toldailytopic: The Sanctity of Marriage.

[Cracked]

One doesn't contract STD's in a truly monogamous relationship.

Yes, one can if the other person has an STD.

Christian marriage is separate from the world, not "of" it. While people continually attempt to force the Spirit into people (an impossible task) is beyond me and pure folly.

Christians, have a Christian marriage, but don't expect everyone else to do the same - because they are not the same.

One man, one women bound together by "agape" love, amen.

 

[Son of Jack]

In relation to the state? No. Now what it means to the individual in a religious or other personal sense is another matter.

In a secular society it must remain a matter of contract, obligations, privileges and right. It's up to the individual to keep a thing holy.

And it should be for anyone who believes it. That doesn't mean your belief or mine should be a litmus test for legitimacy in contract before the state though.

I don't disagree with that at all. Which is why I would point to one of my very first questions: Should government even be giving special privileges and benefits to married couples? I'll say that, since they do, I take advantage of them, but all it does is serve to muddy the waters between what had been (at some point in history) sacred and the secular. I can certainly understand it (the conveyance of benefits and privileges) from a pragmatic stance, but in the end, it has given authority to the government, where it deserved none.

Just thinking out loud here...:think::shocked:

 

[Son of Jack]

Yes, one can if the other person has an STD.

Christian marriage is separate from the world, not "of" it. While people continually attempt to force the Spirit into people (an impossible task) is beyond me and pure folly.

Christians, have a Christian marriage, but don't expect everyone else to do the same - because they are not the same.

One man, one women bound together by "agape" love, amen.

I agree with your sentiment, but I'd ask the follow-up question: In what ways should the Christian try to influence the culture? By "merely" living before the culture in a Christian way, displaying the beauty of a Christian marriage? Or, can something more be done?

Note: I was using the word "merely" not to degrade the idea of Christian living, but to make the point that Christian living is the least one should do...that there may be more that can be done.

 

[zoo22]

Relationships that have no possibility of conception do not fall under marriage law.

Of course they do. But that said,

>>>Would you include hetero couples that can't conceive?

"The law does not concern itself with trivialities."

Even though the birth rate in the US is at historic lows, marriages produce an average of about 1.5 children per woman. The law has seen fit to act on the presumption that marriage is entered into with the inevitability, intention or high likelihood of producing offspring. Cases where a couple is infertile are not challenged for legitimacy, and no proof is require of fertility before marriage. It is a relatively trivial and unpursued possibility that society has no vested interest in ferreting out.

I'd think that if folks are saying that those couples who can't biologically conceive of children shouldn't be allowed to be legally married there'd be an interest in "ferreting out" these types of "trivialities."

Out of curiosity, would those married couples who haven't had children and have reached an age where they can't conceive anymore have their marriages wiped off the books? Maybe they also ought to be required to refund the benefits that they received while married.

 

[Cracked]

I agree with your sentiment, but I'd ask the follow-up question: In what ways should the Christian try to influence the culture? By "merely" living before the culture in a Christian way, displaying the beauty of a Christian marriage? Or, can something more be done?

Note: I was the "merely" not to degrade the idea of Christian living, but to make the point that Christian living is the least one should do...that there may be more that can be done.

Don't hide your light! That's what Jesus teaches. A light is used to show a way through the darkness. It is not used to bash people over the head with. Holy living, living the gospel, is the best (only?)way to spread it. It is the best way to help other people. We need to be concerned about their hearts, because that is where real change takes place. Forcing people differing from ourselves into legalistic slaves makes us no better than the Islamic fundamentalists that want to force sharia law on to the world.

 

[Son of Jack]

Don't hide your light! That's what Jesus teaches. A light is used to show a way through the darkness. It is not used to bash people over the head with. Holy living, living the gospel, is the best (only?)way to spread it. It is the best way to help other people. We need to be concerned about their hearts, because that is where real change takes place. Forcing people differing from ourselves into legalistic slaves makes us no better than the Islamic fundamentalists that want to force sharia law on to the world.

Okay, I agree with that. I think this a major difference between Christianity and other faith systems (e.g. Islam, Hinduism, some forms of Secular Humanism). It seeks to put in place a culture that is spiritual and not political.

Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him.... I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man: none else is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than man.... I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me.... but to do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lighted up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts.... Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. - attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte

 

[Cracked]

I love that quote.

John 15:13

 

[Aner]

Great point!

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore a religious ceremony, but it is also a legal contract which is enforced (or should be enforced) by the courts. Two people enter into a contract and have the ability to seek damages when one party fails to meet his obligations.

Statutes are also in place to define the requirements which must be met in order for any individual to enter into a contract within a given municipality.

Therefore the government does have a responsibility to enforce these contracts.

King

You pretty much got the gist of the deal - except there is one next step.

The contract that the State creates HAS NOTHING DO DO WITH THE COVENANT OF MARRIAGE. The State contract is simply a partnership contract with a fancy name and few specific responsibilities added to it - no different than the Uniform Code for other contracts which have specific rights and responsibilities.

The fact is - what the State does and what God does have nothing to with one another in this regard. That is why the brohaha by the Evangelicals and Papists re: the state partnership laws is... well... insane. And total waste of time and money.

Worse - the idea that gay marriage will destroy hetero marriage is, on the face, the most absurd statement anyone could make (not surprising though in light of the number of absurd comments these two communities make...).

Best,
Aner

 

[Cracked]

The contract that the State creates HAS NOTHING DO DO WITH THE COVENANT OF MARRIAGE.

This seems obvious to me.

 

[chrysostom]

Of course they do. But that said,



I'd think that if folks are saying that those couples who can't biologically conceive of children shouldn't be allowed to be legally married there'd be an interest in "ferreting out" these types of "trivialities."

Out of curiosity, would those married couples who haven't had children and have reached an age where they can't conceive anymore have their marriages wiped off the books? Maybe they also ought to be required to refund the benefits that they received while married.

why should two people living together get any more benefits than a person who chooses to live alone?
on the other hand
when two people commit to a relationship that may produce children, the government should provide benefits that will help protect the children and encourage these types of relationships

 

[Cracked]

why should two people living together get any more benefits than a person who chooses to live alone?
on the other hand
when two people commit to a relationship that may produce children, the government should provide benefits that will help protect the children and encourage these types of relationships

So that later they can send them to war for their own interests... it does make sense in an evil sort of way.

 

[chrysostom]

So that later they can send them to war for their own interests... it does make sense in an evil sort of way.

you may be having trouble figuring what makes sense

 

[zoo22]

why should two people living together get any more benefits than a person who chooses to live alone?

I don't believe that I have said they should.

on the other hand
when two people commit to a relationship that may produce children, the government should provide benefits that will help protect the children and encourage these types of relationships

Because they biologically are able to have children? I know plenty of people who are married and have adopted children. I also know plenty of people who are married and can biologically conceive of children who have no intention of having children.

 

[Wolf]

>>>I'd think that if folks are saying that those couples who can't biologically conceive of children shouldn't be allowed to be legally married there'd be an interest in "ferreting out" these types of "trivialities."

The "triviality" is any benefit a married couple receives because it turns out that no child will ensue.

This would be similar to the fact that the state gives tax breaks for each dependent child in presumption that it will cost them more, even if the parents live off the land and don't spend that much. So what? The law is not losing sleep over exceptions.

 

[Cracked]

you may be having trouble figuring what makes sense

No it makes perfect sense - government (man's control) corrupts Christianity, it has since the beginning.

Acts 5:29
Acts 5:38, 39

Catholics may have a hard time seeing this, especially, given the history of their church. However, since even before Constantine, this has been happening. I would argue that it started with St. Paul, as he found a way to give the Gospel survivability (through God's design), which he knew it had to have.

Jesus, obviously, also knew this was coming and warned his disciples to be prepared.

Luke 22:35-38

The devil's best tricks are a mix of truth and lies - pure lies are never as effective.

 

[Wolf]

>>>Because they biologically are able to have children? I know plenty of people who are married and have adopted children.

This falls under adoption law.

>>>I also know plenty of people who are married and can biologically conceive of children who have no intention of having children.

Many heterosexuals who have no intention of having children, wind up with children. Marriage laws have historically been framed to accommodate the inevitability, intention or likelihood that an offspring would occur by a union. I see no wisdom in changing that to require a vow to have children before one can enter into the union designed for that likelihood. It is just unnecessarily invasive.

In other words, why strain at the gnat of these kinds of exceptions in order to be able to swallow the camel of special interest groups?

 

[zoo22]

>>>I'd think that if folks are saying that those couples who can't biologically conceive of children shouldn't be allowed to be legally married there'd be an interest in "ferreting out" these types of "trivialities."

The "triviality" is any benefit a married couple receives because it turns out that no child will ensue.

This would be similar to the fact that the state gives tax breaks for each dependent child in presumption that it will cost them more, even if the parents live off the land and don't spend that much. So what? The law is not losing sleep over exceptions.

About 10% of women have infertility problems. That's ages 15-44. For women above that age it jumps much higher.

Infertility cases among couples are estimated at about 1/3 women, 1/3 men, and 1/3 a combination.

source

That's not a "trivial" number. And consider that 10% is well higher than an estimated percent of people being homosexual.

 

[Wolf]

>>>Infertility cases among heterosexual couples are estimated about 1/3 women, 1/3 men, and 1/3 a combination.

And how many of these have entered into marriage aware that they had fertility problems? How many with intention of remaining childless? How many will receive no treatment towards conception? How many will remain married without children?

The focus of the law is on ensuring the protection of the unique interests (responsibilities and privileges) that arise when two people will inevitably, intend to or are likely to conceive a child. The law is because of scrambled eggs. Yes, some eggs never scramble. This does not invalidate marriage laws. Biology creates a rational need for marriage laws, not men who want to wear a white dress, or women that want to wear a top hat.

 

[kmoney]

Why in the world did we ever give the government the right to declare who is and isn't legally married? Should the government be involved in giving special benefits to married people?

Exactly. Which is why I'd be in support of the gov't getting out of the marriage defining business completely. And why if they stay in the business and legalize gay marriage, it doesn't bother me that much. Marriage is between two people and their God, or lack thereof.

 

[Wolf]

>>>Exactly. Which is why I'd be in support of the gov't getting out of the marriage defining business completely. And why if they stay in the business and legalize gay marriage, it doesn't bother me that much. Marriage is between two people and their God, or lack thereof.

NO. Hello? Marriage laws ARE necessary precisely because there is (in most cases) a child, or children involved.

Since same-sex fun and games do not produce children, the government has no biologic, moral, Constitutional, historic or societal reason to be involved.