Should the government even have a say in the marriage issue?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fbcinsider
  • Start date Start date
F

fbcinsider

Guest
Before the 20th century, you didn't need a marriage license to be considered married. That all changed shortly after the turn of the century. At that time, the church was fighting so that marriage would be regarded as a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Now, it seems that we're fighting so that it will be regarded as a contract between a man, a woman, and their government.

It's no longer God that's looked to as the authority on marriage or even the glue that holds a marriage together, but the government has stepped in and played that role.

Mark 10:9 "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

If the government took away your marriage license, would you separate? If so, why do you think the government has that kind of authority? If not, do you think the government has a right to define marriage?

As far as I'm concerned, marriage will be just as holy and sacred the day the government tries to say homosexuals can be married. It is God who dictates the sanctity of marriage, and not our government.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying we should be apathetic towards homosexual marriage. I'm just trying to open discussion and get us to think on a broader aspect of the issue.
 
This is why I usually type it as gay "marriage" or same sex "marriage". The whole debate hinges on the definition of the word marriage.

The gay lobby insists that the word be redefined to include same sex partners. They are looking for the government to legitimize their relationship. I guess if that were the end of it I could say live and let live. But the end goal is for society to accept it as one of many normal options.

The honest truth is that the debate is over and the fight has been lost in the public arena. The question now is what do we (the church) do in response.

I have been thinking about this and considering how it may all play out. A gay couple starts attending services and we welcome then as we would any other visitor. As they sit under the teaching of the word and look into biblical truth one of them becomes a Christian. Wonderful! Now what? If it were the wife of an unbelieving man we have Paul's instructions to help guide her. But where do we go with this unequally yoked couple? Let's add a few adopted/surrogate kids into the mix. Should the saved "dad" divorce the unsaved "dad"? If we think the broken/blended homes of today are messy, well we got some pretty big trouble coming our way.

The up side to big problems is that we have a big God. :)
 
Izdaari said:
I agree that government doesn't need to be involved in it.
Click to expand...

I would say government SHOULDN'T be involved in it. 

That way, same-sex couples can get "married" according to their own definition.  The church should leave the definition of marriage alone, though.  And if a same-sex couple wants to get married in a church, the answer is "no".  It's not discrimination.  It's just that they're asking for pizza at a Chinese restaurant.  It's not on the menu. 

 
Government defines "marriage". Its naive to think they don't. When governments form laws that direct social behavior and acceptance, they are defining that behavior as either an acceptable or unacceptable definition of said behavior. Government can not stay out of it. It is impossible. The ideal situation is that such definitions should exist at the state level and not at the federal level. It is perfectly alright for one state to reject said definition and another to accept it.
 
I am hopelessly, helplessly in love with a woman. I need a good word to describe that. I will therefore and henceforth insist that all people accept my self definition. I am a lesbian.
 
subllibrm said:
The gay lobby insists that the word be redefined to include same sex partners. They are looking for the government to legitimize their relationship. I guess if that were the end of it I could say live and let live. But the end goal is for society to accept it as one of many normal options.
Click to expand...

It is even worse... LGBTs will not propose a clear definition of marriage. They don't want to be defined. Some want to push through legislation that allows for even the most extreme. E.g., In California SB 1172 is designed to allow for pedophilia.

The honest truth is that the debate is over and the fight has been lost in the public arena. The question now is what do we (the church) do in response.
Click to expand...

I know many say this, but is it true? Isn't the success of California's Proposition 8 a testament to the fact that a majority still believe marriage is defined as "one man/one woman"?

We still do not know how the SCOTUS will rule on this.
 
subllibrm said:
I am hopelessly, helplessly in love with a woman. I need a good word to describe that. I will therefore and henceforth insist that all people accept my self definition. I am a lesbian.
Click to expand...

I'm a lesbian, too.  A male heterosexual lesbian. 
 
Castor Muscular said:
subllibrm said:
I am hopelessly, helplessly in love with a woman. I need a good word to describe that. I will therefore and henceforth insist that all people accept my self definition. I am a lesbian.
Click to expand...

I'm a lesbian, too.  A male heterosexual lesbian.
Click to expand...

Me too! We need to agitate for our rights!  ;)
 
Government should have absolutely no say in the matter. I do believe they will eventually allow gays to marry.
 
Castor Muscular said:
Izdaari said:
I agree that government doesn't need to be involved in it.
Click to expand...

I would say government SHOULDN'T be involved in it. 

That way, same-sex couples can get "married" according to their own definition.  The church should leave the definition of marriage alone, though.  And if a same-sex couple wants to get married in a church, the answer is "no".  It's not discrimination.  It's just that they're asking for pizza at a Chinese restaurant.  It's not on the menu.
Click to expand...

That works for me. And of course, there are other restaurants where pizza is on the menu. And other churches.  :-*
 
Izdaari said:
That works for me. And of course, there are other restaurants where pizza is on the menu. And other churches.  :-*
Click to expand...

Exactly.  I should have said "the church that defines marriage as one man-one woman", which is not necessarily all churches. 

 
christundivided said:
Government defines "marriage". Its naive to think they don't. When governments form laws that direct social behavior and acceptance, they are defining that behavior as either an acceptable or unacceptable definition of said behavior. Government can not stay out of it. It is impossible. The ideal situation is that such definitions should exist at the state level and not at the federal level. It is perfectly alright for one state to reject said definition and another to accept it.
Click to expand...
The U.S. government stayed out of it for over 100 years in America and nothing imploded. They didn't even define any words for a long time. The dictionary was good enough. Now, they have to define everything for us. Governments don't dictate social behavior and acceptance, the morality of a country dictates that, and the government follows suit. The reason the government has become progressively needed to get involved in new areas is because the overall righteousness of our nation has deteriorated.

Proverbs 14:34 "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."
 
The Justice of the Peace was a gov. official, who married those who belonged to no church.

Anishinabe

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top