Marriage on the rocks

Jewish World Review ^ | Dec. 9, 2002 | John Leo

[John O]

You are making an invalid analogy. Marriage is not religion. Religion is not marriage.

Since you refuse to see what I'm saying we'll just have to agree to disagree.

GSA(P)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You are making an invalid analogy. Marriage is not religion. Religion is not marriage.

Bollocks. The analogy is perfectly valid, which is why it bothers you so much. If you could refute the analogy, you would do so. But you don't have anmy refutation.

Know why? You know that you're bloody well wrong, and it sticks in your craw. You are beginning to realize that I am correct when I analogize your own words back to you, demonstrating how you are in favor of whoring the Holy Sacrament of Marriage in the Bed of Caesar... but you can't bear to give up the Political Prostitution, because you (foolishly) still think that the Pimp Leviathan is gonna provide for your "protection".

Slavery = Freedom.
Ignorance = Strength.

Since you refuse to see what I'm saying we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I see exactly what you are saying. (Which is why I am able to counter with a valid -- and unrefuted -- analogy so quickly).

So, you can beg off without having to come to the realization that Abram and Sarai did not require a Justice of the Peace to defend their marriage, and neither does American Christianity. I obviously can't force you to stop being a State-Idolater and start being Biblical in your thinking.

But though you can turn tail and run, remember this -- there are always ONLY two sides: God's and Satan's.

As long as you continue to favor the anti-Biblical whoring of the Sacrament of Marriage to the purview of the State, you are not on God's side (on this issue). Your every effort is worse than a waste; it is a genuine advancement of Evil.

"What -- me, John O, advancing the cause of Evil?! That's absurd!! You're a lunatic, OP!!"..... Think again. If you sought the State subsidy of the Church, you'd be advancing the cause of Evil. The same goes double, here.

[Askel5]

Where are those quotes from? (I'm reading backwards ... if it become clear as I continue, nevermind.)

Since the State is doing such a great job "defending our values and culture" by establishing a Legal Definition of Marriage, why don't we also ask them to "defend our values and culture" by establishing a Legal Definition of Christianity??

Perhaps this is just another page -- like execution squads and political assassination -- we're taking from the Israelis whose Knesset rules on whether or not Orthodox and Reformed Judaism are the same.

In any case ... I'm not some Useful Idiot "separation of Church and State" sort who believes the Establishment clause empowers the State to backhand its way into ruling what is and is not "religious" (or, rather, suitably unreligious) to be vested in some "faithbased partnership".

It's been by empowering the State to remove God from the classroom, from City Hall and the public square that the State's been most successful in inserting itself into and regulating religious life.

Don't even get me started on the current complicity of Bishops and Archbishops in the Catholic Church who -- I strongly suspect -- exacerbated the "crisis" to proportions guaranteed to compel the State's intervention in the Church ... be it nosing around records for the purposes of proving bankruptcy or (as suggested in Massachusetts) having the State be a part of the evalutation process for potential seminarians.

As usual, the revolution within the Catholic Church making that of the rest of the world look like child's play.

As delineated in the Catholic Catechism, there are certain self evident truths about the Creator and his natural moral law that are universal in their ability to be consistently apprehended by mankind. It is these Self-Evident truths -- as cited in our founding documents -- on which our true liberty rests.

It is essential for the State to defend these truths ... including the FACT of a Creator whose design of human nature included the freedom and liberty intended for all men as created equally human.

I see no reason the State must become some sort of theologian or Pope in order to remain faithful to the self-evident truths of our Declaration.

The only religion I see the State establishing is the atheistic evolutionism so essential to softening brains such that they accept all manner of egalitarian nonsense and state-sanctioned "rights" based on state-sanctioned artificial realities of one sort or another.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

It is essential for the State to defend these truths ... including the FACT of a Creator whose design of human nature included the freedom and liberty intended for all men as created equally human.

How, precisely, is the State to "defend" the Fact of Creation and of the Creator??

• I don't ask my plumber to "defend these truths ... including the FACT of a Creator", etc. Now, I'd certainly prefer to hire a plumber who believed thusly, as I have a charitable hope that a Christian man would tend to be honest and upstanding in his business; but that's not the job I'm hiring him for. I'm hiring him to do my plumbing.
• Likewise, I don't ask the mall security guard to "defend these truths ... including the FACT of a Creator", etc. Now, I'd certainly prefer that the Mall hired a security guard who believed thusly, as I have a charitable hope that a Christian man would tend to be honest and upstanding in his business; but that's not the job they're hiring him for. They're hiring him to be the mall security guard.

Likewise, with the Civil Magistrate, I'm not hiring a Professional Apologist. I'm hiring... well, ideally, I'm hiring a particularly well-armed mall security guard (and that's about it).

[John O]

I agree with everything prior to this paragraph.

But God defines marriage. God defines what is right. No state license can confer that or take it away.

This is correct as far as it goes. We, the church, will always define marriage according to God's word, one man joined to one woman. The religious sacrement of marriage is the 'property' of the church. But we are not able to subsidize marriage, we can give it social approval but can't really encourage it financially. We cannot stop abuse of the word or concept of marriage

The flip side is the social contract of marriage. Up until now the church has been able to legally keep the social contract of marriage equated to the sacrament of marriage (one man joined to one woman). This insures that the gov subsidy goes only to acceptable unions. This is a good thing.

By retreating from the fight to define marriage legally we will retreat from the fight to define marriage socially. Homosexuality is a dangerous, contagious disease. Homosexuals do not reproduce, they recruit. Now imagine a world where they are given full claim to the benefits of marriage including adoption etc. By retreating from our duty to defend marriage we would be guilty of sentencing millions of children to lives of sexual perversity starting from being abused at the hands of their adoptive 'parents'. Consider having a neighborhood full of 'homosexual marriages'. Read up on Jesse Dirkhising to see where monogamous 'homosexual' unions end up.

We do no ultimate good putting these things in the hands of the state and assigning tax money to support our religious causes. The state, being a human organization, will eventually fail and will corrupt what you've done.

Here is where I disagree with you. We must use every means necessary to defend our way of life, even if that includes using the government. A non-politically active Christian is a failure as a Christian. If we do not control the government, then the liberals, the perverts and other God-haters will use the government to control us. They could easily define marriage to be only homosexual and use that definition to deprive us of our children.

Government (which is really you and me and all the other citizens) is a tool to use to advance our beliefs. True it is a human structure and it will fail. At which time I will pray that God obliterates the Earth and takes us all home. Until that time however I will use every means available to advance the cause of Christ.

GSA(P)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

We must use every means necessary to defend our way of life, even if that includes using the government.

Including the Government in Marriage, destroys the Christian "way of life". Not the entire Christian "way of life", of course; but certainly the part about Marriage being the exclusive province of the Church.

By advocating the State involvement in Marriage, you are advocating the destruction of this aspect of the Christian Life.

It would be sorta like xzins running a Prostitution business out of his church in order to fund his church's many important ministries. After all, "We must use every means necessary to defend our way of life", right??

[John O]

demonstrating how you are in favor of whoring the Holy Sacrament of Marriage in the Bed of Caesar...

(I will try to keep this nice but you seem to have a problem restraining from attacking my person rather than my ideas. The whole tone of your post reads like a personal attack to me.)

Please read my post to xzins also.

You seem to have an inability to recognize that we are talking about two different things here, the sacrament of marriage and the social contract of marriage.

Either the government cannot regulate marriage at all in which case this whole discussion is pointless, or it can regulate marriage in which case we had better be sure to control that process. The sad truth of this world is that government can (through tax policy among other ways) regulate marriage.

Marriage as a sacrament before God will always be one man joined to one woman. State approval or disapproval will never change that. The state cannot touch the sacrament.

Even sacramentally married couples, however, have to live in the real world. This world recognizes a social contract that gives the married couple certain advantages in order to promote marriage of acceptable unions (one man joined to one woman).

If we back off from the fight to define marriage our way the God-haters will define marriage their way. Very easily we could see Christianity in this country die out. (Define marriage as being only 'homosexual' and prohibit cohabitation of mixed sex couples. The bible command us to dwell with our wives. We are faced with the choice of obeying gov or obeying God. All the Christians would be in prison and our children would be sacrificed in 'homosexual' foster homes.)

Someone will control the government. It can either be us or the God-haters.

So, you can beg off without having to come to the realization that Abram and Sarai did not require a Justice of the Peace to defend their marriage, and neither does American Christianity.

If Abraham and Sarah lived today they'd also need a license. Back then there was no government to speak of and no need of a marriage subsidy, marriage was the norm and social expectations were enough to keep things in line. [ Of course they were (shortly thereafter) also commanded to kill the perverts to keep the disease from spreading but that's a separate issue.]

I obviously can't force you to stop being a State-Idolater and start being Biblical in your thinking.

You can however refrain from insulting me.

But though you can turn tail and run, remember this -- there are always ONLY two sides: God's and Satan's. As long as you continue to favor the anti-Biblical whoring of the Sacrament of Marriage to the purview of the State, you are not on God's side (on this issue). Your every effort is worse than a waste; it is a genuine advancement of Evil.

OK. Show me the scripture that says we must rebel against the lawful government in order to practice marriage without a license.

My bible reads

1 Peter 2:13 ¶ Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

In other words, obey the laws. (Hebrews 13:17 bears a similar command, as does Romans 13:1-7)

Show me the scriptures where government is condemned. Show me the scriptures where we are prohibited from working in/with government to better our world.

Now show me the scripture that allows you to insult and denigrate people who disagree with you.

GSA(P)

[John O]

By advocating the State involvement in Marriage, you are advocating the destruction of this aspect of the Christian Life.

It would be sorta like xzins running a Prostitution business out of his church in order to fund his church's many important ministries.

Except for the fact that prostitution is biblically forbidden. Kind of blows your analogy again. Now if you said it would be like xzins running a daycare ministry then you'd be right.

GSA(P)

[maxwell]

Brad C. sez-- (This is were the flames will start) A marriage should be just that, a legally binding contract between two consenting adults, who chose to share their lives and fortunes together "till death do they part".

2sheep sez-- Your position is in direct opposition to the Bible but is consistent with the dark spiritual forces which have turned America into another Sodom and Gomorrah.

I don't get it. How is that in direct opposition to the Bible?

[Askel5]

For Pete's sake ... it limits itself to REALITY, for one.

Marriage is an institution by which FAMILIES are founded.

Absent the artificial realities specifically sanctioned by the State which not only empower homosexuals to procreate and women to have children without fathers but also inflict grave injustice on the children of such aberrant circumstances, marriage must needs be restricted to those relationships with the potential to form families of their own accord.

I see no reason the rights of children to -- IDEALLY -- be born to and reared by the parents who conceived them should be abrogated as part of the State's perpetually indulging our Selfishness and "personal values" such that they must needs interfere to perpetually square the circle for us.

[2sheep]

Brad's comment contained the key PC phrase "two consenting adults" which is what the homosexual agenda uses to deceive the masses. Two consenting adults can be two males, two females, etc. but Biblical marriage is only between a man and a woman.

[Askel5]

While all of the points below are in perfect comport with the Bible, they also follow a perfectly apprehendable and consistent logic utterly absent from the "personal opinions" of those who advocate diluting the institution of marriage to some serial polygamist Economic contract between individuals who enjoy sexual gratification from each other.

De Facto Unions in the Whole of Society

________________________________

OVERVIEW
________________________________

---

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL DIMENSION OF THE PROBLEM OF EQUIVALENCY

• (14) -- Radical cultural influences result in damage to the family institution. The tendency is clear to make family equivalent to other very different forms of cohabitation, apart from fundamental considerations of an ethical and anthropological order.

• (15) -- The undifferentiated exaltation of individuals' freedom of choice … is blind to [the] objective social dimension [of marriage and family]. … procreation is the "genetic" principle of society … the children's upbringing is the first place for the transmission and cultivation of the social fabric as well as the essential nucleus of its structural configuration<.

_______________________________________

RECOGNITION AND EQUIVALENCE OF DE FACTO UNIONS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST MARRIAGE

• (16) -- Public recognition of de facto unions establishes an assymetrical juridicial framework. Whereas society would take on obligations toward the partners in a de facto union, the partners in turn would not take on the essential obligations to society that are proper to marriage. Making them equivalent aggravates this situation because it privileges de facto unions with respect to marriages by exempting the former from fulfilling the essential duties for society.

• (17) -- The family has a right to be protected and promoted by society.

• (18) -- Those who are involved in politics ought to be aware of the seriousness of this problem. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values turns easily into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.

_______________________________________

ANTHROPOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARRIAGE AND DE FACTO UNIONS

• (19) -- Marriage is based on some well-defined anthropological foundations which distinguish it from other kinds of union and—beyond the realm of concrete action and what is "factual"—root it in the very essence of the person of the woman or man.

• (20) -- Amor conuigalis is not only or primarily a feeling but essentially a commitment to the other person, a commitment made through a precise act of will. It is this commitment which gives amor the quality of coniugalis. Once a commitment has been made and accepted through consent, love becomes conjugal and never loses this character. This, in Western Christian historical tradition, is called marriage.

• (21) -- Marriage is therefore a stable, joint project that comes from the free and total self-giving of fruitful conjugal love as something due in justice. Since an original social institution is founded (and which gives origin to society), the dimension of justice is inherent in conjugality itself. … what is specific about the family based on marriage is that it is the only institution that incorporates and unites all the elements mentioned at the same time and in an original way.

• (21) -- Consequently, it seems necessary to stress the gravity and the irreplaceable character of some anthropological principles regarding the man-woman relationship, which are fundamental for human cohabitation, and all the more so for safeguarding the dignity of all persons. It is the essence of marriage, as a natural and human reality, which is at stake, and it is the good of all society which is up for discussion.

  "As everyone knows, not only are the properties and ends of marriage called into question today, but even the value and the very usefulness of the institution."

_______________________________________

MAKING HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS EQUIVALENT TO MARRIAGE IS MUCH MORE GRAVE

_______________________________________

(22) -- Marriage cannot be reduced to a condition similar to that of a homosexual relationship: this is contrary to common sense. … Furthermore, the attempts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual couples adds an element of great danger to all the previous ones.

[Askel5]

God save America (please?) ... did I get that right? =)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

It would be sorta like xzins running a Prostitution business out of his church in order to fund his church's many important ministries. ~~ Except for the fact that prostitution is biblically forbidden.

Thanks for waltzing right into my sand-trap.

Prostitution is Biblically forbidden, as is delivering over the Power to define Marriage to the State.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

Does the definition of Marriage Biblically belong to the State? No, it doesn't.
And therefore, your advocacy of Rendering the definition of Marriage unto Caesar constitutes a sacrilege, and thereby places you at War with the Law of God.

Homosexuals are at war with God's Law for Sexuality.
You are at war with God's Law for Ecclesiology.

Neither of you is thereby doing God any "favors".

[Askel5]

The traditional wedding ceremony is the direct descendant of the "title transfer" ritual when a father transferred ownership of his daughter to her husband - when women were treated as property. This was no different from signing the pink slip over when we buy or sell a car, except that it was ownership of a human being being transferred.

I got married once, and it will be a cold day in hell when I sign my life away like that again!

I'm confused ... you sold yourself short or you bought yourself a lemon?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

RECOGNITION AND EQUIVALENCE OF DE FACTO UNIONS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST MARRIAGE

For that matter, "State Certification" of heterosexual Marriage, ALSO devalues the Sacrament of Matrimony.

[Askel5]

Maybe men will need to develop some sort of "pre-dating" agreement, like a prenuptial agreement, that limits their liability in the case of a breakup.

Maybe men should just walk around with big neon signs that read: I'm pansy of a pocketbook and I need the Court System and a good trial attorney to bail me out of my mistakes.

Do you not see that the intrusion of the State for "security purposes" is exactly the male's version of snuggling up to Big Daddy in the same way -- only far EASIER -- than the idiot women who think to "have it all" by bearing and rearing children without fathers in the house?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

marriage must needs be restricted to those relationships with the potential to form families of their own accord.

It already is... by God's Law, which is the sole true definition of Reality.

Everything besides God's Law, is a fraud -- both "homosexual marriage", and "state-certified marriage". Both are Lies against Reality; both are Frauds.

Both of these Biblically-counterfeit Constructs are an affront against the True Reality of God's Law.

[Askel5]

Great post. I'd emphasize, of course, that all things are open for the choosing if NOT lawful ... =)

I know all sorts of homosexuals who've "married". One couple even had my friend Beth (a schoolteacher and drinking buddy of theirs) perform the "ceremony".

More power to 'em.

I just think the State ought to be restricted not only to Reality but also to the protection of the nation's integrity and the citizenry's rights ... particularly those human rights of the most innocent and helpless of all: the children whom the State has allowed women and homosexuals to kill, manufacture and purchase at will in order to make it seem de facto relationships, single mother households and homosexual marriages are somehow the same as heterosexual unions.

[John O]

exactly!

GSA(P)