I am out here in CA and I think that a good point to put up in the fight against gay marriage is that; who gave the Government the right to change the definition of marriage?  Your a imbecile if you don't know that marriage pre-dates our government by just a tiny little bit.  Next they can change the denition of Bar Mitzvah, baptism, etc.  so show me in the constitution where it says the government can trample on a pre-established religion and redefine its terms.   This is a violation of human rights, and I'm talking about the rights of anyone who believes that marriage is a sanctimonious act far predating the government. The next thing they will do is tell Churches it is illegal not to marry people who are gay.  This is like telling the Jewish people they have to let skinheads have Bar Mitzvahs.

And don't give me the crap about, well atheist get married... yah well its not obvious that they are atheists by looking at them is it.  

I think you make an excellent point about the newly claimed government authority to redefine religious terms.  

Will the courts now declare that conservative Jewish congregations must have "Bar Mitzvah" ceremonies for girls instead of "Bat Mitzvah" ceremonies?  I mean, doesn't that violate the same "equal protection" clauses they claim applied to "marriage?"  

They have already tried to force evangelical churches to hire homosexuals.  Why can't they force evangelicals churches or even synagogues to hire Muslims?  

Will the courts be able to force churches to baptize in a certain manner?  Will they be able to force churches to baptize people they do not wish to baptize?  Will they allow homosexuals to sue churches that refuse to marry them?  I mean, by the new definition that would be discrimination.  

At this point, there is no such right as freedom of association for private groups.  The courts now claim the right to define everything.

Marrage ceased to become a religious term when it jumped from the realm of religion to the relm of state.  The government does not force curches to give marrages to gay people it only allows them.  

On the Bar vs Bat Mitzva thing:  How is that not equal? Not to mention that that is still purely religious.

Exercitus wrote:Marrage ceased to become a religious term when it jumped from the realm of religion to the relm of state.  The government does not force curches to give marrages to gay people it only allows them.  

On the Bar vs Bat Mitzva thing:  How is that not equal? Not to mention that that is still purely religious.

Of course, your argument about religious vs. secular terms is vacuous.  Of course, that is not true.  Logically, that is one of the silliest statements I have seen in a great deal of time.  Government simply recognized a term used by the church. Recognizing a term or a state does not give the government the right to redefine it.  

If you don't see how the Bar Mitzvah vs. Bat Mitzvah is similar then you should sit in a quiet place and think about it until you reach an enlightened state.  I am not here to educate you.  You will have to think this through on your own.  

And for goodness sake, use a spell checker before you hit the post button. You misspelled 4 words in a 57 word post.  My kids could spell these words in 2nd grade:

Marriage
Realm
Churches
Mitzvah

And I didn't bother to note your improper punctuation and grammar.

Sorry about the spelling,  I'm typing on a laptop that I have to fight to get an h or a out of (not to mention that I've never had a penchant for the english language).

Anyway...


A Bar mitzvah is a term used only in religious circles.  I strongly doubt that a skinhead would want to, but if he desired he could convert and have one.   Marraige, on the other hand, is now a term of the state and they are changing their definition, not the Church's.  I don't think that the government would intervene if any pastor decided not to marry gays.  All the government is doing is allowing pastors and judges to define it if they want to.  What I'm trying to say is that the government is not changing the church's definition t all, it's changing its own and if the religions of the world wish to follow, so be it.

Well the goverment shoud REALIZE that altering that term may OFFEND millions of people and not do it.  Oh, wait they only worry about offending minorites.  

Think about it, would they change the meaning of the word Fiesta, I know its a riducoulous comparison but you get my point.

Exercitus wrote:Sorry about the spelling, I'm typing on a laptop that I have to fight to get an h or a out of (not to mention that I've never had a penchant for the english language).

Anyway...


A Bar mitzvah is a term used only in religious circles. I strongly doubt that a skinhead would want to, but if he desired he could convert and have one.  Marraige, on the other hand, is now a term of the state and they are changing their definition, not the Church's. I don't think that the government would intervene if any pastor decided not to marry gays. All the government is doing is allowing pastors and judges to define it if they want to. What I'm trying to say is that the government is not changing the church's definition t all, it's changing its own and if the religions of the world wish to follow, so be it.

You've got to be kidding. I can see the lawyers lining up to file the discrimination suits. Your statement is purposefully naive.

bedbug wrote:

Exercitus wrote:Sorry about the spelling, I'm typing on a laptop that I have to fight to get an h or a out of (not to mention that I've never had a penchant for the english language).

Anyway...


A Bar mitzvah is a term used only in religious circles. I strongly doubt that a skinhead would want to, but if he desired he could convert and have one.  Marraige, on the other hand, is now a term of the state and they are changing their definition, not the Church's. I don't think that the government would intervene if any pastor decided not to marry gays. All the government is doing is allowing pastors and judges to define it if they want to. What I'm trying to say is that the government is not changing the church's definition t all, it's changing its own and if the religions of the world wish to follow, so be it.

You've got to be kidding. I can see the lawyers lining up to file the discrimination suits. Your statement is purposefully naive.

Yes, the statement was either purposefully naive or willfully disingenuous.  The government has already sued churches and religious and private organizations that choose not to hire people who do not comply with their beliefs.  In other words, the government can force a church or Boy Scout troop to hire homosexuals even if their creeds don’t allow that behavior.  Theoretically, the government could force the KKK to hire African-Americans.  

If this is framed as a 14th amendment issue the churches could and would be eventually forced to marry same sex couples even in direct contravention of their principles and creeds.  The right to associate means nothing in America.

Now I wonder what position our friendly local Cleric would have to say about this.

[SIZE=8pt]Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, a system of rules to handle the granting of PROPERTY RIGHTS, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.

Throughout history, and even today, families ARRANGED marriages for couples. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for ECONOMIC LIASONS. That's really sacred!

Some marriages were by proxy, some involved a dowry (bride's family giving money or presents to the groom or his family), some required a bride price (the groom or his family giving money or a present to the bride's family), FEW had any sort of courtship or dating, but most had traditions.

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not JUST A CONTRACT did not occur until St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, which they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love WASN'T a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.

Years later, the Puritans viewed marriage as a very blessed relationship that gave marital partners an opportunity to not only love, but also to forgive.

Many people hold the view that regardless of how people enter into matrimony, marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. That concept of marriage hasn't changed through the ages.

[SIZE=8pt]http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
[SIZE=8pt][SIZE=8pt]