Seems fair to me..if marige is a moral and religious instatution why is the goverment sticking its nose into it and forceing us to pay fees to participate in a religious ceramony?
If merraige is a secular thing then why shouldn't we let gays?
Printable View
Seems fair to me..if marige is a moral and religious instatution why is the goverment sticking its nose into it and forceing us to pay fees to participate in a religious ceramony?
If merraige is a secular thing then why shouldn't we let gays?
Your are right! Marriage is a moral and religious institution at it's core; however "government" being ever greedy has stuck their foot in door, opend marriage to individuals that do not follow any established religion and taxed the process of getting married. Which is wrong also, but that is for another thread someday. Maybe.
Let's keep in mind that this county in Oregon is opening itself up to a major lawsuit, which is due to the fact that it is not illegal for two straight individuals to marry one another. If I was applying for a marriage certificate and was denied, because I had been lumped into the same moral pot as Gays, I would be screaming about that Government discriminating against me! Just because I don't fit into the mold of a homosexual, which by the way must obviously be the standard that the government is holding straight people up to, that doesn't mean that the government is allowed to dicrimintate against me because i fit into the normal accepted sexual orientation of the human race. The straight people are not attempting to break the law, so why are they being punished/prevented from getting married? The government is saying that you have to be gay or accept that gay marriage should be allowed in order to get married, that is of course unless they are instructed to not marry gays. Oh wait.... they already have been told that by state law, which describes marriage as an institution to be entered into between one man and one woman.
Just because one group wants a law changed, that does not give them the right to break the law in the process. There are established processes for reviewing, changing, and or rescinding outdated laws. The gays need to realize this and conform to the Law.
Only getting into your post a little bit OverdueSpy.
Is there ever a time, whether you personally agree with it or not, that a given law is either wrong or has become void in the current social context?
Being a law study, I know there are proper ways for opposing laws and legislation, but history as the best teacher has shown us people who have been just as successful by using civil disobedience.
Yes, you may say that their cause is greater, but as we progress as a society, and times change, it seems only logical that we must become more open-minded and those issues we put on the back burners - years ago because they seemed less approprirate at the time - must rise to priority.
To take away the status of one group of indivuals in order to appease an extremely small minority, is not open minded. In my opionion it's very closed minded and borders on selfish.
Ok overdue spy, your what protistant...well im catholic...I see ytour marraige as unholy and invald, it is an affront to the scantity of marraige and not a true marraige, I want a consitutional ammendmint restricting marrige to only true marriges between two catholics. To me you as a noncatholic haratic are living in sin and that places you in the same moral catagory as gays...you are commiting adultery every time you have sex with your so called wife. I am disguested that the goveremnt allows sinners like your self to call yourself married.
(see why we speerate church and state, whos version of religion do we run with?)
On the otehr side of the coin what would you say if the goverment refused to accept a religious marraige sanctified by a main stream christian denomination?
I agree with you and was speaking on the issue as a whole, not the Oregon example.Quote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
To take away the status of one group of indivuals in order to appease an extremely small minority, is not open minded. In my opionion it's very closed minded and borders on selfish.
Iceborg - Yes there are laws that annoy me to no end. For example: One of those laws being speed limits...but only when I'm late. :) However I know that if I get caught then I will have to face the consequences of my actions. The speed limit in America was raised from 65 to 75, outside of metropolitan areas, not because people continued to speed. The speed limit was raised due to lobbying and by proving information supporting the increase in the speed limit. I am sure that local governments were more that willing to reap the benifits from the increased fines generated by the lower speed limit.
I understand your position on civil disobedience, and I agree that I would argue that those causes were more just. What I do not agree with is your statement about a more open-minded society becoming a must. I, and I would hazzard to guess the majority of Christians, will not be openminded and approve of actions that we know are sins. What you are calling openmindedness God calls "living in the world." As a Christian, I am supposed to "live in God's word," and hold myself to morals that are above society in general. I scares me to death to envision myself standing before God and defending my actions of "living in the world" based upon a supposition that society should be tolerant of sin. God instructs us to live like Christians not Frenchmen, so I can't roll over and surrender on this one. :) Seriously though it is a hard concept to explain, but I gave it a shot.
bballad - I am a Christian! I can't help it if you choose to follow the Catholic faith. (Just poking a little fun.) However where in the Bible does it say that a Catholic Bishop is the only individual with the authority to marry a man and a woman in the eyes of God? I am very openminded about this, and not trying to be sarcastic. Show me in the Word and I will re-evaluate my position.
As far as the government not recognizing a religious marriage. I don't really care. Especially since it will lower my yearly tax burden. Hee. Hee. Now if the government was to make the institution of marriage illegal for Christians, I would have a problem with that. Luckily that will never happen, something about the freedom to practice Religion. But if it did, I am sure that Chrisitians would leave the county, state, or country in mass, which in my opinion would spell the beginning of anarchy or tyranny, depending on how the political shifts play out.
You did a good job explaining your point of view, or the stance of your religion. I guess its just my desire to have no religion or lack of religion that biases me from truly not "hearing" your argument. It just perplexes me as an individual that people want to set limits or caps on societal progress. I'm not referring to some good tennets (sp?) of religion like "thou shall not murder," but those set in a time context that no longer exists.Quote:
Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
Iceborg - Yes there are laws that annoy me to no end. For example: One of those laws being speed limits...but only when I'm late. :) However I know that if I get caught then I will have to face the consequences of my actions. The speed limit in America was raised from 65 to 75, outside of metropolitan areas, not because people continued to speed. The speed limit was raised due to lobbying and by proving information supporting the increase in the speed limit. I am sure that local governments were more that willing to reap the benifits from the increased fines generated by the lower speed limit.
I understand your position on civil disobedience, and I agree that I would argue that those causes were more just. What I do not agree with is your statement about a more open-minded society becoming a must. I, and I would hazzard to guess the majority of Christians, will not be openminded and approve of actions that we know are sins. What you are calling openmindedness God calls "living in the world." As a Christian, I am supposed to "live in God's word," and hold myself to morals that are above society in general. I scares me to death to envision myself standing before God and defending my actions of "living in the world" based upon a supposition that society should be tolerant of sin. God instructs us to live like Christians not Frenchmen, so I can't roll over and surrender on this one. :) Seriously though it is a hard concept to explain, but I gave it a shot.
This is actually getting away from the topic at hand, because it can be applied to many things.
But, I think its injustice to flagrantly shun certain things because they go against some religious creed. In my humbe opinion, I think religion should be able to adapt in certain situations.
----
Well, now I'm doing you injustice, I have to run off to school and leave my thoughts incomplete, but feel free to response on what I have post so far, if possible, it will help me better formulate my above counter-argument.
Well here's something to chew on:
Kinda of smart when you think about it. If one group can't have it why should another group have it?Quote:
PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) -- In a new twist in the battle over same-sex marriage roiling the United States, a county in Oregon has banned all marriages -- gay and heterosexual -- until the state decides who can and who cannot wed.
The last marriage licenses were handed out in Benton County at 4 p.m. local time (7:00 p.m. EST) Tuesday. As of Wednesday, officials in the county of 79,000 people will begin telling couples applying for licenses to go elsewhere until the gay marriage debate is settled.
"It may seem odd," Benton County Commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters in a telephone interview, but "we need to treat everyone in our county equally."
State Attorney General Hardy Myers said in a statement that he was "very pleased" with Benton County's decision. "It is my sincere hope that the legal process will provide clarity for each of Oregon's counties."
The three County commissioners had originally decided to start handing out gay marriage licenses this week but on Monday reversed that decision amid a growing firestorm of lawsuits across the country, and decided instead to put a temporary halt to all marriages.
Rebekah Kassell, a spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon, a pro-gay marriage group, told Reuters; "It is certainly a different way for county commissioners to respect their constitutional obligation to apply the law equally to everyone.
"We appreciate that they are willing to say they are not going to participate in discrimination."
Tim Nashif, the spokesman for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, said; "Oregon not only has the only county in the nation issuing illegal (same-sex) marriage licenses, we probably have the only county in the nation refusing to issue marriage licenses at all."
"We are happy Benton County is not going to violate the law by issuing illegal marriage licenses, but we are perplexed as to why they would not issue legal licenses," he added.
Benton County, whose county seat is Corvallis, is home to Oregon State University and is seen as a bastion of liberalism.
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union said it would file a lawsuit Wednesday against Oregon or an unnamed state entity over the state's failure to register the more than 2,550 marriage licenses issued by Portland's Multnomah County to gay couples since March 3.
Multnomah County, the state's most populous, is the only jurisdiction in the United States that continues to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Local governments from San Francisco to New Paltz, New York, have halted the practice amid lawsuits and protests.
Overdue spy, right in the part where jesues tells paul as it is on earth it is in heaven (horably miss quoteing) the basic interpratation of that statement is the chuch law that the one universal church, (that being catholic). The church holds that only people married in the catholic have true marriges, so due to the authority granted to St. Paul (and his sucessor popes.) those are the only sanctified, true marriges, every one else is commiting adultry.
Now comes the question of do i beleave that, the answer is yes and no...form a faith and religious point of view yes I do....form a secular point of view, no i don't. some one can have an earthly marrige, and if that marrige is purly earthly then whats the problem with gays getting married? so its a sin, to me any marrige that isn't preformed in the catholic church is a sin...wonderful thing about free will you are allowed to sin.
Iwould be very angry if someone tried to force the church to preforme a gay marrige, just as angry as if someone tried to force the church to preforme a morman, presbaterian, jewish, or pagen ceramony.
As for your quote Overdo I bleive the line is that you should live in the world but not be of the world. If someone is sinning you do what you can t oshow them the error of their ways but you do not force change opon them. Salvation must come from within freely chosen it can not be forced....catholics learned that long ago...I guess we must wait for you haratics to catch up with us :)