Marriage will be used to destroy you.

[Guest]

So, the government already allows it then, thanks, that's a point that I've been trying to make.

They only allow it through omission not through sactioning. There is a difference.

I don't want the government to sanction Gay marriage, I say if we get any law that protects our marriages, we're going to get one that protects their faux marriages as well.

Why is that the case? Can't we just protect marriage between one man and one woman, thereby outlawing the rest?

Nor do I, that's just probably what we'll get. I would say if we don't move to secure at least this sort of protection, we won't even get a law that can be used to protect us.

My point is that we should vote for laws that protect a strict view of scripture and not vote for laws that would protect others just so we can protect ourselves. Even if the outcome turns out bad than so be it. At least we did what was right in the sight of God.

Okay, but until you can get a plebiscite supporting your view of marriage, you must go for a carve out, or be subjected to laws that may be, as I said, used to destroy you and your family through your marriage.

If I am subjected to laws that might be used to destroy my family than so be it. The only one I ultimately answer to is God. I have to put my faith in God to protect me and even if he doesn't I trust that God has something in plan for his glory.

I think we can get an essentially righteous but vague law that can be used to protect us, but that will be used by those wanting "Gay marriage" and Polyandry and Polyamoury as well. They're doing this already. It won't be any more a marriage because they say it is than it is now, the state does not define marriage, but we could have a law that could be used to protect our marriages and thus our children and our wives as well as our assets.

The state may not ultimately define marriage, but it can uphold the true representation of marriage spoken of in scripture. The state doesn't have to water down its values to protect others.

Yeah, but they don't matter as companies can, and will, and in fact have simply made a legal choice to broaden who they will offer healthcare coverage to, including pets. If you say it's wrong to offer insurance to homosexual "life partners", insurance companies will offer insurance to "whoever lives under your roof" and accomplish the same thing. There are too many loopholes, you can't close them all.

You're assuming that insurance companies want to offer these kinds of protections. Have you ever thought they just offer them due to social pressures or economic pressure from losing a big business account?

Court divorces are the same as breaking up a business partnership. You have assets, they are divided. Generally the two people involved aren't really friends anymore and don't see each other any more than they have to afterwards. Without "Gay Marriage", gay relationships look like joint business ventures, but dividing up the property of marriage, including any children that might be involved, functions the same way.

Children aren’t property though. Have you ever seen a business breakup and the two partners take turns using the same building or the same employees?

[Guest]

'Can't we just protect marriage between one man and one woman, thereby outlawing the rest?'

Good luck with that.

"My point is that we should vote for laws that protect a strict view of scripture and not vote for laws that would protect others just so we can protect ourselves."

This is why we need to create a situation where a vote for those laws would be affirmative. But you're not going to get that anytime soon, if at all. This is NOT a Christian nation, at least not any longer. Furthermore you suggest that we codify bad doctrine, as you may or may not have noticed, you won't get my vote for "heterosexual monogamy" being the only allowable form of marriage, since I believe that scripture teaches Polygyny is completely acceptable.

"Even if the outcome turns out bad than so be it. At least we did what was right in the sight of God."

There was a time in the recent past in which Government did not become involved in marriage at all, marriage was not defined by state sanction or by having a government issued license. It is still that way in many parts of the world. Along came income tax and they wished to classify us as to marital status, so they got into bed with us. Along came racist laws and marriage licenses were used to prevent black people from marrying white people. You have the common but unexamined belief that marriage was a state issue into the infinite past, it was not. Marriage being a province of the state is a recent developement, and they have been tearing it apart ever since. I only want to say this, IF I believe marriage to be a certain set of conditions, I want to be able to protect that set of conditions from outside interference. I dispair entirely of being able to codify marriage into our civil laws, but I do think we can protect our idea of it legally. The problem is that YOU believe the Bible, and in Jesus as savior and Lord, I do as well, and WE do not agree on what marriage is.

"If I am subjected to laws that might be used to destroy my family than so be it. The only one I ultimately answer to is God. I have to put my faith in God to protect me and even if he doesn't I trust that God has something in plan for his glory."

On the one hand you want to make laws regarding heterosexual monogamy, then just as quickly you want to throw them up and say that you don't want to do anything and say "so be it".

"The state may not ultimately define marriage, but it can uphold the true representation of marriage spoken of in scripture. The state doesn't have to water down its values to protect others."

The state will water those values down, to pander to votes. Without a fundamentalist Christian majority, you're not going to get what you want.

"You're assuming that insurance companies want to offer these kinds of protections. Have you ever thought they just offer them due to social pressures or economic pressure from losing a big business account?"

It is precisely because of social and economic pressure that they offer these things. That IS my point. Direct TV now offers such benefits to "life partners" in my state, but it is not required by our law.

"Children aren’t property though."

But they are treated as such in a divorce.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

As I understand Hugh's original point, he is seeking a way that disciples of Christ can covenant to protect property within a marriage contract. Since he is speaking specifically to Christians, I assume that he assumes (correct me Hugh) that the parties already understand that the property including children belong to God in much the same way that talents were entrusted to the servants in Matthew 25:14-30. In that passage, I see no restriction stating that the servants could only deal with other Christians to increase the talents owned by the traveling man.

Consider that Peter and Andrew were apparently not restricted to selling their fish only to Israelites. Instead, history would show that the fish from the Sea of Galilee were shipped throughout the empire and later purchased by both Jew and Roman pagan. The apostle Paul would later point out in 1 Corinthians 5:10 that he did not mean that brethren could not associate with men of the world because that would require the brethren to leave the world. He apparently saw value in staying.

Is it appropriate, then, for true servants of God to protect God's property through the use of contracts recognized by the ruling government?

just thinking,

livingink

[Guest]

Good luck with that.

Didn’t do to bad in the last election and I have a feeling in the next election you are going to see more states ratify their constitution.

This is why we need to create a situation where a vote for those laws would be affirmative. But you're not going to get that anytime soon, if at all. This is NOT a Christian nation, at least not any longer. Furthermore you suggest that we codify bad doctrine, as you may or may not have noticed, you won't get my vote for "heterosexual monogamy" being the only allowable form of marriage, since I believe that scripture teaches Polygyny is completely acceptable.

I would say your view is in the minority.

There was a time in the recent past in which Government did not become involved in marriage at all, marriage was not defined by state sanction or by having a government issued license. It is still that way in many parts of the world. Along came income tax and they wished to classify us as to marital status, so they got into bed with us. Along came racist laws and marriage licenses were used to prevent black people from marrying white people. You have the common but unexamined belief that marriage was a state issue into the infinite past, it was not. Marriage being a province of the state is a recent developement, and they have been tearing it apart ever since. I only want to say this, IF I believe marriage to be a certain set of conditions, I want to be able to protect that set of conditions from outside interference. I dispair entirely of being able to codify marriage into our civil laws, but I do think we can protect our idea of it legally. The problem is that YOU believe the Bible, and in Jesus as savior and Lord, I do as well, and WE do not agree on what marriage is.

This is why I think a marriage certificate fixes this issue. Also, even if we don’t agree on what marriage is, we live in a country where majority rules (in most cases) and this country defines and has always defined marriage as being the bond between one man and one woman. If we start redefining marriage than where do we draw the line?

On the one hand you want to make laws regarding heterosexual monogamy, then just as quickly you want to throw them up and say that you don't want to do anything and say "so be it".

I say “so be it” only in the aspect that I trust in God’s providence and if God allows such things to occur than I have no choice but to live with it.

The state will water those values down, to pander to votes. Without a fundamentalist Christian majority, you're not going to get what you want.

The hope I have is that if Christians start doing what is right and stand out from the world than maybe we might influence others to follow Christ and therefore maintain a majority rule.

It is precisely because of social and economic pressure that they offer these things. That IS my point. Direct TV now offers such benefits to "life partners" in my state, but it is not required by our law.

However, if we change the social climate back to a status of following Christ than those social and economic pressures should change.

But they are treated as such in a divorce.

Only to the extent that they have to be assigned to one of the parents as a main guardian. Other than that it is completely different.

[Guest]

"Didn’t do to bad in the last election and I have a feeling in the next election you are going to see more states ratify their constitution."

Perhaps you see me as some variation of liberal in Doctrine or Politics. I am not. I vote straight Republican every election and I long for an even more conservative alternative. I am more conservative than most people, even among rabid conservatives I am often shown to be more conservative. I for instance believe that slavery is not wrong, I don't think women's sufferage was a good idea.

"I would say your view is in the minority."

And?

"This is why I think a marriage certificate fixes this issue. Also, even if we don’t agree on what marriage is, we live in a country where majority rules (in most cases) and this country defines and has always defined marriage as being the bond between one man and one woman. If we start redefining marriage than where do we draw the line?"

I don't think you get it, WE DON'T DEFINE MARRIAGE, GOD DOES. We CANNOT redefine marriage, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

"I say 'so be it' only in the aspect that I trust in God’s providence and if God allows such things to occur than I have no choice but to live with it."

Remember Ezekiel? We are supposed to say something about it.

Hugh McBryde