ANSWERS: 7
  • I think you are on to something here. The core of the problem, I agree, is that we have conflated the religious aspects with the legal/contractual aspects. Some people want to defend "marriage" as defined by their religious tradition, but since "marriage" also confers certain legal statuses and rights, the government must ensure that it is defined fairly (yet without interfering with religion). In my opinion, we should make the distinction between these two much clearer. I would prefer for them to be considered as two entirely different things: 1. Religious marriage can be defined however the particular religion or authoritative body wants, but it does not count as a domestic partnership (or civil union, or whatever) in the legal sense. 2. Domestic partnerships will serve as the legal version of marriage. These will be contracts between domestic partners with each other and between them and the government. The government will then be able to regulate these to make sure people are treated fairly, yet without interfering with the religious versions.
  • i think there needs to be a differentiation between marriage as a religious institution and domestic partnership, which is a legal institution.
  • I don't believe marriage is a "religion fiasco." I don't see how the current state of marriage should have anything to do with whether or not gay marriage should or shouldn't be recognized by the state.
  • My wife and I have a civil marriage, we were married outside of the church - so not all marriages are religious in nature. With that said - why not let gay couples do exactly what me and my wife did - that is take part in a non religious civil union? Really, what harm would that cause anyway? In all the years I've been hearing this debate - nobody has given me a good negative reply to this...they always seem to drag religion into it.
  • Marriage has nothing to do with the Church. The problem you run into is that you're required by the "State" to get licensed to wed. WTF is that about? Why should you have to get a license to marry someone? Two reasons.... economics and eugenics. The "State" mandates that if you don't get licensed, you can be jailed. Just like fishing without a license.
  • Jesus Christ gave us the Law of Love under-which all people especially Christians are to live under. Love is meant for everyone God did not say it was only for certain people. The Lord God loves everyone and does not look on their "sexual orientation" . The Lord God does not hate the homosexual any more than He hates the heterosexual contrary to what man says. Those verses in the Bible people use to put down the homosexuals do not know the truth of their Bible. God was saying He did not want His people to incorporate those pagan sexual practices in the Hebrew worship. The Lord God is not opposed to adult consensual, non-pagan, non-pederasty, homosexuality than He is of adult, non-pagan heterosexual love and relationships. God's only concern is that people love one another. I am heterosexual but wish we could all just throw away titles to everyone and live as the Lord God intended us to do. Don't even consider the so called "separation of church and state" stupidity!
  • If two people truly love each other they have the right to get married in both the religious and legal sense however two of the same gender should not for it breaks one of the sexual commandments found in Leviticus. On the other hand God gave us free will so, If you do want to marry someone of your gender the final choice is yours to make. God won't stop you. My younger brother got married to a man right after Trump won the election. As Christians we don't agree with any of it, but as Christians we still love him, support him and tolerate the decisions he has made and will make since coming out. Just like God tolerates all the crap we do.
    • Thinker
      I don't know of anything in Leviticus stating what you have said. If you are talking about Lev. 18:22 it is referring to sexual acts,both heterosexual and homosexual, used in pagan worship. The Lord God was telling the Hebrews He did not want this as it was putting other gods above Him. It was also dealing with pederasty that was very common then.
    • Werewolf87
      First off... the word Commandment is a synonym for law. Defined as a divine rule to be followed as strictly as one of The 10. God spoke thus his words are divine making those laws commandments. Second... The chapter begins with God telling Moses... [18:4-5] "Tell the children of Israel to obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord." Though A LOT has changed since then we still commit those sexual atrocities therefore those laws listed in Leviticus 18 still apply today.
    • Thinker
      You must be JW. Jesus Christ fulfilled the OT law and it has been removed (Romans 10:4). The laws given in the OT were never commandments and many were for the Jews only never the gentiles.
    • Werewolf87
      I am not a JW. Though I do believe in God I am not affiliated with any religion. I apologize for not getting my facts straight; It has been a while since I last read my Bible. Thanks for enlightening me.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy