Same sex marriage in Protestant churches

[exnihilo]

I agree compleately. We live in a world with so may problems there is alot more important things for our government to be doing.

I disagree. Marriage is the foundation of civil society. This is the most important issue the government can address even if addressing it means leaving it to be as God intended. When the US Congress, and I’m sure all the states do equally unimportant things, spends its time investigating whether baseball players take steroids that is truly unimportant. But marriage is of the highest importance.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JharekCamelian,

That must be the ‘supernova’ of outrageous statements!

Irony overload, eh?

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Exnihilo,

A truly excellent post!

God bless

I disagree. Marriage is the foundation of civil society. This is the most important issue the government can address even if addressing it means leaving it to be as God intended. When the US Congress, and I’m sure all the states do equally unimportant things, spends its time investigating whether baseball players take steroids that is truly unimportant. But marriage is of the highest importance.

 

[JonNC]

I disagree. **Marriage is the foundation of civil society. This is the most important issue the government can address even if addressing it means leaving it to be as God intended. **When the US Congress, and I’m sure all the states do equally unimportant things, spends its time investigating whether baseball players take steroids that is truly unimportant. But marriage is of the highest importance.

Why is it today that we seem to have the mindset that if something is important, government should control it, or even have a role in it? It seems to me that, outside of the enumerated powers, the more important something is, the less government should be involved.

How, in today’s society, is marriage now the foundation? If anything, the government has spent the last 60 years undermining marriage. For example: Aid to Families With Dependent Children has probably done more to break up families than to “aid” them.

Marriage can be the foundation of civil society, but that doesn’t mean government should have anything to do with it. In fact, it seems looking at the last half century that marriage has the best chance of doing this if the government isn’t involved.

Jon

 

[exnihilo]

Why is it today that we seem to have the mindset that if something is important, government should control it, or even have a role in it? It seems to me that, outside of the enumerated powers, the more important something is, the less government should be involved.

The idea that government should not be involved in everything is something I find attractive but after reflection I find generally unrealistic. Murder is an important issue. Government is involved in that by making it illegal and bringing to justice those who murder. But abortion is murder. The government protects abortion through its law. I consider this a terrible evil. It is important that abortion be made illegal. It is also important for other people that abortion be legal. Both sides are right that this is an important issue and because of that it will be a political issue.

The problem is that most people want to use the force of government to mould citizens to their ideal. This problem gets worse the more people imagine themselves to be god, which is the root of sin. The better (the less sinful) a people are the less they need government. The worse they are (the more sinful) the more they will have government.

How, in today’s society, is marriage now the foundation? If anything, the government has spent the last 60 years undermining marriage. For example: Aid to Families With Dependent Children has probably done more to break up families than to “aid” them.

Marriage is still the foundation of civilization and so ours is descendent.

Marriage can be the foundation of civil society, but that doesn’t mean government should have anything to do with it. In fact, it seems looking at the last half century that marriage has the best chance of doing this if the government isn’t involved.

But it must be involved. A large contingency of people want to redefine marriage. The government must either let them have their way or not. Either way it is making a decision. It is making an act of change or an act (of resistance) to stay the same. The government has laws that are based on a condition of being marriage. Property inheritance and Social Security are just a few. Since the government is already involved in marriage in this way it is unavoidable that it agreeing to redefine marriage or not is an important issue.

I’m all for small government in principle. But I personally will not yield on this issue because I know that we already have huge government and most people want even more of it. What I want doesn’t exist in even the slightest sense. It would not be a substantial victory for me to have smaller government in terms of government not defining marriage if that were even possible and it is not since government has to define marriage for the purposes of its inheritance, SS and other laws.

A truly excellent post!

Thanks!

 

[JonNC]

=exnihilo;9537730]The idea that government should not be involved in everything is something I find attractive but after reflection I find generally unrealistic. Murder is an important issue. Government is involved in that by making it illegal and bringing to justice those who murder. But abortion is murder. The government protects abortion through its law. I consider this a terrible evil. It is important that abortion be made illegal. It is also important for other people that abortion be legal. Both sides are right that this is an important issue and because of that it will be a political issue.

ISTM that the comparison is a bit out of balance, except in the sense that we now see what government has wroght on the abortion issue. I have no reason to believe that, given the track record on marriage, our government will do better concerning marriage.

The problem is that most people want to use the force of government to mould citizens to their ideal. This problem gets worse the more people imagine themselves to be god, which is the root of sin. The better (the less sinful) a people are the less they need government. The worse they are (the more sinful) the more they will have government.

I can’t argue with any of this, except to say that the intention of the founders was to prevent the government from having that type of power. Extracting marriage from that type of gvernment power seems prudent.

Marriage is still the foundation of civilization and so ours is descendent.

It won’t be if marriage continues to be eroded.

But it must be involved. A large contingency of people want to redefine marriage. The government must either let them have their way or not. Either way it is making a decision. It is making an act of change or an act (of resistance) to stay the same. The government has laws that are based on a condition of being marriage. Property inheritance and Social Security are just a few. Since the government is already involved in marriage in this way it is unavoidable that it agreeing to redefine marriage or not is an important issue.

I am simply adding a third alternative. I strongly believe in being involved in preventing government from undermining marriage in the way it is doing now.

I’m all for small government in principle. But I personally will not yield on this issue because I know that we already have huge government and most people want even more of it. What I want doesn’t exist in even the slightest sense. It would not be a substantial victory for me to have smaller government in terms of government not defining marriage if that were even possible and it is not since government has to define marriage for the purposes of its inheritance, SS and other laws.

We have to be for smaller government in more than just principle, but also in expectation and insistence. A good example of the is the attempts by the Catholic Church and others to stand against the HHS mandate.
I strongly disagree that government “must” define marraige. To allow this eventually means that the government will determine how the Church defines it, under the pretense of “social justice” and “equality”.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

We have to be for smaller government in more than just principle, but also in expectation and insistence. A good example of the is the attempts by the Catholic Church and others to stand against the HHS mandate.
I strongly disagree that government “must” define marraige. To allow this eventually means that the government will determine how the Church defines it, under the pretense of “social justice” and “equality”.

Jon

But it’s too late to say government shouldn’t be involved in marriage - can’t put the genie back in the bottle, or the toothpaste back in the tube…

 

[Hunter24]

I disagree. Marriage is the foundation of civil society. This is the most important issue the government can address even if addressing it means leaving it to be as God intended. When the US Congress, and I’m sure all the states do equally unimportant things, spends its time investigating whether baseball players take steroids that is truly unimportant. But marriage is of the highest importance.

I would respectfully disagree, while marriage is important in almost all cultures, it is not the very pillar of society, the individual is followed by the family unit, which is linked to but not dependent on marriage. Also, there have been many succesful society’s with very different ideas of marriage. In india meany marriages are still arranged. Islam is accepting of polygamy. And many tribal cultures practice group marriage. Laws on social issues do no good if your government is in shambles.

 

[stewstew03]

I would respectfully disagree, while marriage is important in almost all cultures, it is not the very pillar of society, the individual is followed by the family unit, which is linked to but not dependent on marriage. Also, there have been many succesful society’s with very different ideas of marriage. In india meany marriages are still arranged. Islam is accepting of polygamy. And many tribal cultures practice group marriage. Laws on social issues do no good if your government is in shambles.

Any “family units” that have only two moms or two dads? Any same-sex marriages in India, or Islamic societies, or tribal cultures?

 

[Hunter24]

Any “family units” that have only two moms or two dads? Any same-sex marriages in India, or Islamic societies, or tribal cultures?

No because homosexuals can’t have children on their own. As for adoption by gays, I don’t care about that personally because I’m not gay or up for adoption. However the human being probably benefits most from a male and female caretaker. That said, this world is less than ideal.

 

[stewstew03]

No because homosexuals can’t have children on their own. As for adoption by gays, I don’t care about that personally because I’m not gay or up for adoption. However the human being probably benefits most from a male and female caretaker. That said, this world is less than ideal.

When people make the assertion that marriage is the “foundation” of a society, it is because societies cannot survive without the institution of marriage (monogamous, polygamous, or otherwise). However, societies can and do survive without homosexual marriage.

 

[Hunter24]

When people make the assertion that marriage is the “foundation” of a society, it is because societies cannot survive without the institution of marriage (monogamous, polygamous, or otherwise). However, societies can and do survive without homosexual marriage.

It is perfectly possible for a society to survive without marriage. People will have children, married or not. And it’s not about what is necessary, it’s about the projection of ones morals unto another.

 

[stewstew03]

It is perfectly possible for a society to survive without marriage. People will have children, married or not. And it’s not about what is necessary, it’s about the projection of ones morals unto another.

Do you have a particular society in mind (i.e., one that has survived without some concept of marriage)?

 

[Hunter24]

Do you have a particular society in mind (i.e., one that has survived without some concept of marriage)?

Do you have on in mind that hasnt? There’s no evidence that’s a society withought parents would just collapse.

 

[Nine_Two]

Do you have on in mind that hasnt? There’s no evidence that’s a society withought parents would just collapse.

There is no evidence that there aren’t six nostriled aliens beneath the gas clouds of Saturn. Prove me wrong.

The onus of proof in this situation would be on you to prove there has been a functioning society without the concept of marriage. You are, after all, the one who made the assertion that it is something that is not important in society.

Your opponent, meanwhile, made the positive statement that it is the foundation of society. You can prove this wrong by coming up with an exception.

 

[exnihilo]

ISTM that the comparison is a bit out of balance, except in the sense that we now see what government has wroght on the abortion issue. I have no reason to believe that, given the track record on marriage, our government will do better concerning marriage.

I dont have high hopes for our democracy given the current condition of the citizenry, but the issue will be addressed.

I can’t argue with any of this, except to say that the intention of the founders was to prevent the government from having that type of power. Extracting marriage from that type of gvernment power seems prudent.

I agree with that but their influence over our government is long over. The governments of the modern US are far more powerful and oppressive than I believe was imagined possible.

We have to be for smaller government in more than just principle, but also in expectation and insistence. A good example of the is the attempts by the Catholic Church and others to stand against the HHS mandate.
I strongly disagree that government “must” define marraige. To allow this eventually means that the government will determine how the Church defines it, under the pretense of “social justice” and “equality”.

The government is always involved in religion. What is a religious matter versus a non-religious? Any belief a person has is first informed by their metaphysical belief. The government has banned the practice of polygamy. The Mormon’s believe(d) in polygamy. Why should they not be able to have many wives? Some Christian’s have a religious belief that they should use only prayer to heal their children. They believe medical care is unnecessary. If the government contradicts that religious belief it is making a religious statement. It is defining acceptable religion. In short the idea of the state being completely divorced from religion is impossible.

I just dont see how the state can avoid the issue of marriage when marriage is also a legal concept and there are a vast array of laws.

I would respectfully disagree, while marriage is important in almost all cultures, it is not the very pillar of society, the individual is followed by the family unit, which is linked to but not dependent on marriage. Also, there have been many succesful society’s with very different ideas of marriage. In india meany marriages are still arranged. Islam is accepting of polygamy. And many tribal cultures practice group marriage. Laws on social issues do no good if your government is in shambles.

The individual comes from the family not the family from the individual. It requires a human male and a human female to make an individual. Not even the evolutionary sciences claim there was ever a non-sexed human. There simply could not have been. Anyone other than the first man or woman that existed is dependent on sexual reproduction, a male and a female. Since no one alive can claim to be the first man or woman their individual existence is dependent on sexual reproduction. So the family (the source of sexual reproduction) is the source of the individual.

The different ideas of marriage are only in regard to number not the sex of those in a marriage. No society would be successful if its idea of marriage was the union of two men or two women. Such a society would die off. It would have no way to reproduce. So if by success we mean continued survival any other notion of marriage must be unsuccessful. Of course a society could think marriage is the pairing of any two people. But such a society will succeed, that is continue to survive, only because its idea of marriage contains a union of a man and a woman. So survival depends on marriage being at least between a man and a woman. Any other relationship will not allow a society survive. Any other notion of relationship survives only because the true understanding of marriage survives.

 

[Hunter24]

The oldest evidence of anything amounting to marriage dates to 5000 years ago with written accounts to 2500 BC. However this is beside the point of how allowing gay marriage would be harmful to society.

 

[rinnie]

The United Methodists are really divided over the homosexual issue, more than most mainline churches. They do have a strong pro-gay lobby, but they have not been able to get any official pro-gay statements passed. The good thing going for the Methodists is that they are an international body. The USA church is shrinking, but the United Methodist Church in Africa is growing, and they are conservative. This African voice is frustrating the agenda of the more liberal American church.

Are you saying this being conservative is a good thing? Here is what I don’t understand how does this gay marriage work when God says its an abomination?

Now if people say these people are not going to engage in sex, what kind of marriage is that? Not Gods idea.

A MAN and WOMAN should submit to eachother compeletly. And for 2 people of the same sex to submit to one another COMPLETELY, which is in a sexual manner, if they are not MAN and WOMAN is an abomination. So how does this fit into the word of God?

 

[rinnie]

Do you have on in mind that hasnt? There’s no evidence that’s a society withought parents would just collapse.

Are you KIDDING ME? Pick up the newspaper, watch the news.

It was said years ago that parents who put their jobs first and family last will suffer. Look at the proof man, its in the pudding.

Kids have every single material thing out there and are on drugs and killing themselves and others, Why?’

Simple, they want attention. Attention they never got at home.

First think asked where is that Mother, Father. Not that all people who have the love of a family never go wrong.

But not like today. Its every single minute of the day, drugs are taking over.

The Pope said it over 60 years ago. He said that parents should give the child less, and more love and time, not things.

Well the world just proved him right . And I am sure he is not rejoicing over it.

And by the way who in the world will love you more then your Parents. And you think society would not totally colapse without the love of Parents.

You have got to be kidding. Who is going to love you enough to take the moods, push you forward and be there when all else fails.

It is God and the Blessed Mother and the Mother and Dad, its family man!!

 

[Hunter24]

Are you KIDDING ME? Pick up the newspaper, watch the news.

It was said years ago that parents who put their jobs first and family last will suffer. Look at the proof man, its in the pudding.

Kids have every single material thing out there and are on drugs and killing themselves and others, Why?’

Simple, they want attention. Attention they never got at home.

First think asked where is that Mother, Father. Not that all people who have the love of a family never go wrong.

But not like today. Its every single minute of the day, drugs are taking over.

The Pope said it over 60 years ago. He said that parents should give the child less, and more love and time, not things.

Well the world just proved him right . And I am sure he is not rejoicing over it.

And by the way who in the world will love you more then your Parents. And you think society would not totally colapse without the love of Parents.

You have got to be kidding. Who is going to love you enough to take the moods, push you forward and be there when all else fails.

It is God and the Blessed Mother and the Mother and Dad, its family man!!

I spoke poorly, I ment that parents are married. These things you describe are naturally occurring, as time goes on every generation pushes the envelope more than the last.