​The Meaning Of Marriage

[FindersKeepers]

`
I was just teasing you.

Phew...oh good. Because, I'm a staunch supporter of gay rights and I was afraid I'd offended.

[FindersKeepers]

"Marriage" should be treated like any other contract between consenting adults. If the contracting parties wish to imbue this relationship with religious undertones, then so be it. But the government has ZERO place defining what marriage is or is not. And there is ZERO basis in the Bible for the government doing so. In fact, the proper interpretation of the Bible is that the material world, which would necessarily include government, has nothing to do with marriage.

"Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

It does not say "what Caesar has joined together", but what "GOD" has joined together. In other words, the only one with the power and authority to sanctify a marriage is God himself. To involve the government is to sully a spiritual union with mundane inanities.

While I understand your reasoning, the problem I see with that is this -- the government has been involved in accepting unsuitable marriages (by God's standards) for decades. So, there is really no moral high ground for refusing to accept SS marriages.

The state would have to nullify a whole lot of second, third and subsequent marriages, because, in God's eyes, they are adultery, hence, not real marriages. Jesus is very clear that while a man can divorce his wife, only if he divorced her because she cheated is he allowed to remarry. Otherwise, if he divorces her and remarries, he's not justified in remarrying. And, no other man may marry his ex-wife either. So, that's a lot of hetero marriages that are not sanctified, even if a church allows those couples to marry. The scripture you chose was from Mt 19, but read on a bit in that same chapter and find:

⁶ Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
⁷ They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
⁸ He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
⁹ And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Knowing that the government, or society in general, is accepting these subsequent marriages as valid pretty much sets the stage for accepting SS marriages as valid. And actually, Jesus goes on to say how His marriage rules impact ONLY his followers.

¹¹ But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

¹² For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Basically, Christians are held to a different standard of marriage according to Jesus. A standard that doesn't really apply to others. The RCC requires annulments for that reason. Annulments are nothing more than religious back flips to ensure that church members can engage in marriages Jesus told them not to engage in.

If the state is prepared to accept the adulterous second and third marriages, which are no more "valid" in God's eyes than SS marriage, then it behooves us as a gentle society to also accept SS marriages.

With grace.

[Standing Wolf]

NO, how the sam hell did you hear that!

I wasn't trying to put word in your mouth - honestly. It's just that the subject of the thread is what should be called a "marriage", you'd earlier expressed your belief that same-sex relationships shouldn't qualify, and then you began speculating on a world with a diminishing birthrate because of all the non-reproducing couples. I'm simply trying to understand where that negative vision fits into the discussion.

[Standing Wolf]

"Marriage" should be treated like any other contract between consenting adults. If the contracting parties wish to imbue this relationship with religious undertones, then so be it. But the government has ZERO place defining what marriage is or is not. And there is ZERO basis in the Bible for the government doing so. In fact, the proper interpretation of the Bible is that the material world, which would necessarily include government, has nothing to do with marriage.

"Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

It does not say "what Caesar has joined together", but what "GOD" has joined together. In other words, the only one with the power and authority to sanctify a marriage is God himself. To involve the government is to sully a spiritual union with mundane inanities.

Let's take a brief look at a world in which government "has nothing to do with marriage".

Since both the civil and the criminal justice systems are part of government, there can be no regulation of who or what contracts to be married...and no criminal penalties may be attached to marrying someone (or something) not previously considered marriageable. In fact, since the whole purpose of a contract is to set out the terms of an agreement for purposes of legal enforcement, and since the government "has nothing to do with marriage", an actual contract is unnecessary and inappropriate. Whatever protections and enforcement mechanism the religious body - if one is involved - or the individuals themselves choose to put in place will have to do.

Since government will have no say in defining who qualifies to be a party to marriage, the parties themselves, or the religious body officiating, will make that determination. Multiple marriage, plural marriage, child marriage, interspecies marriage...the possibilities are almost infinite.

Then, of course, if the parties determine, at some point, that the marriage should end, such considerations as the custody and support of children, the division of property, etc., arise. Since "the government has nothing to do with marriage", there are no more Family Courts, conciliation services offices or other resources to assist in making those determinations. It's just in the hands of God, I suppose.

[resister]

I wasn't trying to put word in your mouth - honestly. It's just that the subject of the thread is what should be called a "marriage", you'd earlier expressed your belief that same-sex relationships shouldn't qualify, and then you began speculating on a world with a diminishing birthrate because of all the non-reproducing couples. I'm simply trying to understand where that negative vision fits into the discussion.

I never said they shouldnt qualify, quite the oppisite i stated they should have equal rights under law as any ohter couple, just dont call it marriage.

[Standing Wolf]

I never said they shouldnt qualify, quite the oppisite i stated they should have equal rights under law as any ohter couple, just dont call it marriage.

There's a not-so-little problem with that. The status of being married changes literally thousands of things from a legal standpoint - from who is assumed to be the father of a newborn child to who is empowered to pull the plug on a coma patient. The word "married" is almost universally used in those statutes. If you want same-sex couples to "have equal rights under the law", the M word pretty much has to be applied to their unions, or it doesn't happen.

[resister]

There's a not-so-little problem with that. The status of being married changes literally thousands of things from a legal standpoint - from who is assumed to be the father of a newborn child to who is empowered to pull the plug on a coma patient. The word "married" is almost universally used in those statutes. If you want same-sex couples to "have equal rights under the law", the M word pretty much has to be applied to their unions, or it doesn't happen.

Point, but an * is needed.

[Ethereal]

While I understand your reasoning, the problem I see with that is this -- the government has been involved in accepting unsuitable marriages (by God's standards) for decades. So, there is really no moral high ground for refusing to accept SS marriages.

I don't want to refuse SS marriages. I am arguing that the state has no legitimate role in defining marriage and it makes little sense for Christians to argue that it should define marriage since their own scriptures strongly imply that marriage is a spiritual union and not a civic one. The only role the government has with regards to "marriage" is the same role it has with regards to any other contract.

[Ethereal]

Let's take a brief look at a world in which government "has nothing to do with marriage".

Since both the civil and the criminal justice systems are part of government, there can be no regulation of who or what contracts to be married...and no criminal penalties may be attached to marrying someone (or something) not previously considered marriageable. In fact, since the whole purpose of a contract is to set out the terms of an agreement for purposes of legal enforcement, and since the government "has nothing to do with marriage", an actual contract is unnecessary and inappropriate. Whatever protections and enforcement mechanism the religious body - if one is involved - or the individuals themselves choose to put in place will have to do.

Since government will have no say in defining who qualifies to be a party to marriage, the parties themselves, or the religious body officiating, will make that determination. Multiple marriage, plural marriage, child marriage, interspecies marriage...the possibilities are almost infinite.

Then, of course, if the parties determine, at some point, that the marriage should end, such considerations as the custody and support of children, the division of property, etc., arise. Since "the government has nothing to do with marriage", there are no more Family Courts, conciliation services offices or other resources to assist in making those determinations. It's just in the hands of God, I suppose.

I said that marriage should be treated like any other contract, so the government would have a role in terms of enforcing and adjudicating those contracts. It should not, however, have the power to define marriage one way or the other. I'm actually making a PRO SS marriage argument if you understand what I'm trying to say.

[Doublejack]

Best option :

Civil unions/marriage carries all the legal obligations while a religious marriage is title only.