khajmer

Before anyone says anything, no, this does not belong in the Separation of Church and State. I've asked this more times than I can possibly count all over the place and never once gotten an answer. Well now I'm getting one dammit. Why do Christians oppose the right for gays to get married. Let's look at what we know.

-"Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman." Um, no it isn't. The dictionary defines marriage as:
n. 1. the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce);
2. two people who are married to each other;
3. the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony
4. a close and intimate union;
Of those, the only one pertaining is number one, which mentions nothing about a man and a woman. In fact, until people opposed to gay marriage started spouting that off, I'd never heard of the concept in my life. In addition to that, I would like to point out what my immediate thought about Sarah Palin was during the VP debate when she mentioned that she wouldn't try to extend Alaska's gay rights laws to the rest of America if it meant "redefining" gay marriage as anything other than that. In other words, she would deny gays their rights for the sake of semantics. Humph.
-"It goes against my faith". Well, I don't see you opposing non-Christians getting married, last I checked the single most important rule of Christianity is broken right there.
-"It will make people think being gay is alright". Well what's wrong with that. It's not forcing you to like it, you can go on being a bigot. The difference is less people will.
-"But what if I turn gay?!" ... Oh please.
-"It's immoral". Technically it isn't. The Bible says nothing about someone marrying someone of the same gender, only that a man not have sex with another man (and by all accounts, if you're going by this rule then you'd better get a big pile of rocks ready, cuz it's stoning time)

So that's what I've seen so far, and it makes me sick to my stomach. In addition to that is one problem that Christians might have that hasn't been brought up, but I'll save you the trouble. If you leave be, or even support gay marriage, you will not get sent to Hell. So, with that out of the way, please explain to me the Christian opposition to gay marriage, and why you care so much about something that doesn't affect you.

__________________
"I think, therefore I am" -René Descartes
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." -Pablo Picasso
"There is no such thing as fact, only theory, perceived fact, and belief." -Khajmer (as in me)

DAR

Not to burst your bubble, but not all who identify themselves as Christian are opposed to gay marriage. I have a lesbian sister, for example, who attends a Christian church where a lesbian pastor presides over the services.

I think you've raised some really good points in your post; I've always been partial to the one which points out that so few Christians seem to have a problem with non-Christians getting married.

Whether or not a marriage ceremony is performed in a religious setting has no bearing on the fact that being a party to a marriage contract provides an array of government sanctioned benefits. Further, no one is being denied the opportunity to marry (or the associated benefits) as a matter of their sexual orientation, but by their gender. Sexual orientation isn't nearly as obvious as gender when applying for a marriage license...

Regards,
DAR

__________________
Please, Nero, go grab your fiddle. I think I smell smoke.

The silenced majority

Webster's 1828 Dictionary: Marriage

The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13

Change the language, change society.

__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”. ~ Samuel Adams

Middleground

I'm all for language evolution.

__________________

Reverend_Hellh0und

Funny I just looked up the definition.

marriage definition |Dictionary.com

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.




I really think the government should be out of the marriage business.... problem solved, but the whole premise of this thread is wrong.

__________________
كافر
Never forget those who died.
Never forget those who killed them.

shuamort

Since then, we've had married atheists, married folks who cannot reproduce, and have allowed divorce as well. Also, for some reason, that definition ignored polygamy which was around back in the 1800s and the LDS church didn't ban the practice until 1890 which was years after congress passed the law banning it in 1862. So, if polygamous marriage was legal up until 1862 and Webster defined marriage without it, who was correct?

shuamort

I'm glad you chose to be dishonest. Care to read the rest of the definition that you linked?

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.


And a bitch is only a female dog and a bastard is a child born out of wedlock too.

Reverend_Hellh0und

Ahh the typical selective outrage. Why did you call me out on this and not the OP?


Furthermore how is it dishonest when my only point was that the definition that he posted was not what I saw.


You can see by the rest of my post, I have no issue with gay marriage and could care less. Please read my whole post before you pull a zyph.

Don't be a zyphlin and start calling people dishonest because you found other evidence. It is juvenile and does not make for a good discussion.



thank you.




What are you talking about?

shuamort

Ahh crap, another conservative victim. Ne'er mind, Hoss.


His definition preceded the dot com era by many a decade.

That selectively quoting a definition out of the many does not a defined word make.

Reverend_Hellh0und

So you won't address why you chose to call me out and not the op?

Your selective outrage is noted.




Uhm his point was that the dictionary did not mention man and a woman, I posted corresponding evidence to demonstrate his thesis was wrong.

I did not attempt to portray it as the only definition, nor claimed that other definitions did not match what he said. The point was to demonstrate he was innacurate in his post.


You if you want to be not dishonest would concede to this and realize the err of your selective outrage.