Same-sex couples challenge Wisconsin ...

Same-sex couples challenge Wisconsin gay marriage ban

There are 5 comments on the Daily Globe story from Feb 4, 2014, titled Same-sex couples challenge Wisconsin gay marriage ban. In it, Daily Globe reports that:

A group of same-sex couples filed a federal lawsuit Monday challenging Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage, arguing the prohibition is unconstitutional and denies them civil rights married couples enjoy.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Globe.

mea lima

Grayslake, IL

#1 Feb 5, 2014
Marriage....what is it exactly?

From the beginning of time, it was defined as God-joining. One man and One woman are joined into ONE flesh by God. You can see it in nature and in the off-spring. A good analogy is pigment: one blue mixed with one yellow makes green.

Later on, human kind decided to license the act of God-joining. Human kind borrowed the term 'marriage' to also apply to their licensing.

Now, today, there is movement to change the term all together.

The movement is not just extending the term to include some more. The movement is authentically trying to change the basic meaning of the term marriage.
Marriage (the original definition) cannot occur unless God acts. God has stated quite plainly that HE will not join anything but one man and one woman. Human kind cannot dictate to God what God must do for them. God is supreme and acts however He wishes.

The human population has tried to appease this movement by introducing another term: civil union. BUT this is not good enough! The movement persists at wishing to hyjack the term marriage and change the meaning, excluding the very act of God as they do.

Let's look at the movement. It is totally discriminatory. How many combinations are possible for human kind to relate? Countless! There are one man several women. There are three adults and one child. There are one human with eight animals....you name it there are countless possible combinations. The movement chooses to ignore all the possibilities and only concentrate on the two-men situation and the two-women situation. They claim that it is a rights thing.....but.....the movement only wants to have acceptance of what THEY are interested in. By being so-o-o exclusive of the rights of all the other combinations out there, the whole movement is based on discrimination from the get-go. They, thus, aim to trample upon the rights of ALL the other combinations! They aim to trample upon God. They aim to trample upon the rights of one man/one woman.

The movement isn't fair. It isn't tolerant. It is promoting a total lie, and fooling themselves into believe otherwise.

So when human kind wishes to affirm the definition of marriage and ban all other combinations from using this term....THIS is the truth! Marriage---true, authentic marriage--- does not exist for all the other combinations.

The movement needs to refocus itself to call human kind's licensing of all different combinations 'civil union'. Persisting in hjacking the term marriage like they have been doing is trying to promote a lie, a falsehood, a confusion, trying to promote discrimination, trying to trample rights of everyone else but themselves, trying to tell other people that God-joining has nothing to do with any of it.

Civilized society shouldn't have to be bullied like this and made to make accommodations for defrauding the future of itself.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2 Feb 5, 2014
mea lima wrote:
Marriage....what is it exactly?
From the beginning of time, it was defined as God-joining. One man and One woman are joined into ONE flesh by God. You can see it in nature and in the off-spring. A good analogy is pigment: one blue mixed with one yellow makes green.
Later on, human kind decided to license the act of God-joining. Human kind borrowed the term 'marriage' to also apply to their licensing.
Now, today, there is movement to change the term all together.
The movement is not just extending the term to include some more. The movement is authentically trying to change the basic meaning of the term marriage.
Marriage (the original definition) cannot occur unless God acts. God has stated quite plainly that HE will not join anything but one man and one woman. Human kind cannot dictate to God what God must do for them. God is supreme and acts however He wishes.
The human population has tried to appease this movement by introducing another term: civil union. BUT this is not good enough! The movement persists at wishing to hyjack the term marriage and change the meaning, excluding the very act of God as they do.
Let's look at the movement. It is totally discriminatory. How many combinations are possible for human kind to relate? Countless! There are one man several women. There are three adults and one child. There are one human with eight animals....you name it there are countless possible combinations. The movement chooses to ignore all the possibilities and only concentrate on the two-men situation and the two-women situation. They claim that it is a rights thing.....but.....the movement only wants to have acceptance of what THEY are interested in. By being so-o-o exclusive of the rights of all the other combinations out there, the whole movement is based on discrimination from the get-go. They, thus, aim to trample upon the rights of ALL the other combinations! They aim to trample upon God. They aim to trample upon the rights of one man/one woman.
The movement isn't fair. It isn't tolerant. It is promoting a total lie, and fooling themselves into believe otherwise.
So when human kind wishes to affirm the definition of marriage and ban all other combinations from using this term....THIS is the truth! Marriage---true, authentic marriage--- does not exist for all the other combinations.
The movement needs to refocus itself to call human kind's licensing of all different combinations 'civil union'. Persisting in hjacking the term marriage like they have been doing is trying to promote a lie, a falsehood, a confusion, trying to promote discrimination, trying to trample rights of everyone else but themselves, trying to tell other people that God-joining has nothing to do with any of it.
Civilized society shouldn't have to be bullied like this and made to make accommodations for defrauding the future of itself.
Solomon in the Bible married 700 wives and 300 lesbians
.
1000 women all married to each other was the biggest gay marriage in the Bible; and probably in all of history
.
Solomon would need to rent 25 greyhound buses just to take all 1000 wives shopping in one trip
.
So the definition of marriage must exceed 1001 people before it can be officially redefined

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#3 Feb 5, 2014
mea lima wrote:
Marriage....what is it exactly?
From the beginning of time, it was defined as God-joining. One man and One woman are joined into ONE flesh by God. You can see it in nature and in the off-spring. A good analogy is pigment: one blue mixed with one yellow makes green.
Later on, human kind decided to license the act of God-joining. Human kind borrowed the term 'marriage' to also apply to their licensing.
Now, today, there is movement to change the term all together.
The movement is not just extending the term to include some more. The movement is authentically trying to change the basic meaning of the term marriage.
Marriage (the original definition) cannot occur unless God acts. God has stated quite plainly that HE will not join anything but one man and one woman. Human kind cannot dictate to God what God must do for them. God is supreme and acts however He wishes.
The human population has tried to appease this movement by introducing another term: civil union. BUT this is not good enough! The movement persists at wishing to hyjack the term marriage and change the meaning, excluding the very act of God as they do.
Let's look at the movement. It is totally discriminatory. How many combinations are possible for human kind to relate? Countless! There are one man several women. There are three adults and one child. There are one human with eight animals....you name it there are countless possible combinations. The movement chooses to ignore all the possibilities and only concentrate on the two-men situation and the two-women situation. They claim that it is a rights thing.....but.....the movement only wants to have acceptance of what THEY are interested in. By being so-o-o exclusive of the rights of all the other combinations out there, the whole movement is based on discrimination from the get-go. They, thus, aim to trample upon the rights of ALL the other combinations! They aim to trample upon God. They aim to trample upon the rights of one man/one woman.
The movement isn't fair. It isn't tolerant. It is promoting a total lie, and fooling themselves into believe otherwise.
So when human kind wishes to affirm the definition of marriage and ban all other combinations from using this term....THIS is the truth! Marriage---true, authentic marriage--- does not exist for all the other combinations.
The movement needs to refocus itself to call human kind's licensing of all different combinations 'civil union'. Persisting in hjacking the term marriage like they have been doing is trying to promote a lie, a falsehood, a confusion, trying to promote discrimination, trying to trample rights of everyone else but themselves, trying to tell other people that God-joining has nothing to do with any of it.
Civilized society shouldn't have to be bullied like this and made to make accommodations for defrauding the future of itself.
What about the marriage of people who were not Jewish nor Christian ? The pagan Romans didn't believe in Yahweh, yet they were monogamous. Unlike the Jews of that time who were polygamous. Was a "married" Roman heterosexual couple who were faithful to one another always, really not married because they were pagan ?

And why did Yahweh approve of polygamy amongst the Jews, His "Chosen People", but doesn't approve of polygamy amongst Christians ? If you are in a polygamous marriage, then are you really "married" ? Are polygamous Jews really married ? Are polygamous Christians really married ?

I'm a church-going Christian and I am not asking you these questions out of hostility.

Can you answer any of those questions ?

Since: Feb 14

United States

#4 Feb 16, 2014
i want sexes

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5 Feb 17, 2014
mea lima wrote:
Marriage....what is it exactly?
..........
Now, today, there is movement to change the term all together.
The movement is not just extending the term to include some more. The movement is authentically trying to change the basic meaning of the term marriage.
........
If you honestly believe that marriage is defined only by genitalia, perhaps.

But if you believe that marriage is a emotional, spiritual, and legal commitment and bond to a help-mate and spouse - two people - providing love, security, companionship, that provides wonderful environment to bring out a person's best potential, and a secure and healthy environment to raise children, then there is no change at all to the true meaning of marriage.

And your fears that gay folks legally marrying the ONE unrelated consenting adult of their choice in the same way that straight folks already do, will lead other straight people to demand marrying many at a time, children, pets, or rocks, then you should be working with THEM, not blaming gay couples and their families for the depravity of heterosexuals.

If I were straight, I would find your lack of faith in people with your own sexual orientation insulting. As it is, I just fine it rather sad.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wisconsin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What happened to the freespeechwisconsin forum? Tue crab 7
Cougar Sighting in NW Wisconsin (Dec '05) Mon esocks 1,900
News Featured artist at Yuma Art Symposium: Jayden M... Feb 18 ruger12pk 1
News Marquette Professor Says Wisconsin Supreme Cour... Feb 8 WelbyMD 1
News GOP leader says tolling needed to get federal r... Feb 7 Kenosha Uptowner 1
News Laurie 'Bambi' Bembenek, 52, was heroine in 'Ru... (Nov '10) Feb 5 Rhonda Mclean 21
News Guest Views: What about Wisconsin's other 'hard... Jan 31 Kevin Graham 1
More from around the web