Main example - Gay marriages. I do not care how much scripture is in the bible about it. I do not care what Jesus said about it. Please do not tell me what Jesus or Paul or whoever said about gays. That is only relevant to Christians.
What I want to know is this: what is your issue with separation of church and state? Marriage is a legally binding contract according to the government. Christians may add a religious aspect to their ceremonies, but that does not even come close to changing the fact that religious bias does not belong in our laws.
2007-01-22 08:28:29 · 9 answers · asked by ÜFÖ 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
My girlfriend will kill me for this, but more and more I'm falling for you...
Seriously though: I agree, completely, and your questions are great :)
2007-01-22 08:35:53 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
to be honest...you need a better example..
marriage is a term defined by a declaration of God "the two shall be one flesh", It would be more appropriate to speak of domestic partnerships as an alternative without redefinining cultural terms. I think two sisters who lived together for decades owuld be a fine domestic partnership and it need not be sexual to be a family and most family relationsihps of course are not sexual.
as far as the so called separation of church and state... its a shell game... the orignal quote by Roger Wiliams was "the garden of the church should be protected by a high wall of separation from the howling wilderness of the world" The constitution of the former soviet union did have separation of church and state language... the US constitution has the establishment clause.
you have to step back and see the high place the BIble places marriage. In the creation of the world, the world is declared good 7 times and man is made ALONE and NOT GOOD... the clunker... and God makes a woman out of the wounded side of Adam and the world is now VERY GOOD... and this gives a little glipse of the second Adam Jesus who has the Church born from his wounded side and just as there was one MARRIAGE in the garden there will be one marriage in heaven, between Christ and the Bride of Christ, the redeemed....
marriage is defined by God and of great consequence in the picture it draws for eternity
so stick with "domestic partnership" and dont redefine marriage in a deconstructionistic manner
2007-01-22 08:37:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Biblical marriage consists of one man and as many women as he can afford to keep so lets make no bones about this.
Christians don't understand that the secular state is a buffer against any fundamentalist religious group seizing power over the country whether Christian , Islamic or whatever ...and we should all celebrate the fact that we live in a secular state instead of trying to undermine it.
2007-01-22 08:44:49 · answer #3 · answered by CHEESUS GROYST 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The big problem is the the state is involved is many areas where it has no business, for example education.
The proper function of government is the protection of life and property, and they are doing a piss-poor job of that!
Protection of LIFE would not involve subsidizing abortions, Protection of property would seem to involve protecting our borders from invasion.
Instead, they are trying to control every aspect of our lives. We need the state to maintain order, and to punish criminals.
We don't want politicians re-defining marriage. Because politicians burn with lust for each other is not a good reason for them to change the definition of marriage. Keep the state in its place.
2007-01-22 09:07:32 · answer #4 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it relatively is on public sources, so that's a contravention. If it have been on inner maximum sources, it would fall under the heading of freedom of speech. the only time i might see it as no longer being a contravention of the separation may be if it have been placed there at a time while the land in question replaced into inner maximum sources; then it would in basic terms be a landmark placed by using an landowner or different licensed individual, and in essence may be "grandfathered in" in maximum states.
2016-11-01 00:28:30 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it places limitations on their power. People have an innate need to be on the side with the most power. Might is right.
2007-01-22 08:34:53 · answer #6 · answered by Gene Rocks! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the State wants to continually mess with GOD GIVEN RIGHTS
2007-01-22 09:20:05 · answer #7 · answered by Midge 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know, I love you.
Remember--an asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs; gay marriage did.
2007-01-22 08:34:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
because they want a theocracy, they want mono-theism, its part of the agenda they think everyone else should abide by
2007-01-22 08:36:06 · answer #9 · answered by ugene_randall 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋