Sanctity of Marriage

Discussion in 'Christian Forum' started by Buffalo Howler, Jul 15, 2015.

  1. theduckguru

    theduckguru Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,195
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2003
    Location:
    ohio
    I have no problem with either., my problem is with people who believe they have the right to require other people to follow their religious beliefs. In case you missed it in elementry school, a lot of people came here to escape people like you and have freedom of religion. You have no right to demand that people meet your religious beliefs to be married. Nor do I have the right to require you to meet my religious beliefs to be married. Clear enough?

    I currently married 22 years. It has been my only marriage and I entered into marriage believing divorce is wrong. I have strong anti gay marriage christian friends who have been divorced 3 times.
     
  2. tcc

    tcc Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,127
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Location:
    Louisiana
    So let me get this straight: if a non-Christian is against gay marriage then it's ok, however if a Christian is against gay marriage it's not ok. Is that how it works?

    Personally I'm not so much against legalizing gay marriage because I consider the practice of homosexuality to be a sin, but because I feel that it's just one more step in the erosion of the traditional family values this country(and much of society in general) has been built on. The argument is "oh, but it doesn't affect you so why do you care what people do?"---but that's simply not true. It does affect me as it affects the ideals and values of the culture I live and raise my family in and that is important to me. I in no way expect a "Christian nation" as defined and enforced by the government, but I don't see how continuing to not allow gay marriage make it one.

    And why do people continue to bring up divorce in the church? What does it have to do with gay marriage, other than it's use to take a jab at the church? You do realize that biblically there are valid reasons for divorce, yet the same's not so for practicing homosexuality right? (That's not to say that the divorces you speak of are, but simply being divorced doesn't make it wrong)
     
  3. tomr

    tomr Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,642
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    Looks to me like you have a problem with Islam. Christianity does not force anyone to follow anything they dont believe in.

    People like me? I'm simply exercising my religious freedom by stating my beliefs on gay marriage. I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply calling a spade a spade. I refuse to adhere to the politically correct nonsense that contradicts the Word of God, and deteriorates our societal and cultural morals.

    I share the same opinion on divorce. It is wrong. According to the Word of God divorce is only allowed in cases of adultery and physical abuse. So unless your friend(s) divorced for one of these reasons, they are still married to their first spouse in the eyes of God.

    This is a perfect example of how badly our societal morals and standards have eroded away. They swore an oath to one another and made a promise to God to stay with each other, in sickness and in health...for richer and for poorer etc...but failed to keep their promise. Why do you think that is?

    These days very few know what it means to make a promise, swear an oath, give their word. Why is that?
     
  4. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Many bring it up because the hypocrisy, selective outrage, and blatant inconsistencies are quite clear to see....and telling.

    tomr, could you cite your scriptural basis for divorce based on physical abuse?
     
  5. theduckguru

    theduckguru Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,195
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2003
    Location:
    ohio
    Standing before god and family and taking a marriage vow that you fail to uphold a is not a sin if you think lying to god and your family is ok.
     
  6. tcc

    tcc Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,127
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Telling of what? That Christians aren't perfect? That we have opinions on things too? What is it? I get the hypocrisy angle, but you could spin that argument around the other direction and it'd apply just as well--Christians by no means have a lock on hypocrisy. To me it's quite "telling" when your first and most common response is "oh yeah, well you guys get divorced all the time".

    But "selective outrage" is a load of crap. The only reason it's "selective" is because it's the big hot topic of the day and it's everywhere you look and a big deal in our society. What do you think the result is going to be? If you keep throwing something in someone's face that's likely what they're going to respond to and be most vocal about don't you think?
     
  7. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Nope, that's not the reason. The reason is it's them. It's not the adulterer down the pew, not the liar next to him, not the promiscuous couple leading the youth devo...it's them and as all good little christians know, them and what they do are different. They're trying to take over 'our' country and they must be stopped....
     
  8. tcc

    tcc Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,127
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Soooo, once again--what is so "telling"?

    And no, that wasn't directed at you. But based on your typical responses to this it comes across to me that your opinion isn't much different; you bring up divorce as much as anyone. It seems based on what I've read that you feel that since we screw that up we can't have a say in the gay marriage debate. Personally I don't see how those two have anything to do with each other, yet that's the common argument.

    People like to throw out the "I'm for liberty!" mantra as well, but what does that really mean? I know, I know, it makes you feel and sound good, but don't you still have standards? Lines you don't want crossed, ideals, values, etc? Take the polygamy argument for example-it being illegal infringes on the liberties of that wish to practice it does it not? Why do you not argue for their rights as well?
     
  9. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,689
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    Precious to certain groups as well as being government sanctioned/regulated...

    I'm sure they considered that, as it seems as though there were enough out there that would have been ok with letting them have "civil unions" which for all intents and purposes were the same as marriages in the eyes of the law (as long as they stayed in states that recognized them), but the blacks probably told them that the "separate but equal" stuff usually doesn't work out too well.

    As Okie has stated numerous times, the best, most fair, liberty-minded solution would have been for the government to get out of the marriage/civil union business completely. As deeply entrenched as spousal rights/privileges are in our legal system, tax codes and health care system, that would have been next to impossible. A close second best would have been for the government to only recognize/sanction civil unions (you and your church/family/etc. can give it whatever title and call it whatever you want). But neither side wanted that. One side wanted the government to continue to legitimize their religious beliefs and the other wanted the government to legitimize their lifestyle...

    Personally, the terminology that the government uses to describe my relationship with my spouse gives it neither legitimacy or superiority. All it does is tell me which box I should check on my taxes...
     
  10. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Well, if you hadn't bailed earlier you would know that I often point out that Bob can go legally live with as many women as he wants to right now. Can tomorrow, could yesterday. What he can't legally do is enter into a two-party govt-recognized agreement that has x associated with it (which it shouldn't, but it does), with unlimited other parties. It's a two-party agreement.
     

Share This Page