California justices say marriage is 1-man, 1-woman

Well, marriage represents Christ (the groom) and the church (the bride).

OK, I'm wandering a bit far afield from the topic now: I don't believe that Marriage "represents" that relationship, in the sense of that being the purpose of Marriage.

Jesus was using Marriage as an analogy for our relationship with God. But Marriage was instituted in order to form societal units, not simply so that centuries later God could reveal that it was a symbol.

I would contrast that with Baptism and the Eucharist, both of which are instituted as symbols of our relationship with God.

I was simply providing the verse I was quoting since you wondered where in the Bible it "said that". Maybe I misunderstood what the "that" was that you were refering to. It did come to my attention that I seriously gunked up my last sentence about love, so that many people thought I was saying that Marriage had nothing to do with love, when what I was saying was that love will remain in heaven and be perfected, while marriage will not.

61 posted on 05/26/2009 1:37:24 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT

To: DesertRenegade

The libs at digg and reddit must be blowing gaskets by now. (’specially reddit, where the atheists seem to run the place.)

62 posted on 05/26/2009 1:58:04 PM PDT by Tanniker Smith (The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weight-lifting sessions each week and...)

To: CharlesWayneCT

you’re preaching to the choir here, but you said marriage isn’t about love. The text clearly states that it is.

63 posted on 05/26/2009 6:25:29 PM PDT by Karma Police (Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!!!)

To: Karma Police

The text said that husbands should love their wives, not that men should marry the one they love.

64 posted on 05/26/2009 10:28:59 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT

To: CharlesWayneCT

I do agree with you, however, I think you took my post a little too literally. I would love to marry Jennifer Love Hewitt. My chances however are pretty slim, actually I don’t have a chance at all.

65 posted on 05/27/2009 7:21:52 AM PDT by Mind Freed ("Every man has the right to be a fool 5 minutes a day. Wisdom is not exceeding the limit.")

To: theknuckler_33

I understand your point and I appreciate your approach to posing your view. I believe that none of us are born gay. I believe that gays make a choice to be gay. Whether it’s just feeling more comfortable with the same sex, not having good experiences with the opposite sex, what ever the case may be. It’s a choice. I have met some women who have told me that it’s so much easier being with a woman than being with a man. They said that they never thought of women, but after having bad experiences with men, they CHOSE to go to women. I had a friend growing up who told me that he was gay because he felt more comfortable with men. The gays that I have met, not one has said I born this way. Maybe they think they were, but they never said that.

66 posted on 05/27/2009 7:26:39 AM PDT by Mind Freed ("Every man has the right to be a fool 5 minutes a day. Wisdom is not exceeding the limit.")

I understand your point and I appreciate your approach to posing your view.

Thank you and ditto.

I believe that none of us are born gay. I believe that gays make a choice to be gay.

As a straight man, I can honestly say that I've never really said that I was "born straight" either. I don't think it is particularly telling that the gay folks you've encountered didn't say that they were "born gay". Like you said, it could just be a 'feeling' of being more comfortable with the same sex. Doesn't the fact that they feel that way mean that it is 'natural' for them? It seems to me that the reason the women you've met who said it is 'so much easier being with a woman than being with a man' is because they are more comfortable with them, it is more natural for them to be with a woman than a man. They CHOSE to go with women because that is what felt right for them. They probably only tried being with a man in the first place because that is what society (and probably every friend and family member they've ever had) told them that is what they are supposed to do. By the same token, we ALL choose to go with whomever we felt more comfortable with. I CHOSE to go with women and, eventually, my wife because women (specifically my wife) are who I felt comfortable being intimate with (and not just sexually). As far as I'm concerned, they no more chose to be gay than I chose to be straight.

Anyway, thanks for expanding on your views. I certainly wasn't expecting to change any opinions. I just do not agree that banning gay marriage is somehow helping 'traditional' marriage, children, or society in general and agree that holding fast to this issue is only going to damage the GOP as time moves on.

Best regards.

67 posted on 05/27/2009 8:15:51 AM PDT by theknuckler_33

Thanks..I understand that...and it seems logical..however, my "problem" is that this in effect creates two classes of gays..and can a gay who is now legally married, one of the 17,000, and then gets divorced..is he somehow "grandfathered" and eligible to get married again..

Will employers now be required to give them benefits, and will the government have to pay Soc Security survivor benefits to these "spouses?"

Also, do other states have to recognize these 17,000? marriages..

68 posted on 05/27/2009 8:47:43 AM PDT by ken5050

“and can a gay who is now legally married, one of the 17,000, and then gets divorced..is he somehow “grandfathered” and eligible to get married again..”

No. It’s the marriages that are being recognized. The court didn’t create a class of marriage-eligible gays. If they divorce, that’s it.

69 posted on 05/27/2009 9:29:06 AM PDT by NinoFan

I'm more than ever inclined to agree with Samuel Johnson..."...the law is an ass..."

70 posted on 05/27/2009 9:31:20 AM PDT by ken5050

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794