Gay marriage? NO! Civil unions? Sure! Care to discuss?

Question

In the Bible, "marriage" is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Period. Like it or not, this country was founded with biblical influence woven into it's ideals. To ask that the law be changed to allow gay marriage would be asking to ignore/delete/edit many passages in the Bible simply for one's own personal convenience. We can't do that, can we?

AVIATOR: I don't recall reading anywhere in the Bible that stoning was condoned.

Answer 1

yes! ~ I agree! ~ Marriage is sacred and shouldn't be changed to conform to those who want to make it less than what it is. If they want a civil union with the same benefits as marriage, fine. But marriage shouldn't be changed. And this has nothing to do with the bible ~ this is about the tradition and the meaning of marriage.

Answer 2

We not only can do that, we need to do that. You can think however you please about the foundation of our country. But the bottom line is that the founders had a chance to form a theocracy, they chose a democratic republic instead. If they wished the Bible to be the basis for all of our civil laws they had the perfect opportunity to make it so. They didn't. All of the positioning in the world won't change those two facts. When the Bible becomes the law of the land, then you might have a leg to stand on, but for now, you don't.

When this issue finally comes before the USSC, they will find, while researching precedents, that "religious" people were also dead set against the right for women to vote, desegregation, and interracial marriage, and used scripture to support their views. I'm old enough to remember those who carried placards in marches during desegration, stating scripture right next to racial ephitats on their waving signs. Most of the USSC justices are older than I am, I'm sure they'll have no problem recalling it as well. This is why civil rights are not up for public vote, and it is also why DOMA states will become defendents in USSC cases. We don't vote on civil rights in this country, we never have. We tend to pass laws in states against civil rights, and the USSC eventually negates those laws with their rulings. This will not be any different, whether it be 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. I can't say I'll be sorry to see it. Religious folk legislating their view of morality into all of our lives is distinctly UnAmerican, not to mention unconstitutional. Good luck with that friend, it isn't only Democrats or homosexuals who have a problem with your stand, I'm neither.

Answer 3

It really doesn't matter what the Bible says, since in the US the Bible is not a source of law. In fact, the Constitution expressly forbids any religious book from being a source of secular law.

But if so many people are attached to the idea of the term "marriage" having a religious definitin, then we should accomodate them. Remove "marriage" as a legal term entirely. Leave the definiton of marriage solely up to individuals and churches.

If someone wants legal benefits, and wants to have their relationship recognized by the govt, then they get a "civil union". No more legal benefits for being married, for anyone.

That way, people's churches can have whatever defintion of marriage they want, and none of those religious doctrines have any effect on the laws. And the laws are written to deal only with civil unions, so the legal system doesn't intrude on religion.

Keeps it simple.

{EDIT re Stoning} Acts 7:59, Matthew 21:35, Luke 13:34, etc.
The Bible also allows slavery, which is forbidden under US law.

Answer 4

It's as simple as this, in the eyes of the state, marriage is nothing more than a civil union. It's a binding contract between two people. The state should not have any control over which adults of sound mind can enter into a binding contract. Therefore, the state has no right to ban gay marriage, civil unions, whatever. The argument is over semantics and it's stupid

Answer 5

Firstly, lots of things in the Bible have been edited over time.
Secondly, the Bible says its a sin to work on Sundays. Should this also be a law because the country was founded on some Biblical ideals? In fact, do you think being Christian should be mandatory for citizenship here in the US?

Feel free to email me if you want to have an intellectual debate on the subject.

Answer 6

The bible also states that we should not judge our fellow man and that judgement alone is His. To attempt to stop gay marriage/union sounds alot like judgement to me. I say that the golden rule (Do unto others) is more appropriate in situations like this. Why create intolerance and strife in a world already so chaotic. If we could learn to embrace each other despite our differences and work together for peace and harmony of all God's children (yes, even gay children!) then we would be truely honoring God. Do you honestly believe that an all powerful, all present God would choose you (or I for that matter) to police our fellow man? The ten commandments leads me to believe that ultimately our goal here on earth is to love and honor one another, causing no harm. I choose to leave judgement in the hands of the One who is the only one worthy of judging.

Answer 7

Like it or not, religious influence in our government was minimal and religious influence in our society is waning. There may have been religious influence, but our Bill of Rights clearly explains that government ruled by a religion was not the intention.

You can't throw Bible into law just because it is a convenient argument for you.

Separate but equal is not legal.

Answer 8

In some approaches, confident. The word marriage potential the two issues. confident Gordon, it does not could desire to equivalent faith. i don't think of he meant it had to have the two. you're leaping the gun and being slightly over the acceptable in reacting. So yeah, you will get 'married' with out it being a non secular ceremony in any way. The "difficulty" (in case you will) is that the comparable word is used for the two. yet you be attentive to what, you will in no way have the potential to alter that. in case you tried to alter it, i think of which you would be scuffling with a large conflict. First, somebody could sue the government over changing the word. "changing the word is a sort of seperate yet equivalent" or something like that, and that they could be precise. 2nd, how are you going to get the finished united states to alter the way they do "marriage." each and every little bit of regulation, each and every little bit of varieties, etc. could ALL could desire to get replaced. which would be a large attempt, in terms of money and guy potential, to alter semantics. 0.33, I do exactly not think of it may paintings. collectively as I believe the thought, I do exactly not think of it may paintings. Too a lot of human beings could combat it merely on important, and a few of their arguments could have advantage. Glow - yet whilst the government says that each and every physique religions could enable gay marriage, it is unconstitutional. they could't stress differences by making use of regulation on a faith. Now, i will see what you recommend in case you say the regulation can not say "gays can merely have civil unions and not marriage" which would be unconstitutional. (besides the reality that i don't believe civil marriage from a non secular attitude, I do see how that's needed/unstoppable from a Constitutional attitude.) yet whilst the guidelines say "Any union accomplished by making use of the STATE is refered to as a civil union and any union accomplished by making use of a non secular individual is refered to as a marriage" i will see that woudl be ok, with the aid of fact it leaves it open to each individual faith in the event that they could have a marriage. (lower back, i don't think of it may unavoidably paintings, yet whilst that's what you recommend, then ok) Welltraveledprog - what i think of a few human beings have a difficulty is making use of the comparable term. some human beings see that making use of the word marriage for each individual is a slap to non secular ideals. collectively as I believe that throughout important, I understand the constitutional realities and the subject concerns with having distinctive words.

Answer 9

Be prepared to be bashed.

But for what it's worth, here's my take on it. I believe that consenting adults have the right to live their lives as they see fit (within the confines of the laws of their country/state). So if gays wish to cohabit, I see no problem with that.

But, IMO, marriage is a sacred vow in the eyes of God between a man and woman only.

I'm sure to get lots of "thumbs down" for this answer, but it's what I believe and in the USA I'm entitled to articulate those beliefs without repercussion. God bless this country :-)

Answer 10

Yee-haw. I like that question. No we can't do it. But, I'm torn because I do think that everyone should be able to have a commitment to the person they love, but on the other hand it goes against everything. Also, I don't want to pay for their health insurance, adoption expenses, etc. But then again, they typically make more than others because they are almost always a two-income family, wherein both have well paying jobs. i just do not know.