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 ...
Great points, but then how do you repair the damage non-marrieds cause to society? Out of wedlock births as a form of unmarried polygyny for instance, although in this instance the “man” gets to cuckold all of us through the welfare state.
My feeling is that the Left’s attack on marriage, although steeped in the long history of the Left’s general attack on Western Civilization, is being forwarded now because the net effect of their sexualization strategy is being fully felt. Marriage is losing favor among the civilized of the West, so the time is ripe for redefining it. While at the same time the evidence that hyper-sexuality and marriage-less lifestyles are destructive.
“Marriage predates Christianity...”
True. Marriage goes back to the creation, Adam and Eve and was instituted by God the Father himself, before the 2nd person of the Trinity (Jesus) was incarnated.
Marriage is as old as mankind and has nothing to do with governments, Ceasar, etc. It is a sacrament that the man and the woman bestow on each other. Governmental interference throughout history is inevitable (because we live in a fallen world) and perhaps even necessary (banning polygamy, for example), but marriage is a sacred covenant between the man and the woman.
What?
I am the one trying to keep the Muslims, homosexual churches, and Mormons, and the incestuous Mormons and Children of God cults, and bestiality churches from defining marriage.
You guys want to let them all make up their own definitions for what marriage is.
I am fighting to PROTECT and DEFEND, and ENFORCE the Judeo/Christian definition of marriage.
That is how we came to have our existing laws protecting marriage in America, but now people want to remove the law, and let everyone define it in anyway that they choose.
Do you realize that means that the Christian defined marriage that we impose on our multi-cultural, diverse nation of countless religions, cults, and personal beliefs, would no longer exist as the definition?
hm? ....You make some very interesting points.
What is the name of you denomination. I would be interested in learning more about their beliefs.
>> I am fighting to PROTECT and DEFEND, and ENFORCE the Judeo/Christian definition of marriage.
Protect and defend is good, but to enforce is a clear violation of the 1st sentence of the 1st Amendment.
I was right the first time, your fight is to legalize polygamy and homosexual marriage.
Oh yes they can. That's what the gay agenda is all about: forcing acceptance / endorsement of all things gay on the straight population. That is why gays in general would reject privatizing marriage.
Why do you say “else the entire story doesn’t make sense”?
Both by default, changeable by mutual agreement.
Who get's the Miata? The hot tub?
Whomever the private marital contract said got those things, instead of Big Government courts deciding who got those things.
You obviously have contempt for the 1st Amendment.
Regrettably, you don’t have the mind to speak to my position on the fallacy of ‘homosexual marriage’.
And “let me be clear”, do not advance the false notion I’m in support of polygamy and ‘homosexual marriage’.
>> Oh yes they can.
I recall two cases where a catering hall and photographer were persecuted for refusing to support some type of homosexual events masquerading as marriage.
And churches will be.
You want polygamy and homosexual marriage guaranteed as a 1st amendment right.
Go pound sand, jackass.
Do you want to allow each religion, cult, and church to define marriage for themselves, or not?
There is a really notable pattern of things that were never said being attributed to those who never said them.
My understanding is that Gene Eric wants each church, religion, cult, whatever, to make up their own definitions of marriage.
Because the 1st amendment supposedly creates that right.
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.