Christian Marriage is a lifelong 1m1w covenant

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, and there are options in language, staggering options now with modern language. Not only that but philosophers were very formative in determining the more technical bits language we use today.

Btw, I'm not sure how you guessed my love for Dutch. You probably didn't but that is truly an odd coincidence. Do I feel as if I've been geworfen? Absolutely. Mein freunde von mir: Sapere aude- habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen!

The more we read, and the better we understand language, all the more exciting and wonderful it is to contemplate things. The only premise I don't agree with, that I am half assuming that you've presented, is that you are boxed in by language, that the historical process is nothing compared to language itself when it comes to the ideas you've inherited. This I simply can't accept, because the language you've acquired in your life doesn't happen in a vacuum, you must have your own idiosyncratic expressions like anyone else, and there is a clear precedent for your atheist position given all of the available schools of thinking.

Part of language is that not all of it is accessible and it can also be very group related. I am sure that there are expressions to do with your interests that I don't even have a concept of, and forgive me if I'm wrong but I also doubt you are familiar with theological terms like sublapsarianism, or the differences between satisfactory and governmental atonement. This is language above and beyond the normal vernacular, language that caters to people with particular interests.



At the same time there are many other species with different behavior and attitudes concerning murder. Is our revulsion really so basic as we might think? Just examine our history and puzzle that for yourself. When I think of such things, I am not entirely certain. Is there not murder in war? And how ancient is war? How long ago were groups just as simple as the Iriquois, Zulu, or Pauyoot skirmishing against one another? It seems to me that humans have a very easy time sanitizing the idea of murder when it comes to people they don't identify with, or people whose resources they desire.

How deep does the revulsion really go?



You're absolutely right. The question is when religious sentiment really are infringing upon people's basic rights, as agreed to by our basic charter of government, and what it really means to be conscious both of the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority.



I don't see at all where you are making a jump from "no income property, or settled arrangement" to "possibly" a "prohibition of laws regarding religious belief" (I realize this is a bit of a paraphrase, so I apologize if it is incorrect). The jump isn't at all clear or apparently warranted. What's more, there are a number of famous speeches which make it clear that religious sentiments were absolutely part of lawmaking, so the very same people who framed the constitution seem to run contrary to your remarks.

The Missouri Compromise is a prime example, as there was a hotbed of religious argument alongside the constitutional and fiscal arguments, and Congress decided that new states south of the Mason-Dixon line would be able to practice slavery. Clearly this was a burden on and offensive to people who didn't believe in slavery, as it even deeply offended a number of people who voted to pass it, including John Hay himself (the principle author of the bill), and of course the slaves were burdened. It was done during Jackson's presidency to preserve the union, forty years before the civil war.

Now we're on the other side of history, and the slippery slope you present is, to be honest, no more ignominious and terrifying than the slope of policing the involvement of religious ideas in politics. Clearly history has enough examples of non-religious precedents for laws that were every bit as terrible if not more so than religious laws; just take a moment to consider the havoc wreaked on the world in the 20th century by atheist regimes. The Inquisition was a drop in Stalin's pond.

I would argue that it is not the religiosity of tyrannical laws that must be checked, but the tyranny itself.

1. What right does the government have to be involved? Does their involvement help? Marriage seemed to get along just fine before they started mucking with it.

2. I do deny all non-christian marriages, however, I mean that only in the sense that I deny they are the same concept as a christian marriage. On top of that I fully expect the same kind of denial from others. This, in and of itself, is not harmful, judgmental, or hateful in the least (although it can certainly be all three).

3. The price of mucking up this highly personal issue, with the filth crusted hands of government, is that they haven't been able to satisfy anyone and the way they've ultimately handled this is anything but democratic. Not only did they use the constitution for toilet paper when they legalized gay marriage, they continued in and further set a precedent for giving constitutional rulings on issues that have nothing to do with the constitution; who knows, maybe they'll directly contradict the constitution in the future, like they already have in other numerous other cases. And who has to wait for a gruelingly long process, surely aware, if they aren't blind, that it will end up splattering feces all over the constitution like this has? People who practice polygamy and polyamory.

What could solve all of this? We could simply start dispensing people legal rights according to their living situations. After all, it is their living situations and the relational concerns that they choose, which are fundamental in our inclination as a society to guarantee them certain legal rights. Married couples are expected to have more expenses, expected often to plan on building a family, and as such the IRS is more lenient with them in giving them a few special filing statuses (MFJ, MFS, QW). They are able to draw on survivor's annuities, receive certain privileges when they are written into a will, etc.

Of course we need all of that. We rightly expect financial and general living considerations, because of the world we now live in and the burdens we collectively shoulder as citizens (e.g. taxes, jury duty). What we don't need is Uncle Sam's seal of approval to legitimize our relationships, to differentiate between them and arbitrarily privilege certain people. I can determine my own feelings, relationships, and life decisions, thank you very much. When I first married my ex wife and we made it legal, in my eyes we were no more or less married because of the State, as the place that we really got married was in a church and the paradigm we were married under was the gospel, not the paradigm of taxes and social security.

They are involved because marriage involves taxes and legal issues like joint ownership of assets and legal rights concerning offspring.

Last I checked, legal marriages had nothing to do with the church or any religious stuff so there never was any 'mucking' of it. Here's a fact: If you marry through a church and do not legally register your marriage, the state will not recognize said marriage. That is why when you marry through a church there is legal paperwork that goes with it.. you get the religious ceremony and the legal stuff taken care of.



Basically you simply deny that non-christian marriages...are not christian marriages. Ok, makes sense. The outrage seems to be then that same-sex marriages through a church would not be christian because the church in rome does not accept it... which is fine because same-sex marriages are not being done through rome-endorsed christian entities... and the more the roman church denies these marriages the more followers they will lose. These days enlightened people do not take kindly to oppression.



Just stop right there and listen to yourself. You are declaring that if LEGAL MARRIAGE is not a christian marriage by your definition then the STATE should not be allow it.

Do you understand the concept of separation of church and state? The constitution literally says that the state will not side with any religion. If your religion says same-sex marriages are forbidden the state does not have to enforce your beliefs on others.

Which is EXACTLY what you and others like you are crying about. That the state is not enforcing your beliefs upon the rest of us.

Your medieval mindset is obsolete. Thankfully though, you live in a society where the same principles that recognize same sex marriage also recognize your right to practice your religion of choice without fear of oppression... that very same oppression which you want the state to do on your behalf.

It's a sad irony that... a so called 'christian', the religion of 'love and compassion' demanding others be oppressed and encouraging hatred upon others.

You speak a lot about toilet paper. Perhaps its time you took a good look at what it's wiping.

^^^

Yup, the toilet paper is still the residue of the archaic non-reality rules of religion; and in the case of the United States; moreover, the Christian religion, whose grimy hands of subjugation through baseless fear, oppression, and repression of human nature is the originator of much human illness, suffering; and yes, indirectly even death; as social oppression and repression of human nature is one of the worse sources of human stress; and yes, science, now, definitively shows that chronic human stress leads to the destruction of every bodily system; AND CAN EVENTUALLY LEAD TO A PREMATURE DEATH.

AND SOMETIMES for innocent homosexual children; who are forced to go to church; completely understanding that they are HOMOSEXUAL and THAT is no choice of anyone except their particular mix of innate genetics and environment as is; THEY FEEL excluded from the human race as whole; when the psychopathic leaning pastor or priest coldly suggests that Jesus is all about inclusion of everyone; and then turns the other cheek to give the exclusion of Loving homosexuals; not allowing them to enter into a most so-called basic sacrament of the Catholic Church; and with the protestants, the other so-called big boy macho guys just bully the homosexual males and females, in some cases, literally to frigging death.

Yes, in this way the church is as slimy as the slimiest toilet paper on the face of the earth. It's all about reproductive control and STILL IS, for women in many countries, to the max of 'purchasing cattle for reproduction', as metaphor of course.

Now, for folks who wanna live this way; that is another thing; but for folks who are forced into it, in a continuing environment of social abuse, stress, eventual premature death or suicide; as a last resort from being ostracized out of the social circle; AS that is, overall, the worst, of slow or fast torture for human nature.

But only a person who truly has a heart, soul, and a spirit expressed in cognitive and affective emotional empathy can possibly understand this. This is a rare commodity in close thinking minds; whether it is a Militant Atheist or a Fundamentalist Christian.

There is good reason to go to church for social connection FOR
THE Interdependent Relationship in Connectedness of ALL THAT IS AKA GOD.

But there is only the metaphor OF THE DEVIL for folks who coldly exclude other folks;

FROM THE FRIGGING HUMAN RACE; as the lesser of even a 'precious dog' that sits
in the lap of Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Monsignors, Priests and other Pastors;
many of whom, are already innately homosexuals, practicing life in a closet;
or simply repressing their human nature, as is; as a lie of living life; getting
exposed as we already fully know; as has been the case in the history of
my Catholic Church,
as well.

Sixty-Six percent of the American Public are for the rights of gay individuals to
have civil unions; and these days even a boring priest is enough to empty
the pews of a Catholic Church; the Priests in the know who wanna keep
their jobs, keep it don't talk about it, don't ask, for 99 percent of the
time; as they know THAT Sixty-Six percent of the American Public
is out there in the Pews; and potentially just another
lost congregational member to a church
with a more up to date,
reasoning EMOTIONAL
mind IN BALANCE.

The function of church will always be here;
But the function of ignorance and HATE,

IS ON ITS WAY OUT.

SOME PEOPLE ARE
STILL BORN WITH
A HEART; A SOUL;
AND A SPIRIT;
AND EVEN
BETTER
FRIGGING
COMMON SENSE.

Anyone, who is ignorant enough to believe
that GOD doesn't make all the colors
of the RAINBOW IN HUMAN BEING;
is just a frigging
knot on the
LOG HERE;
WITHOUT
ANY AFFECTIVE
OR COGNITIVE EMPATHY
AKA HUMAN COMMON SENSE;
TO SEE all the colors of the
human rainbow that range
from in-between to all
the colors of gender
and sexual
orientation;
yes, even more
than '50 shades of GREY';
for anyone with common
sense; with a REAL HEART,
SOUL, SPIRIT, AND MORE
THAN FRIGGING HALF A BRAIN.
And to be clear, what I mean by
half a brain is a Literalist without
Emotional Intelligence. Any one
with Emotional Intelligence can
quickly get the REAL
OF QUEER THAT
OVERALL ALREADY
IS HUMAN BEING
IN THE TOTAL
MIX
OF THE
RACE,
AS
IS.

PERHAPS, one day
a full brain of human
being will rule the world;
at least, in the U.S., Obama,
a man with a full brain
IS essential
in health care
expansion and
the expansion
of civil
rights OF
'GAY', along with
his administration
and peers; so the
REAL GOD OF NATURE
BLESSES THE U.S.A. IN THIS
WAY
NOW;
And the ignorant
among us continue
to JUST
LOSE.

AND ANYWAY,
IT was only a matter
of time (nows) for
this to eventually
rule, as GOD'S REAL
RULES ARE WHAT
TRULY RULES; AND
THAT INCLUDES
HOMOSEXUALS
AS AN ESSENTIAL
PART OF THE
Bonobo and
Human
'races';
for frigging
continued harmonious
SURVIVAL AS A WHOLE,
HOMOSEXUALS AND
HETERO-SEXUALS
HAND
IN
HAND, AS FREE
COOPERATING
EQUAL RIGHTS
MEMBERS
OF SOCIETY
IN ALL WAYS.

And if anyone wonders why I am
so passionate about this issue;
AS hard as it may be to believe
if one looks at my law enforcement
big looking head and 230LB muscular
body; clearly available to see on all
my blogs; when I am young I
am mistaken for a female;
and just because
of THAT most everyone
assumes I am gay; even
though I am 100% hard
heterosexual; so I am
verbally abused for
years; and this
frigging hurts;
even if ONE
IS NOT gay;
I can only NOW
imagine how much
MORE it hurts for a person
who is gay; so anytime I see
anyone bullying someone like this
in REAL LIFE; I confront them face to
face; and the bully boys who are men now;
turn their tail and run in metaphor as now I am
three or four times stronger than they are;
as anything is
possible in life;
and now the person
they bullied is
their frigging
worse nightmare
come to
LIFE.

I neither tolerate THAT
OR ACCEPT IT;
I understand it
as weakness
and truly
often homophobic,
as these folks often
have hidden
homosexual
desires for
themselves;
but there is
no place
for HATE
AND ABUSE
OF OTHERS IN
THE WORLD
anywhere any
time AND as far as
a I am concerned;
no one gets a pass
from me; not even
my Catholic Priest
as I have confronted
him directly with it
and put an end
to homosexual
verbal abuse
at my
Catholic
Church too;
at least,
in
part.

And Here is my
theme song for
BULLIES OF
ALL COLORS;
including
physical,
emotional,
intellectual,
and all the shades
of psychopathic
grey, extending
out to hate
and 'demon'
and or
'devil'
DARKEST
BLACKEST
HOLE SUN
SOUL
reaLIty.

If marriage is purely a religious institution then why is the government sanctioning or recognizing it in the first place?

It was originally cultural, but whether it is religious or purely cultural government has no business defining it.

^ that.

The government is not sanctioning it. Its regulating it. Remember, the government will not interfere with who you want to marry or why, its only interested in taxes and legal matters in that regard.

We have a state church with bishops in the second house of lawmakers, or is it the first house. An ordained priest is likely able to sign a marriage certificate as would a registrar.

Only if that priest has authorization from the gov. to do that. Any priest or equivalent from any religion is able to do that. Again, the state is not involved in any religious practice in that case. All it is, is a private citizen who has the authorization to register a marriage on state record. It does not tell people 'you cant marry this person because of religious reasons'

Have you actually discussed this with an Anglican priest. My first marriage was in an Anglican church. The oriest had to be satisfied with our belief, which included going on a course, and attendance. Of course, we had to be present to hear the bans read. This insistance was obviously and individual matter with that particular priest. I've even heard of a priest refusing to marry a couple because he thought they wanted a service at his church because it was photogenic. It is certainly for the indiivdual priest to make the decision as to whom he will marry, so long as that decision is legal.

It is accepted that a minister, and often a lay person, will usually be able to offer a marriage only as far as that church is concerned, in which case a Registrary Office ceremony and certificate is required.

I married my present wife in a Chinese Government Registar's Office. I obtained a translation of the little red marriage book which was authorised by the Chinese government notary. This certifcate has been deemed satisfactory by the UK government Department of Pensions.

Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 didn't provide provision for Catholic Priest to preside over legal marriages in the UK, and I also a believe a Catholic church cannot be used. Methodist church or priest is fine, as they a Protestant.

I believe my sister had this issue. Most Catholics are unaware, as most people just go to a town hall to register the marriage. It is only those that have bespoke marriages such as in the countryside might be affected.

This is one law that is archaic but there isn't the will to change it, as it doesn't interfere with everyday life much.

As I don't believe in legal marriage that would take care of these issues of fairness.

Sorry I'm mistaken

It is actually the building that is relevant. In England it cannot be Catholic church or anything except CoE, a synagogue or Quaker meeting house where both partner are of those faiths. Any Church in Wales (there is a Church of Wales but it can be any), Catholic or Presbyterian in N. Ireland.

I'm not sure about the UK, I was speaking about the US. A priest can refuse to marry a couple since he is not a government employee, he merely holds the ability to register the marriage to the state once it is completed. If he does not have that, the couple would need to file their marriage before the state separately (the state does not care if the couple marries in a church or not, if the papers are filed for marriage then they're married as far as the law is concerned).

The point was, even though a priest can do all the legal paperwork for the couple getting married, it does not mean the priest IS part of the state (aka the state is not endorsing or being a part of the religious rite/beliefs). Note: When I use the word 'priest' it can be any religion not just christian.

Any significant relationship that has an import on someone's living situation, should be recognized. The "muck" is when legal and religious marriage gets conflated. While of course non-religious hetero marriages haven't really offended Christians, at the same time they still appear to be conflating religion with the state, hence the protracted and painful battle we've had over same sex marriage.

And what is the result? An anti-democratic resolution that heaps up yet another mockery on the constitution. What can we look forward to? More of the same for who knows how long, until polygamy comes up before the Supreme Court, presumably. Think of how consistently people have voted against SSM at the state level. So if the State gave up on presuming to say who is "married" and who isn't, then they would be able to dispense rights according to living situations.



1. I am not a Roman Catholic. While I don't condemn people for being Roman Catholics and consider them saved, I would appreciate it if you didn't address me as if I was one. There are many more forms of Christianity, and the legitimacy of Christian marriage doesn't come from Rome, it comes from certain theological beliefs.

2. I am also not in favor of oppressing anyone, and from the rest of this post of yours I can easily tell that my Christianity alone has you lumping me together with people who I disagree with on this very issue.



I didn't declare that anywhere. If you can, try and find that statement. I'll be waiting with the perfect confidence that you can't. The issue seems to be that you've seriously misinterpreted me.



"Others like me"? "Crying about"? I've never said at any point in this thread that my beliefs about marriage should be enforced on anyone, and it appears to me that you've posted this in a very responsive and generalizing manner. You need to take stock of the fact that I endorse a very different option than the Christians you seem more familiar with.

The State should not recognize any marriage. What it should recognize is domestic partnerships, because it has no right to give value judgments about any relationship. It's denial of rights up until the Supreme Court ruling, was basically a value judgment that SSM was wrong. Polygamy and polyamory is still regarded the same way by the government.

The inevitable course of events here, is just the same as we've already seen: numerous legal battles, and people voting against it repeatedly at the state level, for decades until it finally appears before the Supreme Court where they will have the opportunity to do what they've done just now and behave in an anti-democratic fashion, giving a "constitutional" ruling on something that the constitution doesn't even talk about. Everyone, regardless of their beliefs and the kind of relationship(s) they desire, should be entitled to the same legal rights. However, because the State has assumed control of this (when the constitution was originally framed they didn't have this kind of control), it has unnecessarily divided our country and encumbered people with an arduous process, an expensive process, that eventually pushed us into a solution that wasn't democratic or even basically constitutional. If the State, on the other hand, gave up on controlling marriage, it would help in uniting the country and people with relationships of all kinds would receive the legal rights they deserve.

Does this surprise you that a Christian feels this way? Taxes have nothing whatsoever to do with theology.



No offense, but these statements here are plainly being given to a straw man, and I would really appreciate it if you read my posts so far more carefully. You have seriously misrepresented me and on that basis you are calling me an oppressive hypocrite. What's more, you appear to have either a narrow view of Christianity if you think that we all defer to Rome, or the mistaken assumption that I am a Roman Catholic. If you're really interested in the form of Christianity that I do profess, I invite you to take a closer look and see what our love is really all about. There is room for mutual respect here.

Marriage, is a cultural tradition in the U.S. that is NOT RELIGIOUS specific.
Denying marriage as a legal edifice to protect folks in fiscal and reproductive issues
to anyone is a real problem. And if the country decides more than one woman or more
than one man is okay for a marriage that will stand as well;
not likely though as there is no 66 percent outcry for THAT.
LET'S face reality and NOT FACTS ALONE;
THE Supreme court is about POLITICS
too. It's just human nature
to be conservative and
or liberal; and
Judges and
or the Law
WILL
NEVER EVER totally
BE BLIND TO THIS;
unless we get robot
judges; that will
still be programmed
by fallible
liberal and
conservative
humans.
LAW Books don't run
humans alone;
humans do;
and gay
marriage
is A proof of that; EVEN
AT the Supreme Court
LEVEL. It is reality;
tolerate it; accept it
or NOT; but there
ain't no changing
reality
for now;
with the current
Supreme Court
Justices in tow.

That's why I quit
watching politics;
it is as predictable
as human nature.

IT's a balancing ACT.