DSLR Photography Forum

Looks like the USA is getting itself in a real knot over defending marriage.....or not.

Do you folks have a view??? Is this a silly question????

Marriage is definitely worth defending. But the politicians are always swayed by public opinion...

Not sure what else to say - the bible upholds the institution of marriage and we should too.

In terms of same sex marriages (is that what you're alluding to, Rufus?), here's one point of view:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html

Personally, I believe God created us man and woman, and we should stick to the way God intended us to live...

It'll be interesting to see how the American marriage amendment goes. It seems that the political bias is toward "anything goes."

This surely is a very serious situation.

I thought the US government issued a bill against same-sex marriages? In Australia, they recently did the same too.

No...... Not yet......

Well guess we'd better start prayin....

Failed.


"The US president says he will carry on trying to make homosexual marriages illegal in the US after being rebuffed in the Senate".

Land of the free (and easy).

:x

Doh! Can't say he didn't try...

I wouldn't say we failed... we just haven't succeeded yet...

Also, can't say he won't keep tryin...

Yes. Very true.

Forcing one set of values and beliefs on others under the law is not the way He taught us to do things. Pharisees & Romans come to mind...

I believe, as a committed Christian, that same-sex marriages SHOULD be allowed under secular (ie, public) law. This does not mean that I think same-sex marriages are, in any way, supported by Christian belief. The two definitions of marriage (secular & religious) are distinct entities and the broadening of one (secular) does not affect the other (religious).

He is the Prince of Peace. Peace is His only Way. You cannot bring folk to see His Way until you and they are at Peace. Imposing values and beliefs through the force of law breeds contempt and distrust, the enemies of Peace.

I encourage all of you to see that George Bush is NOT a peaceful man, and is therefore a poor representative of our Faith.

Hmmm, maybe I should stop before I REALLY start ranting...

Oh, wait, one more thing... I have often heard the argument that allowing same-sex marriages somehow diminishes or devalues traditional marriages. How can this be so? My marriage is a covenant bewteen myself, my wife and my God. Only 2 people in the entire world can devalue my marriage!

Ok, I'm done now!

<><

Well Cailean, greetings!

I'm sorry that I have no time this morning, (it's 10:57 here), as I'm booked to shoot a wedding shortly.
Rest assured though, I do want to speak to you, and have plenty to say. We may have some fun!

I eagerly await your response... nothing like a good theology debate!

Cailean,
Do you not feel that freedom for gays to "marry" may not simply result in some of them then shouting "discrimination!" when the Church refuses them.
Let's face it, loads of non-Christian heterosexuals marry in church because it "looks nice."
I do agree that secular law should remain apart, and that the non believer, (as he/she/it always has), should do as he/she/it feels, but I wonder if this doesnt open yet another door toward more Christian liberalism which the Church, (certainly in this country), is very guilty of......

Sometimes I feel that we should voice our views, and not shrink back under a volley of "NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT!!!" shouted in our ears.

What do you say?

Cailean Wrote:I encourage all of you to see that George Bush is NOT a peaceful man, and is therefore a poor representative of our Faith.

I shouldn't judge, but I think so too

Cailean Wrote:I believe, as a committed Christian, that same-sex marriages SHOULD be allowed under secular (ie, public) law.

I don't think so. I think that as Christians, we are responsible for what happens in society, we must make differences in the places we live. Worrying about yourself only, would be selfishness.


And yes, I do not think that you can FORCE a person to believe in God; a Christian government would be good, but it's a personal decision, your relationship between you and God.

Before we go any further, I want to be clear that we are all here (in this discussion) as loving members of the Christian family. (side note: sarcasm or the misinterpretation thereof is a common problem in informal text communication - sometimes it's there and missed by the reader and sometime it's not there and added by the reader. Read carefully!)

In light of that, I regret the rash comment I made about Mr. Bush; adam is right, and I apologize. I still do not believe, however, that Mr. Bush represents the majority view in the Christian community. That, combined with the sheer vastness of his 'pulpit', concerns me. 'Nuff said.

Ok, back on track... (by the way, ST, I hope you were expecting long-winded and involved discussions when you included this particular forum! )

Rufus:
Yes, the spectre of churches being forced to marry contrary to their doctrine concerns me - a classic slippery-slope. The solution, however, is not the imposition of religious doctrine on the state - as is the current situation. Rather, I believe, (and this is really me - cuz I haven't heard it yet anywhere else!) that clergy should get out of the 'state/legal' marriage business entirely. Re-structure the legal parameters of secular/legal 'marriage' to be merely the recognition of a committed relationship with certain legal (read: financial) obligations vis-a-vis divorce. This legal recognition of marriage would be required regardless of whatever religious ceremony was performed to consecrate the marriage. Since this requirement is both a necessary and sufficient condition of legal marriage, the 'human rights' and 'discrimination' angles, from which attacks on 'religious marriage' may originate, are disarmed.

Institutions offering religious marriages are then fully free to define them any way they wish, since the couples would be required to register their 'legal marriage' with the state anyway. While it may seem counter-intuitive to argue for allowing 'any' definition of marriage, it the only way to fully protect our own definition (not that there exists a single 'Christian' definition) of marriage from attacks of political correctness.

Hmmm, I seem to have lost my train of thought... maybe I'll just let you return fire before I continue...


adam:

adam Wrote:And yes, I do not think that you can FORCE a person to believe in God, like a Theocracy; a Christian government would be good, but it's a personal decision, your relationship between you and God.

I'm not sure where to start here... well, if it's a Theocracy, how can it be a 'personal decision'? The history of Theocracies is not a happy story... We begin with Ramses II of Egypt and his persecution of the Jews... all the way to the Ayatollah in Iran today (and he's not alone). Along the way, we find the Crusades, The Holy Roman Empire, Bloody Mary, The British Empire of the 19th Century (maybe), The Third Reich, and Israel - just to name a few!
Interestingly, the Roman Empire we read of in Scripture was not Theocratic. They understood all too well that the imposition of beliefs led to unrest and insurrection. A shining example of how religious plurality breeds peace. This is one reason that Pax Romanus was achieved and held for so long while Pax Brittanicus was never really achieved.

Man, I sound like my History prof! Why can't I ever come up with that crap at finals?!

Anyway, hope I haven't offended anyone... but what's the point of being a Christian family if we can't argue about stuff!

Oooh! I just read over what I wrote and seems didn't come out what I meant, because I was using backspace a lot and editing the post
So didnt really make sense, I was saying something else, deleted the rest, and continued in another direction; I'll remove that part now. Sorry for the confusion

Cailean Wrote:(by the way, ST, I hope you were expecting long-winded and involved discussions when you included this particular forum! )

Hey Cailean, by all means - let's have them!

About your point about Church and State - I personally think it's better if church gets involved not because we should be forcing our beliefs on people, but because I believe that a government that is subject to the principles and authority of God, would ultimately benefit society more.


And I agree with eveyone else that people should definitely be allowed to make decisions for themselves - that's between them and God. But there should be a stake in the ground somewhere telling people that hey, maybe what you're doing isn't exactly right. An attitute that says "Anything goes" will ultimately lead to a very messy society...

Anyway, my $0.01 + $0.01 worth.

The major issue I have with same-sex marriages is when they try to adopt children. God created fathers and mothers to fulfill specific roles in the family and I think the more we deviate from this model, the more we risk the existence of the family unit.

I'm not saying that single parent families are incapable of raising great kids, but if you were given the choice of having both a mother & father, why would you ever choose to have only one parent?

I'm not sure how the law currently stands in different countries, but if same-sex couples could marry legally, this would mean that they can legally adopt children right? Surely this isn't a good thing? I don't think having two different definitions of marriage (legal & religious) is the way to go. This seems like we as Christians are saying "you go your way, we'll go ours" and washing our hands of the matter.

Christianity is not going to change the world for the better by turning our backs on the situation, or allowing it to get worse while we remain in our own comfort zones. Rather we should be proud of our families and not be afraid to show that it works.

Showing that traditional families work and using the rule of law to force people to conform are two very different things.

Yeah true. I don't feel comfortable with 'forcing' anyone to conform, but I guess that's what laws do.

Always easier said than done, eh?

Cailean Wrote:Showing that traditional families work and using the rule of law to force people to conform are two very different things.

Hmmmm.....................

Cailean, sometimes it feels as if your answers are too "correct". Sorry. How about a little more "heart?"
God laid down laws. Originally the law was simple; it was "dont do that", but we did.
Was God detererred, did he say, "oh, ok, let's do away with laws?" No.
True, people break laws, ignore them, and bend them, but not having them is surely worse, 'eh?

Christianity is not going to change the world for the better by turning our backs on the situation, or allowing it to get worse while we remain in our own comfort zones. Rather we should be proud of our families and not be afraid to show that it works.


What an excellent comment!!
You'd get on well with our Vicar here.

Thanks Roo! If I ever visit the UK, I'll be sure to drop in and say 'hi' to your vicar