Posted on 10/25/2011 6:31:44 AM PDT by fwdude
And what is it the government is obliged to define? Nothing more that what SOCIETY has ALREADY defined as marriage. Government doesn't change anything. In fact, government is PROTECTING what society defines as a central, essential, foundational cultural standard.
I agree that the government has an interest in marriage as far as from a contractual standpoint. Joint ownership of things, contracts, etc.. But not from a religious standpoint. I don’t even think there should be a tax benefit to it. Then again, I don’t think there should be any income tax, just a consumption tax. If there is an income tax, I don’t think there should be any loopholes, just a flat tax. Graduated up to a flat tax from the lower end so it would be a progressive tax system somewhat.
“Government doesn’t change anything. In fact, government is PROTECTING what society defines as a central, essential, foundational cultural standard.”
Except when it doesn’t. Divorce and remarriage? Those states that already have “gay marriage?” I know what my faith says about those things, and I know what the state says. My faith recognizes that it doesn’t have the authority to change marriage. The state doesn’t, and never will. The two aren’t ever going to agree, but the state has the power to punish if one disagrees with its definitions.
Freegards
Marriage is a reality. Government isn't interfering by recognizing and acting on this reality, especially when it is an essential reality to nearly everything we do.
I don’t think you even know what the word naive means.
I asked you a question. What do you mean the government must “enforce marriages”??
First question: Who enforces the promises of marriage if not an outside party?
Earth to "Christian Engineer Mass": NEWS FLASH - The state of New Hampshire has changed the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples.
Your head-in-the-sand pointless insistence that the state has nothing to do with marriage is officially irrelevant. States ARE increasingly becoming involved in redefining marriage. It's a fait accompli. What do you intend to do about it - keep your head in the sand, or get involved to defend marriage as ordained by God and your Christian beliefs?
“Who enforces the promises of marriage if not an outside party?”
The individuals themselves, and the social integration of their church. Are you a Christian? Where do you read in the Bible that the government should “enforce marriage”? What do you even mean by that? Adultery is no longer a crime.
The government has already stepped away from the position of holy matrimony enforcement by allowing easy divorce and making adultery legal. If you want to get back to the position before those changes then fine I can appreciate that. But as it stands now you have a secular government who cares not a damn about marriage in charge of it. That is insane. They have no business tinkering with marriage, and we should not accept their authority over it.
I hope this change in NH passes. It might just do this time. But knowing a little about NH it may very well not do. And even if it does eventually they’ll force it through. Better to take it out of their hands all together.
As I say in the post after yours - great I hiope this passes. But it’s not a long term solution. They will eventually force this through with their activist judges.
In the longer term we need to get the government out of marriage at the national level.
Unless you actually go back to homosexuality being illegal but decriminalized, they will always have the argument that they are being discriminated against, because of laws that give benefits to married couples.
So fight these little fights now. Great. But the conservative movement has been slow and stupid over the last 60-80 years, merely reacting to whatever leftists do. We need to have long term plans, because the leftists do, and they are killing out world with them. Pushing back is not a long term solution.
What a mess - bunch of heathens in government.
I was a kid at the time and law enforcement largely just let it go. Recall that NAMBLA members once marched openly in “gay” pride parades. They were welcomed with open engagement until the organization become less acceptable and has since gone underground. But, make no mistake, male homos continue to seek young boys on every corner and in every filthy public restroom. Look at Mayor Smith of Portland—he molested a boy in a public restroom and wasn’t prosecuted or even relieved of his office.
In other words, you're saying a man can marry a woman, bear several children with her, and just walk away with no commitment when the woman and children are dependent on his income? No one can hold him to it? What obligations does he have? Who says so?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Excellent, hope they manage to repeal perv "marriage". The civil union thing allows ANY two adults to make a legally binding civil union, even relatives. What?? Isn't there enough contract law to cover any conceivable legal needs between two adults?
Marriages have been legally binding for a long, long, long time. Not just within a church community.
Nothing wrong with it, either.
How is the government “enforcing marriage” now, as you see it?
I said that marriage has been “legally binding”.
And that is a good thing.
Ask fwdude what he meant by that word; I didn’t use it. He probably meant “legally binding” but he used the word, not me. You don’t want marriage to be legally binding or something?
Tell me what you mean by it. I don’t think it is legally binding. It would be legally binding if there were laws against adultery. There are not. It would be legally binding if divorce could not be had for just any reason. It can.
If we had a government that governed out of deference to the Bible and Christian standards, like we used to, then it would be great. There would be a law against adultery, divorce could not be had for just any reason. Then sure, under those circumstances, where the government was based on respect for God and the Bible, sure marriage should be legally binding under the government laws, because the government would be deferent to the Bible.
But we DON’T have that. We have a system that encourages families to be ripped apart because it makes people more dependent on the government and less dependent on one another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.