Christian Chat Network

This version of the message boards has closed.
Please click below to go to the new Christian BBS website.

New Message Boards - Click Here

You can still search for the old message here.

Christian Message Boards


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
| | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Christian Message Boards   » Bible Studies   » The Christian News   » Ten Q&A on Same-Sex Marriage Canards and Evasions

   
Author Topic: Ten Q&A on Same-Sex Marriage Canards and Evasions
Chaplain Bob
Advanced Member
Member # 5019

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Chaplain Bob     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You did not disprove what I had to say WildB. Actually it seems you are trying to say what I said in different words. There were no State marriage licenses required in Biblical days. Some states in this country still recognize common-law marriages. The point is a civil marriage is not necessarily also a Biblical marriage. The Boaz thing was not in response to any State law but to tradition.

--------------------
In His Service,
Bob Allen

Posts: 209 | From: Checotah, Oklahoma | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robby
Advanced Member
Member # 448

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Robby     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's news out today that marriage in the US has dropped to a new low.

I'll put links to these 2 articles here, because the rise of counterfeit marriage coincides with dissolution of traditional marriage. We are losing it's meaning. Generally speaking, it seems Americans are not bringing up the next generation to understand the importance and specialness of traditional marriage.

Live Science - US Marriage rate drops

Live Science -Record numbers of Americans are unmarried

Posts: 364 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917

Icon 2 posted      Profile for WildB   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNQ4MQ4LEQQ&list=UUyyiGFXJkVuSWiXIaIJ7MaQ&index=1

Published on May 10, 2013
The debate of gay marriage has raised tension socially, politically, and religiously. John Stonestreet explains in detail how Christians specifically should react to the question of same-sex marriage and how to respond winsomely and lovingly to propose the benefits and good of heterosexual marriage.

--------------------
That is all.....

Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917

Icon 18 posted      Profile for WildB   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chaplain Bob:
The purpose of State marriage licenses is revenue. Marriage licenses came into existence in this country in the late 19th century in the South when states wanted to keep track of mixed marriages. Other states saw that opportunity to generate income by requiring all couples that wanted to be recognized as married by the State purchase a marriage license. To this day ministers who perform marriage ceremonies are acting as agents of the State. A Christian couple wanting to be Biblically married does not need a State marriage license but their union will not be recognized by the state for legal purposes. The push by some states to legalize same-sex marriages is strictly a revenue generating effort. Sadly many Christians see this State civil marriage as the only marriage and couples who choose not to be married civilly are seen by these Christians as not married. There is no record of any civil marriages in the Bible.

Wow what? There is so much wrong with this post We will just start with the 1st sentence.

In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism.

In the Book of Ruth 4, The Kinsmen redeemer meets the legal requirements of the locale law and is record a civil marriage yes?

5 Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.
6 And the kinsman said, I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I mar mine own inheritance: redeem thou my right to thyself; for I cannot redeem it.
7 Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbor: and this was a testimony in Israel.
8 Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.
9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.
10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.


--------------------
That is all.....

Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chaplain Bob
Advanced Member
Member # 5019

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Chaplain Bob     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The purpose of State marriage licenses is revenue. Marriage licenses came into existence in this country in the late 19th century in the South when states wanted to keep track of mixed marriages. Other states saw that opportunity to generate income by requiring all couples that wanted to be recognized as married by the State purchase a marriage license. To this day ministers who perform marriage ceremonies are acting as agents of the State. A Christian couple wanting to be Biblically married does not need a State marriage license but their union will not be recognized by the state for legal purposes. The push by some states to legalize same-sex marriages is strictly a revenue generating effort. Sadly many Christians see this State civil marriage as the only marriage and couples who choose not to be married civilly are seen by these Christians as not married. There is no record of any civil marriages in the Bible.

--------------------
In His Service,
Bob Allen

Posts: 209 | From: Checotah, Oklahoma | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robby
Advanced Member
Member # 448

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Robby     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not the author of the article, it's Stella Morabito of the American Thinker (I made sure to put up a link that website). She has also written several op-eds for the Washington Examiner. I think most forums allow you to post articles as long as you link the source from which it came from. Personally, I don't see any problem with you sharing it.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jonathan Grobler
Community Member
Member # 10656

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jonathan Grobler     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
robby may I use your ten statemans in other forums?

if you whant your name will be put on the pages and I will make no changes.

Posts: 11 | From: South Africa, Gueteng , Henly on klip | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917

Icon 2 posted      Profile for WildB   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the 1850s, Stephen Douglas proposed solving the dilemma of whether slavery should be permitted in new states by suggesting that they should just vote. What could be more American than submitting the question of slavery to the democratic process of each state?
To this Abraham Lincoln observed: “God did not place good and evil before man telling him to make his choice. On the contrary, He did tell him there was one tree, of the fruit of which he should not eat, upon pain of certain death. … I should scarcely wish so strong a prohibition against slavery in Nebraska.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/redefining-marriage-sign-of-a-lost-society/#98AH4Vov85WQ1vsH.99

--------------------
That is all.....

Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robby
Advanced Member
Member # 448

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Robby     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
April 6, 2013
Ten Q&A on Same-Sex Marriage Canards and Evasions
By Stella Morabito
American Thinker

Forces pushing for genderless marriage are a wellspring of fallacies and unanswered questions about the consequences. Let's explore some of them.


1. What's love got to do with it?

Nothing. Romanticizing this debate by claiming that any two people in love should have a civil right to civil marriage is a foolish distraction. Neither judges nor legislators have any business discussing "affection" as a factor in defining civil marriage. Clergy who bless marriages have a legitimate and separate role in discerning the internal dynamics of couples. But not the state.


2. What is the state's interest in marriage?

First, to recognize the union that produces the state's citizens. Second, to encourage those who sire and bear the citizens to take responsibility for rearing them together. That's all, folks. Proponents of genderless marriage often answer this question with non sequiturs such as property rights (irrelevant), civil rights (extraneous to the question), and "love and stability" (not a function of state involvement).


3. Why should state interest in marriage be about children if not all marriages produce children?

It's thoroughly irrelevant that many heterosexual couples lack children because of intent, infertility, age, or health. Claiming that this is relevant to the case for genderless marriage suggests the "fallacy of composition": inferring that something must be true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. Citizens of the state can exist only through the female-male union, no matter how the union occurs -- whether traditionally, artificially, or in a petri dish. That's the only fact that provides any grounds for state interest in marriage.

4. What about marriage for the sake of same-sex households with children?

We just don't have the right to deliberately deprive children of knowing their biological mothers or fathers. But genderless marriage ultimately requires us to do this. It requires society to sanction the refashioning of familial bonds in alienating and experimental ways. Use of surrogates and egg or sperm markets put children at ever-increasing risk of being treated more as commodities than as human beings. Laws supporting genderless marriage cannot help but ramp up these trends to newer and crueler levels.


5. Won't biological parents continue to have a default legal right to rear the children they sire and bear together?

See Question 4. The rights of biological parents to raise their own children will necessarily diminish in the wake of legalization of same-sex marriage, because changing the definition of marriage results in changing presumptions about who the legal parents are. Recognizing marriage as the union of one man and one woman is the only sustainable basis upon which a biological mother and father are legally and by default recognized as the primary caregivers of their children. But today there's a new push for the state to require special licensing of all family configurations as "care-giving units."


6.How can legalization of same sex marriage affect my own marriage?

It is the vehicle by which all civil marriages may soon be abolished, including yours. When children are no longer considered central to state purpose, marriage becomes nothing more than a contract between any two (or more) people. A reversal of DOMA could give force to an emerging movement called "singlism," which argues that the state should cease recognition of marriage because it is discriminatory against those who do not have partners.

Furthermore, the un-defining of marriage is only one part of a package deal that includes the transgender push for the un-defining of gender. This is already happening under the radar through laws that define gender identity only on self-perception: seeing yourself on any given day as male, female, both, or neither. If that goal is achieved, the reduction of your "marriage" to social and legal gibberish will be complete. And as we become more isolated from family bonds in the eyes of the state, the state becomes freer to define our humanity.


7. How about we just "get the state out of the marriage business" altogether?

This is a silly slogan that actually invites the government to regulate our personal associations on a scale we've never before witnessed. Libertarians like to discuss "privatizing" marriage, but we should smell a big fat government trap here.

State recognition of marriage serves to ensure the autonomy of the family, which in turn serves as the greatest buffer zone between the individual and the power of the state. If civil marriage is abolished, all families instead become partnerships subject to contract law, with the state ever more aggressively defining and regulating those contracts. And how can we expect the government to respect family autonomy if we no longer require the government to recognize it?


8. Isn't it relevant that public opinion is shifting in favor of same sex marriage?

No. Poll numbers reflect only what people are willing to say. People consistently falsify their preferences when confronted with the likelihood of being smeared, isolated, and punished if they express "incorrect" views. The echo chambers of media, academia, and Hollywood serve as enforcers. Constant repetition of views, no matter how implausible they may seem at first, combined with the suppression of dissent, often results in an availability cascade that leads to shifts in public opinion.


9. What about all those conservative politicians and pundits now reversing course and supporting same sex marriage?

See #8. Politics as usual. The self-reinforcing opinion cascade is having its intended effect on them. None offer substantive arguments. The fear of losing turf, power, and connections leaves them more susceptible than most to the forces of preference falsification and the suppression of dissent.


10. What about equal rights for gays? Doesn't restricting marriage to union of a man and woman infringe on their civil rights?

Civil societies recognize and respect the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. But marriage is what it is, rooted in sexual complementarity and biology. This fact makes some people sad. And angry. So in the interests of fairness, public officials are changing the meaning on paper to make the emotionally afflicted feel better.

The reality is that this disrespectful hijacking of the civil rights movement in order to co-opt the definition of marriage reduces everybody's civil rights.

It violates the rights of children by serving to deprive them deliberately of biological parents. It violates everybody's civil right to religious freedom by setting up a collision course in which conscience protections will be trumped by a nonsensical legal definition of marriage. It violates our freedom of association by removing the buffer zone of family (and all mediating institutions) that insulate all individuals in society from abuses of state power. It violates freedom of expression by requiring Orwellian Newspeak of everyone, especially those accused of hate for objecting to same-sex marriage.

In the end, the primary beneficiary of this social experiment is a tyrannical minority hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives and eventually dictating all of our personal relationships.



Stella Morabito has published several op-eds on same-sex marriage in The Washington Examiner.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/ten_qa_on_same-sex_marriage_canards_and_evasions.html#ixzz2PiTOf6bB
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Posts: 364 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator


 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Christian Message Board | Privacy Statement



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

Christian Chat Network

New Message Boards - Click Here