Who are the real gay marriage bigots?

[L.T. Fan]

Something has to exist, but you don't have to call it marriage. Separating the religious sacrament from the civil contract would remove a lot of the drama associated with it.

Maybe as long as everyone was satisfied but we know the probability of that.

 

[L.T. Fan]

No doubt about it. Perfect application of separation of church and state.

I contend you cannot separate church and state. Even the cornerstone of the Judeo Christian faith advocated to render to Ceasar things that belonged to him and as to divorce his position as that it should be done in a legal manner which were the social and religious laws of society. Most of those laws were formulated by prior lawmakers all the way back to Moses. Many had been perverted over time but the fundamental underlying issue was that even though God established the sacrament of marriage, man determined how to dissolve them and Jesus aligned his own commandment with the rules established with man. Ideally marriage is a union sanctioned by God to last forever but that was dissolved by society early on and now it is so controlled that any rules are almost totally secular.

 

[skidadl]

I contend you cannot separate church and state. Even the cornerstone of the Judeo Christian faith advocated to render to Ceasar things that belonged to him and as to divorce his position as that it should be done in a legal manner which were the social and religious laws of society. Most of those laws were formulated by prior lawmakers all the way back to Moses. Many had been perverted over time but the fundamental underlying issue was that even though God established the sacrament of marriage, man determined how to dissolve them and Jesus aligned his own commandment with the rules established with man. Ideally marriage is a union sanctioned by God to last forever but that was dissolved by society early on and now it is so controlled that any rules are almost totally secular.

Yes and no.

While I do agree that the shaping of our society has come largely been rooted in Judaism/Christianity it cannot be completely married together without Theocracy. For the most part America does follow the basic moral laws of Christianity. This country was no doubt shaped by that. While I am a fan of that fact we cannot allow the government to rule the church. When you try to rule the country with the church you are in essence attempting to join the power of both of them and will ultimately surrender part of the power of the church over to the government. Bad idea. Remember, we started this thing to have freedom from government to worship. It seems disingenuous to try to sway the government religiously when we truly should desire to be separate.

It seems that you are using the term "render unto Caesar" incorrectly. That scripture refers to Christians to obey the laws/tax laws of the land. Not that Caesar should rule over religious practice.

It doesn't have to be an assault on our beliefs to let the church be the final authority on our christian marriages. Matter of fact, I'd rather be free to practice my religious beliefs apart from the gubmint. They can take their perks and shove them as far as I'm concerned. If any church wants to marry or deny marriage to any couple then they can find another church or become civilly unioned or whatever they want. You can have you marriage recognized by the government through civil unions and let the church part be a choice. I fail to see how this hurts anyone.

We live in a post christian society. I feel strong about my beliefs in christianity and I think that spreading the gospel is the most important thing a person can do but I refuse to force people to practice my religion through laws. It is not right. Jesus was a gentleman. You can believe but He's not forcing you to follow Him.

 

[L.T. Fan]

R

Yes and no.

While I do agree that the shaping of our society has come largely been rooted in Judaism/Christianity it cannot be completely married together without Theocracy. For the most part America does follow the basic moral laws of Christianity. This country was no doubt shaped by that. While I am a fan of that fact we cannot allow the government to rule the church. When you try to rule the country with the church you are in essence attempting to join the power of both of them and will ultimately surrender part of the power of the church over to the government. Bad idea. Remember, we started this thing to have freedom from government to worship. It seems disingenuous to try to sway the government religiously when we truly should desire to be separate.

It seems that you are using the term "render unto Caesar" incorrectly. That scripture refers to Christians to obey the laws/tax laws of the land. Not that Caesar should rule over religious practice.

It doesn't have to be an assault on our beliefs to let the church be the final authority on our christian marriages. Matter of fact, I'd rather be free to practice my religious beliefs apart from the gubmint. They can take their perks and shove them as far as I'm concerned. If any church wants to marry or deny marriage to any couple then they can find another church or become civilly unioned or whatever they want. You can have you marriage recognized by the government through civil unions and let the church part be a choice. I fail to see how this hurts anyone.

We live in a post christian society. I feel strong about my beliefs in christianity and I think that spreading the gospel is the most important thing a person can do but I refuse to force people to practice my religion through laws. It is not right. Jesus was a gentleman. You can believe but He's not forcing you to follow Him.

That is a different line than where I was going. My remarks were specific to marriage and how it can not be separated from "state". I do not think you can remove questions of marriage (and subsequent divorce) issues from government. Christian religion lawmakers allowed and defined divorce. If you have a definition for divorce then it only follows that you have a definition of marriage which is the state of being to be dissolved by the laws of divorce. Again that issue was addressed by the first lawgiver Moses. If God instituted marriage then he also gave to Moses the statutes for divorce. If he didn't institute in the original law then Moses instituted it as a legal system which would by definition be a law created by man. Those laws are instituted and regulated by those who governed the people. Even today the Judeo Christian church would frown upon anyone who wasn't legally married via the secular system of licencing. I am not aware of any doctrine that proposes that couples simply declare themselves as being married and live together. That is generally viewed by the church as living in sin.

 

[Clay_Allison]

R

That is a different line than where I was going. My remarks were specific to marriage and how it can not be separated from "state". I do not think you can remove questions of marriage (and subsequent divorce) issues from government. Christian religion lawmakers allowed and defined divorce. If you have a definition for divorce then it only follows that you have a definition of marriage which is the state of being to be dissolved by the laws of divorce. Again that issue was addressed by the first lawgiver Moses. If God instituted marriage then he also gave to Moses the statutes for divorce. If he didn't institute in the original law then Moses instituted it as a legal system which would by definition be a law created by man. Those laws are instituted and regulated by those who governed the people. Even today the Judeo Christian church would frown upon anyone who wasn't legally married via the secular system of licencing. I am not aware of any doctrine that proposes that couples simply declare themselves as being married and live together. That is generally viewed by the church as living in sin.

just define legal divorce as the severing of a civil union. It's easy to refer to marriage by its elements and treat it in a secular manner without calling it marriage. While we're at it we need to look at a lot of the baggage that marriage legislation carries around, like community property, tax inequality and alimony.

 

[skidadl]

R

That is a different line than where I was going. My remarks were specific to marriage and how it can not be separated from "state". I do not think you can remove questions of marriage (and subsequent divorce) issues from government. Christian religion lawmakers allowed and defined divorce. If you have a definition for divorce then it only follows that you have a definition of marriage which is the state of being to be dissolved by the laws of divorce. Again that issue was addressed by the first lawgiver Moses. If God instituted marriage then he also gave to Moses the statutes for divorce. If he didn't institute in the original law then Moses instituted it as a legal system which would by definition be a law created by man. Those laws are instituted and regulated by those who governed the people. Even today the Judeo Christian church would frown upon anyone who wasn't legally married via the secular system of licencing. I am not aware of any doctrine that proposes that couples simply declare themselves as being married and live together. That is generally viewed by the church as living in sin.

I don't see why it would be a problem for the church at all. If Cesaer doesn't offer marriage then the government has been obeyed. Just get married in the church. I'm pretty certain that marriage in the church is more important and more viable to the church than government recognition. Any chuch that demands that the government be more involved in religion is a crazy church that should be put out of its misery, lol.

In all seriousness, civil unions should pretty much solve the problem. It would be the new marriage strictly for property rights and such.