[doulos14]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Bryan is right in that even if it has all the same rights, it isn't the same.

That is because marriage in America is not only about equal rights. This is not about equal rights. It is about social engineering, and forcing ideologies on people. It has everything to do with legislating morality, and propagating a particular religio-political ideal at the expense of freedom of religion.

Marriage is religious. Civil unions are legal.

In the state of California, you can have a civil union with the legal rights of marriage.

What is wanted is for the Christian view on sin to become a cultural taboo.

I heard a good quote once about this. It was a rhetorical question that went something like "Switch marriage and civil union and see if they still want equality, even if a civil union is lesser (taxes or w/e financial benefits)."

Reminds me of the homosexuals at my school. I attend a private Christian college at which acceptance is dependent on signing of codes of conducts and other policies, specifically outlawing the open practice of homosexuality and/or gatherings. Yet they sign the contract, come to my school and complain that they aren't accepted. All this is, is just a push towards equality as in any and every equality. To challenge the system for supposed equality. They could attend any state school and be openly accepted, yet they come here to try and change not only the universities policies but essentially the morality of the Christian church.

I really think that if we changed the civil union or domestic partnership to better or equal to a "marriage" they still wouldn't be happy because they just want the word.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by gtrdave

So, you really don't want to be married in order to create a covenant with another person, you just want the $$$ benefits and legal perks.
I'm not surprised as it's the same conclusion that's come from talking to several homosexuals about this same issue.
Again, if the government and all of the other organizations that offer these benefits and perks to married couples would stop, marriages would decline faster than a dump truck rolling over the side of the Grand Canyon and the wind would be removed from the sails of the homosexual marriage argument.

If it's such a bad thing to care about the legal perks, tell me why virtually all Christian couples choose to enter into civil marriages. If all we're supposed to care about is the lifelong covenant, then why don't more Christians opt out of the government benefits and just decide to have their marriages recognized by a pastor?

My wife and I are legally marriage -- are you saying that we're superficial just because we chose to register at the courthouse? Does that mean that we don't care about our marriage as a covenant?

I realize that you'd like to get the government out of marriage entirely, but the reality is that right now, the government is heavily involved in marriage, and most couples, including Christians, take advantage of that. So it's a little nasty of you to assume the worst about Bryan or anybody else just because they'd like to have the same benefits that the vast majority of Christian couples go out of their way to obtain.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Bryan

but are not most christians who oppose it legislating their morality and propagating their own religio-political ideal at the expense of religious freedom?

Gays are doing the exact same thing. They are propogating a religio-political ideal of their own morality and imposing it on religion.

Marriage is fundamentally religious. (Do I really need to start quoting my sociology textbook?) It is fundamentally religious.

I say gut the governmental perks to marriage. Change the tax codes.

nope, wrong again.

This is ridiculous and unfounded. I can go 3000 years before the establishment of democracy in Greece and still find marriage. The concept of marriage was intrinsically religious long before empires had the ability to get a cut of money from it. Marriage, since its inception has been religious.

If one holds to the bible, as a Christian, one holds that it was created by Yahweh himself, prior to the existence of government at all.

And the argument that civil marriage is not what is talked about is really invalid, as marriages were taxed and regulated under the Roman empire and divorces were ridiculously easy, (in some sects of Judaism saying I divorce you with witnesses in the city gate was sufficient) Jesus stepped into that and said what he did about marriage.

but it's still not recoginzed as a marriage.

And marriage is the domain of the church, not state.

you are so off base

No, not at all. If it is the term you want, not the rights, then what you desire is not the marriage, but forced acceptance of your lifestyle as mainstream. It is bullying, and ultimately cannot coexist with freedom of religion, because the church is being invaded by the state.

I really don't care if you think I am living in sin because I am a homosexual. You have the religious freedom to believe that. Just like I have the religious freedom to believe otherwise. I am, and most other mainstream gays, believe the same thing. But you cannot use the government to control how I express my religous beliefs, even through marriage.

Except that marriage is and always has been a religious function. Those who abused the Martin Luther quote missed something very important. While the state had infused itself into religious affairs at Luther's time, marriage has been a religious sacrament in all major Western religions for millenia.

I believe in freedom. People should be able to marry who they want to marry and receive the same legal protections afforded to heterosexual couples. And churches should be able to decide who they do and do not want to marry (meaning if a church doesn't want to conduct marriages for gay couples they should not be forced to).

The way this is being phrased, that of course is the next logical step. Get marriage declared a civil right. Then a church that refuses to perform one will be violating someone's civil rights.

People who stand against gay marriage don't. I just want the same legal protections afforded to you and your wife when I, hopefully, find a man and decide to marry him.

I believe in freedom. This is a power play to change society and force acceptance. Even your earlier race comparisons to Jim Crow laws expose that rather blatantly.

Heck. I would happily require all straights to get a civil union if it would get the government out of the sacrament of marriage.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

But the government calling something "marriage" doesn't actually make it a marriage in terms of Christian theology.

(The rest of this is not really directed at Bill)

1. "Marriage" in the terms of legislation IS NOT a religious rite.
a. People can get married at the courthouse without any ceremony involved.

Vows, and wittnesses are required. The same is what is required in world religions. It is a very small ceremony, but make no mistake, it is a form of ceremony.

b. Those who chose to have a religious ceremony are free to do so, however what actually makes it a legal marriage is signing the marriage license and meeting the states requirements. Those requirements do not include a religious component as that would violate the Establishment Clause.

CONCLUSION: While oftentimes the signing of the license and the ceremony happen at the same time, two different things are being accomplished. On the one had the there is the religious ceremony on the other the civil. As demonstrated above it is possible to distinguish between the two and there have been many legal marriages that do not correspond to a religious "marriage". A ceremony is neither necessary nor sufficient to making a legal marriage.

2. Whatever legislation happens to affect marriage ONLY affects civil marriage.
a. Although the government has decided that certain religious authorities may preside over the creation of a civil marriage, it is still that marriage and ONLY that marriage that the government has any power over.
b. If the government made it illegal for religious leaders (pastors/priests/rabbis) to refuse to perform that civil marriage it would be a different issue. That has not happened.

CONCLUSION: Although there does seem to be some entanglement between religion and the government it has only to do with civil marriage.

The concept of civil marriage is an artificial one alien to human history. The fact that ministers are allowed to perform weddings speaks to the fact that this is actually a case of severe entanglement.

In such a case, where church and state are entangled the result needs to be a clean break, not a co-opting of a religious ritual by the state.

[gtrdave]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

If it's such a bad thing to care about the legal perks, tell me why virtually all Christian couples choose to enter into civil marriages. If all we're supposed to care about is the lifelong covenant, then why don't more Christians opt out of the government benefits and just decide to have their marriages recognized by a pastor?

I know that when my wife and I got married some 23 years ago, filing at the courthouse was done because I just thought that it's what was supposed to happen, not because I or she was looking forward to the benefits and perks. Seriously, I had no idea.

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

My wife and I are legally marriage -- are you saying that we're superficial just because we chose to register at the courthouse? Does that mean that we don't care about our marriage as a covenant?

Probably not...I don't know you at all, so I can only assume that y'all love each other and view the marriage as a God-blessed covenant more than a way for either of you to make/save a buck and/or obtain a few gub'ment supplied fringe benefits.
But you can honestly tell me that EVERYONE who gets married does so strictly out of love and a willingness to make and keep that covenant?
Back to the 'sanctity of marriage' argument that many anti-homosexual marriage opponents use, heteros have already killed the 'sanctity of marriage', so why destroy it even more?

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

I realize that you'd like to get the government out of marriage entirely, but the reality is that right now, the government is heavily involved in marriage, and most couples, including Christians, take advantage of that. So it's a little nasty of you to assume the worst about Bryan or anybody else just because they'd like to have the same benefits that the vast majority of Christian couples go out of their way to obtain.

Yes, how "nasty" of me to call someone out for wanting to marry for the sake of money...
Look, homosexuals are people just like you and I. Sinful, misguided people just like you and I. To me, this is very clear when their prime argument for wanting to be married is because of the legal and financial benefits, NOT because of the covenant bond that marriage is supposed to be.
To be clear, I'd feel the same way about a hetero couple that wants to get married MORE because of the same benefits, as probably happens every day.
So, let's stop pretending about this. It is all about money and many people stand to make out big if homosexuals are allowed to marry, many of whom I listed before. Add to them the county courts, the states and lawyers across the land.
Divorce lawyers will not be going broke anytime soon if gay marriage is legalized.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by gtrdave

Probably not...I don't know you at all, so I can only assume that y'all love each other and view the marriage as a God-blessed covenant more than a way for either of you to make/save a buck and/or obtain a few gub'ment supplied fringe benefits.

Why is it that you're willing to assume the best of my intentions, but you're happy to assume the worst of Bryan's? My point is that the mere fact that a couple wants to have access to government benefits after they get married doesn't automatically tell you ANYTHING about their attitude towards marriage. Like you said, you don't know me. You also don't know Bryan. So please stop acting like you do.

Originally Posted by gtrdave

But you can honestly tell me that EVERYONE who gets married does so strictly out of love and a willingness to make and keep that covenant?

Of course not. But that's a universal problem. Christian couples, non-Christian couples, gay couples, straight couples -- every demographic has examples of people who marry for the wrong reasons. There are plenty of Christians who could care less about government benefits but still marry for superficial reasons and end up getting divorced two years later.

Originally Posted by gtrdave

Yes, how "nasty" of me to call someone out for wanting to marry for the sake of money...

You don't know that he wants to marry for the sake of money. All you know is that he would like access to the same government benefits that my wife and I have. So why is he a gold digger and I'm not? You made an ignorant assumption about his motives, and yes, that's a nasty thing to do.

Originally Posted by gtrdave

Look, homosexuals are people just like you and I. Sinful, misguided people just like you and I. To me, this is very clear when their prime argument for wanting to be married is because of the legal and financial benefits, NOT because of the covenant bond that marriage is supposed to be.
To be clear, I'd feel the same way about a hetero couple that wants to get married MORE because of the same benefits, as probably happens every day.
So, let's stop pretending about this. It is all about money and many people stand to make out big if homosexuals are allowed to marry, many of whom I listed before. Add to them the county courts, the states and lawyers across the land.
Divorce lawyers will not be going broke anytime soon if gay marriage is legalized.

But that isn't necessarily their primary reason for wanting to be married. Many homosexual couples who are calling for gay marriage are currently either in civil unions or just long-term relationships that aren't recognized by the government. It's not as though they're waiting for legalized gay marriage before they start caring about commitment or monogamy. They just see the marriage component as an equality issue. You can disagree with them on that, but again, you have no business making generalizations about the motives of such an enormous group of people.

[gtrdave]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

But that isn't necessarily their primary reason for wanting to be married.

Then they should stop broadcasting that as their primary reason.
I have not heard 1 homosexual enter the debate on gay marriage from the position of "because I love him/her". Rather, it's always about equal benefits, spousal benefits, equal tax breaks, hospital visitations, adoption, health care benefits, right-of-survivorship issues, etc...and the truth is that many of these things are already being offered by companies and civil union laws are handling the rest. If not now, then in the future.

Marriage, to me, is exactly as it is stated in the Bible in both the OT and NT.
I'm sorry that you might disagree with that and I'm sorry that the government got its paws so deep into the institution of marriage as to turn it into little more than a political pawn, but none of that should detract from the very basic fact of what marriage is and what it is not.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by gtrdave

Marriage, to me, is exactly as it is stated in the Bible in both the OT and NT.
I'm sorry that you might disagree with that and I'm sorry that the government got its paws so deep into the institution of marriage as to turn it into little more than a political pawn, but none of that should detract from the very basic fact of what marriage is and what it is not.

I never said I disagreed with that. Personally, I believe that marriage is a God-ordained lifelong union between a man and a woman. So we agree. But we're talking about the U.S. government, which is not a theocracy and is not obligated to align itself with our beliefs. And as long as it doesn't infringe on our freedom as Christians and church members to define marriage the way that we do, I don't for the life of me understand why we should care what the government thinks of marriage.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by gtrdave

So, you really don't want to be married in order to create a covenant with another person, you just want the $$$ benefits and legal perks.
I'm not surprised as it's the same conclusion that's come from talking to several homosexuals about this same issue.

no, that's not true. I can get married. I can already create a covenant between me and another man. What I want is the protection of that covenant that is given to straight couples.

Again, if the government and all of the other organizations that offer these benefits and perks to married couples would stop, marriages would decline faster than a dump truck rolling over the side of the Grand Canyon and the wind would be removed from the sails of the homosexual marriage argument.

but it would also be disastrous for society

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

The concept of civil marriage is an artificial one alien to human history.

State regulation of marriages can be found centuries ago. For e.g. after the French Revolution civil marriages were given primacy over religious ones.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by slap_j

State regulation of marriages can be found centuries ago. For e.g. after the French Revolution civil marriages were given primacy over religious ones.

That would be a rather dramatic anomaly. But the French Revolution itself is one, in its extreme anti-religious fervor. But a complete bloodbath like the French Revolution which is in and of itself iconoclastic is going to violate normal conventions.

[gtrdave]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

I never said I disagreed with that. Personally, I believe that marriage is a God-ordained lifelong union between a man and a woman. So we agree. But we're talking about the U.S. government, which is not a theocracy and is not obligated to align itself with our beliefs. And as long as it doesn't infringe on our freedom as Christians and church members to define marriage the way that we do, I don't for the life of me understand why we should care what the government thinks of marriage.

I guess my bottom line is this: marriage should be what the Bible states that it has been 'from the beginning', then make civil unions the non-religious alternative and share the legal and/or financial benefits of marriage with those in civil unions, gay or straight.
Frankly, I think the gub'ment should get out of marriage, as unrealistic as that might seem.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by gtrdave

I guess my bottom line is this: marriage should be what the Bible states that it has been 'from the beginning', then make civil unions the non-religious alternative and share the legal and/or financial benefits of marriage with those in civil unions, gay or straight.
Frankly, I think the gub'ment should get out of marriage, as unrealistic as that might seem.

And I have no problem with that position. I wrote earlier why I don't think it's necessarily wise for the government to pull out of marriage right now, but I respect it as an ideologically consistent solution. If the proponents of Prop 8 had been campaigning for a clean break between the Church and the government with respect to marriage, I still wouldn't really be in favor of that, but their position would at least make sense to me. As it stands now, they're trying to have it both ways -- they're happy for the secular government to be involved in marriage, but fiercely opposed to the idea of that government accommodating non-Christian definitions of marriage. The hypocrisy of Prop 8, and much of the "traditional marriage" campaign in general, is what bothers me so much.

[tlj009]

no, that's not true. I can get married. I can already create a covenant between me and another man. What I want is the protection of that covenant that is given to straight couples.

Just out of curiosity, what would that protection entail?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by gtrdave

I guess my bottom line is this: marriage should be what the Bible states that it has been 'from the beginning',

but you are making the assumption that the Bible is the final arbiter of everything and then forcing that assumption on everybody whether they agree or not. You are using the state to enforce your religion

instead the government should recognize all marriages regardless of the religion that may or may not be attached to it.

then make civil unions the non-religious alternative and share the legal and/or financial benefits of marriage with those in civil unions, gay or straight.
Frankly, I think the gub'ment should get out of marriage, as unrealistic as that might seem.

and no, the government shouldn't be out of marriage. It is essential that they be involved. That's how we keep a husband form tossing his wife aside without any financial footing. That's how we determine who will gets to make medical decisions when someone is incapacitated. That's how we determine who inherits the estate when someone dies.

Originally Posted by tlj009

Just out of curiosity, what would that protection entail?

see above