PDA

View Full Version : New Jersey court recognizes right to same-sex unions...



LifeInReturn
10-25-2006, 05:16 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/25/jersey.samesex.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/25/jersey.samesex.ap/index.html)

:(


TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- New Jersey's Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions.

The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.

The ruling is similar to the 1999 decision in Vermont that led to civil unions there, which offer the benefits of marriage, but not the name. (Opinion -- pdf)

"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the 4-3 majority's decision.

Outside the Supreme Court, news of the ruling caused confusion, with many of the roughly 100 gay marriage supporters outside asking each other what it meant. Many started to agree that they needed to push for a state constitutional amendment to institute gay marriage.



The rest is at the link.

*sigh*

simplyG
10-25-2006, 05:36 PM
Is this move surprising, at all? I'm shocked that Frisco hasn't slipped into the ocean already!

JusThoughtZ
10-25-2006, 05:56 PM
:( mcgreevey gave us a bad image upon our already repulsive reputation

3SpiritsEM
10-25-2006, 05:59 PM
And u think you’re gonna get a negative response from HCR members. :(

Brian
10-25-2006, 06:24 PM
They don't call it dirty jersey for nothing...ewwwwwwwwwwwwww:eek:

joseph29
10-25-2006, 08:19 PM
wow jersey stay losing. 1st mcgreevy, knicks and jets suck; makes it hard for a brother to rep his own state.

Gloria
10-25-2006, 08:25 PM
:( mcgreevey gave us a bad image upon our already repulsive reputation

LOL!!! Sorry...but this one has me laughing hard...:o

Hugh McBryde
10-25-2006, 08:36 PM
This will open the door to Polygamy in all it's forms.

eternal
10-25-2006, 08:40 PM
I still don't understand why Christians don't treat adulterors and drunkards, lusters and slanderers the same as homosexuals.

The church shouldn't ordain ANY of their marriages. The state, however, is a different matter. If not, I should expect to see as much of an outrage when ANY non Christian is married, whether secular or sacred.

the answer
10-25-2006, 08:42 PM
I still don't understand why Christians don't treat adulterors and drunkards, lusters and slanderers the same as homosexuals.

The church shouldn't ordain ANY of their marriages. The state, however, is a different matter. If not, I should expect to see as much of an outrage when ANY non Christian is married, whether secular or sacred.

So are u for gay marriage, as long as the church isn't involved?


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

Hugh McBryde
10-25-2006, 08:43 PM
Just saying that it's going to happen.

illuminaticx
10-25-2006, 08:43 PM
That suckx... It's interesting to see what states allow this type of marriage.

J =]

eternal
10-25-2006, 08:44 PM
So are u for gay marriage, as long as the church isn't involved?


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29


Are you for adulterors and fornicators to get married, as long as the church isn't involved? How about drunks or slanderors? Idolators?

J Hoyt
10-25-2006, 08:50 PM
I still don't understand why Christians don't treat adulterors and drunkards, lusters and slanderers the same as homosexuals.

The church shouldn't ordain ANY of their marriages. The state, however, is a different matter. If not, I should expect to see as much of an outrage when ANY non Christian is married, whether secular or sacred.

Drunkenness has nothing to do with relationships and marriage.

One can be a drunk but be single/engaged/married/whatever and that doesn't change anything. They're still in one sin: drunkenness. If a drunk gets married, he's not committing another sin.

However a homosexual marriage is inherently wrong.

the answer
10-25-2006, 08:50 PM
Are you for adulterors and fornicators to get married, as long as the church isn't involved? How about drunks or slanderors? Idolators?

adulterors- are already married
fornicators- yes
drunks- yes
slanderor- yes
Idolators-yes

*grabs tennis racket, hits question back*

Are u for gay marriage if the church isn't involved?

BTW E...How do u define marriage?

its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

eternal
10-25-2006, 08:55 PM
adulterors- are already married
fornicators- yes
drunks- yes
slanderor- yes
Idolators-yes

*grabs tennis racket, hits question back*

Are u for gay marriage if the church isn't involved?

BTW E...How do u define marriage?

its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

No, you commit adultery whenever you carry lust towards another woman. Men who lust are adulterors. Shall they get married?

Why do you allow fornicators and the rest of them?

I view homosexuality along the same lines as all of these. Homosexuality is a sin, and it is includded in lists with these other sins as not being a part of the Kingdom of God.

I have no clue how it is anyone differentiates homosexual sin from any of these other ones. If it is in on the basis of it being a "sexual sin" then I am confused as to why adultery and fornication do not elicit the same response?

I am for a consistent ethic.

Hugh McBryde
10-25-2006, 09:03 PM
Tell me, when a guy drags two women into church, and sits down, and says "Hi, we got married in New Jersey", what are you going to do?

eternal
10-25-2006, 09:15 PM
Tell me, when a guy drags two women into church, and sits down, and says "Hi, we got married in New Jersey", what are you going to do?

Tell them the truth of God, that homosexuality is a sin. That I hope they stay and receive the Word of God being preached in word and deed, and pray that their encounter with a Godly experience will help move them to repentance and acceptance of the One True God.

the answer
10-25-2006, 09:16 PM
No, you commit adultery whenever you carry lust towards another woman. Men who lust are adulterors. Shall they get married?

Why do you allow fornicators and the rest of them?

I view homosexuality along the same lines as all of these. Homosexuality is a sin, and it is includded in lists with these other sins as not being a part of the Kingdom of God.

I have no clue how it is anyone differentiates homosexual sin from any of these other ones. If it is in on the basis of it being a "sexual sin" then I am confused as to why adultery and fornication do not elicit the same response?

I am for a consistent ethic.

No, you commit adultery whenever you carry lust towards another woman. Men who lust are adulterors. Shall they get married?

ok ok...lol...I know...u get what I mean tho :p But YES they can get married too!

I allow them becuase that has nothing to do with wherther u can get married or not.

How do u define marriage?


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

p.s I won't be back for a few hours, so I'll respond back tonight


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

Hugh McBryde
10-25-2006, 09:18 PM
"Tell them the truth of God, that homosexuality is a sin."Um, why is one guy with two women a homosexuality issue?

eternal
10-25-2006, 09:21 PM
No, you commit adultery whenever you carry lust towards another woman. Men who lust are adulterors. Shall they get married?

ok ok...lol...I know...u get what I mean tho :p But YES they can get married too!

I allow them becuase that has nothing to do with wherther u can get married or not.

How do u define marriage?


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

p.s I won't be back for a few hours, so I'll respond back tonight


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

Loving your wife as Christ loved the church. And a wife honoring her huband as to the Lord. This is why we must not marry outside the faith, as we are committed to one another IN CHRIST. In our faith to Christ we have faith and intimacy with one another, and it can be said, as Jesus quoted, "two become one flesh."

Sadly too many people do not define marriage this way, but rather as consenting adults. Therefore the state can marry folks as they see fit, and I will only marry as I see the bible teaching us to. I will call all people to truth, whether they accept it or not.

peace.

Hugh McBryde
10-25-2006, 09:24 PM
God defines marriage as a man with women, perhaps more than one woman.

Devin
10-26-2006, 12:28 AM
God defines marriage as a man with women, perhaps more than one woman.


and your purpose for bringing this up is????????:confused:

eternal
10-26-2006, 12:30 AM
God defines marriage as a man with women, perhaps more than one woman.

As I have written, I believe the bible defines marriage as much deeper than that. Man/Woman/God.

the answer
10-26-2006, 04:19 AM
As I have written, I believe the bible defines marriage as much deeper than that. Man/Woman/God.


ok... so can marriage ever be man/man and God?
Or woman/woman/God?


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

eternal
10-26-2006, 11:19 AM
ok... so can marriage ever be man/man and God?
Or woman/woman/God?


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

Not ordained by God.

the answer
10-26-2006, 02:48 PM
Not ordained by God.


ok!!! so why do u protest when christians make a fuss about it? U said it yourself..."not ordained by God"

Why does that switch when it comes to the secular world?

marriage is unique becuase it is someting inparticular. We cannot ( society or church) change what marriage is. GOd set the example from the beginning, MAn/woman( yes God too- even tho I think secular marriages are good even tho they don't include God)

I think we should resist the gov and those in the gay community who are trying to make marriage "whatever we feel" God set it up, lets not change it!


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

eternal
10-26-2006, 10:17 PM
ok!!! so why do u protest when christians make a fuss about it? U said it yourself..."not ordained by God"

Why does that switch when it comes to the secular world?

marriage is unique becuase it is someting inparticular. We cannot ( society or church) change what marriage is. GOd set the example from the beginning, MAn/woman( yes God too- even tho I think secular marriages are good even tho they don't include God)

I think we should resist the gov and those in the gay community who are trying to make marriage "whatever we feel" God set it up, lets not change it!


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

The difference between you and me it appears, is that you are willing to create a different category between homosexuality and every other sin. I don't think that is biblical at all. They are all in the same category.

Why do you think a secular marriage is good even without God? Do you think God ordains a marriage that does not include Him? I do not, which is why I am unwilling to make distinctions between them in to that respect.

Adulterors, fornicators, swindelors, drunkards, covetous, and the homosexual are all in the same boat. Sinners in need of Christ. And they do not have part in the Kingdom of God. I refuse to bias myself against any one group in particular. They are all in the same boat.

I am highly interested in your reasoning for allowing yourself to make a distinctions? Why are the other sins permitted by God but not homosexuality? Please explain.

the answer
10-27-2006, 01:52 AM
The difference between you and me it appears, is that you are willing to create a different category between homosexuality and every other sin. I don't think that is biblical at all. They are all in the same category.

Why do you think a secular marriage is good even without God? Do you think God ordains a marriage that does not include Him? I do not, which is why I am unwilling to make distinctions between them in to that respect.

Adulterors, fornicators, swindelors, drunkards, covetous, and the homosexual are all in the same boat. Sinners in need of Christ. And they do not have part in the Kingdom of God. I refuse to bias myself against any one group in particular. They are all in the same boat.

I am highly interested in your reasoning for allowing yourself to make a distinctions? Why are the other sins permitted by God but not homosexuality? Please explain.

I'm not making a different category between sin. Really this is not a sin issue. Its an issue of purpose and design.

When I asked u to define marriage u said MAN/WOMAN/GOD...I think that is a good way to look at it. And then u agreed that 2 men and God were not a marriage. Cool!

The issue here is that THERE ARE 2 MEN TRYING TO GET MARRIED! The fact that they are homosexual is really irrelevant.

If 2 straight men wanted to get married, just cuz they were such good friends and had nothing better to do, I'd be against that too! Or 2 Women, striaght as a board, if they wanted to tie the knot...I'd be against that also. Being gay is not the issue. The issue is that 2 men IS NOT marriage. It is a man and woman. that is how the bible defines marriage. There would be no society if same sex marriage were the norm, we'd die out probably.

If we allow society to change the definition of marrige, soon dogs and cats and cows won't be off limits for humans to marry. I i know there are people just waiting to do it.

So to bring in drunkennes and other sins misses the point. This isn't about that. This is about WHAT IS MARRIAGE...Is it something inparticular or whatever society chooses? I think it has a very precise definition and it excludes 2 men or women ( gay or straight) to get married.


Does God ordain marriage without him? I think so! People who are not believers who are married and have sex are NOT sinning right? Why? Cuz they are married! So why would God call it fornication outside marriage if he didn't ackowledge their marriage??



its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

J Hoyt
10-27-2006, 07:44 AM
The issue here is that THERE ARE 2 MEN TRYING TO GET MARRIED! The fact that they are homosexual is really irrelevant.

If 2 straight men wanted to get married, just cuz they were such good friends and had nothing better to do, I'd be against that too! Or 2 Women, striaght as a board, if they wanted to tie the knot...I'd be against that also. Being gay is not the issue. The issue is that 2 men IS NOT marriage. It is a man and woman. that is how the bible defines marriage. There would be no society if same sex marriage were the norm, we'd die out probably.

Whoa, I've never seperated those two issues in my mind before but yeah, you're absolutely right. I can't believe I missed that, thanks.

eternal
10-27-2006, 09:12 AM
So to bring in drunkennes and other sins misses the point. This isn't about that. This is about WHAT IS MARRIAGE...Is it something inparticular or whatever society chooses? I think it has a very precise definition and it excludes 2 men or women ( gay or straight) to get married.


Does God ordain marriage without him? I think so! People who are not believers who are married and have sex are NOT sinning right? Why? Cuz they are married! So why would God call it fornication outside marriage if he didn't ackowledge their marriage??


Why is drunkenness inappropriate? They do not have "God" in their covenant. So while they have the male/female part, they don't have God. That is the problem here. You are settling for 2 out of 3, and saying essentialy, "at least that is better than 1 out of 3." THAT IS NOT TRUE!

How can you claim that a marriage void of God, is ordained by God? That He sanctions such a marriage? They refuse His proper place in their relationship.

The sin of homosexuality is not their "marriage" but rather their lust and actions towards one another. The sin of drunkeness is not their marriage necessarily, but again their lust and actions towards the intoxication, same as fornication, etc. They are all the same. And even further, THEY ARE ALL breaches of covenant. ALL OF THEM. Towards God and one another. They all fail.

So to try and make a distinction between the sins based on that somehow marriage itself is sin, doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, nor do I find any basis for it in scripture.

3SpiritsEM
10-27-2006, 10:00 AM
Area man charged with bestiality
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
By TIM YOUNKMAN
TIMES WRITER
A 44-year-old Saginaw man remains jailed today on charges of bestiality after he was seen engaged in sexual acts with a dead dog, Michigan State Police troopers said.

Ronald Kuch was arrested after police searched the area of Midland and Carter roads Friday for a man who ran away from a Bay County Animal Control officer. The entire incident was within view of a nearby day care center.

At his arraignment on Monday, Kuch demanded a preliminary examination in Bay County District Court. District Judge Craig Alston ordered him to remain jailed in lieu of $500,000 bond pending a hearing on the evidence Nov. 6.


So you belive if this man wanted to marry live dog he should, a that his sin is no different than any other sin.

eternal
10-27-2006, 10:03 AM
So you belive if this man wanted to marry live dog he should, a that his sin is no different than any other sin.

An animal can not consent.

3SpiritsEM
10-27-2006, 11:10 AM
An animal can not consent.

So a 35 year old man and his 19 year old daughter or two 20 year old sisters would be ok because thy are adults.

You did not answer if this sin is no different than any other sin in God's eyes.

If a animal can consent or not you believe that if he wanted to marry his dog Christians should stay out of it a just let the govement say yes or no. and if the government says yes. than so be it

Hugh McBryde
10-27-2006, 11:43 AM
"I believe the bible defines marriage as much deeper than that. Man/Woman/God."So when Paul says that two unbelievers are man and wife, they're not? I refer to 1st Corinthians 7 in which the scenario appears to be a converted man or woman whose spouse has not converted. I also believe that properly, marriage is a man, a woman and God, but what this does not address is whether or not it is also a man, God and yet another woman concurrently.

the answer
10-27-2006, 02:22 PM
Why is drunkenness inappropriate? They do not have "God" in their covenant. So while they have the male/female part, they don't have God. That is the problem here. You are settling for 2 out of 3, and saying essentialy, "at least that is better than 1 out of 3." THAT IS NOT TRUE!

To say two drunks can't get married doesn't make sense. Drunkenness is a sin, deal with that, don't roll it over to be a requirement for marriage.

How can you claim that a marriage void of God, is ordained by God? That He sanctions such a marriage? They refuse His proper place in their relationship.

I gave one reason last post : Does God ordain marriage without him? I think so! People who are not believers who are married and have sex are NOT sinning right? Why? Cuz they are married! So why would God call it fornication outside marriage if he didn't ackowledge their marriage??

Are 2 non believers who are married and having sex in sin? Why or why not?

The sin of homosexuality is not their "marriage" but rather their lust and actions towards one another. The sin of drunkeness is not their marriage necessarily, but again their lust and actions towards the intoxication, same as fornication, etc. They are all the same. And even further, THEY ARE ALL breaches of covenant. ALL OF THEM. Towards God and one another. They all fail.

In your definition u didn't include animals, cars, computers, or foods as potential partners for marriage. Why? Marriage is between 2 humans man and woman. SIN IS NOT THE ISSUE.

So to try and make a distinction between the sins based on that somehow marriage itself is sin, doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, nor do I find any basis for it in scripture.



I don't follow. What distinctions am I making?


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

the answer
10-27-2006, 02:24 PM
So when Paul says that two unbelievers are man and wife, they're not? I refer to 1st Corinthians 7 in which the scenario appears to be a converted man or woman whose spouse has not converted. I also believe that properly, marriage is a man, a woman and God, but what this does not address is whether or not it is also a man, God and yet another woman concurrently.


Good point! :D

God says " stay married to the unbeliever" why would he say that if he doesn't akcknowledge non christian marriage?


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

kingsman2ki
10-27-2006, 02:46 PM
So a 35 year old man and his 19 year old daughter or two 20 year old sisters would be ok because thy are adults.

You did not answer if this sin is no different than any other sin in God's eyes.

If a animal can consent or not you believe that if he wanted to marry his dog Christians should stay out of it a just let the govement say yes or no. and if the government says yes. than so be it


So, how will you minister to the homosexuals if you carry a belief of "if the government says yes. than so be it"?

Hugh McBryde
10-27-2006, 02:58 PM
I think it's kind of critical to realize that soon "everything goes" will be a REALITY. So in this reality, this culture we swim in, what will we do in the churches?

kingsman2ki
10-27-2006, 03:04 PM
I believe soon in this reality, that if we don't use the medium of voting ...

What we call ministry, will be considered discrimination.

3SpiritsEM
10-27-2006, 03:24 PM
So, how will you minister to the homosexuals if you carry a belief of "if the government says yes. than so be it"?

It's eternal thats for letting gays get married i,m against it bro


I still don't understand why Christians don't treat adulterors and drunkards, lusters and slanderers the same as homosexuals.

The church shouldn't ordain ANY of their marriages. The state, however, is a different matter. If not, I should expect to see as much of an outrage when ANY non Christian is married, whether secular or sacred.

Hugh McBryde
10-27-2006, 03:31 PM
I don't care WHAT Gays do and call marriage, since God defines marriage, not men. They can call it marriage until judgement day and it won't be. What this should direct our attention to is GOD's definition of marriage, for that is the only one that counts.

kingsman2ki
10-27-2006, 04:07 PM
It's eternal thats for letting gays get married i,m against it bro


I apologize bro.

eternal
10-27-2006, 06:56 PM
So when Paul says that two unbelievers are man and wife, they're not? I refer to 1st Corinthians 7 in which the scenario appears to be a converted man or woman whose spouse has not converted. I also believe that properly, marriage is a man, a woman and God, but what this does not address is whether or not it is also a man, God and yet another woman concurrently.

The Christian must remain faithful to the Lord and the covenant they made. That is what sin is, being unfaithful. Repentance is being faithful to the covenant.


So a 35 year old man and his 19 year old daughter or two 20 year old sisters would be ok because thy are adults.

You did not answer if this sin is no different than any other sin in God's eyes.

If a animal can consent or not you believe that if he wanted to marry his dog Christians should stay out of it a just let the govement say yes or no. and if the government says yes. than so be it

I think it is horrendous. But how is that sin any different than any other sin?

All I am asking from you guys is CONSISTENCY. Treat ALL THE SINS the same. Either we are against them all, or we acknowledge that if the SECULAR government wants to allow this or that, then fine. But we can not be inconsistent. Everyone in this thread has been inconsistent.

PS: I think ALL sins are the same in God's eyes. I think sins have various levels in the eyes of humans.

peace.

Hugh McBryde
10-27-2006, 07:03 PM
"The Christian must remain faithful to the Lord and the covenant they made. That is what sin is, being unfaithful. Repentance is being faithful to the covenant."Yes, but I was pointing to the notion that God is required for people to be man and wife that you touched on. Evidently God is an integral part of that relationship, but clearly it can be initiated and continue without God. The only part that God plays in a non Christian marriage is that he defines what marriage is. The marriage can exist without God being present in the lives of either party.

Hugh

VRW
10-27-2006, 07:20 PM
Kinda going to take a turn here......

Do you believe that homosexuals should have the same basic rights as any other citizen?

And this question is not to argue over whether they should be allowed to marry. I think that is a moot point because marriage is a God ordained institution that cannot be compromised.

What about civil unions or common law. A way of recognition so that they can have access to healthcare and insurance- things that I dont think should be denied to anyone.

i've had plenty of conversations with gay people and a major push in this movement is so that they can have the same legal rights that states given married couples. Cant they have those same rights without being married?

Hugh McBryde
10-27-2006, 07:26 PM
Don't look now, but major employers are already providing Marriage type benefits to Same Sex relationships. My wife's employer does, Ford Motor Company does, the credit companies I deal with take great care not to investigate the nature of relationship that cosigning individuals have with one another, so as not to descriminate against them on the basis of their "sexual orientation".

The portion of the citizenry in the USA that is married is now in a minority, most of us are existing without the "benefits of marriage", that is, legally registered marriage.

VRW
10-27-2006, 07:36 PM
Don't look now, but major employers are already providing Marriage type benefits to Same Sex relationships. My wife's employer does, Ford Motor Company does, the credit companies I deal with take great care not to investigate the nature of relationship that cosigning individuals have with one another, so as not to descriminate against them on the basis of their "sexual orientation".

The portion of the citizenry in the USA that is married is now in a minority, most of us are existing without the "benefits of marriage", that is, legally registered marriage.

That's all pretty recent and not the norm or majority. What about when filing next of kin (hospitals, power of attorney, etc)?

So if they could have those "benefits" but not have a marriage, would you be okay with that?

I ask these questions because denying them these things is not going to make them turn straight. Call me crazy but I think everyone should have equal rights. If we start singling out the sin of homosexuality to discriminate, why not discriminate against all sinners? Like if you fornicate, you are not allowed to have insurance, for example.

Just some food for thought.

Hugh McBryde
10-27-2006, 07:45 PM
I guess what I'm leading up to is that marriage is being attacked through the law, and we all know as Christians who the attacker is. If marriage is so important, why do most eschew it at this time? More and more people are finding benefits in being UNMARRIED legally, as opposed to being MARRIED legally. So I think it's not that they really want to be married, someone rather is trying to DESTROY marriages.

The greater danger here is that we will try to draw the line in the "marriage battle" at what the definition of marriage is in the eyes of the Goverment. We're losing and will lose that battle. I think what we ought to do instead is focus on marriage contracts, so that we can establish a form of marriage that the government cannot change. We have the right to religious freedom (supposedly) in this country. Why can I not make a marriage contract with someone in which I define marriage narrowly and religiously? Why can't I have a marriage contract for instance that insists on adultery being the only valid reason for divorce and so on?

We have accepted that the legal sanction of a marriage by the state is right and now we have let the state into our marriages to redefine those relationships. Canada is already for instance, declaring that Polygamies exist for the simpe expediency of using existing divorce laws to break them up, assign custody and divide property. Are we going to wait until marriage is defined as any number of adults of whatever composition and orientation before we realize this could hurt us? What if a former room mate turns out to be gay and claims they were married to you? Can the move into your marriage and start grabbing your assets and try to take custody of your children?

the answer
10-27-2006, 08:05 PM
Everyone in this thread has been inconsistent.

PS: I think ALL sins are the same in God's eyes. I think sins have various levels in the eyes of humans.

peace.

I have said over and over this is not about sin, so I have not been inconsitent.

2. I disagree all sin is the same...I think some are worse then others.
They are equal in the eyes of God in that any sin will send u to hell. He destroyed 2 cities for sexual sin, he never did that with any other..its very serious to God.


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

eternal
10-27-2006, 08:18 PM
Yes, but I was pointing to the notion that God is required for people to be man and wife that you touched on. Evidently God is an integral part of that relationship, but clearly it can be initiated and continue without God. The only part that God plays in a non Christian marriage is that he defines what marriage is. The marriage can exist without God being present in the lives of either party.

Hugh

God's deffinition is God/man/woman.

Whether it is 2 out of 3 or 1 out of 3 doesn't matter. You seem to suggest that 2 out of 3 is good enough. As long as it is a man and woman it is still God's kind of marriage. That is not true.

Marriages exist outside of God, clearly. But they are not sanctioned by God in the same way that a man/woman/God marriage covenant is.

So slanderors marrying each other is no different than homosexuals getting married. If the state wants to allow that, fine. But I will have no part of either of them.

J Hoyt
10-27-2006, 08:21 PM
God's deffinition is God/man/woman.

Whether it is 2 out of 3 or 1 out of 3 doesn't matter. You seem to suggest that 2 out of 3 is good enough. As long as it is a man and woman it is still God's kind of marriage. That is not true.

Marriages exist outside of God, clearly. But they are not sanctioned by God in the same way that a man/woman/God marriage covenant is.

So slanderors marrying each other is no different than homosexuals getting married. If the state wants to allow that, fine. But I will have no part of either of them.
Perhaps I've missed it but do you have any scripture to go along with this?

Hugh McBryde
10-27-2006, 08:25 PM
Why isn't marriage also "man-woman-woman-woman"?

eternal
10-27-2006, 08:29 PM
Perhaps I've missed it but do you have any scripture to go along with this?

I shorthanded it here: http://holycultureradio.com/forum/showpost.php?p=130444&postcount=21



Is a more extensive report necessary? I suppose I can put one together, but only if you need to be convinced. If we can both agree that God's marriage is inclussive of Him, then we can better spend our time on the implications of that deffinition. Otherwise, I would likewise be interested in why you believe God's deffinition of marriage is negligent of Him.

peace.

eternal
10-27-2006, 08:46 PM
So are u for gay marriage, as long as the church isn't involved?


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

I feel I have to be, according to the biblical call for a rejection of favortism and bias. I must have my morals. I must not be biased, and I must uphold God's laws. So as I have said, I will only marry faithful Christians. Only they can fulfill God's definition of marriage. The state has their power, and if people who reject God decide to recognize homosexuals and fornicators and the covetous as married, so be it. It is their right to recognize their marriage for tax purposes, last rites matters, etc.

The state is not God. I will plainly tell the greedy that they are outside of the Kingdom of God. I will plainly tell the covetous and the fornicator. And I will tell the homosexual. But I will also fight for their equality among men. All of that is Godly justice. None of it can be forsaken.

peace.

the answer
10-27-2006, 09:26 PM
Thanks for coming out and answering my question. You are in favor of same sex marriages. ok.

But I will also fight for their equality among men.

This is problematic. It's simply not true that gays don't have the same rights as everyone else. How are homosexuals not given the same rights as everyone else?

The adding of God being involved is true, but I think it can be taken to far. Adam wasn't told "Love eve like I love the church" Nobody in the OT was told that. I think there are many layers in the issue of marriage and its definition.

I think having kids is a big reason for marriage as well. ( Be fruitful and multiply)

Did u see my reasoning about ths issue in the past posts? How I pointed out this is not about sin?


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

Frequency
10-27-2006, 09:30 PM
I think the answer has trumped this whole thread. He makes the most biblically sound points here. eternal, why do you keep going on and on about sin? You didn't deal with answers post about if 2 strait men or 2 strait women wanted to marry- it's not about their sin of homosexuality- it's about upholding the definitoin of marriage. what's so tuff about that? it's been shown to you that in 2 corinthians as well as tons of other places in scripture that marriage is established between man and woman. The vow is made unto God. Whether the 2 keep that vow unto God is one thing, but we've established by the Bible that marriage is between man and woman. do you agree with the Bible or not?

If God says "hey eternal, marriage is Man and Woman- that's it" why are you saying that you're following the Bible by saying that it's ok for 2 men or 2 women to get married so long as we're not involved? that makes zero sense, you're the only inconsistancy here.

as far as all sins being equal- yes, of course! all sins are equally sins. the wages of sin is death. But some sins are more depraved than others. why do you think there were different punishments for different offenses if all were of the same weight? a 6 year old boy kicking dirt on a girl is sin. a grown man raping a 6 year old boy is sin too. So you think that the wrath that God has for a grown man raping a 6 year old boy is the same that He has for the 6 year old boy kicking dirt on a girl? You're trying to make this thing like "oh they're just like anyone else who sins". yes they are! all unrepentant, nonbelieving sinners go to hell! but you forgot to look at it the other way around. If God can be so angry at the rich for neglecting the poor that He could pour out His wrath, and you in your attempt to make all sinners be "equally as sinful" (as a lame excuse to not stand up to the gov banning ungodly marriage), you fogot that it would mean the same wrath God would dump on the gluttonus while on earth, He would pour on a little child for doing a sin. WHy is it that God's wrath on living beings was never poured out to the great extent that it was on little children who sinned as it was on whole cities for doing wrongs of homosexuality, idolotary, and greed?

And the magic answer? *DING DING DING* God sees all sin as sin but sees some as more depraved than others!

eternal
10-27-2006, 09:47 PM
I think the answer has trumped this whole thread. He makes the most biblically sound points here. eternal, why do you keep going on and on about sin? You didn't deal with answers post about if 2 strait men or 2 strait women wanted to marry- it's not about their sin of homosexuality- it's about upholding the definitoin of marriage. what's so tuff about that? it's been shown to you that in 2 corinthians as well as tons of other places in scripture that marriage is established between man and woman. The vow is made unto God. Whether the 2 keep that vow unto God is one thing, but we've established by the Bible that marriage is between man and woman. do you agree with the Bible or not?

What was there to answer? It is the same thing. My entire response throughout this thread has addressed that. ONLY a man of faith/woman of faith/God covenant is a biblical marriage. All else falls short. Period.


If God says "hey eternal, marriage is Man and Woman- that's it" why are you saying that you're following the Bible by saying that it's ok for 2 men or 2 women to get married so long as we're not involved? that makes zero sense, you're the only inconsistancy here.

Because you are leaving God out of the marriage covenant. I am upholding Him as the cornerstone. If the state wants to recognize man/man or woman/woman or slanderor/covetor or fornicator/drunkard or whatever else, fine. What does that have to do with our theology? THEY ALL REJECT GOD, so NONE of them have a biblical marriage. My point has to not discriminate by showing favortism over all those sinful an unbiblical marriages but not the man/man or woman/woman. Whether they are gay or not is not the point her, and I fail to understand why you see it as so potent?

I believe I am the only one to be consistent here. Because you guys are saying drunkards and slanderors and covetors and idolators can all get married, but not homosexuals? Or straight men to straight men or women or whatever else? Why exclude ONE but favor the rest? They ALL deny God!


as far as all sins being equal- yes, of course! all sins are equally sins. the wages of sin is death. But some sins are more depraved than others. why do you think there were different punishments for different offenses if all were of the same weight? a 6 year old boy kicking dirt on a girl is sin. a grown man raping a 6 year old boy is sin too. So you think that the wrath that God has for a grown man raping a 6 year old boy is the same that He has for the 6 year old boy kicking dirt on a girl? You're trying to make this thing like "oh they're just like anyone else who sins". yes they are! all unrepentant, nonbelieving sinners go to hell! but you forgot to look at it the other way around. If God can be so angry at the rich for neglecting the poor that He could pour out His wrath, and you in your attempt to make all sinners be "equally as sinful" (as a lame excuse to not stand up to the gov banning ungodly marriage), you fogot that it would mean the same wrath God would dump on the gluttonus while on earth, He would pour on a little child for doing a sin. WHy is it that God's wrath on living beings was never poured out to the great extent that it was on little children who sinned as it was on whole cities for doing wrongs of homosexuality, idolotary, and greed?

And the magic answer? *DING DING DING* God sees all sin as sin but sees some as more depraved than others!

So what is your point? That being gay is worse than the swindler? What is your point in the context of this thread?

3SpiritsEM
10-27-2006, 10:24 PM
Kinda going to take a turn here......

Do you believe that homosexuals should have the same basic rights as any other citizen?

And this question is not to argue over whether they should be allowed to marry. I think that is a moot point because marriage is a God ordained institution that cannot be compromised.

What about civil unions or common law. A way of recognition so that they can have access to healthcare and insurance- things that I dont think should be denied to anyone.

i've had plenty of conversations with gay people and a major push in this movement is so that they can have the same legal rights that states given married couples. Cant they have those same rights without being married?

Like if you are a Christian and you find out that your spouse is gay and then they leave you for their gay lover and also want custody of the children. You believe that the judge should consider the rights of the gay couple equally to you as Christian parent when deciding who to give the children too

Frequency
10-27-2006, 10:40 PM
what was there to answer? you keep trying to polarize the issue on sin and other sinful habits. the point is that the homosexuality is a sin, but that's a different yet closely related topic of 2 men or 2 women marrying. we're not talking about what sins people are committing, we're talking about what is marriage and the Bible defines it as man and woman. you brought up sins from the get go and that points been shot down as irrelivent.


I believe I am the only one to be consistent here. Because you guys are saying drunkards and slanderors and covetors and idolators can all get married, but not homosexuals?

again, please peel your mind away from sin. you keep mentioning sin eternal. are you not reading? it doesn't matter if 2 strait men wanted to get married! that's not what marriage is. it just so happens that most people who are gettin same sex marriages are gay, but that's not the issue. being gay is 1 issue just like being a robber is one issue. dead that. we're not talking about that. we're talking about what is marriage. Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. End of story.


So what is your point? That being gay is worse than the swindler? What is your point in the context of this thread?

this is in response to you man. youre the one talking about consistancy and sins. its you who's trying to prove the point that a gay is the same as a swindler, for whatever reason, only God knows. Its only you who keeps focusing on sin of homosexuality or sin of fornication or whatever man. the issue at hand is what is marriage! marriage is man and a woman. God declairs this in the bible and nature testifies to it.

plus you keep dodging the fact that nowhere in scripture was a marriage considered invalid because the 2 people did not have a knowledge of God. and somehow i think you don't even belive that yourself even though you may insinuate it. somehow i get the feeling that you don't tell unsaved married couples that they are not really married because they aren't saved. this approach isn't taken in the bible. but the Bible sure does establish what marriage is- 1 man. 1 woman. end of the story.

so i suggest that you fall in line with the bible and stand up against any proposed union of 2 men and 2 women (gay or strait, we don't care thats not the focus). whether someone is a fornicator or an adulterer is just as much of a side issue as is someone being gay. the issue is establishing what marriage is and the bible does that well enough. no need to make it harder than it is.

eternal
10-28-2006, 11:53 AM
Well homey. Our conversation has run its course.

You define marriage as a man and a woman. I define marriage as a man of faith/woman of faith/God. As long as we can't agree there, then of course our convo is going to go in circles. You omit God from the definition, and I do not. I see all marriages who deny God as not sanctioned by God. You view them otherwise apparently. That is our fundamental difference.

With that, I do not see how God views one kind of marriage that rejects Him as any different from another kind of marriage that rejects Him.

You apparently do, and with that we are not going to get anywhere.

peace.

Frequency
10-28-2006, 04:48 PM
Well homey. Our conversation has run its course.

You define marriage as a man and a woman. I define marriage as a man of faith/woman of faith/God. As long as we can't agree there, then of course our convo is going to go in circles. You omit God from the definition, and I do not. I see all marriages who deny God as not sanctioned by God. You view them otherwise apparently. That is our fundamental difference.

With that, I do not see how God views one kind of marriage that rejects Him as any different from another kind of marriage that rejects Him.

You apparently do, and with that we are not going to get anywhere.

peace.

wrong again, but nice smoke screen. Your first story was that we shouldn't isolate homosexual sin from fornication and other sins. when the idea of sins was put as a secondary issues, then your story was grasping at straws with a runaround about whether the couple is saved or not. not a good look.

So lets not throw up smokesceens with fake oversimplified excuses.


1 corinthians 7:12-13

12But to the rest (K)I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.

13And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

Why is paul not using this psuedo spiritual view that you're trying to impose here? how come paul doesn't say "your marriage isn't sanctioned"? how come paul's not pretending to be spiritual but acknowledging true spiritual truth in that even if 1 of the 2 got saved, PAUL STILL REFERS TO THEM AS WIVES/HUSBANDS? Why's that eternal? how come paul is not saying what you're saying here? it's because he's not throwing up a smokescreen to the issue. you support an unbiblical idea of marriage by saying the state should be able to marry 2 men or 2 women. your weak appeal to God being the real center and objective of marriage (as Christians believe) as a card to slide your way out of accounting for the fact that you support government sanctions of 2 men or 2 women marrying is lacking in any basis.

face the facts- not even apostle paul said that 2 people (of opposite gender) married before salvation had unsanctioned marriages, but instead refers to them as a married couple. face the facts man.

eternal
10-29-2006, 10:13 AM
You have now resorted to accusing me of being a deceiver? You are no longer a person I wish to talk with. I will leave you with this, just to put your ugly words to rest

MY FIRST POST:


I still don't understand why Christians don't treat adulterors and drunkards, lusters and slanderers the same as homosexuals.

The church shouldn't ordain ANY of their marriages. The state, however, is a different matter. If not, I should expect to see as much of an outrage when ANY non Christian is married, whether secular or sacred.

And later when answer asked me to define marriage, I wrote:


Loving your wife as Christ loved the church. And a wife honoring her huband as to the Lord. This is why we must not marry outside the faith, as we are committed to one another IN CHRIST. In our faith to Christ we have faith and intimacy with one another, and it can be said, as Jesus quoted, "two become one flesh."

Sadly too many people do not define marriage this way, but rather as consenting adults. Therefore the state can marry folks as they see fit, and I will only marry as I see the bible teaching us to. I will call all people to truth, whether they accept it or not.

peace.

Obviously your accusations of my deception and "smoke screen" creating and "grasping at straws with a runaround" are all fallacious.

Even the later points you brought up I have addressed briefly already in this thread! And I could discuss it further with you, but I no longer have time to spend my leisure moments debating with a person who is as hostile towards me as you are, with such ugly accusations about my character for no good reason.

Good luck with all you do, but this convo is over.

peace.

Frequency
10-29-2006, 02:20 PM
no hostility. your position just doesn't make any sense and that's what i'm attacking, don't be so thin skinned. you don't have to continue anything, free country assuming u live in america. ciao