• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

To Christians (and others) from a Christian

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have an issue with my fellow Christians concerning SSM. How can any of you support gov't enforcement of marriage? While I agree that homosexuality, and in turn SSM, are wrong, do you not realize that our lawmaking and justice systems are systems of precedent? You are setting a horrible precedent by supporting all of these "Christian" Republibots who rage against SSM. Allow me to school you.

1) By supporting DOMA, politicians are violating the 1st Amendment. Why? Because I have never heard any politician be able to express why they support things such as DOMA for anything other than religious reasons. There is no conclusive data to say that gay marriages end in divorce any faster than straight marriages. And if they do, why is that their business? I would like to hear someone explain why they oppose SSM for anyting other than religious reasons. <--Politicians can't do it. Therefore they are forcing their religious beliefs upon all of us, whether you agree with it or not.

2) When we allow the Federal Gov't to get a foot in the door on any issue, they eventually shove their way into the room. Look at healthcare if you need an example. So, by allowing the Federal Gov't the latitude to infringe on one particular group's right to be married or not be married, you allow them to do it to other marriages as well. Allow me to illustrate this. Lets say Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon, comes out and says he supports polygamy. Would we be okay with that? No, we wouldn't. That IS a version of marriage that has been proven to result in spousal and child abuse. It also creates a very messy legal dispute if one wife wants to divorce and get child custody/property. However, by allowing DOMA, we have set the precedent for Mitt Romney to allow polygamy. Why? Because we allowed the Federal Gov't to get its foot in the door of the room that is marriage.

3) Why do Christians not support total seperation of gov't from marriage? Marriage, after all, is a church institution. IMO, Christians should be pushing for civil contracts (civil unions whatever you want to call it) between people when they wish to have the ability to file taxes jointly and/or have the ability to enter into child custody/property disputes involving the justice system. Actual marriages should only be performed by churches or other institutions. This would satisfy both sides. Christians could keep the exclusive right to say that they performed a proper, Godly, marriage. Homosexuals would be able to enjoy the legal benefits of "marriage" as well.

Thoughts?
 
Marriage does not belong to Christianity, to any faith, or to religion. It is, as you say, a civil institution. It is not a religious one. If you want to argue getting rid of tax benefits for married couples, for example, to untangle government and marriage, that's a legitimate argument. But civil institutions belong to everyone, and everyone must have equal access to them. It is not only for the religious.
 
Marriage does not belong to Christianity, to any faith, or to religion. It is, as you say, a civil institution. It is not a religious one. If you want to argue getting rid of tax benefits for married couples, for example, to untangle government and marriage, that's a legitimate argument. But civil institutions belong to everyone, and everyone must have equal access to them. It is not only for the religious.
In this country, I believe it does. There are VERY few places that you can be married in this country besides in a religious establishment/by a religious minister or the JOP. So, to seperate marriage and gov't, we totally do away with the institute of marriage as it applies to the realm of gov't and institute civil contracts or civil unions. The first thing people think of when they hear wedding is church pews and a pastor standing at the end of the aisle. Even in commercials thats what you see. Whether marriage started as a religious institute (Christian or otherwise) is besides the point. The fact is that marriage is totally intertwined with religion in the US.
 
Even if 'marriage' does commonly happen in a church there are plenty of churches who would be willing to marry a same sex couple if it were legal. Some other 'Christian' church might see it as wrong... but so what? It's a religious/spirtitual ceremony celebrated by a wide variety of beliefs... I don't see anyone trying to pass laws that delineate how 'communion' or 'baptism' should be performed (despite there being lots of disagreement between churches about those as well).
I don't think the government should be backing the viewpoint of one religious group over another... just as it should never force a church to marry someone it doesn't want to.
 
Let's answer these questions so we can have clarity: for what, precisely, is marriage? Why is a government contract necessary for it?
 
Let's answer these questions so we can have clarity: for what, precisely, is marriage? Why is a government contract necessary for it?
The contract is necessary for a few things. One, child custody disputes in the event of divorce. Two, taxes. Three, property disputes in the event of divorce.
 
I have an issue with my fellow Christians concerning SSM. How can any of you support gov't enforcement of marriage? While I agree that homosexuality, and in turn SSM, are wrong, do you not realize that our lawmaking and justice systems are systems of precedent? You are setting a horrible precedent by supporting all of these "Christian" Republibots who rage against SSM. Allow me to school you.

1) By supporting DOMA, politicians are violating the 1st Amendment. Why? Because I have never heard any politician be able to express why they support things such as DOMA for anything other than religious reasons.

With radification of the Constitution the 1st Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion only applied to the federal government. The states were free to go on establishing their own religions like they had always done. In fact, the whole point of founding certain American colonies was so that the citizens could live in a place where their own religious preferences were enforced by the state. The whole point of the 1st Amendment was to allow the states to continue to establish their own religions free from federal interference. Therefore, it was only logical that the state be involved in the codification and regulation of marriage.

It wasn't too long before that principle started being eroded, though. For example, the original founders probably didn't foresee the establishment of the Mormon church with it's practices of polygamy and the like. The idea of a state where that sort of thing was allowed was unacceptable, so there was opposition to the idea that states were entirely free of religious interference from the federal government.

But the general principle of states having plenary power over their own religious matters continued for almost 200 years in this country. States set aside money to build and support religious institutions as well as being involved in the regulation of certain religious practices. It was not until 1946 or there about when the court extended the prohibition to establishment of religion to the states by judicial fiat.

That there are state laws regulating marriage is a hold over from the days when the states' involvement in religion was considered proper, and that wasn't too long ago.

So, why don't the states get out of the marriage business since they can't be involved in religion now? I suspect that the answer is that too many people see themselves as losing their privileges if that happens.
 
I have an issue with my fellow Christians concerning SSM. How can any of you support gov't enforcement of marriage? While I agree that homosexuality, and in turn SSM, are wrong, do you not realize that our lawmaking and justice systems are systems of precedent? You are setting a horrible precedent by supporting all of these "Christian" Republibots who rage against SSM. Allow me to school you.

1) By supporting DOMA, politicians are violating the 1st Amendment. Why? Because I have never heard any politician be able to express why they support things such as DOMA for anything other than religious reasons. There is no conclusive data to say that gay marriages end in divorce any faster than straight marriages. And if they do, why is that their business? I would like to hear someone explain why they oppose SSM for anyting other than religious reasons. <--Politicians can't do it. Therefore they are forcing their religious beliefs upon all of us, whether you agree with it or not.

2) When we allow the Federal Gov't to get a foot in the door on any issue, they eventually shove their way into the room. Look at healthcare if you need an example. So, by allowing the Federal Gov't the latitude to infringe on one particular group's right to be married or not be married, you allow them to do it to other marriages as well. Allow me to illustrate this. Lets say Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon, comes out and says he supports polygamy. Would we be okay with that? No, we wouldn't. That IS a version of marriage that has been proven to result in spousal and child abuse. It also creates a very messy legal dispute if one wife wants to divorce and get child custody/property. However, by allowing DOMA, we have set the precedent for Mitt Romney to allow polygamy. Why? Because we allowed the Federal Gov't to get its foot in the door of the room that is marriage.

3) Why do Christians not support total seperation of gov't from marriage? Marriage, after all, is a church institution. IMO, Christians should be pushing for civil contracts (civil unions whatever you want to call it) between people when they wish to have the ability to file taxes jointly and/or have the ability to enter into child custody/property disputes involving the justice system. Actual marriages should only be performed by churches or other institutions. This would satisfy both sides. Christians could keep the exclusive right to say that they performed a proper, Godly, marriage. Homosexuals would be able to enjoy the legal benefits of "marriage" as well.

Thoughts?

Friend, this is suppose to be a non-political forum.
 
Religion doesn't own marriage. Marriage predates all known major religions.

For like the 4123849023783456th time.
 
In this country, I believe it does. There are VERY few places that you can be married in this country besides in a religious establishment/by a religious minister or the JOP. So, to seperate marriage and gov't, we totally do away with the institute of marriage as it applies to the realm of gov't and institute civil contracts or civil unions. The first thing people think of when they hear wedding is church pews and a pastor standing at the end of the aisle. Even in commercials thats what you see. Whether marriage started as a religious institute (Christian or otherwise) is besides the point. The fact is that marriage is totally intertwined with religion in the US.

Any county court house in Texas will marry you.....
 
I have an issue with my fellow Christians concerning SSM. How can any of you support gov't enforcement of marriage? While I agree that homosexuality, and in turn SSM, are wrong, do you not realize that our lawmaking and justice systems are systems of precedent? You are setting a horrible precedent by supporting all of these "Christian" Republibots who rage against SSM. Allow me to school you.

1) By supporting DOMA, politicians are violating the 1st Amendment. Why? Because I have never heard any politician be able to express why they support things such as DOMA for anything other than religious reasons. There is no conclusive data to say that gay marriages end in divorce any faster than straight marriages. And if they do, why is that their business? I would like to hear someone explain why they oppose SSM for anyting other than religious reasons. <--Politicians can't do it. Therefore they are forcing their religious beliefs upon all of us, whether you agree with it or not.

2) When we allow the Federal Gov't to get a foot in the door on any issue, they eventually shove their way into the room. Look at healthcare if you need an example. So, by allowing the Federal Gov't the latitude to infringe on one particular group's right to be married or not be married, you allow them to do it to other marriages as well. Allow me to illustrate this. Lets say Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon, comes out and says he supports polygamy. Would we be okay with that? No, we wouldn't. That IS a version of marriage that has been proven to result in spousal and child abuse. It also creates a very messy legal dispute if one wife wants to divorce and get child custody/property. However, by allowing DOMA, we have set the precedent for Mitt Romney to allow polygamy. Why? Because we allowed the Federal Gov't to get its foot in the door of the room that is marriage.

3) Why do Christians not support total seperation of gov't from marriage? Marriage, after all, is a church institution. IMO, Christians should be pushing for civil contracts (civil unions whatever you want to call it) between people when they wish to have the ability to file taxes jointly and/or have the ability to enter into child custody/property disputes involving the justice system. Actual marriages should only be performed by churches or other institutions. This would satisfy both sides. Christians could keep the exclusive right to say that they performed a proper, Godly, marriage. Homosexuals would be able to enjoy the legal benefits of "marriage" as well.

Thoughts?


Theres some things I totally disagree with your post...but im only going to address the first paragraph....I do not think homosexuality is wrong...How can you believe that being what you were born or what you are as a human is wrong...I cant grasp that....I am against legal formal gay marriage..I am not against them in any way at all as people....It seems to me that your just approaching this as a Libertarian issue where you want the govt totally out of your life ...but doesnt work for me when your dealing with humans....I would be far more offended as a homosexual if someone told me that what I am is wrong...then I would the person that accepts me as I am and is against legal marriage...but Im not homosexual so I cant speak for how they feel...
 
Theres some things I totally disagree with your post...but im only going to address the first paragraph....I do not think homosexuality is wrong...How can you believe that being what you were born or what you are as a human is wrong...I cant grasp that....I am against legal formal gay marriage..I am not against them in any way at all as people....It seems to me that your just approaching this as a Libertarian issue where you want the govt totally out of your life ...but doesnt work for me when your dealing with humans....I would be far more offended as a homosexual if someone told me that what I am is wrong...then I would the person that accepts me as I am and is against legal marriage...but Im not homosexual so I cant speak for how they feel...

So, what you're saying is that if a person is born with the propensity to molest children they should just do it? Or if they're born with the propensity to be a mass murderer they should just do it? I know these things are way above being a homosexual, which is victimless, however it is of the same thought process.
Also, I don't really care if homosexuals are offended by my beliefs. What they should care about is the fact that there are a lot people like me that don't necessarily agree with their lifestyle but also believe they should have the same rights as everyone else. Being gay isn't something the gov't should discriminate against, whether a politician believes it's wrong or not.
 
So, what you're saying is that if a person is born with the propensity to molest children they should just do it? Or if they're born with the propensity to be a mass murderer they should just do it? I know these things are way above being a homosexual, which is victimless, however it is of the same thought process.
Also, I don't really care if homosexuals are offended by my beliefs. What they should care about is the fact that there are a lot people like me that don't necessarily agree with their lifestyle but also believe they should have the same rights as everyone else. Being gay isn't something the gov't should discriminate against, whether a politician believes it's wrong or not.


No what im saying is your condemning people for how they are born...Im against what they do not what they are...and by that I mean official legal marriage...your for them getting married but you believe their existence is wrong....I dont understand that..
 
So, what you're saying is that if a person is born with the propensity to molest children they should just do it? Or if they're born with the propensity to be a mass murderer they should just do it? I know these things are way above being a homosexual, which is victimless, however it is of the same thought process.
Also, I don't really care if homosexuals are offended by my beliefs. What they should care about is the fact that there are a lot people like me that don't necessarily agree with their lifestyle but also believe they should have the same rights as everyone else. Being gay isn't something the gov't should discriminate against, whether a politician believes it's wrong or not.

Pedophilia and murder have victims. It has been shown time and time again through scientific investigation that homosexuality does not.

It is asinine and dishonest to try to create some sort of argument for the "morality" or "goodness" of homosexuality based on pedophilia and murder.
 
In this country, I believe it does. There are VERY few places that you can be married in this country besides in a religious establishment/by a religious minister or the JOP. So, to seperate marriage and gov't, we totally do away with the institute of marriage as it applies to the realm of gov't and institute civil contracts or civil unions. The first thing people think of when they hear wedding is church pews and a pastor standing at the end of the aisle. Even in commercials thats what you see. Whether marriage started as a religious institute (Christian or otherwise) is besides the point. The fact is that marriage is totally intertwined with religion in the US.

Umm, I hate to burt your bubble, but you can get married by a Captain, Judge, basically anybody who has a computer and $300 to get the certificate to marry people.
 
Pedophilia and murder have victims. It has been shown time and time again through scientific investigation that homosexuality does not.

It is asinine and dishonest to try to create some sort of argument for the "morality" or "goodness" of homosexuality based on pedophilia and murder.

Whats confusing me is that hes bringing Christians to task for being against Gay Marriage and in the same breath he says being a homosexual is wrong, Im not getting that, If you think being gay is wrong how can them getting married be right.......I am just the opposite of that in my thinking....I believe being gay is what you are then thats what you are, theres not a something wrong label on it...its what you are....I am against formal legal marriage..
 
To me, it is about bigger things than individual morality or religious beliefs

I solidly believe that marriage and family is ordained of God; that he designed us to be organized on this basis, with marriage between a man and a woman as the basis for a family, and families as the basis for a stable society. God sets us up to work this way, and when we rebel against this structure, we bring all sorts of ills upon ourselves and upon our society. Those who thus rebel are not only harming themselves, they are harming everyone else as well.

I believe that Satan attacks this order, because this is where he can harm us the most effectively.

We can already clearly see how, over the past few generations, the deterioration of the family, a high rate of divorce, a high rate of illegitimacy, has brought increases in crime and poverty and drug abuse and other ills upon us.

“Gay marriage” is just one of the latest attacks on the family structure. It serves to mock genuine marriage, and to undermine the sacredness and value thereof. As with all attacks on marriage and family, this will bring increasing adverse consequences on our society, and upon all of us.
 
To me, it is about bigger things than individual morality or religious beliefs

I solidly believe that marriage and family is ordained of God; that he designed us to be organized on this basis, with marriage between a man and a woman as the basis for a family, and families as the basis for a stable society. God sets us up to work this way, and when we rebel against this structure, we bring all sorts of ills upon ourselves and upon our society. Those who thus rebel are not only harming themselves, they are harming everyone else as well.

I believe that Satan attacks this order, because this is where he can harm us the most effectively.

We can already clearly see how, over the past few generations, the deterioration of the family, a high rate of divorce, a high rate of illegitimacy, has brought increases in crime and poverty and drug abuse and other ills upon us.

“Gay marriage” is just one of the latest attacks on the family structure. It serves to mock genuine marriage, and to undermine the sacredness and value thereof. As with all attacks on marriage and family, this will bring increasing adverse consequences on our society, and upon all of us.



Bob thats admittedly deeper than I care to go...I lost alot of my faith along time ago...my mother god rest her soul would be furious with me being the devout catholic she was...Im not motivated by religious beliefs...I dont have any disdain for religion and I still have religious beliefs...I still have the rosary beads that were placed in my bassinet in the maternity ward the day I was born my Aunt Anna...hanging on my rear view mirror where theyve been for decades and I still have a crucifix around my neck that was given to me when I made my communion by my godfather...but that doesnt motivate my decisions about gay marriage or gays themselves....I have no problem with gay people as people...I just cant see two men married and thats that...and the other reasons ive repetively stated.
 
So, what you're saying is that if a person is born with the propensity to molest children they should just do it? Or if they're born with the propensity to be a mass murderer they should just do it? I know these things are way above being a homosexual, which is victimless, however it is of the same thought process. Also, I don't really care if homosexuals are offended by my beliefs. What they should care about is the fact that there are a lot people like me that don't necessarily agree with their lifestyle but also believe they should have the same rights as everyone else. Being gay isn't something the gov't should discriminate against, whether a politician believes it's wrong or not.

Pedophilia and murder have victims. It has been shown time and time again through scientific investigation that homosexuality does not.

It is asinine and dishonest to try to create some sort of argument for the "morality" or "goodness" of homosexuality based on pedophilia and murder.

Please refer to the bolded sentence in post.
 
No what im saying is your condemning people for how they are born...Im against what they do not what they are...and by that I mean official legal marriage...your for them getting married but you believe their existence is wrong....I dont understand that..

Whats confusing me is that hes bringing Christians to task for being against Gay Marriage and in the same breath he says being a homosexual is wrong, Im not getting that, If you think being gay is wrong how can them getting married be right.......I am just the opposite of that in my thinking....I believe being gay is what you are then thats what you are, theres not a something wrong label on it...its what you are....I am against formal legal marriage..

What I'm saying is that while I disagree with homosexuality, it doesn't give the gov't the right to legislate against gay marriage. Its a freedom issue, not moral. Unless you'd like to live in a theocracy. I hear many Middle Eastern countries are looking for Americans to come over and share in their religion........
 
Umm, I hate to burt your bubble, but you can get married by a Captain, Judge, basically anybody who has a computer and $300 to get the certificate to marry people.
I said JOP. Justice of the Peace. Or judge. Whatever you want to call it. So, what you have to do is come up with $300 or get on a boat with your scenario. Once again, marriage may not be seen as a religious institution all over the world, but it is in the US.
 
I've recently come to the following conclusion, as something I could live with:

1. Get government out of the business of defining or enforcing "marriage" as much as possible. Instead allow any two individuals (or perhaps any number) to legally contract as a household and domestic partnership, with a contract that spells out in reasonable detail what each partner owns or has rights to in the relationship, and how this contract may be broken or voided, and how property would be divided if the contract is broken, and provision for any children of those involved in the contract. Basically, let every such domestic partnership be contracted out like a pre-nup agreement.

2. The term "marriage" is now the property of society. If you're part of a domestic partnership then all entities you interact with must recognize that you are part of such a legally contracted household. However, the term "marriage" is something you can choose to use or not, and whether individuals, the community, society as a whole, or any religious institution wishes to recognize your domestic partnership AS "marriage" is up to them. That is, you automatically get any tax benefits, legal benefits, next-of-kin issues and so on, but individuals communities and religious/other organizations decide whether they will recognize your union as "marriage" by their definitions or not.

This way everyone is equal in the eyes of the law... but it leaves the option open for those of us who are religiously obligated to view certain unions as "not marriage" to say so, and those churches that cannot accept SSM as marriage to continue to maintain their standards. Our opinion would have no legal force per se, only social impact.
 
I've recently come to the following conclusion, as something I could live with:

1. Get government out of the business of defining or enforcing "marriage" as much as possible. Instead allow any two individuals (or perhaps any number) to legally contract as a household and domestic partnership, with a contract that spells out in reasonable detail what each partner owns or has rights to in the relationship, and how this contract may be broken or voided, and how property would be divided if the contract is broken, and provision for any children of those involved in the contract. Basically, let every such domestic partnership be contracted out like a pre-nup agreement.

2. The term "marriage" is now the property of society. If you're part of a domestic partnership then all entities you interact with must recognize that you are part of such a legally contracted household. However, the term "marriage" is something you can choose to use or not, and whether individuals, the community, society as a whole, or any religious institution wishes to recognize your domestic partnership AS "marriage" is up to them. That is, you automatically get any tax benefits, legal benefits, next-of-kin issues and so on, but individuals communities and religious/other organizations decide whether they will recognize your union as "marriage" by their definitions or not.

This way everyone is equal in the eyes of the law... but it leaves the option open for those of us who are religiously obligated to view certain unions as "not marriage" to say so, and those churches that cannot accept SSM as marriage to continue to maintain their standards. Our opinion would have no legal force per se, only social impact.

Agree with all, save the "any number of people" can marry thing. Sorry, but polygamist's have proven over and over to be abusive to their spouse(s) and neglectful of children.
 
Agree with all, save the "any number of people" can marry thing. Sorry, but polygamist's have proven over and over to be abusive to their spouse(s) and neglectful of children.


Can you offer proof that this is a majority condition of polygamist households, and that it is directly related to the nature of polygamy rather than factors relating to those few who practice it in defiance of government edict?

If so I will concede the point.... otherwise I have to say, if you and I and society has no right to tell two people of the same sex that they cannot form a legal domestic partnership, then who are we to tell three or four people that they cannot do so, if they do this voluntarily?

Child abuse and spouse abuse are already crimes... when it is found it is punished... so who are we to define another person's way of living as inherently wrong unless we can prove that abuse is inherent to the nature of their polygamy? If we're saying everyone has a right to legal access to domestic partnership (ie "marriage"), then who are we to tell three people they cannot marry? Is it not more free and equal to let them marry/partner if they wish, and then to punish any spousal or child abuse IF IT ACTUALLY OCCURS?

I think I'm finding a chink in the armor of these arguments here.... it seems that "everyone has a legal right to access to marriage EXCEPT polygamists because we ALL disapprove of them". :wassat1:
 
Last edited:
What I'm saying is that while I disagree with homosexuality, it doesn't give the gov't the right to legislate against gay marriage. Its a freedom issue, not moral. Unless you'd like to live in a theocracy. I hear many Middle Eastern countries are looking for Americans to come over and share in their religion........

Hey your entitled to believe whatever you want and I respect that...you and I are at different ends with this...thats all...I understand your position more clearly now...
 
Back
Top Bottom