Posted on 02/24/2012 11:18:47 PM PST by EnglishCon
The Church does not "own" marriage nor have the exclusive right to say who can marry, a government minister has said.
Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone said the government was entitled to introduce same-sex marriages, which she says would be a "change for the better".
Her comments come as ministers prepare to launch a public consultation on legalising gay marriage next month.
Traditionalists want the law on marriage to remain unchanged.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
That is not what I said friend.
I simply asked by what right does the federal government put its nose into the bedroom.
One wife is hard enough do deal with. (full disclosure, my wife says “try dealing with one husband.”)
You seem to be promoting homosexual marriage, polygamy and the end of marriage, not resisting it.
If homosexuals, Mormons, Muslims, cults, and atheists, and assorted weirdos, all get to make up their own definitions of Marriage, then marriage is over.
>> So you are actually promoting marriage as having no definition at all.
I made it clear that ‘homosexual marriage’ is a degenerate term. Any man that chooses to marry more than one woman at a time should be committed. And children are protected from pedophiles. What now, my statist FRiend?
The only question is why do you want to end having any definition of marriage, and just let everyone define it on an individual basis?
Do you guys think there is only one church in America, or even one religion?
Who would enforce that only Muslim, Mormons, Christians and all of the other hundreds of religious, and cult definitions count anyway, aren’t atheists equal in America?
The question was “What is your excuse for government controllers / licensers of marriage imposing “gay marriage?”
You’re welcome to address it.
It is, after all, directly pertinent to your expressed view that such things would come from a lack of government control, when a quick scan of Google News shows that such things are happening right now BECAUSE OF government control.
By what authority do you impose all those rules, including what ages pedophilia involves when it comes to marriage, FLDS has some strong arguments on why they want to be left alone, as a religious body
By the way, you didn’t say that you want homosexual marriage and polygamy to not be legalized, you merely sniffed at it, this supports what I was saying, you are trying to eliminate marriage as we know it, and change it to anything and everything, which means that it no longer exists.
>> all get to make up their own definitions of Marriage
Seriously, is that your concern?
You do realize states have enacted laws that can lead to the prosecution of those that don’t support ‘homosexual marriage’, right?
Marriage is a function of Faith, religion. It’s God’s law, not the law of fallible legislators.
Your inability to comprehend the written word is not my problem, yet I was ever a sucker for a debate.
There is ONE definition of marriage.
One Man, One Woman, United under God. That is it. The sum total and sole definition.
Under God. Not “with government consent.”
I am used to you trolling your faux morality on the prepper threads - I remember your faux outrage at the letter S in the phrase TSHTF. Got me told off by Admin Moderator as my language back to you was not exactly Christian.
Try showing some real morality and debating in a human manner rather than straw men and BS.
So, I am going to ask you a question.
One of your oldest friends. A person you can physically point to and say “Without him I would be dead” is gay. He hates the idea of gay marriage as cheapening the ideal of marriage.
What the heck would you do?
You know what I do - I posted for all the world to see. What would be your response.
Why be so obtuse, you want to eliminate all definitions of marriage, you want to let homosexuals, and Muslims, and weirdos, and cults, and Mormons, and the FLDS, and literally everyone, define it as they wish.
"One Man, One Woman, United under God. That is it. The sum total and sole definition.
This is America, how do you tell the Muslims, the Mormons, the homosexuals that, and then enforce it, by what authority, what force, and who the heck are you? Are you going to conquer America and impose theological rule on us and force the Muslims and homosexuals, and Mormons to live under your churches law?
Here’s another point.
I’m against “gay marriage” and gay anything for that matter.
I’ll presume that you are as well.
So here are two situations:
1. The government controls marriage. The government institutes gay marriage, which is currently happening at a hellish pace. Because marriage is a government enforced thing, businesses are forced to give benefits to “gay marriage” couples. Schools are forced to teach “gay marriages are good” curriculum. Et cetera.
2. The government gets out of controlling / licensing marriage and an adult man and an adult woman can write / sign their own marriage contract, with the terms binding only upon them. None of the horrible consequences of situation 1 happen, and divorce becomes rare. Civilization flourishes.
You keep making up stuff and attributing it to someone else.
Stop.
>> you are trying to eliminate marriage as we know it
I made no comments to that effect.
You simply don’t trust people, and would rather have the govt enforce your will upon society. That is statism.
Unlike you, I trust the influence of Christianity to guide us independently of the govt scum that’s destroying this Country.
I seriously doubt many Americans would enjoy Founding law. It’s a shame.
The third-century Roman jurist, Modestinus, captured the common understanding of marriage with the following definition: “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, a consortium for the whole of life involving the communication of divine and human rights.” This union and these rights exist, not merely for their own sake, but also and especially for the sake of the inter-generational concerns of progeny and property; with a view, that is, to the conditions necessary for the founding and flourishing of the family. The rights involved are divine as well as human because marriage is generative, and hence pre- as well as pro-political; because what is founded through marriage is, in the twentieth-century language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”
What the state is doing through same sex marriage is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships as policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s subjective whim.
Wouldn’t that be dreamy, divorce, and children, and complicated 40 year relationships and elaborate estates would be so much easier without laws, and courts, and judges, and legislation, and marriage defined between a man and woman.
If you don’t want homosexual marriage, then push for a constitutional amendment, or you can legalize it nationally, along with polygamy and everything else as you are proposing.
You aren’t trying to preserve marriage, you are trying to erase marriage entirely.
The news story is from the UK. It is aimed at the UK.
Answer my question instead of trying to divert it.
Thank you. You have said in 50 words what I could not say in a thousand!
As getting government out of marriage at any point would not ensure that government would stay out of marriage voluntarily, I would be perfectly fine with very succinct amendments to state constitutions saying
“Marriage is a private contract between one adult man and one adult woman, binding only upon the one adult man and one adult woman who sign it. All terms of that private contract, including ownership and control of income, property, and other material wealth and sources are to be decided upon by them. As with any contract, the terms may not include any otherwise illegal action.”
Christian law is what we are trying to preserve, to tell the Muslims and homosexuals that they now are in charge of defining marriage, is to do the opposite of what your pretend to want.
Me neither.
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.