblical model (heterosexual familial model) is not adhered to. Since you don't like the phrase "biblical model" feel to replace it with the "traditional model.

By changing the definition of marriage it will open up marriage to all other forms of perversion as well such as bestiality. In the world today there are people who have married themselves, inanimate objects, and animals. A google search of weird marriages will turn some of these up so it is not a stretch at all to recognize that once marriage is redefined all other aberrant unions will demand their "civil rights" as well.

In summary homosexuality is a biological perversion. Even evolution teaches against it because evolution is about the propagation and survival of the species. This cannot happen with these unions. Homosexuals want marriage redefined because they want to adopt children and being "married" makes it easier to adopt. This is the heart of the debate - children.

Studies have proven over and over that children have the best opportunities when they are raised by their biological parents. These studies have looked at numerous family models and each time the conclusions are the same - children do best when raised by their biological parents.

Finally by redefining marriage it will open the door for all forms of aberrant "marriages". Everyone will demand their individual "civil rights" concerning their particular brand of "love". This includes NAMBLA.

First let me say I am against same sex marriage. That being said, saying nut ball stuff like "If men are allowed to marry men, then they will want to marry dogs." is the stupidest arguement ever and makes anyone who says it look extremely dumb and nutty. Please dont compare two consensual adults to that.