Gay Marriage

[doug yowell]

Facetious?

Maybe. How do you spell that?

[Overaged]

Well; it might be "legal" but if it's "gay" it's not "marriage."

[Gregory Matthews]

Well; it might be "legal" but if it's "gay" it's not "marriage."

Marriage has both civil and theological aspects.

Society has the right to define the civil aspects of marriage, regardless of whether or not that defination agrees with the theological defination of marriage.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

Well; it might be "legal" but if it's "gay" it's not "marriage."

Marriage has both civil and theological aspects.

Society has the right to define the civil aspects of marriage, regardless of whether or not that defination agrees with the theological defination of marriage.

The trouble with what you are saying here is that "society" has not defined "the civil aspects of marriage" alone and apart from the "theological" aspect. They have gone far beyond that. And they are pushing for more.

[Gregory Matthews]

The whole issue of "gay marriage" is an attempt to define marriage outsie of the theological aspects. That is where "civil union" enters the picture.

[Overaged]

Thats for sure; but I dont understand why you would say they have a right to do that? To me; they exercise far more than "rights" in doing this.

[Gregory Matthews]

Civil society today is not obloigated to write their laws in accord with the Bible. Thus, civil society may write marriage laws that are not in accord with the Bible.

In the matter of Gay Marriage, civil society may provide for so-call Civil Unions or it may write the statutes to allow for Gay Marriage. Wahtever civil society writes a law, does not define what the Bible says.

[doug yowell]

[Marriage has both civil and theological aspects.

Society has the right to define the civil aspects of marriage, regardless of whether or not that defination agrees with the theological defination of marriage.

The trouble with what you are saying here is that "society" has not defined "the civil aspects of marriage" alone and apart from the "theological" aspect. They have gone far beyond that. And they are pushing for more.

[doug yowell]

Is my above response readable??

[Gregory Matthews]

You may say that society has defined marriage within Biblical paramaaeters. I would not argue that.

I am saying tha Society can define the civil law realted to marriage outside of the Biblical norms. Society ahs the right to do that, as each citizen has the right to vote their wishes as to civil law.

[Overaged]

This, of course, outs the religious citizen from a say in determining the standard of public morality,and frees the minority to redefine the parameters of right and wrong.Yes? No?

Isa 59:14 And justice is driven back, and justice stands afar off; for truth has fallen in the street, and right cannot enter.

[Overaged]

You may say that society has defined marriage within Biblical paramaaeters. I would not argue that.

I am saying tha Society can define the civil law realted to marriage outside of the Biblical norms. Society ahs the right to do that, as each citizen has the right to vote their wishes as to civil law.

Fair enough. What I am saying though is that "society" does not have this "right;" when it comes to Christian marriage. They take it. There is a difference.

[SivartM]

Do people have a right to baptize infants even though many do not recognize that as Christian baptism?

[Overaged]

People take rights they don't actually have all the time - doesn't mean they actually do have those rights. But then calling it "Christian" doesn't always make it so either.

[Gregory Matthews]

Overaged said:

Quote:

Fair enough. What I am saying though is that "society" does not have this "right;" when it comes to Christian marriage. They take it. There is a difference.

I agree. But, by the same thinking, the Chruch should not define civil marriage.

As a clergy person, society must not tell me who I have to marry--that would be society defining Christian marriage.

Society should set up legal protections for those who wish to marry outside of Christianity--Jews, members of pagan religions and seccular people, etc. Theses people should not be required to marry within Christian standards.

[Overaged]

I mostly agree with what you are saying; except that if it isn't "christian" then it isn't "marriage." "Society" needs to call it something else; and they do have a right to do that.

[Gregory Matthews]

Like you say, we pretty much agree.

[SivartM]

I mostly agree with what you are saying; except that if it isn't "christian" then it isn't "marriage."

So Jews, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., are not actually married?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

I mostly agree with what you are saying; except that if it isn't "christian" then it isn't "marriage."

So Jews, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., are not actually married?

Now THAT was a good question, SM!

[Overaged]

Well; marriages formed upon christian-based principles are not limited to Christians.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

I mostly agree with what you are saying; except that if it isn't "christian" then it isn't "marriage."

So Jews, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., are not actually married?

And yes; you have asked some really great questions in your last two posts.

[Dr. Shane]

One big problem we see in many areas of the United States is that society rejects gay marriage but a handful of judges over-rule them. That is definitely a problem which is not restricted to gay marriage alone.

I do believe that as defenders of religious liberty we need to be very concerned that gay marriage laws do not infringe upon the religious liberties of those that oppose it. A man or woman that is a judge shouldn't be forced to marry to gay people if he or she has moral convictions against it. Just as a doctor shouldn't be forced to perform an abortion if he or she has a moral conviction against it.

[doug yowell]

Overaged said:

Quote:

Fair enough. What I am saying though is that "society" does not have this "right;" when it comes to Christian marriage. They take it. There is a difference.

I agree. But, by the same thinking, the Chruch should not define civil marriage.

As a clergy person, society must not tell me who I have to marry--that would be society defining Christian marriage.

Society should set up legal protections for those who wish to marry outside of Christianity--Jews, members of pagan religions and seccular people, etc. Theses people should not be required to marry within Christian standards.

What you seem to be omitting is the fact that in order to allow for same sex "marriage" society must agree to redefine what marriage is! NO society in the history of the world has ever even considered a homosexual relationship to be a marriage. This definition far transcends Christianity (as SM alluded to)to include every culture ever recorded. Even in societies where homosexual behaviour was accepted it was never considered to be marriage.Demanding that society must bow to the redefinition of a homosexual liason as a marriage is NOT A RIGHT any more than demanding that defining a week as 7 days needs to be abolished because it is imposing a Christian definition on time.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shand said:

Quote:

A man or woman that is a judge shouldn't be forced to marry to gay people if he or she has moral convictions against it. Just as a doctor shouldn't be forced to perform an abortion if he or she has a moral conviction against it.

A judge has taken an oath to to perform the requirements of the statute according to the law without bias. A judge who would discriminate against gay couples where the statute allows them to marry, should resign.

[Gregory Matthews]

Doug said:

Quote:

What you seem to be omitting is the fact that in order to allow for same sex "marriage" society must agree to redefine what marriage is! NO society in the history of the world has ever even considered a homosexual relationship to be a marriage. This definition far transcends Christianity (as SM alluded to)to include every culture ever recorded. Even in societies where homosexual behaviour was accepted it was never considered to be marriage.Demanding that society must bow to the redefinition of a homosexual liason as a marriage is NOT A RIGHT any more than demanding that defining a week as 7 days needs to be abolished because it is imposing a Christian definition on time.

Doug, would you allow for civil unions with equal right to that of marriage?

NOTE: A historical view of the defination of a "week" does not find its origin in a Christian view. The week is clearly pre-Christian in origin.