Gay Marriage Debate - Greenville, SC

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Greenville, SC.

Do you support gay marriage?

Greenville opposes
Oppose
 
138
Support
 
111

Vote now in Greenville:

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#152 Sep 22, 2012
You state that most Christians don't believe the whole Earth was flooded. Gen 6 and 7 certainly leads fundamentalists to believe it was a global event covering all 7 continents. The known world of the OT authors in 2800 BCE would have been established through trade routes in Europe, north Africa and western Asia. As I previously wrote, there are several cities that have been continuously occupied throughout the time period of Genesis. That said, there is no reason to assume that there would not be a record of the (non-miraculous) regional hydrological cataclysm caused by the Burckle impact. The geologic evidence and accepted time of Noah coincide. What I find odd is that there is no clear reference to the Santorini event.
I do believe that the world is far more complex than black and white and that a polarized mindset often fertilizes hatred, as other posters in similar forum threads amply demonstrate.
You state that you don't want to generalize anyone, yet indicate that you would not trust a homosexual to babysit your children because of their reputation. It seems you can't actually deny (hateful) ignorance if you do not realize that pedophilia is seperate from homosexuality. As you state that you make decisions based on the information you have, I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO LEARN THE FACTS ABOUT CHILD ABUSE. Sometimes there is no whit of difference between those you might regard as regenerate and those who are truly degenerate.
Lisa Jones

Simpsonville, SC

#153 Sep 24, 2012
it is against nature. Two males or two females are not biologically designed to fit together. It is morally wrong. If you call it "Gay contract so that they can get insurance", then maybe I could buy into that idea. IT IS NOT MARRIAGE!!!

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#154 Sep 24, 2012
Lisa Jones wrote:
it is against nature. Two males or two females are not biologically designed to fit together. It is morally wrong. If you call it "Gay contract so that they can get insurance", then maybe I could buy into that idea. IT IS NOT MARRIAGE!!!
It's against my nature, you say it's against yours.- but it isn't against nature to be gay, as brain scan studies have indicated, plus there are examples of homosexuality in other species besides human.
Morality is not a subject you should profess to be an expert on when you condemn people you don't know or understand and who do no harm to you or others.
Personally I think that their trying to redefine TRADITIONAL marriage is mostly an attempt to fulfill a silly "happily ever after" fantasy. I couldn't care less if they get "married", but just because a cantaloupe and a casaba are both melons doesn't make them the same thing.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#155 Sep 26, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
You state that you don't want to generalize anyone, yet indicate that you would not trust a homosexual to babysit your children because of their reputation. It seems you can't actually deny (hateful) ignorance if you do not realize that pedophilia is seperate from homosexuality. As you state that you make decisions based on the information you have, I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO LEARN THE FACTS ABOUT CHILD ABUSE. Sometimes there is no whit of difference between those you might regard as regenerate and those who are truly degenerate.
How did you get pedophilia out of my comment? "don't realize that they're seperate?" Unreal...Again, there are heterosexual people I wouldn't let watch my kids. I give that example to show that I, as a parent, determine who I want to influence my children. Since I think homosexuality is a lifestyle sin, same as lying or stealing, or any other number of things, I would not want that person to influence my family.
As to, "sometimes no whit of difference"...also, non-essential to this debate, but since you said it, I should clarify...my perception of whether or not someone is regenerate is not even remotely important. I can't know the human heart any more than you can, and I don't pretend to. I make my decisions about people (how much time to spend with them, allowing them to watch my children, what topics I discuss with them, etc.) based on how I see them behave overall, their profession of faith or lack thereof, their treatment of myself, my family, my friends...the list goes on. It's not a generalization on my part to say I wouldn't let a homosexual person watch my children, and more so than it is to say I wouldn't let a person who is open and blatant about stealing. If someone makes a lifestyle out of a sin, I can show them love and respect like anyone else, but I must also show love to my children by keeping them from being influenced by that person - not by sheltering them or keeping them away altogether - meeting someone is different than spending the night at their house... My behavior can be loving toward someone without making them part of my inner circle of friends. Just like, for you, there are people you know well and those that you keep at a greater distance for whatever reason you choose - be it that you don't care for their company as much, or you don't like the way they treat other people...or whatever.

Learn the facts about child abuse? That's pretty far-fetched seeing as I didn't bring it up in any way shape or form, no matter how you perceived my comment...its not pertinent to this conversation at all. You need to acknowledge your obvious tendency to read too much into simple statements. If there was any confusion on your part, the last bit of that paragraph should have cleared it up.

So, seeing as these are your stated reasons for saying I can't, it seems that I can, in fact, deny (hateful) ignorance.
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#156 Sep 26, 2012
LisaCP2012 wrote:
<quoted text>
How did you get pedophilia out of my comment? "don't realize that they're seperate?" Unreal...Again, there are heterosexual people I wouldn't let watch my kids. I give that example to show that I, as a parent, determine who I want to influence my children. Since I think homosexuality is a lifestyle sin, same as lying or stealing, or any other number of things, I would not want that person to influence my family.
As to, "sometimes no whit of difference"...also, non-essential to this debate, but since you said it, I should clarify...my perception of whether or not someone is regenerate is not even remotely important. I can't know the human heart any more than you can, and I don't pretend to. I make my decisions about people (how much time to spend with them, allowing them to watch my children, what topics I discuss with them, etc.) based on how I see them behave overall, their profession of faith or lack thereof, their treatment of myself, my family, my friends...the list goes on. It's not a generalization on my part to say I wouldn't let a homosexual person watch my children, and more so than it is bout stealing. If to say I wouldn't let a person who is open and blatant asomeone makes a lifestyle out of a sin, I can show them love and respect like anyone else, but I must also show love to my children by keeping them from being influenced by that person - not by sheltering them or keeping them away altogether - meeting someone is different than spending the night at their house... My behavior can be loving toward someone without making them part of my inner circle of friends. Just like, for you, there are people you know well and those that you keep at a greater distance for whatever reason you choose - be it that you don't care for their company as much, or you don't like the way they treat other people...or whatever.
Learn the facts about child abuse? That's pretty far-fetched seeing as I didn't bring it up in any way shape or form, no matter how you perceived my comment...its not pertinent to this conversation at all. You need to acknowledge your obvious tendency to read too much into simple statements. If there was any confusion on your part, the last bit of that paragraph should have cleared it up.
So, seeing as these are your stated reasons for saying I can't, it seems that I can, in fact, deny (hateful) ignorance.
First...
Its a lifestyle... really.... A lifestyle is something you choose. You choose to buy expensive things... life style choice. Tell me when did you choose to be hetero?... not when did you notice how tall Johny got over the summer and how cute his voice was when it cracked... but when did you sit down and look at all pertainant information, weigh the pros and cons and then come to a concious choice to be hetero.

Second
"If to say I wouldn't let a person who is open and blatant asomeone makes a lifestyle out of a sin,"
You make this comment in regards to watching your children. Tell me something. Your best friend got married young divorced 2yrs later. No one cheated.. it simply just did not work out. Both were young, the parted friends... all was good. Your friend then remarries... would you let her watch your kids?..... She is living in as blatant if not more blatant sin than a homosexual...

Also.. exactly how do you think the homo. would "influence" your child?.... Do you think that while you were gone they would talk about their sexuality to a child?.... How exactly would being around a homosexual hurt your child?... Did you ever think that they may be around them everyday... school teachers, coaches... not all of them wear their "hello I am a homosexual badge"....

One last thing. I understand, not agree but understand, your protection. Tell me tough why two u.s. citizens should be denied the same governent granted marital rights both monitary and legal, that a different set gets for saying I do.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#157 Oct 9, 2012
Wow, ok sorry for taking so long to get back to you. We've been crazy busy with the remo :)
Ok, so to start with...I'm highly amused by your addition of the words "something you choose" to define lifestyle. That is neither here nor their...lifestyle simply means "The way in which a person or group lives" (courtesy of google). My use of it, therefore, is just to say that certain behaviors or activities are so prevalent/repeated that they actually define someone socially.
To your second question: Someone living in the sin of adultery by their remarriage after an unbiblical divorce is commiting sexual sin and should divorce again (since adultery is biblical grounds for divorce, and you commit it by staying married to this new person). The reason the might watch my children while a homosexual is automatically ruled out, is that they have nothing to prove. This kind of adultery is widely accepted so no one is compelled to make others around them be accepting o their behavior. Also, most people don't even know it' a sin...this is their own fault, and doesn't excuse them at all, but this also means they don't have any drive to make others accept their actions. However, a single unconfessed and unrepentant sin can negatively affect every aspect of a person over time...so I would not let this person babysit my child if I was aware of it.
How do I think they would influence my child? First and foremost, by allowing someone to babysit my children, I am displaying a great amount of trust in that person - trust that involves their morality. I am saying to my child that this is an example that I am ok with them following. Sin alone is not a deterrent because we all sin...but if someone is incapable of recognizing blatant, obvious sin, then clearly they should not be set in front of my children as examples for them to follow. Men who behave like women, or women who behave like men are likely to somewhat confuse a child's ideas of gender roles....and before you say it, I am aware that not ALL homosexuals openly behave like the other sex, but a large portion of them do.
How would I know? I don't have 'esp'...I inquire into the people who watch my children, and if someone is homosexual, someone knows. Second, in my life I have met ONE homosexual that I initially thought was straight...most of them wear it on their sleeve, so to speak, or at the very least have 'tells.'
Why should they be denied those rights? You are still presupposing that government interference into the church function of marriage is somehow legitimate. It is not, and so who gets what rights should not be an issue of the federal government determining who can or can't get married. The church should determine that, and then the federal government simply applies married rights to those couples.
You never answered my question. Can marriage happen without the existence of a government?
If it can, then marriage is clearly not civil in nature, it should not be presided over by the government, it should be left to the church, and it should grant married rights to all whom the churches allow to marry.
It is government interference which makes divorce so prevalent. If it were left to the churches, then the verse about remarriage could not just be passed over, and people would realize that to get married really meant till death do us part..that if they got divorced for a reason other than adultery that they couldn't just go marry again and again until they get it right. This makes people more likely to marry hastily, to someone they often know little to nothing about, because if they can just quit and start again with someone else, what does it really matter?

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#158 Oct 9, 2012
Sorry, I'm afraid my third paragraph disagrees with itself. I'm pretty tired today, obviously.:) while I do delineate some differences overall between sexual sin and sexual perversion, I did not mean to say that someone in either could watch my kids. It reads that I might let an adulteress/er watch my children, but not a homosexual. I would not let either watch my children, for the variety of reasons I explain later.

Ok, that's all!:)

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#159 Oct 9, 2012
"You are still presupposing that government interference into the church function of marriage is somehow legitimate. It is not, and so who gets what rights should not be an issue of the federal government determining who can or can't get married. The church should determine that, and then the federal government simply applies married rights to those couples."

You are out of your phobia-infested mind. By your tyranny, we should beg your church to allow a couple agnostics or atheists to get married? Who else? Catholics and protestants? Hindus and Muslims? Republicans and Democrats? Left handed people and redheads? Maybe we need to ask your church if inter-racial marriage is acceptable - screw the Supreme Court and the Constitution...
Keep your superstitious bigotry contained to that padded cell with the steeple on top.

Since: Jul 10

Greenville, SC

#161 Oct 10, 2012
I do not. A significant, even vital, requirement for marriage is biological compatibility; any other definition is lacking this critical characteristic. If one believes in evolution (I do not), then "nature" has selected the correct coupling that is functional. If biological compatibility is thrown out, then and unnatural pairing would be equally as bad. None would meet the minimum standard of nature.
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#162 Oct 10, 2012
Lisacp...
I will respond to you last LONG post in several replies to make sure I hit all your points
"I'm highly amused by your addition of the words "something you choose" to define lifestyle. That is neither here nor their...lifestyle simply means "The way in which a person or group lives" (courtesy of google). My use of it, therefore, is just to say that certain behaviors or activities are so prevalent/repeated that they actually define someone socially."

Right the way you CHOOSE to live. How you live is your choice. Rather it is to work hard and live in a rich community... or not work and live out of a box... your choice. Rather it is to marry one person, or sleep around (or marry and sleep around)... your choice of lifestyles you wish to lead. What is NOT your choice is who you are attracted to. Can you tell me when you chose to be attracted to men?.... Did your mom sit you down and say not now that you get your monthly "friend" you must make a decision?.... or did you just start to innately be attracted to that cute new boy in your class?... start looking at Tiger beat and get all googly (if that is a word) for the teen heartthrob of your time?.....

You can choose who to date, you can choose who to sleep with, You can choose to act or not act on feelings, you can NOT choose not to have those feelings. Psych 101


"To your second question: Someone living in the sin of adultery by their remarriage after an unbiblical divorce is commiting sexual sin and should divorce again (since adultery is biblical grounds for divorce, and you commit it by staying married to this new person). The reason the might watch my children while a homosexual is automatically ruled out, is that they have nothing to prove. This kind of adultery is widely accepted so no one is compelled to make others around them be accepting o their behavior. Also, most people don't even know it' a sin...this is their own fault, and doesn't excuse them at all, but this also means they don't have any drive to make others accept their actions."

So basically what you are saying here is you are a cafeteria christian. No worries, most people like you are. You do not accept homosexuality because the Bible tells you it is wrong. You rail against it on threads like this. Yet if a thread opend up on the divorce issue I mention, you would be silent, or post in favor of the divorcee. Why.. "This kind of adultery is widely accepted so no one is compelled to make others around them be accepting o their behavior."... In other words you explain away the sin... it is culturally ok therefore I will not speak out against it...... Now IF it was culturally ok to be gay... would you still keep quiet?... Dont give me "it isnt" or "it never would be", make the supposition that it is culturally acceptable... would you still rail against it?

"Also, most people don't even know it' a sin...this is their own fault, and doesn't excuse them at all, but this also means they don't have any drive to make others accept their actions."
So ignorance of the "law" is ok....
Is your minister ignorant of it?... I would hope not. Yet my bet is that if you ask him he would tell you he would (or most likey has) marry the divorced person in question. He would have no issue being a accomplice to adultery, or not enough of an issue to say no. The point of this is that the "christian" (small c for a reason) who use their bible as reason for their bias, picks and chooses what part of the Bible to "enforce" or get behind. If they find something distasteful and it is in the Bible, it must be wrong and preached against. If the Bible says something is wrong, yet it is culturally acceptable, then they will ignore or explain off the biblical passages...
it is called hypocrisy

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#163 Oct 10, 2012
. If the Bible says something is wrong, yet it is culturally acceptable, then they will ignore or explain off the biblical passages...
it is called hypocrisy

Yup, except in some cases I might call reasonable dismissal of barbaric dogma. I'd rather not have people going around murdering unruly children and non-virgin brides.
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#164 Oct 10, 2012
cont.
"How do I think they would influence my child? First and foremost, by allowing someone to babysit my children, I am displaying a great amount of trust in that person - trust that involves their morality. I am saying to my child that this is an example that I am ok with them following. Sin alone is not a deterrent because we all sin...but if someone is incapable of recognizing blatant, obvious sin, then clearly they should not be set in front of my children as examples for them to follow. Men who behave like women, or women who behave like men are likely to somewhat confuse a child's ideas of gender roles....and before you say it, I am aware that not ALL homosexuals openly behave like the other sex, but a large portion of them do."

So "but if someone is incapable of recognizing blatant, obvious sin, then clearly they should not be set in front of my children as examples for them to follow."

Man you must have a REALLY hard time finding someone to watch your children.... I mean most your friends who are divorced are out, except those who were cheated on. I mean that is a blatent and obvious sin... Do you ask the 16y.o. if she is a virgin before you allow her your kids... blatent and obvious. What about a non married friend who is living with her boyfriend... would they meet your standards?... again what would that tell your kids..... blatant and obvious sin. Oh btw.. would your kids ask?... would they ask the sitter if they were homsexual?... divorced, virgin?... Do you think the sitter would say after you leave, come here kids I have something to confess to you about my private life?.... Or do you think your kids would ask you if so and so could sit because they play trucks with them, or they let them do....

"Men who behave like women, or women who behave like men are likely to somewhat confuse a child's ideas of gender roles....and before you say it, I am aware that not ALL homosexuals openly behave like the other sex, but a large portion of them do."

So you sterotype... let me guess black people like rap, chicken and watermelon, the "berg" down the street must be a lawyer or docter and cheap......
Do you teach your children to judge someone on apperance?.... Feel very sorry for them if you do. I had a friend at work... immaculately dressed, decorated his house, did all the gardening at his house, loved to cook, soft spoken, effeminate in many ways.... had 5 children and married for 15 years. If you looked at him and didnt know him, you would not let him sit for your children.
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#165 Oct 10, 2012
cont
"Why should they be denied those rights? You are still presupposing that government interference into the church function of marriage is somehow legitimate. It is not, and so who gets what rights should not be an issue of the federal government determining who can or can't get married. The church should determine that, and then the federal government simply applies married rights to those couples."

You are the one "presupposing" You are presupposing that marriage is a "church" function. Unless of course you want to deny that anyone married outside of church (btw... which church or theological belief are you speaking of... if Christian, which sect......) are not married. The couple married by the captain of a cruise ship... is not married. The agnostic couple married by the judge... is not married... the... well you get my point...

Today, marriage is legally speaking, a contract between two individuals giving certain government granted benifits and responsibilities. This contract is entered into by two consenting adults who have been given consideration of knowing what is involved and expected of the contract. Technically speaking once you sign the marriage license in front of a wittness, you ar married. You can choose to have a marriage cerimony, to be "married in the eyes of God", but that makes you no more or less married than the couple who stood in front of a judge. If what you say was true... divorce would be as simple as saying "I divorce you three times."

" The church should determine that, and then the federal government simply applies married rights to those couples."

Do me a favor, if your kids are old enough, take a look at their history book (or go to the library and find one). Now look VERY carefully and find where it says we, the United States of America, are a theocracy. That our laws are dictated by the Christian religion and the government simply applies the rights given by the laws granted by the religion, to the people.

Your faith, your bible, or anyone elses theological belief system plays no part in our rights as citizens. If your bible said that red haired people were from the devil and so they were sinful by nature, the red haired U.S. CITIZENS would still have all the rights of any other Citizen. So I ask again, since theological beliefs are not used in the dispostion of rights to U.S. citizens, why should two citizens be denied the same benifits given by their government to two other citizen who simply say I do.

In your opinioin.. what other things should the church " determine and then the federal government simply apply rights to?".....
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#166 Oct 10, 2012
still cont.
" Can marriage happen without the existence of a government?
The answer to that is no. To be legally married one must obtain a marriage license. There are various "hoops" one must pass through on a state by state basis... but ALL 50 states require licenses. Now there are still a few states with active "common law" statutes which do not require a license.. but this is by far the exception to the rule and hardly ever used.
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_state...

If it can, then marriage is clearly not civil in nature, it should not be presided over by the government, it should be left to the church, and it should grant married rights to all whom the churches allow to marry.

Already shown it cant... next

It is government interference which makes divorce so prevalent. If it were left to the churches, then the verse about remarriage could not just be passed over, and people would realize that to get married really meant till death do us part..that if they got divorced for a reason other than adultery that they couldn't just go marry again and again until they get it right. This makes people more likely to marry hastily, to someone they often know little to nothing about, because if they can just quit and start again with someone else, what does it really matter?

Here is the thing.... if it was "strictly" a church thing, then... it would be a MESS.

Which church are we speaking of?....
My church where if you are living together at the time of marriage the minister will not marry you?... or the church down the street that has no issue with that?

The church that is modern and has no issue with interracial marraige... or the southern church who believe the biblical meaning of "each to his own kind" means God wanted segregation in marriage?

The church who interpret the Bible to be agaisnt ssm and will not do ssm.... or the many churches like the UCC and Presbyterian, who have a different interpretation of what the bible means allow for ssm...

Which theological standpoint would prevail.... Which one... yours... mine.... someone elses?..... Tell me how your belief of church making the rules for marriage is not very scarily similar to the taliban....

What about the agnostics... who marries them... or are they out of luck?

Should hindu laws on marriage be enforced on all ....

To sum this LONG LONG reply up...
As a Christian, I can see why a church may be oppose to ssm. Clearly the Bible does not favor homosexuals.
However as an American I know that I would not stand for my daughter to have less legal standing because she is a female , or my friend because he is of a ethnic minority or any other U.S. citizen, simply because of who they are. They are not breaking any laws. What they, the homosexuals among us ( hate to tell you this, one of your kids teachers may be one of them.. just dont dress butch or speak with a lisp) do in their home and private life does not warrent them being treated as less of a citizen. It does not warrant the government denying them the same benefits given the heterosexuals.

no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#167 Oct 10, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
. If the Bible says something is wrong, yet it is culturally acceptable, then they will ignore or explain off the biblical passages...
it is called hypocrisy
Yup, except in some cases I might call reasonable dismissal of barbaric dogma. I'd rather not have people going around murdering unruly children and non-virgin brides.
Ya but if you talk with the "thumpers" they will say that that is old testament, there for not enforcable under the new covenant. What is funny is how many old testament teachings are mentioned in the new testament thus not being covered by the new conventant.. that are strategically overlooked. Prime example... people living together.
The new testament clearly is against this. Some churches ( most would be my bet) ignore this biblical truis and have no issue marrying them... others, like mine, ride out the margins. They require that the not be living together at the time of the cerimony... sort of the biblical equivalennt of Greg Brady's "exact words". However I doubt you will find any that will turn the couple away because they lived in sin.

Dont get me wrong.. there are some "unrulely" children I know that going "old testament on " is tempting at times....:)
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#168 Oct 10, 2012
Partisan62 wrote:
I do not. A significant, even vital, requirement for marriage is biological compatibility; any other definition is lacking this critical characteristic. If one believes in evolution (I do not), then "nature" has selected the correct coupling that is functional. If biological compatibility is thrown out, then and unnatural pairing would be equally as bad. None would meet the minimum standard of nature.
So what you are saying, though the way you say it leaves you much wiggle room to claim misinterpretation on my part, is because a ssc can not "naturally" procreate, then they should not be allowed to marry. So you are of the school that marriage equates to procreation. If you can not pop one out, you should not get married.

If I have restated your point correctly, then you would also be against
A) infertile couples being allowed to marry... because "natural selection" will not allow them to procreate.. so what is the use.
B)People who have been "fixed"...can not marry... I mean while biologically "matched".. since they can no longer "contribute to the herd"...no need for marriage.
C)likewise post menapausal women... same reason ....
D) couple who do not want children... there is a sticky wicket... biologically they match, nature says they can contribute to the herd, yet they choose not to..... They go against "natural design" to have children... so... in your world ... in or out?

Now show me a marriage licenses which requires one procreate as a condition of marriage.....

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#169 Oct 10, 2012
Wow! I'm impressed! Not even I have ever posted that much in a row.

I'm sorry, though - you seem to be writing back to me under a false assumption about my comments on divorce, and you have put a LOT of words in my mouth, effectively, by trying to argue that, "well if you do/believe this, then you must do/believe that." This assumption that one belief automatically presupposes another is faulty reasoning and is, ironically, very stereotypical.

So allow me to set some things straight. I do not excuse un-biblical divorcees from their sin - the only reason I brought up its social acceptability was to show that they have no drive to be socially accepted. It is STILL a sin, and as such, needs repentance, and ignorance, therefore, is no excuse. You can say what you want about difficulty finding babysitters, but guess what? That's my concern, not yours.

Additionally, I qualified my statements about homosexuals acting as the opposite sex by saying that not all did....then you go and make a comment about stereotyping. do you realize that not all stereotyping is bad? It's a function we ALL subconsciously perform to save time evaluating new situations by using prior experience. You are not the exception, seeing as you said "Ya but if you talk with the "thumpers" they will say that that is old testament, there for not enforcable under the new covenant." Thumpers meaning Christians, and YOU made no exceptions to your statement.

" Can marriage happen without the existence of a government?
The answer to that is no. To be legally married one must obtain a marriage license.

I appreciate your research into US marraige laws, but I believe you simply have not yet wrapped your mind around my questions. Do you know what a marriage is??

Can Marraige Exist Without A Government?
1st def. by google: "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife"

Yep, it says RECOGNIZED by law, not permissible or declared or approved by. That means that the law and the legal documents simply RECOGNIZE a marriage that is ALREADY in existence before the government was ever involved!

More later - gotta go get the children ready to go to the park :)

Hey, just so you know, I'm being emphatic, not aggressive. I'm not upset at your comments - I'm actually glad to hear what you're thinking because I suspect many people feel this way and just don't say so...
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#170 Oct 10, 2012
LisaCP2012 wrote:
Wow! I'm impressed! Not even I have ever posted that much in a row.
I'm sorry, though - you seem to be writing back to me under a false assumption about my comments on divorce, and you have put a LOT of words in my mouth, effectively, by trying to argue that, "well if you do/believe this, then you must do/believe that." This assumption that one belief automatically presupposes another is faulty reasoning and is, ironically, very stereotypical.
So allow me to set some things straight. I do not excuse un-biblical divorcees from their sin - the only reason I brought up its social acceptability was to show that they have no drive to be socially accepted. It is STILL a sin, and as such, needs repentance, and ignorance, therefore, is no excuse. You can say what you want about difficulty finding babysitters, but guess what? That's my concern, not yours.
Additionally, I qualified my statements about homosexuals acting as the opposite sex by saying that not all did....then you go and make a comment about stereotyping. do you realize that not all stereotyping is bad? It's a function we ALL subconsciously perform to save time evaluating new situations by using prior experience. You are not the exception, seeing as you said "Ya but if you talk with the "thumpers" they will say that that is old testament, there for not enforcable under the new covenant." Thumpers meaning Christians, and YOU made no exceptions to your statement.
" Can marriage happen without the existence of a government?
The answer to that is no. To be legally married one must obtain a marriage license.
I appreciate your research into US marraige laws, but I believe you simply have not yet wrapped your mind around my questions. Do you know what a marriage is??
Can Marraige Exist Without A Government?
1st def. by google: "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife"
Yep, it says RECOGNIZED by law, not permissible or declared or approved by. That means that the law and the legal documents simply RECOGNIZE a marriage that is ALREADY in existence before the government was ever involved!
More later - gotta go get the children ready to go to the park :)
Hey, just so you know, I'm being emphatic, not aggressive. I'm not upset at your comments - I'm actually glad to hear what you're thinking because I suspect many people feel this way and just don't say so...
"So allow me to set some things straight. I do not excuse un-biblical divorcees from their sin - the only reason I brought up its social acceptability was to show that they have no drive to be socially accepted. It is STILL a sin, and as such, needs repentance, and ignorance, therefore, is no excuse. You can say what you want about difficulty finding babysitters, but guess what? That's my concern, not yours."

See I pointed the marriage thing out along with the other things keeping you form finding a sitter to point out your hypocresy. You wouldnt allow a homo. to watch your children do to the "sin factor"... yet you allow other equally sinful people to watch your children. It has nothing to do with sin.. it has to do with your feelings toward homosexuals.. in other word your bigotry hidden by your biblical belief.. which since you dont follow the bible in all aspects, is shallow at best.

As far as marriage, you can google what ever definition you want. Here in the real world it is a legal thing. Tell you what when your kid is ready to be married, since it is not a legal thing, dont get that pesky marriage license. Then see how "legit" their marriage is. How when ask for proof of marriage, thier "the minister said we were" works.....

Oh and how is it that a marriage license must be bought before the marriage, yet in your words "law and the legal documents simply RECOGNIZE a marriage that is ALREADY in existence before the government was ever involved!"... so if the marriage is in existance no license is needed... but
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#171 Oct 10, 2012
cont.
but it can not be in existance since a marriage license is required by law before any official( be it minister, rabbi, judge...) performs the cerimony.... Ask your minister if he will perform a marraige cerimony when there is no licenses.

You can try to ride out the margins here... but it simply does not work. To be married in all 50 states, you must have a license. No license you are "married" in thought only, not legally.

"I qualified my statements about homosexuals acting as the opposite sex by saying that not all did....then you go and make a comment about stereotyping. do you realize that not all stereotyping is bad? It's a function we ALL subconsciously perform to save time evaluating new situations by using prior experience. You are not the exception, seeing as you said "Ya but if you talk with the "thumpers" they will say that that is old testament, there for not enforcable under the new covenant." Thumpers meaning Christians, and YOU made no exceptions to your statement."

So in dealing with a person.. you are ok with being prejudice. Pre judging them based on external factors. He is black from the inner city.. must be a gang member. He is single, acts in a manor you perceive as effeminant... must be gay.... She is single, wears pants more than dresses... short hair cut.. must be lesbian. Do you really want to teach your children to be so shallow. That it ok to be prejudice?.... Yes everyone does it, myself included to a certain extent. However I do not allow that to cloud my mind to who that person is. I find out about the person, not his sexuality, not his social "issues" but judge him against who he is.. not his sterotype.

Now as far as my "thumper" comment... there is no sterotyping there, just christian fact.
I said "they will say that that is old testament, there for not enforcable under the new covenant." There is not a christian person out there that does not know this. It is the base of christianity... it is what seperates us from Judism. The belief that Jesus came and we are not bound by old testament due to his death.
Now I will admit my "thumper" comment was not the best. I tend to use that to describe those who constantly use their bible to force their beliefs down your throat. It is a derogatory term one which I do apologize for.

"More later - gotta go get the children ready to go to the park :)
Hey, just so you know, I'm being emphatic, not aggressive. I'm not upset at your comments - I'm actually glad to hear what you're thinking because I suspect many people feel this way and just don't say so.."

I can tell right now we will have a interesting debate. While I know that neither one of us will change the other, I do applaud you for giving logical thought out arguments. You being on this thread know that is not the norm for many posters on either side of the issue. I look forward to going back and forth with you. I will try to keep my replies concise (no promises)
no big O

Bolingbrook, IL

#172 Oct 10, 2012
Lisacp
You had to run off I realize that. however I am curious your response to my post

"Here is the thing.... if it was "strictly" a church thing, then... it would be a MESS.

Which church are we speaking of?....
My church where if you are living together at the time of marriage the minister will not marry you?... or the church down the street that has no issue with that?

The church that is modern and has no issue with interracial marraige... or the southern church who believe the biblical meaning of "each to his own kind" means God wanted segregation in marriage?

The church who interpret the Bible to be agaisnt ssm and will not do ssm.... or the many churches like the UCC and Presbyterian, who have a different interpretation of what the bible means allow for ssm...

Which theological standpoint would prevail.... Which one... yours... mine.... someone elses?..... Tell me how your belief of church making the rules for marriage is not very scarily similar to the taliban...."

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.

Greenville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
tabernacle childrens home (Nov '13) Jan 25 lorebeau 5
A Baptist minister from South Carolina calls th... Jan 23 Cinderella 1
the cannon cheaters (Jun '14) Jan 20 IKnow 4
looken for some one Jan 14 from tennessee 1
Suber Road Baptist Church Jan 13 jethro 1
Review: Hogg Plumbing & Electrical Supplies Jan 12 Michael2327 1
John Huff named New Bern Sun Journal editor (Dec '07) Jan 8 anonymous 8
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]