CAPS are for emphasis...had I typed my whole post in caps (and it made it past the lameness filter) THEN you would have a point...and no...I didn't want to use html tags to make it bold.
Say it's a marriage if you want...you would be wrong...like it or not.
It cracks me up when people accuse folks like myself of not "having enough love" to allow things like this (that comment is why you won the CPOTD). No factual basis...just a personal attack because you have nothing of substance to say.
It doesn't matter if Jefferson was referring to God as in the Christian God or another god of his choosing...his reference to God and that the rights being protected by the goverment are the rights granted to us by "our Creator". The U.S. Goverment is a construct of man by man for man. So what? I'm not arguing that. You can't deny the fact that English Law and United States Law is founded on the principles of the Bible...well you can deny it...but you would be wrong.
I'm not saying Jefferson was referring to my God.
The Declaration was a basis for creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was it not? The constitution and the Bill of Rights is the Legal represenation of what was said in the Declaration. It may not be a legal document you can refer to in a court but the document you can refer to was put into place because of it and to explicitly define what was said in it.
On that note...I hear people say everyday stuff about "separation of church and state" as if it were in the constitution. When pressed...those folks admit it's not in the constitution but in a letter or two from Jefferson about how there should exist a "wall of separation" between the church and state. Would you say that it's incorrect to argue for the separation of church and state because it's not in the constituion? If not then you are picking and choosing based on what you want. The "establishment clause" is way misused in these cases. Having a nativity scene in a public park is not the government establishing a religion. (I know you didn't bring this up...just giving an example of how "non-legal" documents are used to interpret meaning in legal documents such as the constitution.)
>First off, the Declaration made one reference to a God, hardly a religous document so one wouldn't expect them to refer to God in a religous sense.
I never said the Declaration was a religious document.
How does one refer to God or a god in a non-religious way?
In that time is was very common to capitalize nouns that referred to God (like in Creator).
Yes...he was a Deist...that means he believed in God and that God created us...hence "Creator." That suggests to me that he definitely DID mean God when he used the word Creator.
Now...the part you bolded for emphasis refers to the rights given to us by God...as Jefferson pointed out. The rest of your points rest on your assumption that Jefferson didn't mean God...I think it's obvious he did mean God. Since you don't buy that we can't really continue.
Not in the least...why would it? I've said before that being a Christian is not a prerequisite to be married. The only prerequisite is that it be between one man and one woman...anything else is not a marriage.
You can call truth "mythology" if you like...it's still truth.
I never said Christians "own" marriage. I said God established it. Christians are just defending it.
I think you are just using the "I don't believe what you believe so your points are irrelevant" defense most people like to resort to when presented with truths they don't agree with.
If it's really "just a word" and "just a legal concept" and "invented before Christanity existed" then why do gays have such an issue with calling their union something other than a marriage? Legal issues? Fixable pretty easily. If it's truly no big deal like you and others are suggesting then call it something else.
The answer is that it IS a big deal...precisely why they are gunning for the idea of marriage to be cheapened to mean "the union of 2+ entities". Now that's not what they are saying now...but eventually that is what it will turn into.
You said, "Our Founding Fathers were strong believers that "our civil, human rights that are assigned to us by God" was false and the governments derive their power from the consent of the governed and not God at all."
Do you consider the Declaration of Independence to be a founding document of the United States of America? Because in it you will find the words, "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...".
Who is that "Creator" they are referring to? Even if they didn't mean THE God (which they did) it still shows that our rights are given to us by something outside of us...something greater than us and with the authority to do such a thing.
The power to govern does come from the consent of the people...but our human rights come from outside of us...God. Consent to govern and possesing rights are two different things. Which did you want to discuss?
But it didn't exist before God. God established it...not man and not the Church and not Christianity. People love to try to make the argument that certain things pre-date Christianity or Judaism. The founder of those "religions" is GOD...and nothing predates Him.
You contradict yourself. First marriage is a church thing...now its back to being just a legal idea of two people joining together. Make up your mind.
We care because marriage is more than a legal concept. The sooner that is realized and sorted out the better. You can't have it both ways...and we don't want it both ways. If the word "marriage" is removed from all legal documents and replaced with "civil unions" then my wife and I will become civilly united to gain the benefits the law assigns to that union and be married by our church in a completely separate ceremony. If gays then want to be "civilly united" in the exact same way then GREAT! No problem.
JUST DON'T CALL TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN UNITING A MARRIAGE! IT'S NOT!
Actually that's not funny at all. It's very contradictory. Just because a man decides he is going to do something in God's name doesn't mean God endorses it.
Are you suggesting that because one may be Episcopalian and some Episcopalian leaders support gay marriage that all Episcopalians support gay marriage? Pretty broad assumption.
Seriously...what I will provide to you will be based from the Bible which, I am sure, you will probably toss aside with a comment like, "I don't view the Bible as authoritative" or something like that...so what's the point?
I know a gay Christian myself...he was my roommate in college for an entire school year and we still keep in touch to this day.
I say that to say he doesn't believe God made him gay. If God makes people gay and then, in His word, says homosexuality is an abomination, then He has contradicted himself. I don't want to serve a God that does that...it's cruel and unjust.
God did not make you gay. You may not know why you are that way but it's not because you were created that way.
I haven't forgotten about Atheists. Why would an atheist care about marriage in the relgious sense? If they want to join themselves together with another person then great. If they get married (legally as defined by the state) so they get some legal protections and rights the great.
It would seem to me that marriage, other than it's legal aspects, wouldn't matter a hill of beans to an atheist.
I have always said that God can defend Himself...I don't need to do it for Him. If you want to blaspheme then knock yourself out.
I am NOT going to shut the **** up though...sorry.
Again...LEGAL marriage is not what I am talking about. You are confusing the two. Marriage is not just a legal concept. If it were we wouldn't be having this conversation.
If there are those that want to treat marriage with disrespect then whatever...just don't force me to recognize gays as being married. United legally? Sure...whatever. It's not a marriage...period.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM HAVING THOSE RIGHTS!
They need to get the laws changed.
Marriage IS PRECIOUS and I will defend it with the same vigor you are expressing. You would see marriage trampled for the sake of the convenience of those that want to live counter to accepted culture.
The last election saw 11 states vote against the very thing I am talking about...so obviously I am not alone. San Fransisco can say whatever they please...truth is truth.
There is only one Bible. Can you show me another? There may be other religious books...(Koran, etc.) but there is only one Bible. If you are talking about the Catholic Bible vs. the Christian Bible then all the books that are in the Christian Bible are the same ones that are in the Catholic Bible...the difference is the Catholic one has more books that weren't canonised...but then you knew that.
In the New Testament John says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
The Bible clearly states what you are asking about. What you want is a direct quote from Jesus himself. Jesus IS God's word in the flesh. If there is a saying in the Bible from God then it's the same as being from Jesus. I don't expect you to accept that...but just because you don't accept it doesn't nullify it's truth.
I can't speak for them...all I can say is I don't have a problem with it.
I am against homosexuality...not those who practice it.
I am fundamentally against the agenda pushed by radical gays. Not agains the radical gays themselves...only against their ideas. Big difference.
Some on the religious right may want what you say (I am sure they do). I am not one of those...so I guess I am to the left of them. I don't think those to the right of me will get all that they want. I can see why they would want to push for all of that if they think it will give them bargaining power in the end (ok...we'll support the civil union...). Who knows. We will find out sooner rather than later I think.
The Bible was written by God through man. God is big enough to make sure it stays true even after translations.
No insanity required.
Two men or two women can be civilly united in the eyes of the state...no problem. Just don't call it a marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman.
The word marriage has a specific meaning. Two men cannot get married (nor two women) because a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Syntax IS important. Apparently you think it's splitting hairs...that is because you don't accept the actual definition of marriage. You see marriage as a legal concept only and it's more than that.
Scroll up and re-read so I don't have to repeat myself.
Being a christian is not a requirement to be married...even in a church.
If the vows being exchanged between the man and woman aren't against what that church stands for then I doubt the church would turn them away. A man making those vows to another man (or woman to woman) goes against what Christianity believes and stands for.
Like it or not marriage is an institution established by God...so "religion" is involved by definition and can't be left "out of it."
I had never thought of this before but I have to agree with you. Marriage should be a "church" thing and a civil union should be the state's equivalent where rights are bestowed and enumerated.
Since when is being a Christian a prerequisite for getting married? The prerequisite has always been (and was established as such) that it be between a man and a woman.
Slashdot Mirror
lol @ you...
You get my clueless-poster-of-the-day-award.
CAPS are for emphasis...had I typed my whole post in caps (and it made it past the lameness filter) THEN you would have a point...and no...I didn't want to use html tags to make it bold.
Say it's a marriage if you want...you would be wrong...like it or not.
It cracks me up when people accuse folks like myself of not "having enough love" to allow things like this (that comment is why you won the CPOTD). No factual basis...just a personal attack because you have nothing of substance to say.
It doesn't matter if Jefferson was referring to God as in the Christian God or another god of his choosing...his reference to God and that the rights being protected by the goverment are the rights granted to us by "our Creator". The U.S. Goverment is a construct of man by man for man. So what? I'm not arguing that. You can't deny the fact that English Law and United States Law is founded on the principles of the Bible...well you can deny it...but you would be wrong.
I'm not saying Jefferson was referring to my God.
The Declaration was a basis for creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was it not? The constitution and the Bill of Rights is the Legal represenation of what was said in the Declaration. It may not be a legal document you can refer to in a court but the document you can refer to was put into place because of it and to explicitly define what was said in it.
On that note...I hear people say everyday stuff about "separation of church and state" as if it were in the constitution. When pressed...those folks admit it's not in the constitution but in a letter or two from Jefferson about how there should exist a "wall of separation" between the church and state. Would you say that it's incorrect to argue for the separation of church and state because it's not in the constituion? If not then you are picking and choosing based on what you want. The "establishment clause" is way misused in these cases. Having a nativity scene in a public park is not the government establishing a religion. (I know you didn't bring this up...just giving an example of how "non-legal" documents are used to interpret meaning in legal documents such as the constitution.)
You can't have it both ways.
>First off, the Declaration made one reference to a God, hardly a religous document so one wouldn't expect them to refer to God in a religous sense.
I never said the Declaration was a religious document.
How does one refer to God or a god in a non-religious way?
In that time is was very common to capitalize nouns that referred to God (like in Creator).
Yes...he was a Deist...that means he believed in God and that God created us...hence "Creator." That suggests to me that he definitely DID mean God when he used the word Creator.
Now...the part you bolded for emphasis refers to the rights given to us by God...as Jefferson pointed out. The rest of your points rest on your assumption that Jefferson didn't mean God...I think it's obvious he did mean God. Since you don't buy that we can't really continue.
Not in the least...why would it? I've said before that being a Christian is not a prerequisite to be married. The only prerequisite is that it be between one man and one woman...anything else is not a marriage.
You can call truth "mythology" if you like...it's still truth.
I never said Christians "own" marriage. I said God established it. Christians are just defending it.
I think you are just using the "I don't believe what you believe so your points are irrelevant" defense most people like to resort to when presented with truths they don't agree with.
If it's really "just a word" and "just a legal concept" and "invented before Christanity existed" then why do gays have such an issue with calling their union something other than a marriage? Legal issues? Fixable pretty easily. If it's truly no big deal like you and others are suggesting then call it something else.
The answer is that it IS a big deal...precisely why they are gunning for the idea of marriage to be cheapened to mean "the union of 2+ entities". Now that's not what they are saying now...but eventually that is what it will turn into.
I took your advice and did a little googling...
You said, "Our Founding Fathers were strong believers that "our civil, human rights that are assigned to us by God" was false and the governments derive their power from the consent of the governed and not God at all."
Do you consider the Declaration of Independence to be a founding document of the United States of America? Because in it you will find the words, "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...".
Who is that "Creator" they are referring to? Even if they didn't mean THE God (which they did) it still shows that our rights are given to us by something outside of us...something greater than us and with the authority to do such a thing.
The power to govern does come from the consent of the people...but our human rights come from outside of us...God. Consent to govern and possesing rights are two different things. Which did you want to discuss?
But it didn't exist before God. God established it...not man and not the Church and not Christianity. People love to try to make the argument that certain things pre-date Christianity or Judaism. The founder of those "religions" is GOD...and nothing predates Him.
Um...Christians care perhaps?
You contradict yourself. First marriage is a church thing...now its back to being just a legal idea of two people joining together. Make up your mind.
We care because marriage is more than a legal concept. The sooner that is realized and sorted out the better. You can't have it both ways...and we don't want it both ways. If the word "marriage" is removed from all legal documents and replaced with "civil unions" then my wife and I will become civilly united to gain the benefits the law assigns to that union and be married by our church in a completely separate ceremony. If gays then want to be "civilly united" in the exact same way then GREAT! No problem.
JUST DON'T CALL TWO MEN OR TWO WOMEN UNITING A MARRIAGE! IT'S NOT!
After reading your last response I can confirm you have no argument left so you resort to nitpicking the words I use.
Actually that's not funny at all. It's very contradictory. Just because a man decides he is going to do something in God's name doesn't mean God endorses it.
Are you suggesting that because one may be Episcopalian and some Episcopalian leaders support gay marriage that all Episcopalians support gay marriage? Pretty broad assumption.
I asked you first.
Seriously...what I will provide to you will be based from the Bible which, I am sure, you will probably toss aside with a comment like, "I don't view the Bible as authoritative" or something like that...so what's the point?
Here is a good one if you really care:
Warning, PDF
BTW, there is a difference between the "sanctity" of marriage and marriage as a "sacriment." I am not Catholic.
I know a gay Christian myself...he was my roommate in college for an entire school year and we still keep in touch to this day.
I say that to say he doesn't believe God made him gay. If God makes people gay and then, in His word, says homosexuality is an abomination, then He has contradicted himself. I don't want to serve a God that does that...it's cruel and unjust.
God did not make you gay. You may not know why you are that way but it's not because you were created that way.
I haven't forgotten about Atheists. Why would an atheist care about marriage in the relgious sense? If they want to join themselves together with another person then great. If they get married (legally as defined by the state) so they get some legal protections and rights the great.
It would seem to me that marriage, other than it's legal aspects, wouldn't matter a hill of beans to an atheist.
I have always said that God can defend Himself...I don't need to do it for Him. If you want to blaspheme then knock yourself out.
I am NOT going to shut the **** up though...sorry.
Again...LEGAL marriage is not what I am talking about. You are confusing the two. Marriage is not just a legal concept. If it were we wouldn't be having this conversation.
If there are those that want to treat marriage with disrespect then whatever...just don't force me to recognize gays as being married. United legally? Sure...whatever. It's not a marriage...period.
Apparently you need to clean out your ears.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM HAVING THOSE RIGHTS!
They need to get the laws changed.
Marriage IS PRECIOUS and I will defend it with the same vigor you are expressing. You would see marriage trampled for the sake of the convenience of those that want to live counter to accepted culture.
The last election saw 11 states vote against the very thing I am talking about...so obviously I am not alone. San Fransisco can say whatever they please...truth is truth.
There is only one Bible. Can you show me another? There may be other religious books...(Koran, etc.) but there is only one Bible. If you are talking about the Catholic Bible vs. the Christian Bible then all the books that are in the Christian Bible are the same ones that are in the Catholic Bible...the difference is the Catholic one has more books that weren't canonised...but then you knew that.
In the New Testament John says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
The Bible clearly states what you are asking about. What you want is a direct quote from Jesus himself. Jesus IS God's word in the flesh. If there is a saying in the Bible from God then it's the same as being from Jesus. I don't expect you to accept that...but just because you don't accept it doesn't nullify it's truth.
Nothing pre-exists God though.
Can you supply references? I doubt it...because you are wrong.
I can't speak for them...all I can say is I don't have a problem with it.
I am against homosexuality...not those who practice it.
I am fundamentally against the agenda pushed by radical gays. Not agains the radical gays themselves...only against their ideas. Big difference.
Some on the religious right may want what you say (I am sure they do). I am not one of those...so I guess I am to the left of them. I don't think those to the right of me will get all that they want. I can see why they would want to push for all of that if they think it will give them bargaining power in the end (ok...we'll support the civil union...). Who knows. We will find out sooner rather than later I think.
The Bible was written by God through man. God is big enough to make sure it stays true even after translations.
No insanity required.
Two men or two women can be civilly united in the eyes of the state...no problem. Just don't call it a marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman.
The word marriage has a specific meaning. Two men cannot get married (nor two women) because a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Syntax IS important. Apparently you think it's splitting hairs...that is because you don't accept the actual definition of marriage. You see marriage as a legal concept only and it's more than that.
Scroll up and re-read so I don't have to repeat myself.
Being a christian is not a requirement to be married...even in a church.
If the vows being exchanged between the man and woman aren't against what that church stands for then I doubt the church would turn them away. A man making those vows to another man (or woman to woman) goes against what Christianity believes and stands for.
Like it or not marriage is an institution established by God...so "religion" is involved by definition and can't be left "out of it."
I agree with you and with the poster above that made the same point. :)
I had never thought of this before but I have to agree with you. Marriage should be a "church" thing and a civil union should be the state's equivalent where rights are bestowed and enumerated.
Good point! Mod parent up!
Since when is being a Christian a prerequisite for getting married? The prerequisite has always been (and was established as such) that it be between a man and a woman.