Definition of Marriage?

[steg]

Why do Christians feel that they must interfere with the lives of others?

I can understand about abortion (even if I still think that its none of their business), but what about gay marriage? These people simply want the same as everyone else… if two consenting adults want to live together in marriage, and have the same legal protections, then who is to say they can’t? In the 8/28 broadcast of CAL, Jimmy Aiken gives a definition of marriage, but that’s not a dictionary definition… its an expanded, dogma-fied Christian definition. A marriage is a union, simple as that.

I say let them marry… its none of my business, nor yours.

I invite comments and discussion =)

 

[JonNC]

Why do Christians feel that they must interfere with the lives of others?

I can understand about abortion (even if I still think that its none of their business), but what about gay marriage? These people simply want the same as everyone else… if two consenting adults want to live together in marriage, and have the same legal protections, then who is to say they can’t? In the 8/28 broadcast of CAL, Jimmy Aiken gives a definition of marriage, but that’s not a dictionary definition… its an expanded, dogma-fied Christian definition. A marriage is a union, simple as that.

I say let them marry… its none of my business, nor yours.

I invite comments and discussion =)

Well, they can call it a “marriage”, but it isn’t. Do you have the same ideas about polygamy? If a man wants to have 4 (adult) wives, it is none of your business nor mine. Right? How about incest? None of our business. Right?

In a secular society where certain benefits, status, and tax breaks are afforded to married couples, it is difficult to deny a same gender couple the same advantages, but it isn’t marriage. Civil unions? OK Co-habitations?Fine. But it doesn’t fit the definition of marriage.
Of course, the same could be said of any joint habitation. My grandmother and great aunt (sisters) lived through their old age together.
Should they be eligible for Social Security survivor benefits?

Perhaps the real question is, is it the government’s business? Marriage is historically a religious function. We keep hearing about “separation of church and state”. Let’s get the government out of the marriage business altogether. That way, it is none of anyone’s business.

Jon

 

[steg]

Well, they can call it a “marriage”, but it isn’t. Do you have the same ideas about polygamy? If a man wants to have 4 (adult) wives, it is none of your business nor mine. Right? How about incest? None of our business. Right?

In a secular society where certain benefits, status, and tax breaks are afforded to married couples, it is difficult to deny a same gender couple the same advantages, but it isn’t marriage. Civil unions? OK Co-habitations?Fine. But it doesn’t fit the definition of marriage.
Of course, the same could be said of any joint habitation. My grandmother and great aunt (sisters) lived through their old age together.
Should they be eligible for Social Security survivor benefits?

Perhaps the real question is, is it the government’s business? Marriage is historically a religious function. We keep hearing about “separation of church and state”. Let’s get the government out of the marriage business altogether. That way, it is none of anyone’s business.

Jon

See… you are applying an expanded definition of marriage… a marriage is a union, period. Anything else is just semantics. Polygamy was okay in the bible, yes? Incest between adults (creepy, but none of my business). Co-habitation is a totally different relationship, and its not marriage. Personally, I should be able to list anyone I want as SS beneficiary… its my money, I earned it.

The only thing the government should be concenred about is the status of marriage, recording it, granting license, and protecting the legal rights of a married couple. They shouldn’t say who can or should be married… that’s discrimination.

Marriage was around long before the church came along, and it’ll be here long after its gone… you may allow it to impose its ‘laws’ on you, but it has no right to impose its view on the rest of society.

 

[dianaiad]

See… you are applying an expanded definition of marriage… a marriage is a union, period. Anything else is just semantics. Polygamy was okay in the bible, yes? Incest between adults (creepy, but none of my business). Co-habitation is a totally different relationship, and its not marriage. Personally, I should be able to list anyone I want as SS beneficiary… its my money, I earned it.

The only thing the government should be concenred about is the status of marriage, recording it, granting license, and protecting the legal rights of a married couple. They shouldn’t say who can or should be married… that’s discrimination.

Marriage was around long before the church came along, and it’ll be here long after its gone… you may allow it to impose its ‘laws’ on you, but it has no right to impose its view on the rest of society.

You both have great points. I’m replying to you, because…well, “marriage” IS defined by the government right now, and I, as a Mormon, am very aware of what happens when the government redefines it.

I’m with the previous poster, who believes that in this case, above all others, there should be an absolute separation of church and state. “Marriage” should be the religious term, defined by whatever faith (or personal inclination) decides to define it as. So…Catholics and Mormons (well, most Mormons) would define “marriage” as being a church sanctioned relationship between one man and one woman.

“Civil unions,” on the other hand, could be between any consenting adults, and be given all the legal rights the government decides to allow, including inheritance, medical, whatever. The two concepts should be absolutely separate.

That would fix the whole thing, y’know. Churches could enfold the idea of the civil contract into the marriage, so that all married people must have civil unions (to be contractually, as well as religiously, bound to one another), but they don’t have to honor all civil unions as marriages. It is THAT which has most people up in arms, y’know.

Here in California, before the whole Proposition 8 kerfuffle, gay couples have EVERY SINGLE STATE RIGHT that married couples have. Every single one. In fact, gays with civil unions in California actually had more rights before they were allowed to marry than they did as married couples—because more states recognize civil unions than do gay marriages.

The only right they did not have was—to force their morality on the rest of us. That’s it. They already had all the legal rights; every single one. Not ‘separate but equal,’ here…THE SAME RIGHTS…and nobody was unhappy about that, either.

For me, then, it is a legal problem; your morals are your morals. Go knock yourself out; get a civil union, then go to a church that supports you and get married there. Or go stand on a beach in the sunset and exchange vows and rings, and be married. Whatever…

but you do not get to, under the guise of complaining that we are imposing our morality on you, impose legal constraints upon those of us who do not believe that a union between same sex couples can be ‘marriage’ under God.

…and that is precisely what will happen. It already is.

 

[JonNC]

=steg;5634410]See… you are applying an expanded definition of marriage… a marriage is a union, period. Anything else is just semantics.

Actually, it seems you are the one expanding the definition. I’m trying to maintain the narrow, and historically proper definition: a union between a man and a woman.

Polygamy was okay in the bible, yes? Incest between adults (creepy, but none of my business).

Kudos to you for being consistent.

Co-habitation is a totally different relationship, and its not marriage. Personally, I should be able to list anyone I want as SS beneficiary… its my money, I earned it.

According to the supreme court it is the government’s money (which is how they got away with spending it all on other things), but I agree with you.

The only thing the government should be concenred about is the status of marriage, recording it, granting license, and protecting the legal rights of a married couple.

Why? If who marries whom is none of our business, why is it the government’s business to sanction, license, even know about it? My understanding is that government has always maintained this power because of the importance of the welfare of families and children, not an issue with same-gender union.

They shouldn’t say who can or should be married… that’s discrimination

Agreed. They (government) shouldn’t be involved at all.

Marriage was around long before the church came along

Perhaps, but always defined as a union between a man and a woman, unless you have evidence of same-gender marriage before the OT?

and it’ll be here long after its gone…

That would be at the second coming.

you may allow it to impose its ‘laws’ on you, but it has no right to impose its view on the rest of society.

Agreed. Get the government out of the marriage business. It may only impose laws within the framework of the specific and limited powers granted to it in the Constitution.

Jon

 

[Rob_Brown]

Marriage is for a man and a woman, they naturally compliment each other, and they can have children! If GOD wanted same sex couples to be in union he would have made it possible for them to have children together and because they can’t it means that same sex union is unnatural, immoral and completely against god. Thats my little rant anyway lol

 

[JonNC]

Marriage is for a man and a woman, they naturally compliment each other

I don’t know; I have to wait days for my wife to compliment me.
Just kidding, my wife is truly a blessing from God. I can’t imagine life without her.

Marriage is for a man and a woman, they naturally compliment each other, and they can have children! If GOD wanted same sex couples to be in union he would have made it possible for them to have children together and because they can’t it means that same sex union is unnatural, immoral and completely against god. Thats my little rant anyway lol

And they shouldn’t be ordained, either. I would say, Rob, that there sin is no greater than heterosexual immorality, and God loves them, too, as we should.
Jon

 

[ufamtobie]

Why do Christians feel that they must interfere with the lives of others? /QUOTE]

Why? Because we are truly our Brother’s Keeper.

Ufam Tobie

 

[bpbasilphx]

I can understand about abortion (even if I still think that its none of their business), but what about gay marriage?

---

Anyone who believes it’s acceptable to kill unborn babies would eat doodoo with totasted coconut on it.

 

[dianaiad]

I can understand about abortion (even if I still think that its none of their business), but what about gay marriage?

What about it?
I’m in California. Gays have been able to enter into civil unions here for quite awhile, and receive every single right a married couple does. Every single one, save one: they cannot sue to force a religious organization to recognize them as 'married" for the purpose of employment, housing or religious purposes

They CAN sue a lay landlord for discrimination if the landlord refuses to rent to them because they are gay. They CAN sue for all sorts of things, and they do.

The reason they want to put the word ‘marriage’ on their contractual relationship (which, by the way, is nobody’s business but theirs) is so that they can force those who believe that marriage must be between two people of the opposite sex to put the imprimatur of approval upon them…and to be able to sue to make religions recognize them, no matter what their doctrines say.

That’s it. That’s all…and the gays quite freely admit it. It’s not about US forcing THEM to behave according to our rules. Nope…it is entirely the other way around.

 

[steg]

There are some great points above… thanks for sharing

I was thinking about this earlier, and was glad to see that my train of thought was born out. While I am no big fan of christianity, I do believe that nobody has the right to tell you how to worship or what rules your church may or may not have. I am not in favor of law suits that say the church must allow anyone to be ordained, or whatever… its a private ‘club’ and you can set whatever lawful rules you want. ‘Club’ members chose to allow those rules to apply to them, and if they change their mind, they are free to go. If I don’t agree with those rules, I am free to go next door to the ‘club’ that I do agree with, or start my own ‘club’.

I’ve enjoyed this and look forward to more discussions here.

 

[AnAtheist]

Originally Posted by steg

Nobody asked you.

 

[dianaiad]

Nobody asked you.

Actually, you did. That’s the problem with rhetorical questions. Someone might decide that they aren’t all that ‘rhetorical,’ and answer you.

 

[happilycatholic]

Why do Christians feel that they must interfere with the lives of others?

I can understand about abortion (even if I still think that its none of their business), but what about gay marriage? These people simply want the same as everyone else… if two consenting adults want to live together in marriage, and have the same legal protections, then who is to say they can’t? In the 8/28 broadcast of CAL, Jimmy Aiken gives a definition of marriage, but that’s not a dictionary definition… its an expanded, dogma-fied Christian definition. A marriage is a union, simple as that.

I say let them marry… its none of my business, nor yours.

I invite comments and discussion =)

It’s not about what Christians want. It’s about what God wants for Christians. We don’t make the rules, we follow the rules.

I’ll take the “dogma-fied” definition. As far as I know, the dictionary never contributed to anyone’s knowledge about Christ. Thanks.

Blessings,

HC

 

[happilycatholic]

I can understand about abortion (even if I still think that its none of their business), but what about gay marriage?

---

Anyone who believes it’s acceptable to kill unborn babies would eat doodoo with totasted coconut on it.

Thank you for making me laugh outloud.

 

[Silyosha]

Marriage is the union between two mature, consenting adults who know it’s God’s plan for them and know they are meant to and want to spend the rest of their lives loving and cherishing one another. This can be heterosexual or homosexual. But it must have emotional and spiritual depth. The idea that a married couple is only valid because they can have children doesn’t make sense. What about old couples, or people who have gone through chemotherapy or anything like that, etc.? God loves everyone, and the greatest thing of all is love, as I’m sure everyone would agree.
I hope no one was offended. That’s just my opinion.

 

[steg]

Actually, you did. That’s the problem with rhetorical questions. Someone might decide that they aren’t all that ‘rhetorical,’ and answer you.

Actually, I asked the question, and I welcome the chance to answer it…

Brother’s Keeper? Let’s ask all the people murdered because they disagreed with christianity… were the christians keeping their brothers when they seized Hypatia, dragged her into a church, stripped her, tortured her, dismembered her and dragged her body through the streets before burning it?

Let’s ask the priests who were murdered when the ‘men in black’… monks lead by zealous bishops… raided and destroyed non-christian temples and shrines, and the priests protested or tried to stop them?

This is the epitome of christian arrogance… feeling that they are right, and that everyone else needs to be saved from their self-defined hell. I feel you can believe that way if you want, but leave the rest of us out of it. That goes for Islam as well, btw.

 

[dianaiad]

Marriage is the union between two mature, consenting adults who know it’s God’s plan for them and know they are meant to and want to spend the rest of their lives loving and cherishing one another. This can be heterosexual or homosexual. But it must have emotional and spiritual depth. The idea that a married couple is only valid because they can have children doesn’t make sense. What about old couples, or people who have gone through chemotherapy or anything like that, etc.? God loves everyone, and the greatest thing of all is love, as I’m sure everyone would agree.
I hope no one was offended. That’s just my opinion.

there has never been, as far as I am aware, any nation or law that allowed the word ‘marriage’ to be applied to same sex couples.

“marriage” has always been about reproduction and inheritance rights, over and above religious considerations, and while your definition, idealized as it might be, simply isn’t the definition.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, I asked the question, and I welcome the chance to answer it…

Brother’s Keeper? Let’s ask all the people murdered because they disagreed with christianity… were the christians keeping their brothers when they seized Hypatia, dragged her into a church, stripped her, tortured her, dismembered her and dragged her body through the streets before burning it?

Let’s ask the priests who were murdered when the ‘men in black’… monks lead by zealous bishops… raided and destroyed non-christian temples and shrines, and the priests protested or tried to stop them?

This is the epitome of christian arrogance… feeling that they are right, and that everyone else needs to be saved from their self-defined hell. I feel you can believe that way if you want, but leave the rest of us out of it. That goes for Islam as well, btw.

We aren’t attempting to keep gay couples from living together or from having survivorship/inheritance and tax rights. At least, I’m not—and frankly, I don’t know anyone who is. If they do not share my faith, I have no right to impose my standards or beliefs upon them. Go. live together. Be happy. In California, before the courts allowed gays to marry, they were all quite free to do that. They could enter into civil unions and have every legal right that married people have. Every one of them.

But that’s not what they wanted. In the guise of claiming that they wanted equal rights (which they actually had) they wanted more than that. They wanted us to approve of them and accept them into our religions and lives. They wanted to force those of us who truly believe that gays cannot marry in the eyes of God to accept and approve of them, *even when they do not believe as we do. *

We are not, after all, asking them to give up any of the legal rights that they have won; just telling them that they cannot legally force other people to give moral approval to their freely chosen actions.

 

[steg]

We aren’t attempting to keep gay couples from living together or from having survivorship/inheritance and tax rights. At least, I’m not—and frankly, I don’t know anyone who is. If they do not share my faith, I have no right to impose my standards or beliefs upon them. Go. live together. Be happy. In California, before the courts allowed gays to marry, they were all quite free to do that. They could enter into civil unions and have every legal right that married people have. Every one of them.

But that’s not what they wanted. In the guise of claiming that they wanted equal rights (which they actually had) they wanted more than that. They wanted us to approve of them and accept them into our religions and lives. They wanted to force those of us who truly believe that gays cannot marry in the eyes of God to accept and approve of them, *even when they do not believe as we do. *

We are not, after all, asking them to give up any of the legal rights that they have won; just telling them that they cannot legally force other people to give moral approval to their freely chosen actions.

I agree with you whole-heartedly…

(The quote is in answer to the ‘Brother’s Keeper’ remark, which I find repulsive and insulting.)