Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

[Johnv]

The admonition of rendering to God what is God's, and to Ceasar what is Ceasar's would disagree with that. Civil marriage in the ancient era was only a declaration of intent to live together, while civil divorce was only an intent to live apart. Nothing more.

 

[Marcia]

If that's what it says, then speaking out against the government is rebelling against God. Yet we do that all the time.
Nope, the Constitution was not put into place to uphold God's law. It was put in place to guarantee the rights and freedoms of individuals. There's no such thing as a "right" to marry, which is why I have never been comfortable with the government regulating it.

Rom. 13 does not say one cannot speak out against the government.

I never said the Constitution was put into place to uphold God's law. I said that government/rulers/etc. are put in place by God.

If the government doesn't regulate marriage, who will? You realize, of course, polygamy will be legal in that scenario, as will child marriage.

 

[Nonsequitur]

By what standard do you judge certain marriages as exploitation, and a 10-year-old as a minor? Where is it written other than in a statute somewhere? (So you are telling me that you would wed, and consumate a marriage with your ten-year old?) You are sick.

If Judaism says a 12-year-old girl can be married off, who are you to say otherwise? Isn't it your religion?(Uh....no... we are Christians. Not under Jewish law. Do you not understand the difference?)

The point is that despite all your bellerin', you actually expect and desire government regulation(No one I know here expect or want 'government intervention'.) of marriage as long as your own freedom isn't in jeopardy. You will tolerate homosexual "marriages" just because that's how you feel, and you lack the discernment to see the destructive influence on the general welfare of society as a whole, and on the protection of your own union specifically. (Wow. Talk about a nonsequiter.) Are you drunk?

The same basis that a government can forbid marriage to what we call minors is the same basis that government can forbid marriage between two men or two women.

Why are you even posting on a Christian web-site?
Why don't don't you just give us your website?
molestlittlegirls.com
What is wrong with you?
Get behind me Satan.
Cod-Brain.

 

[Revmitchell]

Why are you even posting on a Christian web-site?
Why don't don't you just give us your website?
molestlittlegirls.com
What is wrong with you?
Get behind me Satan.
Cod-Brain.

I think he was using those questions as an example of why marriages need to be governed by the state. not that he endorsed them.

 

[Nonsequitur]

I think he was using those questions as an example of why marriages need to be governed by the state. not that he endorsed them.

Well, if he was and I misunderstood his post, I apologize.
I'm , the cod-brain.

 

[Nonsequitur]

I think he was using those questions as an example of why marriages need to be governed by the state. not that he endorsed them.

Then I should say that God already said what marriage was, and that human government has no control over it.

 

[Nonsequitur]

Romans 13 (New American Standard Bible)


Romans 13

Be Subject to Government

1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

Gee...it seems that according to verse 3 that only the EVIL has to worry.
That only the ones that do EVIL have a problem with resisting 'Authority'.
Who among you think that even if the majority is evil then that is what we should do because it is what the majority thinks?
Verse 4...minister of God to you for good.
Gee...seems when others make a law that is against God, that Christians are not to do it.
(For the ones who not believe this, please start another thread why man's law trumps God's law.)
According to verse 3, if it is good, it is from God.
Man says abortion is good, it is a law. God says murder is bad.

You decide.

 

[Nonsequitur]

There is a reason there is no official Marriage ceremony in the Bible. God meant for governments to oversee Marriages. There is no way for a civilized country to stand if the Government separates marriages from laws...

For civilized countries are based on the foundation of families.

Huh?

Genesis 2:24 (King James Version)


24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Now, how in the world do you get that governments ordain marriages?

 

[Aaron]

Why are you even posting on a Christian web-site?
Why don't don't you just give us your website?
molestlittlegirls.com
What is wrong with you?
Get behind me Satan.
Cod-Brain.

Rev already answered your question. johnv suffers from the delusion that God hasn't charged human governors to uphold His law and can't see the consequences of his kind of thinking.

Besides, girls getting married by twelve is in Jewish traditions, not in Moses. Jewish girls could be married as toddlers, but had to wait for puberty before being joined with their husbands. I posted that to show him that marriage cannot be in the hands of religious sects alone, but under the auspices of the civil government.

Oh, and next time you feel the need to let fly with railing accusations, read the whole thread.

 

[Nonsequitur]

(1)Rev already answered your question. (2)johnv suffers from the delusion that God hasn't charged human governors to uphold His law and can't see the consequences of his kind of thinking.

Besides, girls getting married by twelve is in Jewish traditions, not in Moses. Jewish girls could be married as toddlers, but had to wait for puberty before being joined with their husbands. I posted that to show him that marriage cannot be in the hands of religious sects alone, but under the auspices of the civil government.

(3)Oh, and next time you feel the need to let fly with railing accusations, read the whole thread.

(1) If he did, or not, wether he answered my question is not up to you.
(2) I'll let him debate me on that question. I don't need you to try to talk for me sweetheart.
(3) There you go again...assuming that you know what you are talking about. Let's see.....how does one say this on a Christian site?
Ahhhh. Go alatide thyself.

 

[Aaron]

(1) If he did, or not, wether he answered my question is not up to you.
(2) I'll let him debate me on that question. I don't need you to try to talk for me sweetheart.
(3) There you go again...assuming that you know what you are talking about. Let's see.....how does one say this on a Christian site?
Ahhhh. Go alatide thyself.

As soon as you addressed me I was well within my rights to correct you. Now, if you're too sensitive about that, maybe you shouldn't be playing with the big boys.

 

[KenH]

God meant for governments to oversee Marriages.

The institution of marriage did quite well for the thousands of years that the government wasn't involved in it.

 

[Nonsequitur]

As soon as you addressed me I was well within my rights to correct you. Now, if you're too sensitive about that, maybe you shouldn't be playing with the big boys.

My e-mail address is on my profile.
Let's not de-rail the thread.
As for the thread.
You are still wrong in my opinion.:tongue3:

 

[KenH]

What good is it to take gov't out of marriage laws? I don't see the point of doing this.

Because it makes the God-ordained institution of marriage into a political football - for the same reason that we don't want the government in other church issues.

 

[Aaron]

The institution of marriage did quite well for the thousands of years that the government wasn't involved in it.

It did? Where did marriage ever exist where there was no government?—after the Fall, that is.

 

[KenH]

David Boaz of the Cato Institute:

"Andrew Sullivan, one of the leading advocates of gay marriage, writes, "Marriage is a formal, public institution that only the government can grant." But the history of marriage and the state is more complicated than modern debaters imagine, as one of its scholars, Lawrence Stone, writes: "In the early Middle Ages all that marriage implied in the eyes of the laity seems to have been a private contract between two families. ... For those without property, it was a private contract between two individuals, enforced by the community sense of what was right." By the 16th century the formally witnessed contract, called the "spousals," was usually followed by the proclamation of the banns three times in church, but the spousals itself was a legally binding contract.

Only with the Earl of Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1754 did marriage in England come to be regulated by law. In the New England colonies, marriages were performed by justices of the peace or other magistrates from the beginning. But even then common-law unions were valid.

In the 20th century, however, government has intruded upon the marriage contract, among many others. Each state has tended to promulgate a standard, one-size-fits-all formula. Then, in the past generation, legislatures and courts have started unilaterally changing the terms of the marriage contract. Between 1969 and 1985 all the states provided for no-fault divorce. The new arrangements applied not just to couples embarking on matrimony but also to couples who had married under an earlier set of rules. Many people felt a sense of liberation; the changes allowed them to get out of unpleasant marriages without the often contrived allegations of fault previously required for divorce. But some people were hurt by the new rules, especially women who had understood marriage as a partnership in which one partner would earn money and the other would forsake a career in order to specialize in homemaking.

Privatization of religion--better known as the separation of church and state--was our founders' prescription for avoiding Europe's religious wars. Americans may think each other headed for hell, but we keep our religious views at the level of private proselytizing and don't fight to impose one religion by force of law. Other social conflicts can likewise be depoliticized and somewhat defused if we keep them out of the realm of government. If all arts funding were private (as 99 percent of it already is), for instance, we wouldn't have members of Congress debating Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs or the film The Watermelon Woman."

- more at www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2440

 

[Marcia]

Because it makes the God-ordained institution of marriage into a political football - for the same reason that we don't want the government in other church issues.

So if the gov't bows out of marriage, what then?

Who will decide who can get married, custody, child support, divorce, etc? It will be better without the government? I don't think so.

 

[Nonsequitur]

David Boaz of the Cato Institute:

"Andrew Sullivan, one of the leading advocates of gay marriage, writes, "Marriage is a formal, public institution that only the government can grant." (Until Andrew is declared god, he is just another idiot [I'm, sorry,cod-brained individual],).But the history of marriage and the state is more complicated than modern debaters imagine, as one of its scholars, Lawrence Stone,(OOOhhh Lawrence Stone, another man who knows better than God.). writes: "In the early Middle Ages all that marriage implied in the eyes of the laity seems to have been a private contract between two families. ... For those without property, it was a private contract between two individuals, enforced by the community sense of what was right." By the 16th century (By then, God was dead, so we could do what we want)the formally witnessed contract, called the "spousals," was usually followed by the proclamation of the banns three times in church, but the spousals itself was a legally binding contract.

Only with the Earl of Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1754 did marriage in England come to be regulated by law.(Yep, no longer an institution brought by God, but by the law of 1754.) In the New England colonies, marriages were performed by justices of the peace or other magistrates from the beginning. But even then common-law unions were valid.

In the 20th century, however, government has intruded upon the marriage contract,(O.K. how many here really remember the head -line in the '60's that said ' God Is Dead') among many others. Each state has tended to promulgate a standard, one-size-fits-all formula. Then, in the past generation, legislatures and courts have started unilaterally changing the terms of the marriage contract. Between 1969 and 1985 all the states provided for no-fault divorce. The new arrangements applied not just to couples embarking on matrimony but also to couples who had married under an earlier set of rules. Many people felt a sense of liberation;(read: liberals) the changes allowed them to get out of unpleasant marriages without the often contrived allegations of fault previously required for divorce. But some people were hurt by the new rules, especially women who had understood marriage as a partnership in which one partner would earn money and the other would forsake a career in order to specialize in homemaking.

Privatization of religion--better known as the separation of church and state--was our founders' prescription for avoiding Europe's religious wars. Americans may think each other headed for hell, but we keep our religious views at the level of private proselytizing and don't fight to impose one religion by force of law. Other social conflicts can likewise be depoliticized and somewhat defused if we keep them out of the realm of government. If all arts funding were private (as 99 percent of it already is), for instance, we wouldn't have members of Congress debating Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs or the film The Watermelon Woman."(Wow. guess this meaning is, if I only want to divorce my lady of the evening, all I have to to is p** on her.)

- more at www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2440

More at this site? Why? How to creativly p** on her?

 

[Aaron]

David Boaz of the Cato Institute: [blah, blah, blah]

The premise of Sodom, that only government can grant a marriage, is not an argument that I've seen anyone make. tiny tim came awfully close to that, though.

I said that Caesar must protect marriage. Never did I say he was the author of it. Civil law is merely the enforcement of the second table of the Decalogue. That is what Caesar is there for.

 

[Nonsequitur]

The premise of Sodom, that only government can grant a marriage, is not an argument that I've seen anyone make. tiny tim came awfully close to that, though.

I said that Caesar must protect marriage. Never did I say he was the author of it. Civil law is merely the enforcement of the second table of the Decalogue. That is what Caesar is there for.

You follow Ceasar.....
I'll follow God.:godisgood: