Why Marriage Matters - One man, one woman

[JDavis]

Biblical marriage and civil marriage should be and are two different things.

 

I agree that according to God marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman, though those living in the times of the Old Testament didn't seem to understand the "one" part of the equation.

 

The Bible does not speak of visitation rights or tax breaks or such things.  How a society chooses to allocate such things has nothing to do with scripture and should not be made out to be so.

 

Historically marriage has changed from era to era and society to society.  In western culture the idea of marriage for love is a fairly new idea.  Prior to this marriage was about economics and politics and just plain survival.  Sometimes love grew out of these relationships, sometimes it did not.

[JDavis]

 

Biblical marriage and civil marriage should be and are two different things.

 

I agree that according to God marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman, though those living in the times of the Old Testament didn't seem to understand the "one" part of the equation.

 

The Bible does not speak of visitation rights or tax breaks or such things.  How a society chooses to allocate such things has nothing to do with scripture and should not be made out to be so.

 

Historically marriage has changed from era to era and society to society.  In western culture the idea of marriage for love is a fairly new idea.  Prior to this marriage was about economics and politics and just plain survival.  Sometimes love grew out of these relationships, sometimes it did not.

 

"Historically" has no bearing.  "Era to era" has no bearing.  America has always been "One man, One woman."  Other countries, histories or eras are immaterial to the argument.  These are rabbit trails to obfuscate the real issues.  The gay marriage issue is a moral issue, not one of legislation.  Liberals always wish to, and attempt to remove the moral issue from the equation.  Firstly because at it's very core, the liberal has no fixed values, and because if the moral issue of homosexuality is focused upon, the entire issue doesn't look so good.  No one, no matter who they are, who claims to be a born-again Christian, should be supporting gay marriage, trying to say it is an issue that just isn't important, or be trying and sweep it under the rug.  They should be actively speaking against it, every time the subject is brought up. 

 

 

There are 4 pages of people speaking of traditional and historical marriage.  why do you choose to hound me?  Is this sort of behavior tolerated on this site?

 

There is no morality in tax laws or hospital visitation rights or property inheritance rules, this is what is being debated in the US.  

 

Nowhere have I seen anyone say they want to change God's view of or plan for marriage.

Edited July 5, 2013 by JDavis

[nebula]

 

There is no morality in tax laws or hospital visitation rights or property inheritance rules, this is what is being debated in the US.  

 

Why do we need to redefine "marriage" in order for people to have shared taxes and hospital visitation rights?

 

Why can't we have laws that allow people to share such things if desired or needed?

 

 

Nowhere have I seen anyone say they want to change God's view of or plan for marriage.

 

 

I do not know why you perceive it this way. Proponents demand we change how we believe and re-interpret the Bible to embrace homosexuality as a gift from God.

[JDavis]

 

 

There is no morality in tax laws or hospital visitation rights or property inheritance rules, this is what is being debated in the US.  

 

Why do we need to redefine "marriage" in order for people to have shared taxes and hospital visitation rights?

 

Why can't we have laws that allow people to share such things if desired or needed?

 

 

 

 

we don't need to redefine marriage to allow for those things.  But in our society it is through marriage that those things are conferred.  We need to change that.

 

I was going to ask a question about marriage and the bible, but I think it is too far off topic so I will start a new thread.

[GoldenEagle]

 

There is no morality in tax laws or hospital visitation rights or property inheritance rules, this is what is being debated in the US.  

 

Nowhere have I seen anyone say they want to change God's view of or plan for marriage.

 

I agree.

 

 

 

 

 

we don't need to redefine marriage to allow for those things.  But in our society it is through marriage that those things are conferred.  We need to change that.

 

 

This is the thing for me... I'm not sure that the LGBT community will accept anything else other than calling it marriage - which basically means that there will be serious consequences if or when these new laws are passed on Christians. Particularly for pastors who refuse to marry this (eventually) new protected class - same-sex marriage or sexual orientation.

 

I think the time for negotiation has come and gone. The LGBT community will settle for nothing less than re-defining marriage.

 

Out of curiosity what do you mean "we need to change that"?

 

God bless,

GE

[JDavis]

 

 

There is no morality in tax laws or hospital visitation rights or property inheritance rules, this is what is being debated in the US.  

 

Nowhere have I seen anyone say they want to change God's view of or plan for marriage.

 

I agree.

 

 

 

 

 

we don't need to redefine marriage to allow for those things.  But in our society it is through marriage that those things are conferred.  We need to change that.

 

 

This is the thing for me... I'm not sure that the LGBT community will accept anything else other than calling it marriage - which basically means that there will be serious consequences if or when these new laws are passed on Christians. Particularly for pastors who refuse to marry this (eventually) new protected class - same-sex marriage or sexual orientation.

 

I think the time for negotiation has come and gone. The LGBT community will settle for nothing less than re-defining marriage.

 

Out of curiosity what do you mean "we need to change that"?

 

God bless,

GE

 

 

 

I agree with you about the redefining of marriage, that is why I think it is time for the Government to get out of the marriage business.   There is no legal or moral reason for items like visitation rights or inheritance rights or such things need to be tied to marriage.   Why should two best friends not be entitled to those things as well?     With the new definition of marriage it no longer provides the same benefits to society as it once did, so there is no reason for married couples to have any sort of tax breaks.

 

 

There is nothing in our constitution that says the Government needs to be involved in marriages.   Get the government out of the marriage business, leave that to the churches and whoever else wants to do it.  

 

The Govt could oversee basic forms of partnerships that allowed for the things that marriage has.   Two people want to have visitation rights or inheritance rights they sign a contract and they can have them.

 

This way a church could assign any restrictions they want on whom they marry without consequence. 

 

Even under the current system I cannot see a pastor being sued fro not doing a ceremony.  The catholic church has had all sorts of restrictions on who they will marry and as far as I know they have never lost a lawsuit on the issue.   If they can get away with denying someone marriage on their religion they should be able to on the basis of sexuality.   Many non-Catholic churches will not marry non-members and this again has never been challenged as far as I know

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

 

I agree with you about the redefining of marriage, that is why I think it is time for the Government to get out of the marriage business.  

<snip>

 

 

There is nothing in our constitution that says the Government needs to be involved in marriages.   Get the government out of the marriage business, leave that to the churches and whoever else wants to do it.  

 

The Govt could oversee basic forms of partnerships that allowed for the things that marriage has.   Two people want to have visitation rights or inheritance rights they sign a contract and they can have them.

 

This way a church could assign any restrictions they want on whom they marry without consequence. 

 

 

I agree in particular in bold. But is this realistic? Wouldn't it take legislation that would radically change the current laws?

In my experience government is always willing to expand. But rarely does it allow for shrinking...

 

God bless,

GE

[JDavis]

 

 

 

 

I agree with you about the redefining of marriage, that is why I think it is time for the Government to get out of the marriage business.  

<snip>

 

 

There is nothing in our constitution that says the Government needs to be involved in marriages.   Get the government out of the marriage business, leave that to the churches and whoever else wants to do it.  

 

The Govt could oversee basic forms of partnerships that allowed for the things that marriage has.   Two people want to have visitation rights or inheritance rights they sign a contract and they can have them.

 

This way a church could assign any restrictions they want on whom they marry without consequence. 

 

 

I agree in particular in bold. But is this realistic? Wouldn't it take legislation that would radically change the current laws?

In my experience government is always willing to expand. But rarely does it allow for shrinking...

 

God bless,

GE

 

 

Yes, it would take legislation that would radically change the current laws, and it might well be a pipe dream, but it is what needs to happen.   There needs to be a clear dividing line between civil marriages and religious marriages.  

 

Perhaps the answer would be to take the ability to marry in a civil manner away from the church.   If people want the "civil" benefits of being married they can get their license and have it signed by a Notary or some such thing.  If they want their marriage blessed by and recognized by God they can do that at their home church without ties to the government.   Again there is nothing that says the two have to be tied together.  Basically it has been done out of convenience more than anything else.