Gay Marrage

---

"Do you think Muslims, Buddhists and atheists should be allowed to marry, thor? And if so, who makes the rules?"Sure they should be allowed to "marry"...and THEIR beliefs determine the rules. NOT the government. But it will obviously NOT be a Christian marriage. It will be whatever they call their kind of union.Side note: I'm not even sure they all have any kind of union...not familiar with bhuddists.

"For some reason it cut my sentence off. The government can basically change whatever they want. Like it or not the government regulates marriage, not the church. Marriage is a legalized sanction done through the state, not the church. Hence why people can get married within a courthouse, not only in a church."

The government of this country does not control the church, silly. That's what this whole "separation of church and state" thing we've been talking about means!!!! The government RECOGNIZES marriage within a church...it does not govern or ordain, in any fashion, said marriage. There is a difference between a "marriage cerimony" and a "civil cerimony", is there not? Go ahead and get yourself a civil union...I've got no problem with that. Just don't try calling it marriage and slandering what marriage is for the rest of us who hold it as to something more than just a piece of paper.

BTW, I'm STILL waiting for you to give me the Bible passage that gives us YOUR definition of marriage. I'll be waiting.
Just an aside: Why, if the church (as you continue to insist) does not control marriage, is it so important to you and your argument as to what the Bible has to say about marriage, anyway? You're gonna have to make up your mind on this one...makes it look like you don't have a leg to stand on.

"I'm sure bigamist, polygamists and alduters have done much more harm to the state of marriage than 2 homosexuals."

So far, yes...but not the meaning of the word. But if the meaning falls, then the state of what marriage really is will plummet off a cliff.

"So, by gays getting married, it will tarnish the meaning of the word?"It will change it in to mean something other than it was intended to be, according to the Bible. Those of us who believe in God and the Bible would suffer a twisting of what we believe to be God's original intent for marriage. The result would also open the door to a whole new list of abominations to the word "marriage". People marrying their dogs would be right around the corner. Sounds strange now, but then "gay marriage" sounded equally strange just 50 years ago.

I,sadly, have to agree with you :frowning:

Damn you stupid smart Thor! (oxymoron) :grin:

People marrying their dogs would be right around the cornerAre you insane?? How would letting to human being who loe each other open the door to letting human beings maryying dogs or any other animal for that matter? You are sooo making a long stretch here.>Those of us who believe in God and the Bible would suffer a twisting of what we believe to be God's original intent for marriage.What about us gay people who are Christians? Should we not be allowed to get married because you think gods meaning behind marriage is between a male and a female? So basically screw us gay Christians right?>The government of this country does not control the church, silly.When did I ever say the governemtn controlled church, silly? I never did so don’t start putting words in my mouth. Actually read what I am writing and we’ll be okay.>There is a difference between a "marriage cerimony" and a "civil cerimony", is there not?Only difference is the ceremony takes place in a church and one takes place in a courthouse, either way it’s considered marriage. So in reality there is no difference at all. So would your solution than be that gay people should not be married within a church but instead be married in a courthouse? Since this way it’s not ordained by a priest/pastor but instead by a clerk?? Both ways it’s still recognized by the state as a marriage.>Go ahead and get yourself a civil union...I've got no problem with that. Just don't try calling it marriage and slandering what marriage is for the rest of us who hold it as to something more than just a piece of paper.Sorry but letting two people who love each other is not slandering the definition of marriage, it’s actually the whole idea of marriage that two people who love each other would unite. And are you saying gay people would only see marriage as a piece of paper? You are far off base. Many of us know what marriage is and we want to express our love through the act of marriage. Why you have this idea we are less than human enough to want or desire marriage is beyond me. >Why, if the church (as you continue to insist) does not control marriage, is it so important to you and your argument as to what the Bible has to say about marriage, anyway? You're going to have to make up your mind on this one...makes it look like you don't have a leg to stand on.It’s not important for my argument; you are the one who brought in religion. Because you have done so I was informing you that you are wrong in the context and definition of what marriage is by the original text of the bible. If you would actually understand what I am saying you would see I am not arguing about the definition of marriage from the stand point of the bible but instead the stand point of the government. Instead of keeping religion out of it, you decided to bring in religion; well sorry it makes it look like religion is the only leg you have to stand on. And you never answered many of my questions. Are you avoiding them on purpose? Here’s one for you (maybe you can handle one at a time better), should non-Christians be allowed to marry since they are no Christians? Should they be forced to create their own form of union?PS: I will look up the passage and site it for you, I’m at work atm so not so easy.

I did find something interesting. If we are to use your defition of marriage, than these it might well contain the following stipulations:1. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)7. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

in reply to Eddie marring Steph My eddieness better not be cheating on me, I thought he was my baby daddy! pout

You'll always be my babies mama grin

I know and I loves ya! cuddles

"should non-Christians be allowed to marry since they are no Christians? Should they be forced to create their own form of union?"I think belief in God is what is important here...separation of church and state again. The state can't get involved with who is and is not a Christian. Recognizing one religious authority over the other for determination of this, when no specific mention of this determination that can be constructively made is mentioned in the Bible, would also violate separation between church and state. If they are athiests, why would they want to get married in the first place? I think a civil service would do for them fine. Marriage involves God, you see...so unless He's involved, it's not a marriage.

Oh I am sure the straight people on the boards, who are not Christians, will simply love that response. But yet regardless they are allowed to marry, isn’t that destroying the essence of marriage? Non-Christians getting married should bother you just as much as gay people wanting to marry. Why are you not lobbying against non-Christians getting married? Point being if it was true that marriage was meant for religious people to unite but yet it is now allowed for the non-religious it should also be allowed got homosexual couples.Not bad that’s not how it works. Marriage is NOT a religious run sanction it's government controlled. I get the point you don't like this fact, but get over it and get used to it... it's how it works.People like to state (you said this yourself) that marriage is also used for reproduction. Should straight people who never had children or who do not want children be revoked the right to marriage? What about men or women that are sterile should they not be allowed to get married either? Should these people, if refused the right to marriage, be forced to create their own form of union as well?Do we really need a million different forms of union, which would mean all the same thing? It’s ridiculous.

It's now how it works...it's how you wish it works. And it's how you're trying to change it to the supposed (though errently so) benifit of the minority and to the true detriment of the majority. In a democracy, that doesn't fly.I'm not lobbying against non-Christians getting married because they're not trying to change anything...you are! Also consider that Jews and Christians have the same God...so you need to start including them in on this too.

Except Jews are much more against Gay Marriage, belive me!My friend was kicked out of his family not too long ago because he came out saying hes gay, havent heard of him ever since!

Again you avoid the questions... but I expected that since you have avoided all the other questions.So, basically you are saying that marriage should exclude the minority? So no marriage for non-religious people and gay people? Marriage should only be for the religious?But what about these sterile people who cannot have children? Or what about the couples who don't want children? Since they are not reproducing should they also not be allowed to marry?If you are going to exclude one you have to exclude them all. If you are not willing to make an exception for one class of people you certainly cannot do it for all. Seriously now, think about all the different types of unions we would have if we adapted that philosophy.

Not always true because I have two Jewish friends, both gay, and both their families are very supportive. It comes down to how close-minded they are going to be on how they are going to react.

(mind you not directly to you ed) eh id consider marriage to be more about the love of the two people involved than god,also considering i have and will never have any assemblage of religious belief,so what about a non christian and a christian?

Well, some are open minded! But like the majority is probaly closed minded! My friend was the bassist in my band, he was dating our keyboarder. I still havent heard of them for a long time, havent even been at rehersals either!My gfs parents I think are furious at her! Since I'm not jewsih and shes dating me. Her father sometimes talks to me about gay marriage, he calls it "sinful" and "putrid" when I'm at her house! Kind now ruining our relationship!

"Not always true because I have two Jewish friends, both gay, and both their families are very supportive. It comes down to how close-minded they are going to be on how they are going to react."If they're practicing homosexuals then they're not Jewish...period. Jews believe only in the OT, and God is quite clear there what he thinks of the act. They're only Jewish by name or heredity. No Jewish synogogue or temple will stand by and sanction active homosexuality. Not my call, but I happen to agree with it.

If you go to city hall and have a civil ceromony (as many mixed couples do), you still have a marriage license, and you are consdered married. In Massachusetts, same sex couples can have a civil ceremony. In fact, they can have a religious ceremony, if that's what they prefer. Those people are married. No matter how badly you wish it were so, no church owns the word, the concept of, or the franchise on marriage.

> People marrying their dogs would be right around the corner.

What a stupod, tired canard that is. In Massachusetts, no one is marrying their dogs or their cats or their box turtles. People aren't clamoring to marry animals or inanimate objects.

> Sounds strange now, but then "gay marriage" sounded equally strange just 50 years ago.

You know what else sounded strange 50 years ago? In Mississippi, a black attending a taxpayer-supported state university. A woman CEO. A Jew working for a utility in New York. A black woman not yielding her bus seat to a white man in Alabama. A black musician on tour being able to stay at a hotel in Georgia.

It's no mystery who would not be on the vanguard of change had he been around 50 years ago.

> If they're practicing homosexuals then they're not Jewish...period.

I hate to break this to you, but the fundamentalists don't own the religions they seemingly claim to have title to. There are Chirstians, Jews, etc. who believe all kinds of different things.

I haven't met many fundamentalst Christians, who I would consider Christians, if Matthew's words have any real meaning.

> No Jewish synogogue or temple will stand by and sanction active homosexuality.

You are WRONG! Where do you live? How could you think that? There might be no Orthodox rabbis who would sanction homosexual marriage, but the Orthodox and fundamentalist Jewish sects are only a fraction of all Jews.