[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Trusting Your Sources This Election Season

Turning America into a Battlefield: A Blueprint for Locking Down the Nation

Ohio students' device to detect pot use by motorists

Biblical Values–Or Sheldon Adelson’s Vegas Values?

Will Iran Attempt To Seize Control Of Saudi Oilfields?

Rabbi warns of civil war in the US

Belle Gibson: The Whole Pantry author, app developer admits cancer diagnosis not true

This is a REAL Commercial from AARP: “Riots Nationwide Have Prompted The Government To Declare Martial Law”

WATCH: Baltimore Rioter Slapped By Mom On News [VIDEO]

Dashcam video shows unarmed man being shot by PBSO deputy

Continuing riots plunge Baltimore into chaos

Hillary Wants a Piece of the Elizabeth Warren Love Fest

Principles of Constitutionalism: Malum in Se versus Malum Prohibitum

Rand Paul Tells Jewish Audience It Was a ‘Mistake’ to Topple Saddam Hussein

Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton in 2016 – Illuminati Presidential Election Puppets Picked?

Hillary Clinton 2016: Coldhearted, Serial Liar to Become 1st Female US President?

Grand Jury Clears Cops Who Shot Mentally Ill Man For Holding A Screwdriver

Fleeing Hillary: Top Dem money man departs because Clinton hasn’t answered ethics questions

Innocent Man Assaulted and Kidnapped by Police for Walking at Night

Audi creates green 'e-diesel fuel of the future' using just carbon dioxide and water

Obama’s correspondents dinner speech decoded

Convoy of military vehicles “as far as the eye can see”, massive military buildup in America continues

New Hampshire poll: Ayotte opens up 6-point lead; Bush-Clinton tied at 42%

Corinthian Colleges Shuts Down, Ending Classes for 16,000 Overnight

Hello Trader Joes, your pink slip is showing

The de facto meaning of the Consitution was, and continues to be, defined by testing it with actions.

Nevada GOP moves to dump caucuses in favor of 2016 primary (easier to rig)

Question to the Forum: When the SHTF, are You Prepared?

Romans chapter thirteenBy Adam Clarke 1731

"The Federalist Papers"

Our Enemies, the Saudis They’re invading Yemen to empower Al Qaeda

Putin says US helped North Caucasus separatists against Russia in the 2000s

Who Really Controls the World?

Non-Voting as an Act of Secession

State Says Bakers Should Pay $135,000 for Refusing to Bake Cake for Same-Sex Wedding

The Ted Cruz Blimp, Coming to a Sky Near You! (Ron Paul 2008, ripoff)

America's Soft Police State

"F*ck This Court": Woman Who Took AK-47 To Jailbreak Pens Epic Rant Against Judge

Frenzied Negros Smashing Police Cars In Baltimore

Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt And 100% Pure Evil

Education Secretary: Parents Who Opt Out Of Common Core are Racist – “Feds Will Step In” If Opt Out Continues…

Google Executive Identified in Deadly Mount Everest Avalanche

A-10 Warthog "Treason" Comments Cost Air Force General His Job

Brutal Antagonistic Cop Assaults Woman Just Innocently Trying to Exercise her Constitutional Rights

Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition Summit - C-SPAN live

Marijuana Is Not, Repeat Not, a Gateway Drug

Cops Kill Man for Refusing to ID as He Dropped Off Stray Cat to Animal Shelter, Police Remain Silent

Lindsey Graham’s “All-Jewish Cabinet”

New York City buses must show 'killing Jews' ad, judge rules

As contributions fall, House GOP rebels blame party leaders


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: The Myth About Marriage
Source: New York Review of Books
URL Source: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblo ... s%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Published: May 13, 2012
Author: Garry Wills
Post Date: 2012-05-13 10:23:43 by lucysmom
Keywords: None
Views: 30451
Comments: 126

Why do some people who would recognize gay civil unions oppose gay marriage? Certain religious groups want to deny gays the sacredeness of what they take to be a sacrament. But marriage is no sacrament.

Some of my fellow Catholics even think that “true marriage” was instituted by Christ. It wasn’t. Marriage is prescribed in Eden by YHWH (Yahweh) at Genesis 2.24: man and wife shall “become one flesh.” When Jesus is asked about marriage, he simply quotes that passage from Genesis (Mark 10.8). He nowhere claims to be laying a new foundation for a “Christian marriage” to replace the Yahwist institution.

Some try to make the wedding at Cana (John 1.1-11) somehow sacramental because Jesus worked his first miracle there. But that was clearly a Jewish wedding, like any other Jesus might have attended, and the miracle, by its superabundance of wine, is meant to show the disciples that the Messianic time has come. The great Johannine scholar Father Raymond Brown emphasizes this, and concludes of the passage: “Neither the external nor the internal evidence for a symbolic reference to matrimony is strong. The wedding is only the backdrop and occasion for the story, and the joining of the man and woman does not have any direct role in the narrative.”

The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs.

snip

Those who do not want to let gay partners have the sacredness of sacramental marriage are relying on a Scholastic fiction of the thirteenth century to play with people’s lives, as the church has done ever since the time of Aquinas. The myth of the sacrament should not let people deprive gays of the right to natural marriage, whether blessed by Yahweh or not. They surely do not need—since no one does—the blessing of Saint Thomas.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: lucysmom (#0)

How about if the faggots keep seaming two plus two equals seven thousand. We exercise our religous freedom under the first amendment and exterminate them.

If the democrats can exterminate innocent babies. Maybe the good people should start exterminating worthless piece of shit faggots.

A K A Stone  posted on  2012-05-13   10:27:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: A K A Stone, Anti-ping to CE, Fred Mertz, Godwinson, go65, war, no gnu taxes, Skip Intro, ferret mike, jwpegler, brian s, mininggold, mcgowanjm (#0)

...when my father left and married another, my mother was told she could not remarry because she was still married to my father in the “true marriage.” When he returned to my mother, and became a Catholic, a priest performed again the sacramental marriage. Since my father’s intervening marriage was “outside the church,” it did not count. What nonsense.

ping

Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   10:27:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: lucysmom (#2)

You sound like some dumb ass dyke.

You can only be married once. There is no real divorce. If you "divorce" and "remarry". You are committing adultery every time you sleep with your new "wife".

You liberals are to wacked out. I'm sorry but it is looking like extermination is the only option. Sorry about your luck.

A K A Stone  posted on  2012-05-13   10:29:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A K A Stone (#1)

If the democrats can exterminate innocent babies. Maybe the good people should start exterminating worthless piece of shit faggots.

You've so over used that murdering babies stuff, it's lost it's shock value.

Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   10:29:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)

You are committing adultery every time you sleep with your new "wife".

I don't have a wife, old or new.

Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   10:31:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: lucysmom (#0)

a Jewish wedding, like any other Jesus might have attended, and the miracle, by its superabundance of wine, is meant to show the disciples that the Messianic time has come

And it wasn't two fags getting married, which is why there was no repeat of Jesus driving the money changers out of the temple.


"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.

hondo68  posted on  2012-05-13   10:31:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: lucysmom (#0)

There is no such thing as "gay marriage." Marriage is between a man and a woman PERIOD.

The discussion is about "gay bonding" which is a totally different idea. I fixed your thread.

buckeroo  posted on  2012-05-13   10:39:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: buckeroo (#7)

There is no such thing as "gay marriage." Marriage is between a man and a woman PERIOD.

As a civil matter, marriage is whatever the law says it is.

Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   10:44:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: lucysmom (#8)

Oh just GREAT! The law based upon a pile of silly people that want to "change" something decide to make homosexuals have babies. That is too cool. Is it possible or are there more miracles running around today than baby Jesus?

buckeroo  posted on  2012-05-13   10:46:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A K A Stone (#3)

I see you as the malicious one here throwing out all kinds of intolerance and desire to run other people's live for them.

Marriage is a private commitment between two people, and what gender someone prefers ina partner is their business alone.

I support marriage for everyone, and Lucymom's right; throwing around the abortion issue makes no sense considering you would want babies aborted if they came up with a test that would show who is going to be a gay or lesbian adult while the person is still a fetus.

You make it plain you have blood lust for homosexuals, so you just look conflicted if you postulate any other opinion regarding that.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2012-05-13   10:54:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: buckeroo (#9)

Oh just GREAT! The law based upon a pile of silly people that want to "change" something decide to make homosexuals have babies. That is too cool.

That is silly. The law can only change what the law can create.

Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   10:56:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: lucysmom (#11)

?

Then how can homosexuals enter "marriage" if they can't have children naturally?

buckeroo  posted on  2012-05-13   11:01:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: buckeroo (#9)

"The law based upon a pile of silly people that want to "change" something decide to make homosexuals have babies."

Homosexuals have babies all the time. My city has quite a large enclave of lesbian couples and singles. many of the couples have had children vis a vis artificial insemination.

The 'they can't beget children' gambit makes no rational sense as an anti-homosexual argument unless one also takes the position that infertile couples of all kinds, even those not any longer of child bearing years should break up as their relationships no longer have any raison de etre because children can not come from it.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2012-05-13   11:02:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: buckeroo, Ferret Mike (#12)

Then how can homosexuals enter "marriage" if they can't have children naturally?

What Ferret Mike said.

Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   11:06:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Ferret Mike (#13)

Homosexuals have babies all the time.

WoW! I learn something new everyday! Can you provide a few details on this phenomena?

buckeroo  posted on  2012-05-13   11:07:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: buckeroo (#15) (Edited)

"WoW! I learn something new everyday! Can you provide a few details on this phenomena?"

Explain to me how the 'phenomena' of heterosexual coupes using a surrogate mother or another man's sperm to conceive a child when the husband shoots blanks does not establish the precedent that marriage is about commitment and the bonding between two people. marriage is not just to creating an entity where both participants of the contract create children or the deal's off.

Your point of order is moot in the face of the truth that people of all persuasions have all kinds of reproductive options, or options not to reproduce, and none of this has any legal bearing on whether a marriage is allowable or not.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2012-05-13   11:14:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Ferret Mike (#16)

My question that YOU jumped on was about natural birth. Now, you are ranting about all kinds of ways that are clearly beyond the scope of my question much less the thread.

Look pal, let me explain "the birds&the bees" to ya: women have babies however it takes a man to have sex with her, hence a man and a women are the ENTIRE BASIS of MARRIAGE.

Lesbian couples don't have babies naturally. Gay couples do not have babies naturally. But women have babies when with a man. Marriage is about procreation; the family unit and the raising of children.

Your incredible idea that men can have babies is even more difficult to understand than a virgin can have a baby Jesus.

CASE CLOSED! NEXT CASE!

buckeroo  posted on  2012-05-13   11:38:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: lucysmom, all (#0)

The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs.

That is clearly not true. St. Ambrose (340-397) in his letter to Siricius (Ep. xlii, 3, in P.L., XVI, 1124):

"Since the contracting of marriage must be sanctified by the veiling and the blessing of the priest, how can there be any mention of a marriage, when unity of faith is wanting?"

Also there is this:

Marriage in the Western Church: The Christianization of Marriage During The Patristic and Early Medieval Periods (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, V. 24)

There are many other sources out there that clearly show that there was some sort of church rite involved in marriage. Was there a "specific rite"? I have no idea, but considering the distances and different traditions involved, I doubt it.

Those who do not want to let gay partners have the sacredness of sacramental marriage are relying on a Scholastic fiction of the thirteenth century to play with people’s lives,

The problem with this statement is that ALL Catholic Churches, even the ones that have been separated from Rome since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (i.e. the so-called "Oriental Churches"), recognize and have always recognized the sacrament of marriage. So do the so-called Orthodox Churches, who separated from Rome in 1054.

Having said all that, I agree with the author to a point. I don't care whether or not two men or two women marry, as long as the government does not force a religious institution to do it. If they want a judge or some other secular body to marry them, fine by me. That is between them and Our Lord. They will have to stand in front of God just like the rest of us. In my not so humble opinion it is immoral and not Biblical to use the force of government to stop them from offending The Lord. That is not our job as Christians to do. Jesus himself stated:

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

Nowhere does it say use the force of government to stop him or her from trespassing against you. The more authoritarian and self-righteous among us will vehemently disagree, and that's fine too. We'll find out soon enough who was right and who was wrong.

Fibr Dog  posted on  2012-05-13   11:41:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: buckeroo (#17)

Look pal, let me explain "the birds&the bees" to ya: women have babies however it takes a man to have sex with her, hence a man and a women are the ENTIRE BASIS of MARRIAGE.

Lesbian couples don't have babies naturally. Gay couples do not have babies naturally. But women have babies when with a man. Marriage is about procreation; the family unit and the raising of children.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."

Romans 8:14-16

Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   11:42:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: buckeroo (#17) (Edited)

All you show is your intolerance of the commitment and love one person can have for another.

What I already states has standing in and of itself to debunk your truism about procreation.

Just fact it Buck, this is about a difference of opinion where your premise that marriage is solely about procreation is just a way to excuse your own irrational hatred off and intolerance of others.

Nothing else.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2012-05-13   11:44:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Ferret Mike (#20)

"friendship" or "sexual relations" is not MARRIAGE!

NEXT CASE!

buckeroo  posted on  2012-05-13   11:46:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: buckeroo (#21) (Edited)

Then forbid the marriage of those who cannot in any way procreate. Then make all reproductive options all couples have other than two young fertile heterosexuals making babies by making bacon illegal.

Your logic has more holes then a wheel of Swiss cheese. Next.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2012-05-13   11:49:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Fibr Dog (#18)

There are many other sources out there that clearly show that there was some sort of church rite involved in marriage. Was there a "specific rite"? I have no idea, but considering the distances and different traditions involved, I doubt it.

I don't see that there any significant conflict between the article I posted and what you've said.

Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   11:49:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: lucysmom (#0)

Genesis 2:19 -24 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animalsr and all the birds in the sky.s He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man calledt each living creature,u that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adamf no suitable helperv was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep;w and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribsg and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribh x he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;y

she shall be calledz ‘woman,’

for she was taken out of man.a”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is unitedb to his wife, and they become one flesh.c

This confusion about marriage stems from the false idea that marriages are made on earth. If marriage exists as simply an earthly custom, then marriage will change as customs change.

Are marriages made in heaven? Yes! God in heaven made marriage. He declared, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” … Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man (Genesis 2:18, 22). God established marriage with the first man and first woman whom he created. Jesus confirmed this understanding of marriage. He taught, “What God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6).

God created marriage as his blessing for all people. Genesis 2:24, tells us God’s plan to continue marriage following Adam and Eve. For all time, God designed marriage for one man and one woman to be united together in a life-long relationship.

The proper understanding of marriage helps us have the proper understanding of God’s love. God established the eternal union between his Son Jesus and Jesus’ Bride, the Church who are all believers. Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. He died for the sins of his Bride. He cleansed the guilt of his Bride with the power of baptism. He lives and rules in heaven now, waiting to bring his Bride into the glory of the life to come.

God made marriage in heaven for people on earth. When the earth no longer exists and earthly marriage has passed away, God’s faithful people will enjoy a wedding feast with Jesus that lasts forever.

Had God thought another man would suffice for Adam he'd only have made another man. But then they wouldn't have been able to go forth and multiply either. They'd have died out or as we saw at Sodom and Gomorrah they were willfully snuffed out by God Himself for the abomination they had become. For their sexual perversions and evils God destroyed them.

SJN  posted on  2012-05-13   11:54:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Ferret Mike (#22)

All the major religious institutions from thousands of years ago used to perform that very point that you bring up. Perhaps the world's oldest religion is Hinduism and it permitted this escape clause. The Jews certainly did as well.

Today, a marriage escape clause popularly known as "divorce" can occur just because you may have had a bad hair day. And American culture makes a man pay dearly, too.

buckeroo  posted on  2012-05-13   11:56:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: buckeroo (#25)

God created marriage, it is as sacred as life itself. It is no coincidence that in the Old Testament when God placed the death penalty on murder, he placed the same sentence on adultery (Leviticus 20:10). To violate the marriage vow is as serious as murder.

SJN  posted on  2012-05-13   12:00:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: lucysmom (#23)

There are many other sources out there that clearly show that there was some sort of church rite involved in marriage. Was there a "specific rite"? I have no idea, but considering the distances and different traditions involved, I doubt it.

I don't see that there any significant conflict between the article I posted and what you've said.

I disagree.

To say that "...This (the marriage rite) was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs" is an inaccurate portrayal of the situation.

The fact, as I have shown, is that there was indeed a marriage rite and that marriage was not "left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire." Marriage was much more than just a "legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs" to a Christian couple getting married.

You may not consider that to be significant, and I respect that, but I consider it to be very significant because it shows that his attempt to delegitimize the Church in order to make his point is not factual.

Fibr Dog  posted on  2012-05-13   12:01:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: SJN (#24)

The proper understanding of marriage helps us have the proper understanding of God’s love. God established the eternal union between his Son Jesus and Jesus’ Bride, the Church who are all believers. Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. He died for the sins of his Bride. He cleansed the guilt of his Bride with the power of baptism. He lives and rules in heaven now, waiting to bring his Bride into the glory of the life to come.

So if the Church is all believers and all believers includes men, then how can the Church be the bride of Christ? If the Church is the bride and Christ is the husband, how does that marriage is about having natural born children apply?

Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   12:04:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: SJN (#24)

marriage is not just for people of your religion. Because you have a religious base for how you and others of your faith would do marriage, why do you think you should force others by law to conform to it?

Mormons believe that one can seal a marriage beyond the grave. They believe a man who keeps the covenants can get his own universe and god status whereby he and a goddess he sealed the bond with while corporeal can make baby spirits.

These spirits are meant in the Mormon faith to be plucked down to Earth to assume corporeal form and have their human lives begin.

How would you like if it they were a majority and forced you to accept the sealing concept and the added dimension of procreation in a way codified into law.

How would you as a Christian like to see Mormons who are in sealed marriages get legal advantages over your regular marriage because this was a legal standard to work with?

If you find this an odious thought, then welcome to the world much in the same way as gay couples are often forced to deal with it because of the irrational hatred and intolerant of others.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2012-05-13   12:04:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: lucysmom (#28)

The Gospels use this connection as an example of the righteous tie between believers in Christ and Christ Himself. But it also illuminates the sacredness of the marriage union.

SJN  posted on  2012-05-13   12:07:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Ferret Mike (#29)

I don't really care what other religions believe. This nation was founded on the Judeo/Christian belief. What they care to do in other nations is up to them and God will Judge all nations.

SJN  posted on  2012-05-13   12:10:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Ferret Mike (#29)

No one is forcing a particular religion on any others. In this nation everyone has a right to believe what they will, but our laws and our customs are formed from the Original Laws of the Judeo/Christian religion. If our country abandons it's heritage and the very thing that made it so successful for so long, with the Grace of God and His blessings, you can be sure that the failure of the nation will be a direct result. We can see the fruit of that kind of thinking already in this nation. And History itself shows this to be true.

SJN  posted on  2012-05-13   12:14:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: SJN (#30)

And no one's commitment to a bond between two people should have to banned and in a legal sense made inconsequential purely on the religious beliefs of one group.

The United States is not a theocracy. There is a Constitution here that gives freedom of or from religion. And that Constitution is there to protect minority groups from the capriciousness and malevolent whims of the majority.

Until everyone has the legal right to marry, this albatross of injustice is a stink that hangs around everyone's neck. An injustice to one is an injustice to all.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2012-05-13   12:15:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Ferret Mike (#29)

By the way, to refuse the blessings of a God created union between a man and a woman to two people of the same sex is not hatred and it isn't intolerance. It is upholding what God Himself put together and not perverting it.

SJN  posted on  2012-05-13   12:16:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Ferret Mike (#33)

What is unjust is for homosexuals to want to pervert the marriage vows that God bestowed on ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. They may desire to thwart God by declaring their desire to be just like heterosexuals in the marriage union, but alas God will not change His mind about their perversion regardless of the charade they attempt to force on the rest of society.

SJN  posted on  2012-05-13   12:20:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Fibr Dog (#27)

The fact, as I have shown, is that there was indeed a marriage rite and that marriage was not "left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire." Marriage was much more than just a "legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs" to a Christian couple getting married.

He says specific marriage rite and you agreed that was most likely so.

He also argues that marriage is not a sacrament - here's what the Catholic Church says: The exact definition of a sacrament is that it is "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace."

Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   12:33:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: SJN (#35)

What is unjust is for homosexuals to want to pervert the marriage vows that God bestowed on ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Why should that have anything to do with a civil marriage?

Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   12:36:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: SJN (#31)

This nation was founded on the Judeo/Christian belief.

This nation was founded by men who came from a Judeo/Christian background and choose to not codify religious practice into secular law, for instance, Americans are free to work on the sabbath if they chose and a profit can be made (all hail the god of the free market, commerce be upon him!)

Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady

lucysmom  posted on  2012-05-13   12:45:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: lucysmom (#37)

In all honesty I don't care if homosexuals want a civil marriage and go to the court house to do it. But they keep banging on church's doors and demanding a Christian ceremony. And I'll tell you this for certain. They don't give a crap about "equality" with heterosexuals, they care about demanding that others in society and especially those in religious faiths deny that their homosexuality is not an abomination of natural law. It is this small minority who are forcing others to accept their deviancy as being as normal as heterosexual unions. For we Christians who adhere to the Gospel of Christ, it's never going to happen. They think they are going to win a great victory when they can pervert God's law by marrying in the church. The only thing they're going to get is God's wrath.

SJN  posted on  2012-05-13   12:51:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: lucysmom (#38)

Christians are allowed to work on the sabbath.

As Christ said when asked about work on the sabbath He said if your donkey falls in a well on a sabbath are you going to ignore the donkey in the well because of the sabbath? In other words we are free to work and do what we must on the sabbath.

What our founders chose to do was make sure that the State couldn't force religion on the people.

SJN  posted on  2012-05-13   12:54:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 126) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com