ADVERTISEMENT

Revisiting the gay marriage discussion ...

AC_Exotic

AC_Exotic

MegaPoke is insane
Jul 31, 2014
24,837
43,060
113
Parts Unknown
www.clinteastwood.net
... I started several weeks ago regarding the Oklahoma state legislator the sponsored a bill to take the certifying of marriage licenses from county court houses to ministers.

Let's talk about marriage in the first place. Though marriage is spoken of in the Bible and there is a biblical standard regarding what constitutes a marriage -- has marriage not been a state recognized and sanctioned function for centuries.

In dact, during the writing of the New Testament, were not marrages considered legal only when recognized by the Roman government?

That being said where in the New Testament does it say or command that a pastor is to perform weddings? Is it possible that culture has unnecessarily placed a burden on churches that should never have been there in the first place?

Just thinking out loud. Any of your thoughts are obviously wel.
 
ThePokewithNoName said:
... I started several weeks ago regarding the Oklahoma state legislator the sponsored a bill to take the certifying of marriage licenses from county court houses to ministers.

Let's talk about marriage in the first place. Though marriage is spoken of in the Bible and there is a biblical standard regarding what constitutes a marriage -- has marriage not been a state recognized and sanctioned function for centuries.

In dact, during the writing of the New Testament, were not marrages considered legal only when recognized by the Roman government?

That being said where in the New Testament does it say or command that a pastor is to perform weddings? Is it possible that culture has unnecessarily placed a burden on churches that should never have been there in the first place?

Just thinking out loud. Any of your thoughts are obviously wel.
Click to expand...
If a pastor wants to marry them, that's his/her business. If he/she doesn't, he/she shouldn't be forced to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitter Creek and Schoonerman
TPOKE said:
If a pastor wants to marry them, that's his/her business. If he/she doesn't, he/she shouldn't be forced to.
Click to expand...
The individuals I know that are gay don't really care that a certain pastor marry them or that they get married in a church. They just want the same rights to be legally joined in matrimony. And I agree with noname, separate marriage from religion and you make this whole debate less convoluted. You can then have a ceremony in the "xxxxxx" denomination church if you're straight, or have another ceremony if you are gay. Big bonus for all of us is religious right doesn't have their high horse of it being "unholy" and the liberal left doesn't have their high horse of "inequality" either.

Then we can all get down to the more important decisions like making pot legal and fixing the CF playoffs
 
  • Like
Reactions: pokeinaustin and Schoonerman
That's where it's headed Cranio. My point was that I wouldn't mind seeing churches get out if the marriage business altogether because I'm not sure that's what they're commissioned to do in the first place.

Just a little outside the box thinking that I wanted to throw against the wall on the NSB.
 
Noname, I just don't see the religious groups being ok with not differentiating themselves from those they believe shouldn't have the same rights. I think it would be better to just allow everyone to have the same rights to matrimony, and then let ceremonies be what they are, determined by what you believe. That way everyone gets the basics what they want.
 
I'm someone who has supported the right for gays to marry for probably the last 12-15 years (yes, I'm congratulating myself...as it's great to see public opinion finally catch up with me. If only I could pick stocks with the same foresight.).


NoName, as to your post, I don't know enough about the Bible or religious history to really comment on it. Frankly, I don't really care how churches treat gays...accept them or not...whatever they feel is best. My only problem with religious folks and their attitudes toward gays is when they try to infringe upon gays' rights when they are acting within the public sphere. Beyond that, I don't think there's any legal or moral argument for churches to be forced to recognize or participate in gay marriages. As a unabashed supporter of full equality for gays, I would never support any such action. Generally, I believe religion should stay out of government and government out of religion.


However, in a country that professes "equality under the law," I believe all law-abiding, American gays should be afforded all the same civil rights as all other Americans. AND I believe the Supreme Court will agree with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: parlayn_poke, blbronco, pokeinaustin and 2 others
Chillwell said:
I'm someone who has supported the right for gays to marry for probably the last 12-15 years (yes, I'm congratulating myself...as it's great to see public opinion finally catch up with me. If only I could pick stocks with the same foresight.).


NoName, as to your post, I don't know enough about the Bible or religious history to really comment on it. Frankly, I don't really care how churches treat gays...accept them or not...whatever they feel is best. My only problem with religious folks and their attitudes toward gays is when they try to infringe upon gays' rights when they are acting within the public sphere. Beyond that, I don't think there's any legal or moral argument for churches to be forced to recognize or participate in gay marriages. As a unabashed supporter of full equality for gays, I would never support any such action. Generally, I believe religion should stay out of government and government out of religion.


However, in a country that professes "equality under the law," I believe all law-abiding, American gays should be afforded all the same civil rights as all other Americans. AND I believe the Supreme Court will agree with this.
Click to expand...

Solid take.
 
I had a long discussion with someone in my small town on the matter yesterday Chill. I don't think anyone should be refused service, regardless of lifestyle choices or religious (or non religious) beliefs. Where I think the line is crossed is when one is forced to participate in something that conflicts with their conscience or beliefs.
 
I have always held the opinion that Churches should be in the Marriage business and Government should be in the Civil Union business. That statement goes whether you are straight, bi, gay, or whatever and each can choose the criteria that needs to be met to perform its own act. The Concept of marriage is a joining of two people that they proclaim before God. A civil union is a joining of two people for legal purposes. TOTALLY different concepts.
 
BvillePoke,

The concept and practice of Marriage was already well established in the British Isles BEFORE Christianity was even introduced. Same with other numerous cultures around the world.

In no way is "marriage" an exclusive concept to Christianity, nor did it originate solely within the confines of Judeo-Christian beliefs or practices.

So, I would have to conclude that the premise behind your argument is invalid.
 
hollywood said:
BvillePoke,

The concept and practice of Marriage was already well established in the British Isles BEFORE Christianity was even introduced. Same with other numerous cultures around the world.

In no way is "marriage" an exclusive concept to Christianity, nor did it originate solely within the confines of Judeo-Christian beliefs or practices.

So, I would have to conclude that the premise behind your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...
I think you need to go back and re-read my post. I never said Christianity. I said "church" and "God." Your reply solidifies my point that the concept of "marriage" existed even before there was a government to sanction the union. Therefor "marriage" is a religous or cultural based concept that the government should have no part in. There should be a seperate civil union that is sanctioned by the government that religion has not part of.
 
BvillePoker said:
I think you need to go back and re-read my post. I never said Christianity. I said "church" and "God." Your reply solidifies my point that the concept of "marriage" existed even before there was a government to sanction the union. Therefor "marriage" is a religous or cultural based concept that the government should have no part in. There should be a seperate civil union that is sanctioned by the government that religion has not part of.
Click to expand...
Where did Hollywood state that the marriage practice was happening based off their religious principles (British Isles). Maybe it was one tribe marrying into another tribe, and if that's the case, that's government. Geez, this is what I can't stand about a lot of Christians (and I am a Christian in case you think otherwise). You are proclaiming that everyone should cater to the religious. Why can't everyone be happy with "marriage" being government and "religious ceremony" being something for those that are religious. How does that affect you or your faith by that happening?
 
Cranio are you drunk? Hollywood never stated that marriage practices were happening based off of religous principles. I never claimed that he did either. He stated that "the concept and practice of Marriage was already well established in the British Isles BEFORE Christianity was even introduced.." I think I also stated "Therefor "marriage" is a religous or cultural based concept that the government should have no part in." The "or cultural" phrase alluding to what you were using as an example of "tribal" joining, etc. In fact I am not a Christian and am in fact advocating exactly what you are are stating where religous ceremonies and government sanctioned unions are completely seperate so that we do not have to "cater to the religous" in regards to protection under the law for couples.
 
James 4:12

There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

I view it as a sin and wrong but I will still treat people with respect and dignity. Lets take the State out of Church and Church out of the State. If you do this then what argument does the government have against letting those in the LGBT community marry? Doesn't mean the Church has to approve or even recognize the marriage but for tax purposes and other legal stuff it protects the people in the LGBT to see benefits go to the loved one.

God gave mankind free will for a reason. I think it is time some Christians come to the realization of this fact. There just are some people who will have different beliefs.
 
BvillePoker said:
Cranio are you drunk? Hollywood never stated that marriage practices were happening based off of religous principles. I never claimed that he did either. He stated that "the concept and practice of Marriage was already well established in the British Isles BEFORE Christianity was even introduced.." I think I also stated "Therefor "marriage" is a religous or cultural based concept that the government should have no part in." The "or cultural" phrase alluding to what you were using as an example of "tribal" joining, etc. In fact I am not a Christian and am in fact advocating exactly what you are are stating where religous ceremonies and government sanctioned unions are completely seperate so that we do not have to "cater to the religous" in regards to protection under the law for couples.
Click to expand...
Kinda wish I was drunk actually. Day would be more interesting, but I digress. Your first post on the topic exclusively talked about god and church in regards to marriage. Your second one added cultural once Hollywood responded. Sorry, typed that last response on the phone so couldn't see the backtracking very well. Ok, if we are going cultural with this and leave out religion, then in our culture everyone should have the opportunity to be married as we are culturally for equal rights, correct? But that means we are created equal culturally, have religious ceremonies for those of us who are religious and then the government gets civil unions? That's sounding more and more complicated. Maybe I should start drinking....
 
No such animal as a legislation that provides all sides with equal rights. Somebody always gets screwed.
 
A marriage license and a marriage ceremony are two completely separate things.
 
So, bville, simple solution for you would a government civil unon...ok, just call it "marriage." Churches do not hold a copyright to that term. According to your logic, my wife and i cannot be married because neither of us are religious or hold any religious beliefs. So i guess i have to ask, is it worse (in regards to marriage) to be gay and religious than it is to be not religious and straight?
 
Lmao...i did not know the politics board was even reincarnated until i replied crom the non-sports board.
 
blbronco said:
So, bville, simple solution for you would a government civil unon...ok, just call it "marriage." Churches do not hold a copyright to that term. According to your logic, my wife and i cannot be married because neither of us are religious or hold any religious beliefs. So i guess i have to ask, is it worse (in regards to marriage) to be gay and religious than it is to be not religious and straight?
Click to expand...

So some follow up questions and my answers to your questions. If we are defining a "marriage" as only a religious sanctioned term and "union" as a government sanctioned term; why would you want to be "married" if you hold no religious beliefs? I am starting to think that some people on here may think I am against LGBT marriage. I am actually a huge proponent of government recognized unions of LGBT people. I think the major sticking point for people in this country is a differing opinion of the morality of LGBT marriages. I am proposing that you bolster both beliefs and by letting religious groups define "marriage" whatever way they want and the government to provide equal considerations and protections based on a "civil union." You asked me "is it worse (in regards to marriage) to be gay and religious than it is to be not religious and straight?" I have to answer that by saying that I don't personally believe that either one of those scenarios is a sin. If you are defining "marriage" as a purely religious concept in these scenarios it is tuff for me to answer because I am not religious. If I was religious I would think the worse would be for a person not to be religious than it would be for a religious person to be gay. None of us is without sin in the eyes of god. If you are looking at this from the perspective of religious doctrine, both are sins and both need the ministry of the curch and neither can receive that if they are outcasted from the church.
 
So, the problem here is "semantics"?

Again, it's not only churches who have used the term "marriage" and once the government of the US started playing a role in licensing and regulating the marriage "contract" and setting the standards for who could receive a state sanction for same, the term "marriage" has been used for going on two centuries at this point. (This was whether the couple so wed, were Christians, pagans, atheists or members of a UFO cult.)

It was also never a requirement for any couple to be officially recognized as "married" (and completed the marriage contract) participate in any "religious" ceremony in order to "perfect" their union. Thus, marriage (as per state's rules) has NEVER had a required religious component in order to be valid. Seeking approval or otherwise the blessing of their marriage by a religious entity was solely up to the couple and their own views and beliefs on the matter.

Clearly there is a "civil" aspect and definition of marriage (including those few states who still recognize "Common Law" marriage), which is completely divorced from from the religious concept and celebration of marriage which is completely optional from a legal standpoint. As an individual, my marriage, as per the regulations of the State of California, is just as valid with the ceremony being carried out by a judge in the Beverly Hill's Courthouse as is that of someone else's who may have been performed by a rabbi, a priest, an imam in the grandest house of worship.

Let's stop conflating the two things, one is virtually mandatory (absolutely mandatory in most states) and grants its participants a plethora of state recognized legal rights (approximately 2,000 such rights and privileges at the State and Federal level) and the other is completely optional determined solely by the belief system of the participants. But both can rightfully be described as marriage.
 
The state punted to the church.

Where else does that happen?

Really sandy places, with lots of mustaches.
 
HWood, Absolutely this is all about semantics. There are religious die hards in this country that will always feel that "marriage" is only between a mand and a woman. Cool, I am good with that. Strengthen and bolster their position by saying that the government no longer issues "marriage licenses" but rather issues civil union licenses. If want to have a religious wedding ceremony and file an afidavit from an ordained source with the government then the government will issue you a civil union license based on that afidavit. If you do not want a marriage that is sanctioned by a religious institution then you can have a appropriate government representative witness the affirmation of both parties to join together in a civil union and issue the civil union contract that affords the parties all rights and protections as a single entity. Give the concept of "marriage" back to the religious institutions and they can define it and perform it at their descretion.
 
But, it is a lot easier for some to say, "I'm married to ____" than it is to say, "I'm party to a civil union contract with ______."
 
Marshal,

I'd rather hear that than every hear "My baby daddy/mama" again in my lifetime.
 
This is all just a symptom of a much larger problem that's not being addressed by anyone. I guess you could say it is the Kansas City Shuffle.

Society is looking at marriage rights, which really boils down to a government proffered benefit (being that your looking for a state sanctioning of the act which results in a tax reduction, end of life rights, inheritance rights, bereavement rights, etc) while the politicians and government reap the benefits of the dissension. Each side argues their version of morality and why their version is the version that should be forced on all others through government coercion while the government stands to gain power regardless of the outcome and no one really questions the root cause of the issue in the first place...........government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TD_4OSU
ThorOdinson13 said:
This is all just a symptom of a much larger problem that's not being addressed by anyone. I guess you could say it is the Kansas City Shuffle.

Society is looking at marriage rights, which really boils down to a government proffered benefit (being that your looking for a state sanctioning of the act which results in a tax reduction, end of life rights, inheritance rights, bereavement rights, etc) while the politicians and government reap the benefits of the dissension. Each side argues their version of morality and why their version is the version that should be forced on all others through government coercion while the government stands to gain power regardless of the outcome and no one really questions the root cause of the issue in the first place...........government.
Click to expand...

Legalization of gay marriage doesn't force a version of morality on anyone. It's prohibition does though which is why I am for gay marriage.

I'd like to know why polygamy is illegal. I think the same civil liberties arguments could be made for it as with gay marriage, I'd also like to know what the Christian argument is against it. I don't recall it being prohibited anywhere in the NT and there are numerous examples of it in the OT.
 
NeekReevers said:
Legalization of gay marriage doesn't force a version of morality on anyone. It's prohibition does though which is why I am for gay marriage.

I'd like to know why polygamy is illegal. I think the same civil liberties arguments could be made for it as with gay marriage, I'd also like to know what the Christian argument is against it. I don't recall it being prohibited anywhere in the NT and there are numerous examples of it in the OT.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Each side is arguing their version of morality. The side to which the government rules will force the other side to legally accept the others version of morality. Laws will be made enforcing said morallity and the oppression of the other sides morality will ensue. It is already happening. Christian baker forced to pay pain and suffering of $175,000 to LGBT couple for refusing to bake wedding cake. Pastors in Idaho being told they must marry LGBT couples or face fines and possibly up to 180 days imprisonment. Government has become the arbiter of what is proper behaviour, morality, etc.

Again, this is just a symptom of a much larger problem.
 
ThorOdinson13 said:
Yes it does. Each side is arguing their version of morality. The side to which the government rules will force the other side to legally accept the others version of morality. Laws will be made enforcing said morallity and the oppression of the other sides morality will ensue. .... Government has become the arbiter of what is proper behaviour, morality, etc.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't understand your argument. Governments must make choices. We live in a civilized country, a country based upon the rule of law. The government must enforce those laws...correct? Or do you favor vigilantes enforcing laws? Or no law at all?

I would assume you do believe in some form of law & government. And if you do believe that government must enforce the law, well then, that requires "government choices" to some extent. The government, parents, bosses...heck, every individual in the world will make choices each and every day that will anger somebody. Nobody, including the U.S. government, can please everybody. You gotta crack some eggs...

There was a time when there were morality arguments "for and against" slavery. Should the government not chosen a side there?...enforced that morality? At one time, there were morality arguments "for and against" interracial marriage. Should we have let those whose morality might be harmed because of their deeply held moral convictions against whites and blacks mixing it up win the argument?

Choices must be made. And non-action is a choice too. Sometimes nonfeasance can be just as evil & damaging as malfeasance.

ThorOdinson13 said:
Christian baker forced to pay pain and suffering of $175,000 to LGBT couple for refusing to bake wedding cake. Pastors in Idaho being told they must marry LGBT couples or face fines and possibly up to 180 days imprisonment.
Click to expand...

I agree that $135k fine of the bakers seems ridiculous. However, that is under appeal. Hopefully, a remittitur will be issued. As an aside, I think the gay couple are complete jackasses. Why would I want someone who'll hate and are disgusted by making my cake do it? I guess if it's the only bakery within hours, I could somewhat understand, but I doubt that's the case.

Also, the Pastors who got in trouble in Idaho were operating a for profit wedding chapel and even advertised their services for "traditional Christian" ceremonies, as well as those of "other faiths as well as civil weddings" prior to raising their objection to doing gay ceremonies. These folks were not leading some church, where there were being ordered to perform gay ceremonies.
 
BvillePoker said:
I have always held the opinion that Churches should be in the Marriage business and Government should be in the Civil Union business. That statement goes whether you are straight, bi, gay, or whatever and each can choose the criteria that needs to be met to perform its own act. The Concept of marriage is a joining of two people that they proclaim before God. A civil union is a joining of two people for legal purposes. TOTALLY different concepts.
Click to expand...

Webster's says nothing about any proclamation before God. People have been married in courthouses forever, I doubt proclamation before God were part of these ceremonies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OKSTATE1

The dynasty that never was: 'They put us on the map;' the story of OSU's 1981 team

Replies
3
Views
1K
The Corral
SUPERPOKES
SUPERPOKES
OKSTATE1

Goodbye to newspapers, which will always live in my soul Berry Tramel - The Oklahoman

Replies
44
Views
2K
The Corral
SUPERPOKES
SUPERPOKES
I

It's early, but the start was good

Replies
191
Views
10K
The Corral
poke00
poke00
OKSTATE1

Why are all the Dims on this Board.....

Replies
20
Views
1K
24/7 Politics
iasooner2000
I
OKSTATE1

The Closing of the Progressive Mind

Replies
11
Views
1K
24/7 Politics
Tulsaaggieson
Tulsaaggieson
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back