Marriage can be viewed as a religious institution or merely a social contract for the unreligious. Unfortunately, many of those who view it as a religious institution do not take it seriously as such, i.e. that it is a most solemn covenant made before God as witness.

Gerry

I'm with ParadeOrange on this one.

If gay marriage is against your religious and moral principles, the solution is simple: don't participate in one.

If you are worried about the sacredness and good name of the marriage institution being damaged, then the solution is to make your marriage the best it can possibly be, by treating your spouse with fidelity, love and respect. The failure to do so, by many heterosexual couples including those who claim the name of Christian, does more on a daily basis to degrade the sanctity of marriage than any number of same-sex unions possibly could.

I don't recall Christian believers in New Testament times lobbying Caesar's government to take a stand against homosexual practices and other activities that went against Christian doctrine and practice. And that was during a time when such activity was extremely widespread in the ancient Roman and Greek world, to the point of being regarded as normal.

We need to once again take a good look at what separation of church and state really means, and what it means to keep the things of God and those of "Caesar" separate.

aldona

Gerry I wasnt defending gay marriages by reason of christians hypocracy. and re: your 2nd post- yes it is very solemn and sacred- Thats what I was talking about what MARRIAGE really Is! Then why all the divorce Blanche! the christians should be really upset by this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and Aldona thanku for saying that.
and Shane... yes it is the sign of declining civilazation- hence.......




J E S U S IS C O M I N G !!!!!

O yes! Gerry,

I am glad that you know many christians who look at their fellow human beings who are in the gay lifestyle or struggle with homosexualty or both as equal!!!!!!!!!! Wow I have never known many christians who feel that way.

When you are a 13 year old who goes to church for the first time and the Ministers wife tells your mother that "all homos should be lined up and shot" and everything after that that seems to echo that sentiment for decades you slowly come to that conclusion on how christians feel inside.

When a church as whole berates,tells jokes about, harrasses, offended by, preached against, denied access, snickered about, murders and get away with it (dan white who was a christian murdered Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk), and the church wants the homos to hide in shadows and stay in the closet

you kinda get a feeling...


u know what I mean?

if we're going to be serious about separating church and state, then we have to get the state out of all sorts of social welfare issues.

Leaving that issue to one side, however, the state has plenty of reasons to support and regulate marriage. Marriage is not just a religious institution, but is also a social institution, which affects the health of the state. Therefore, the state has a clear and compelling interest in defining, supporting and regulating marriage.

Those who study the family recognize the data is overwhelming that children need a father and a mother. Children raised without were apparently other are much more likely to be a burden on the state. In fact, studies of prison inmates indicate that, controlling for all other factors is the single bullet best indicator of becoming a criminal. No other factor, not race, not socioeconomic status, nothing is predictive as being without a father.

I really hope no one will raise the specious point that not everyone without father goes to jail. Of coarse not. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, but that doesn't mean smoking isn't the major cause of lung cancer. So let's just not start the fallacious arguments.

Families to undertake to bear and raise children thereby provide the next generation of citizens and taxpayers, and make survival of the state possible.in so doing, they undertake burdens both economic and otherwise, for which they will never be adequately compensated. Since the state benefits from stable families, and therefore is in the state's interest to promote stable families, and even to subsidize them with tax breaks etc.

As I said in an earlier post, a single man and a single woman have the potential to produce children without the intervention of anyone else. That same grouping provides the optimum environment for raising children. So the state has a compelling interest in encouraging, subsidizing, defining, and regulating monogamous heterosexual marriage.

"Homosexual marriage" is therefore an oxymoron.if the state determines that some sort of civil partnership for other groupings of individuals is beneficial to the state, then it might choose to create such institutions. If the state determines that such civil partnerships lead to damage the state, then they should be prohibited.

As for the other matter, I am amused that those who are horrified that the church should influence the state. In any way, but are perfectly happy with the state to assume all sorts of functions --- caring for the poor, etc., which are in fact urged by the church.

Well wouldnt promoting straight marriage as a serious cemented till death do u part kinda thing uphold marriage?.. where divorce is not frivolously given. Marriages are so easy to obtain on a whim. Most straight people I know who have been married more than once ,by example, do not take their sacred solomn covenants so seriously. R they screaming the loudest over gay marriages?

Men desiring woman and visa versa will always be here and wont diminish. dont panic. The striaght marriage is not threatened and if is(and it is) its because of what the straights have done to their marriage in the church and without.

the kids without fathers is mostly a staight thang and most of the other ills that comes from that.
woman having sex with men without marriage ect.

and affirmative about what the church regarding the poor ect.

The church has failed all their missions given by God.

The church was supposed to be there for the masses dying of AIDES to offer God's Love and forgiveness and not shunned and told 'told ya sooooooo!".It did the opposite.

Now the church has another mission and from the news it looks like its failing AGAIN!

THe State and the church is both involved in the wedding. I agree. Some dont CHURCH it. But we all STATE it.

So the bottom line is whats in it for the state?

I suppose you can look at it that way.

But when I see a couple getting married its the last thing on their mind.

Maybe many christians here think like that as they walk down the aisle. I dont know.

But I was thinking more about cival liberties and equal rights and all that.

actually, the typical wedding ceremony emphasizes the issue of family and fertility. The older generation is usually ushered in the special seating, and the younger generation is included as flower girls and ring bearers and candle lighters. The marriageable generation is represented in the couple, the groomsmen, and the bridesmaids. So the family as the transmitter of civilization, a continuation of the race is definitely present. And of course, the custom of throwing rice was a promoter of fertility in the union.

As far as civil rights, and civil liberties go, I addressed that already. a homosexual person has precisely the same right to marry as anyone else. Nothing on the marriage license either requests information about sexual orientation or indicates that homosexuals are ineligible. What is desired is a redefinition of marriage, so that a man can marry a man or a woman can marry a woman.

But if you're going to redefine marriage, why stop there? Why not say any people who want to marry any others can do so in any combination? As indicated in an earlier post, one man and one woman are the basic unit of reproduction for the human race. Nothing will change that. And traditional definitions of marriage recognize that simple physiological fact.

well they are people who dont want to stop there but I wont take up their cases. Its not my bag daddio.