I support Marraige between man and woman (sic)

Idk what this has to do with anything.... Really? The medium of forums aka written word is so limited (no nuance of sound or facial expressions) and you are going too limit it further by judging based on spelling?

Mark Twain says that he must have little genius who can’t spell a word in more than one way.

 

They are indeed limited, which is why I refuse to give the haters any additional ammo to claim I'm an inbred, cousin lover with a 3rd grade education and an IQ smaller than my shoe size by confusing there/their/they're while advocating my right to own a 50 cal.

 

I don't judge the message by how well it's spelled (or spoken), but misspellings allow others an opportunity to detract from the message.content.

 

Ok I can definitely both of your points. I have a different view point.

I know I have won the argument when they have to pull out the redneck argument or the personal attacks.

Those kind of people are children who will never grow up and are not worth valuable time.

 

I agree with Elaine.

When my wife and myself first started dating I always had the lights off during those special times now she insists that the be off...

 

YD...your post SEEMED to say that marriage must be according to scripture and "before god"...and that was your objection to gay marriage. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I may be a little touchy on the subject at the moment because I posted (elsewhere) a sort of memorial post on my wife's birthday last Monday (the first since her death) and one of my religious relatives felt the need to reply that "god needed an angel, so he took her"...knowing, of course that neither she nor I are/were believers. Kind of soured me on people and their gods for a while. I won't bother to tell you what my first response was.

 

BUT !!!
As with all bad , the goodness always will outlay if is to be
It will take respect of both views from all angles , & they always change.

 

As do Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta and her partner, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell, apparently....

Two women kiss at US Navy ship return | World news | The Guardian

 

No offense taken Broker. We agree that the state should have no right to make laws regarding marriage. My concern is that if the State redefines marriage as to mean between any two consenting adults of any sex? Then we open the door for law suits like the one in England Gay Couple Set to Sue Church of England Over Refusal to Offer Same-Sex Nuptials | TheBlaze.com

Now here in Ca. When will gay couples begin sueing Churches for refusing to marry them? | Yahoo Answers

My concern is that if laws are passed that redefine the word marriage they open another can of worms and maybe even stop churches from performing marriages at all. And one last thing Broker, God and religion are both in my marriage and in many others I know. The Bible states one man and one woman. This is what we believe as Christians. It was defined before CHRIST and today we have atheists wanting to redefine it. You see we dont care if they have a state sponsored union. That is what is irrelevant it doesn't mean anything to us. But changing the definition of a word that we have used for thousands of years does. I do not oppose Gays having the same rights just dont try and make us accept it as marriage. IT IS A CIVIL UNION ISSUED BY THE STATE. A marriage "license" is issued to regular couples BY THE STATE but the marriage itself is still defined as what GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER. God does not join same sex couples so they cant be married as defined by the Bible. So what does the non believing man do? he tries to redefine the word with new laws.

 

I think this discussion is in lala land.

What's being argued over is the word 'marriage' like it's a moral imperative.

Marriage is between you, your spouse and God.

The real argument is more about legal rights. GTLB (or whatever the acronym is) groups are more concerned with the legal rights that couples have when they get 'married' health care, decision about your partner if they are incapacitated, control over how the children are raised.

The Christian definition from the Bible is marriage between a man and a woman. The 'state' co-opted that term to handle legal obligation in a civil court. And made marriage a civil arrangement. Everyone signs the darn document whether you have a church wedding or not so that your 'union' has a 'legal state endorsement'

So now when glbt (or whatever that is) say 'marriage' christians get upset. Pfft get over it. You are letting the state dictate how mad you are because they took a biblical term and made it civil....

Know thine enemy, and love your f-ing neighbor. We need to stop fighting each other regardless of race, Creed, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or age and take the fight where it belongs.... Less federal government, fewer laws.

 

And here lies the issue..

The government has no business "regulating" marriage...nor should there be any government benefits (or,arguably, ANY benefits) accruing due to the fact that 2 people are married. That includes special tax rates or income categories. The government needs to get entirely out of the marriage business except possibly courts enforcing the "contract" as with all other contracts.

As far as who can get married, as you say, that is the business of the parties and (in the case of religious ceremony) churches. There are currently churches who will marry people of the same gender and those who will not. There are even individual ministers who will and who will not within the same religions and sects. There are churches and clergy who will perform polygamous marriages.

As long as there IS government regulation of marriages (and the attendant "benefits" bestowed), those who would attempt to prevent people from marrying because they feel the union is not in keeping with their religious beliefs are effectively advocating "laws respecting an establishment of religion", which is about the slipperiest slope I can think of upon which to set out...

 

No disrespect... You are collapsing two separate but parallel concepts.

Christian marriage before God is one.
Two is a 'legal' marriage endorsed by the state.

The religious marriage is between you, your spouse and God. Your vows are taken I front of community so everyone knows you are married and the symbol of that Union is the ring.

The piece of paper you sign and file at the county court house is the legal contract between you, your spouse and the state.

Most Christians have these two collapsed because the ceremony and terminology was co-opt by the state.

So Christians think they are arguing about God when they are really arguing about a legal issue...
. Not one person I have ever talked too about this tries to interfere in a glbt (that acronym and autotype gggrrrr) religious practice... Every person has said that is between them and God.....

I just wish people would get they are two separate but parallel topics. Because our Constitution provides for separation of church and state but most people don't argue like they are separate.