Marriage Protection Act

[WCD]

22Then the Lord God made a woman. He made her from the rib he had taken out of the man. And he brought her to him. 23The man said, "Her bones have come from my bones. Her body has come from my body. She will be named 'woman,' because she was taken out of a man." 24That's why a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. The two of them will become one.

Do you know that our senators, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, won't commit to keeping marriage as the union of one man and one woman? Can you believe that they won't support the institution that has served as the bedrock of civilization for millennia? In the next few days though, we have the chance to preserve marriage once and for all. But only if we act quickly.

The U.S. Senate will be debating and voting on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) in early June. Two years ago, Sens. Lincoln and Pryor voted to kill this amendment and have not indicated that they will support marriage when the Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – which will protect marriage from redefinition by rogue judges – comes to the floor.

Please contact your senators immediately and ask them to support the MPA. Marriage is at the crossroads – either it will be redefined by activist courts or it will be preserved by the people and their representatives. But you won't have that chance unless Congress sends the MPA to the states for ratification. For more information please see the  Marriage Protection Amendment Action Center at Focus on the Family.
http://vocusgr.vocus.com/GRSPACE2/dotnet/WebPublish/controller.aspx?SiteName=FOTF&Definition=Home&XSL=Home&SV_Section=Home

Make your voice heard in defense of the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage.

Wildcat_Dad

[memphisguy]

Just wondering, why do you think this is so important? I happen to agree with you, this is important and this does need to be passed, if it is written correctly so that it won't get over turned by the Supreme Court.
I just asking and because we aren't a Christian nation, you can't use scripture because to non-Christian, scripture doesn't have any authority over them. I am looking forward to your response.

[footballfan-tastic]

Memphisguy,
I would beg to differ as to being a Christian nation.  This nation was without a doubt founded on Christian principle and ideals.  While we may not all be christians today, do we change the design of our flag because we now have a large population that comes from outside the U.S?

[memphisguy]

Memphisguy,
I would beg to differ as to being a Christian nation. This nation was without a doubt founded on Christian principle and ideals. While we may not all be christians today, do we change the design of our flag because we now have a large population that comes from outside the U.S?

You can beg to differ all you want but our great nation has had a Christian foundation and a Christian influence but you will not find anywhere that the founding fathers (a majority of them Christians in good standings in their local church) were trying to start a Christian nation. I define a Christian nation as a country where Christianity is the official religion on that country and the final rule of law is the Bible. That is the only way to define it.
One founding father did say something to the affect that the United States is based on Christian principles and to go against such principles would be wrong.

[footballfan-tastic]

You last statement, is exactly what I am refering too.  The country was based on christian principle, most of our laws, our morals, all based on christian principle.  What do you think is the basis of morality?   I agree we do not have a national church or religion, but it is clear that the founding fathers used christianity as their guide.   Why deny it?

[WCD]

Just wondering, why do you think this is so important? I happen to agree with you, this is important and this does need to be passed, if it is written correctly so that it won't get over turned by the Supreme Court.
I just asking and because we aren't a Christian nation, you can't use scripture because to non-Christian, scripture doesn't have any authority over them. I am looking forward to your response.

I differ with you......... I believe we are a Christian nation, we just don't stand up for our beliefs or speak up for God when we should.  And, I am a Christan and I have to speak up. My conscience won't let me do otherwise. (and no I am not perfect and I have failed in this area many times).

First of all, I believe it is the right thing to do! In James 4:17 it says: 17Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin. Also in Ezekiel 33:6-8 we read: 6'But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman's hand.'  7"Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from My mouth and give them warning from Me.  8"When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand.

Marriage is an institution established by God for man and woman. God speaks clearly against homosexuality! I feel compelled to at least provide information to those I have opportunity to. If I don't, to ME, I have sinned.

You asked, this is my answer!

Wildcat_Dad

[Lions84]

Call and support the MPA!!!!  It is Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve! 

[Father Guido]

The last time this came up the Souther Baptists launched a campaign to call our Senators and let them know how we felt and encourage them to vote for this issue.  There were at least 5,000 calls to Lincoln and Pryors offices according to public records, (which they are required to keep).  Both ignored these messages and voted the party line any way.

[Lions84]

The last time this came up the Souther Baptists launched a campaign to call our Senators and let them know how we felt and encourage them to vote for this issue.  There were at least 5,000 calls to Lincoln and Pryors offices according to public records, (which they are required to keep).  Both ignored these messages and voted the party line any way.

Then the fine folks in Arkansas need to VOTE their Sorry 6'es out of OFFICE.

[memphisguy]

Exorcist,
I'm not denying our country was founded by godly Christian men, who used the principles of Christianity as a plum line for right and wrong. Re-read what I wrote. But what gets me is when Christians think this is a Christian nation and most the time an underlying belief (this may or may not be yours or Wildcat_Dad belief) that the US is now God's chosen people. Then they base all their interpretation of scripture, especially Revelation, based on where the US is morally. That couldn't be any more wrong.
The United States was never suppose to be a Christian nation in that every one must be a Christian and everyone must follow Scripture as national law. Never. What do you think the first amendment is freedom of religion? We are allowed to worship and server anyone or who we want.
Wildcat_Dad,
While I agree with you because of what scripture clearly says, your answer is not good enough in the public square where you will have to try to convince the non-Christian. You can't use Scripture (for the most part) to prove your point to non-Christians as it has no authority for them. It has all authority for us who called themselves followers of Christ but to the lost none.
That's why Paul, when he was at Mars Hill, never used the Old Testament (the New hadn't been written yet) when he was arguing the case for the "Unknown God" to Gentile people. You have to use other sources to prove your point in the secular world. There are plenty, I am just writing this to make Christians think.
Here is a hint, Martin Luther King, JR. in his wonder book called "Letter's from a Birmingham Jail" spoke of natural law when trying to prove his case of Civil Rights. Clarence Thomas said the same thing during his confirmation hearings.
When trying to win the hearts and minds of the lost in a moral debate, you have to use something other than scripture. It takes more thinking but it can be done.
Then once you win your debate, you can easily show them "a better way" through Christ, now you can use scripture because the "more excellent way" can only be found in a life-changing, personal relationship with the one who "loved them and gave Himself" to them.

[WCD]

memphisguy,

believe God's word is not only "GOOD ENOUGH" but is all that I need. I dare say that there are few who have not read God's word to some degree and few who don't understand it's teachings.

Granted there are many (too many sad to say) that refuse to believe God's word and follow His ways. However, my intentions were to warn the public (inform) of an impending legislative act. For those who believe that marriage is for one man and one woman, this was intended for them. For those who do not care of do not believe in the marriage covenant God established then this will probably have very little to offer them.

Jesus was not politically correct! He was spiritually correct! It is written...........................

Why did God send prophets to His people (ie Jews) with His word and prophets to lands filled with corruption with His word if it wasn't good enough. I don't think the prophets were worried about what to say. God said, Go and they went! Somehow, we get too worried about what to say and we don't go.

The harvest is plenty but the laborers are few!

Wildcat_Dad

[HA_Fan]

I would be willing to bet that those same founding fathers (regardless of their religious intentions for the U.S.A. or lack thereof) would have ever dreamed that this country would even consider allowing people to marry others of the same sex.

[memphisguy]

OK, totally missed my point, go back and re-read. When trying to lead a person to Christ, I use scripture because it is "sharper than any two-edged sword and able to cut to the marrow and able to decern the heart of man".  When talking to a fellow Christian about anything, I use scripture because it has authority. When trying to talk to a non-Christian about anything, I also use scripture because it is always right, but not just scripture as a non-Christian can easily discount it's trustworthiness (to his own peril of course).
You actually proved my point when the prophets used scripture or "Thus said the Lord" to the nation of Israel because they were suppose to be in the faith and that phrase had authority.
No Wildcat_Dad, your simple sayings of "Jesus wasn't politically correct but spiritually correct" won't work in a public debate to win over the hearts and minds of people and to represent the Kingdom of God as a well-trained steward who needs not be ashamed.  You are going to have to read, study and "be prepared to give an answer to every man what you believe".
All all battles are spiritual, we have to grid up our minds because we hold the truth. What we believe is true and truth. We are right, but to lost people, "because the Bible told me so" in an argument in the public squad won't win the day.
Again, they don't follow the Bible, they don't care about the Bible, the Bible has no authority so when you quote scripture and they just laugh at you, you got to use something else to convince them and we have it, it's called truth. Now our truth is based on scripture, but they don't know that.
Yes I believe homosexuality is wrong and to make it a moral equal to heterosexuality is wrong and a dangerous slope and I will use scripture but I will also use the fact that everyone draws a moral line somewhere, whether it is a speed limit, or whether it is ok to cheat or steal or kill. When you say homosexuality is ok, where do you stop then. Why not say bestiality is ok, or pedophilia is ok. If they say, no that's wrong, then you say, why? Based on what? They just drawed a line but now they have to defend it and they can't. You see, natural law will show that it isn't natural for people to be homosexual. They have never, ever proven it and won't. Too many people have come out of that lifestyle.

[HA_Fan]

You see, natural law will show that it isn't natural for people to be homosexual. They have never, ever proven it and won't. Too many people have come out of that lifestyle.

That's a dangerous cornerstone to build on.  I don't believe for an instant that you and I evolved from single celled organisms, but that's basically an accepted fact.  Homosexuality is well on its way to that same kind of acceptance.

[WCD]

Sorry memphisguy, your theory won't work with me. God's prophets went to pagan people and spoke God's word and they believed. Your use of Paul in Corinth was only partially accurate. The Corinthian law prohibited any new religion from being introduced. Thus, Paul use the statue to the "unknown God" to introduce God and speak with them but he delivered scripture to the pagans to get them to hear, believe and change from their pagan ways to God's ways.

I have studied and I have spoken with those who have not believed in God using God's word. Some have received the message and believed; others have chose not to believe. s

Finally,  All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  I personally believe that it is good for the Christian in ALL circumstances and not just for self development.  I am sure that you have a different point to whatever I will write.

The bottom line is that I will speak my heart as I feel the Lord directs me. I find it futile to explain further my point. I have attempted to explain my position to you since you asked me; not to defend it.

Wildcat_Dad

[ejay]

Anybody else realize that these people will still be homosexuals whether or not this passes?  If we are truly Christians we should reach out to those who have chosen homosexuality as their way of liife and try our best to convince them that Jesus is the way.  I may be the only one who believes this but if we did things like this it would not matter what the laws are.  The Bible says to be in this world yet not of this world.  The world is gonna change whether us as Christians like it or not.  Not letting homosexuals get married will not reduce the amount of homosexuality in this nation and that is what we as Christians should be trying to accomplish, among other things.

[c4blueflames]

I

[Chief_Osceola™]

Marriage between a man and woman is not strictly a Christian belief.  Marriage has existed in many non-christian cultures as well, and as far as I know, none have ever openly endorsed or performed homosexual marriage ceremonies.  There are some things that pretty much all of society has agreed on throughout the years, and this has not been an exception until now.

[-Painted Fan-]

I compare the U.S. today with India:
In India, there's a cow on every corner, and the people are starving to death.
In the U.S., there's a church on every corner, and the people are spiritually starving to death.
So, what must we do?
1) Pray!
2) Vote!
3) Pray some more!
4) Make II Chronicles 7:14 our life's goal.

[Father Guido]

I compare the U.S. today with India:
In India, there's a cow on every corner, and the people are starving to death.
In the U.S., there's a church on every corner, and the people are spiritually starving to death.
So, what must we do?
1) Pray!
2) Vote!
3) Pray some more!
4) Make II Chronicles 7:14 our life's goal.

Big claps for you Painted Fan.  Excellent post.

[RD™]

The Day our Government starts relying on some book (The Bible) to decide our laws, is the day I start believing this country is headed toward disaster.

[WCD]

When America becomes a totally atheistic country like the former USSR was, I am convinced that God will give America over to her reprobate mind. We have seen example after example of nations fall because they forsook God; from OT times til today.

I may be all the way on the far right and standing there alone but there will be a judgement day........... even though I am a sinner I am trying to live as close to what God's word says and live by His examples set by Jesus.

IMO America is better off continuing to draw it's laws from the moral code established by the Bible than letting activist judges like the 9th circuit court in California and the ACLU create and enforce laws. Look where we are currently and where we potentially are headed.

Wildcat_Dad

[HA_Fan]

...where we potentially are headed.

The Dutch are almost there already.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=hp-tos-news-h-06&idq=/ff/story/0002/20060530/1305465815.htm

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking widespread outrage.

The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.

[crote]

For everyone who is pushing for this amendment, let me give you a hypothetical situation:

Let's say there is a marriage in your church between a man and a woman.  The wedding is presided over by an ordained minister, bride and groom both say "I do", etc. etc.  Only, no one signs a marriage license, and therefore in the eyes of the state no one got hitched.  Would you consider this marriage valid, from a moral and religious standpoint?

My guess is that most religious people would say yes.  That's because marriage is a religious institution, not a political one.

The role of the state in all this is to provide a convenient framework which accomodates the religious preferences of the people.  The government is supposed to have a neutral stance towards all religious institutions, treating everyone equally.  That's why, for example, the non-profit tax code that applies to the First Baptist Church of Springdale also applies to every cathedral, mosque, synagogue, and temple in the country.

So let's say the First Harmonic Church of Brokeback wants to have gay marriage ceremonies.  According to the establishment clause of the 1st amendment (and the body of Supreme Court rulings related to it) the government neither can nor should prefer one religion to another.  Recognizing the religious institutions of one group over another would be showing such a preference.  Thus, either the government recognizes every marriage, or it recognizes none, and an amendment which specifically limits the religious freedom of one group would be blatantly unconstitutional.

[WCD]

For everyone who is pushing for this amendment, let me give you a hypothetical situation:

Let's say there is a marriage in your church between a man and a woman. The wedding is presided over by an ordained minister, bride and groom both say "I do", etc. etc. Only, no one signs a marriage license, and therefore in the eyes of the state no one got hitched. Would you consider this marriage valid, from a moral and religious standpoint?

My guess is that most religious people would say yes. That's because marriage is a religious institution, not a political one.

The role of the state in all this is to provide a convenient framework which accomodates the religious preferences of the people. The government is supposed to have a neutral stance towards all religious institutions, treating everyone equally. That's why, for example, the non-profit tax code that applies to the First Baptist Church of Springdale also applies to every cathedral, mosque, synagogue, and temple in the country.

So let's say the First Harmonic Church of Brokeback wants to have gay marriage ceremonies. According to the establishment clause of the 1st amendment (and the body of Supreme Court rulings related to it) the government neither can nor should prefer one religion to another. Recognizing the religious institutions of one group over another would be showing such a preference. Thus, either the government recognizes every marriage, or it recognizes none, and an amendment which specifically limits the religious freedom of one group would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Your hypothetical example is a little skewed. First, in the Bible, Christians are instructed to obey the laws of the land as far as they don't conflict with God's word. The laws say that a man and a woman are to get a marriage license as well. So, they go to the county clerk or whatever office provides the license, obtain the license and then get married by a minister, rabbi or  other religious leader or judge and they make it legal in God's eye and the law of the land.

Second, there is only one state in the union where they consider homosexual unions to be legal and yes you guessed it---- it's Massachusetts. land of Kennedy,Kerry and Barney Franks. However, outside of the state of Massachusetts, their union is not recognized. Since the laws of the land don't recognize homosexual marriages, their marriage is not lawful or legal.

Wildcat_Dad

[crote]

Your hypothetical example is a little skewed. First, in the Bible, Christians are instructed to obey the laws of the land as far as they don't conflict with God's word. The laws say that a man and a woman are to get a marriage license as well. So, they go to the county clerk or whatever office provides the license, obtain the license and then get married by a minister, rabbi or  other religious leader or judge and they make it legal in God's eye and the law of the land.

There is no law saying you have to get a marriage certificate.  If you don't get one, the state won't recognize your union, but you'll not get hauled off to jail.

Second, there is only one state in the union where they consider homosexual unions to be legal and yes you guessed it---- it's Massachusetts. land of Kennedy,Kerry and Barney Franks. However, outside of the state of Massachusetts, their union is not recognized. Since the laws of the land don't recognize homosexual marriages, their marriage is not lawful or legal.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

[WCD]

Okay, Art. To your first question! Marriage license Laws in the state of Arkansas

Here is what you need to bring with you, and what you need to know about the Arkansas marriage laws before filling out the Arkansas marriage license form.In order to get married, you need to apply and receive a marriage license. This is the document in your state that allows you to officially tie the knot under the law. The rules for acquiring your marriage license varies from state to state, so you should check with your city's marriage bureau at your clerk of court's office to find out what your local rules are.You'll typically need to apply for your marriage license at least one month before your wedding ceremony. You'll traditionally need to send in your birth certificates, tax information, and other official documents. You don't, however, want to apply for your marriage license too early. In some states, the licenses do expire, if you don't get married within a few months.When you apply for your license, you'll not only need a proof of identification and age, will need to provide any information about previous marriages, and will need to pay a nominal fee. You will also need to have a witness when you sign the application, so plan on bringing your maid of honor or best man with you. The bride will need to know what her married name will be before she signs the marriage certificate. You'll have to write that name on the application. And, believe it or not, just because you have your marriage license sent to you in the mail does not mean you are officially married. You need to have a justice of the peace or a religious clergyman sign the document. On your wedding day, you'll give your chaplain your marriage license, then after the ceremony, he'll sign it and send it to the proper government agency for validation.

Some other lesser known itmes of the Arkansas marriage law: you can't marry your cousin, there is no "Common Law" marriages and if you have been divrced you must provide proof of the divorce decree before you can remarry otherwise you become a bigamist (and are forced to move out to Utah or New Mexico. lol

Wildcat_Dad

[crote]

Okay, Art. To your first question! Marriage license Laws in the state of Arkansas

I didn't ask a question, although thanks for the info.

How does this long post explaining the ins and outs of applying for a marriage license dispute my original post?

[WCD]

Okay Art, now for your second question! Marriage is not a religious event. You do not have to be married by any religious person to be married legally. Most people do because that has been a practice held for years. It is a secular institution and no "church" has any right to the legality of marriage. Thus the law does not look at say the Roman Catholic church or Baptist church or Mennonite church and say only you are right. It looks to the law. Currently, there is no national law to my knowledge that states marriage is between one man and one woman. Only certain states have pass state amendments to that effect. The laws of America look to the amendments of the Constitution to say what is leagal and what is not; not religious faiths. That is why it can't be blatantly unconstitutional.

And, as a Christian, that's is why I have spoken up encouraging people to contact their US Senators and tell them they want them to pass the Marriage Protection Act.

Wildcat_Dad

[WCD]

You stated: "There is no law saying you have to get a marriage certificate". I was replying to your statement that Arkansas does in fact require people to get a license to get married.

As to your next question, I previously answered it.

Wildcat_Dad

[crote]

You stated: "There is no law saying you have to get a marriage certificate". I was replying to your statement that Arkansas does in fact require people to get a license to get married.

You are required to get a license if you want the government to recognize your marriage.  There is nothing illegal about performing a marriage ceremony without getting a license.  If you did that, you'd be married in the eyes of God, but you wouldn't qualify for the tax code, inheiritence laws, and other legal strictures that come with legal recognition of marriage.

This is the entire crux of my argument.  Who is the government to tell us which religious institution is valid and which one is not?  If your religion says homosexual marriage is valid, the state is obligated to recognize such a union.  To do otherwise would be unconstitutional.

To make an analogy:

Today, operating revenue for churches, like all non-profit organizations, is tax exempt (someone with more knowledge of the tax code than I may know of an exception to this, but bear with me).  What if the government to say that a church could only retain it's tax exempt status if the theology preached there was non-dispensational.  Dispensationalist churches would still be allowed to operate, but they would have to pay taxes.  Doesn't that seem a little sketchy to you?

[crote]

Okay Art, now for your second question! Marriage is not a religious event.

I'm surprised that you are saying there is no religious aspect to marriage, since the Bible talks quite frequently about the institution.  I you seriously making this point?

[Chief_Osceola™]

^ It's not strictly a Christian ceremony; further, it's not even strictly a religious ceremony.

[crote]

^ It's not strictly a Christian ceremony; further, it's not even strictly a religious ceremony.

So arguing for the "protection" of heterosexual marriage on religious grounds is moot.

What other grounds are there?

[Chief_Osceola™]

That it's been the tradition throughout the history of civilization?  Not totally serious, but let me say this - there are some things that even non-religious people have to concede as being moral, or immoral.  Some things regarding morality are not relative.  It's kind of like the example of obesity - it's not always easy to quantify it with a number - there are too many variables at work.  However, you know it when you see it.  Same with morality - most people in a given society know something is immoral when they see it.

[crote]

That it's been the tradition throughout the history of civilization?  Not totally serious, but let me say this - there are some things that even non-religious people have to concede as being moral, or immoral.  Some things regarding morality are not relative.  It's kind of like the example of obesity - it's not always easy to quantify it with a number - there are too many variables at work.  However, you know it when you see it.  Same with morality - most people in a given society know something is immoral when they see it.

I would hardly say there is a societal consensus regarding the morality of homosexuality or same sex unions.

[Chief_Osceola™]

No, but the last time I checked we are a democratic republic, where majority rules.  It doesn't take a consensus, just a majority.

[AF&B]

agreed

[The_reality_is...]

"You know, this whole debate on homosexual marriage is so stupid. We have all these things going on in the country today....Iraq, Afghanistan, Terrorists, John Ashcroft, Anthrax, SARS, WMD's.....and we want to debate gay people living together?!?! On the list of things we should worry about as a country, homosexual marriage is at number 97, right above 'Are we eating to much garlic as a people?' "-Lewis Black

[WCD]

Okay Art, now for your second question! Marriage is not a religious event.

I'm surprised that you are saying there is no religious aspect to marriage, since the Bible talks quite frequently about the institution. I you seriously making this point?

No, I was commenting on your statement about the government choosing one religion over the other. The US government does not look at marriage as a religious event. That is why you can obtain a marriage license, go to a justice of the peace and get married legally. It does not require a religious ceremony. IMO, following God's commandments to obey the laws of the land, God recognizes the marriage.

As for marriages in Jesus time, we know there were weddings because His mother, Mary, asked Him to perform His first miracle turning water into wine. But, there is not talk that I am aware of that the Bible says, "Thou shalt have a priest" perform the ceremony.

Most women if truth be known, want a church wedding where they walk down an aisle before all friends and family. Tradition I guess. However, this is no longer every girl's wish and you are starting to see very different forms of weddings: beach weddings, theme park weddings, weddings on the back of a fire truck, etc.

But, back to your point, you don't have to have a religious ceremony to get married in America.

Wildcat_Dad

[WCD]

"You know, this whole debate on homosexual marriage is so stupid. We have all these things going on in the country today....Iraq, Afghanistan, Terrorists, John Ashcroft, Anthrax, SARS, WMD's.....and we want to debate gay people living together?!?! On the list of things we should worry about as a country, homosexual marriage is at number 97, right above 'Are we eating to much garlic as a people?' "-Lewis Black

As if I am going to put much stock into a far left Comedy Central comedian.

I found this on the web describing Lewis Black.

Lewis Black's style of comedy is that of a man who, dealing with the absurdities of life and politics, is approaching his personal limits of sanity. Sarcasm, strong language, shouting, and trademark angry finger-shaking bring emphasis to his topics of discussion. He once described his humor as being on the Titanic every single day and being the only person who knows what is going to happen.

Wildcat_Dad

[Lions84]

Defend Marriage Call your senator today 

I defend Marriage with these

[WCD]

Marriage is a religious event, go back to even non christian religions, throught out antiquity, and marriage is a holy ceremony, even if it was conducted by a shaman in the deepest part of the Amazon. We again have allowed the non-christain to tell us how we should believe so we are "fair".

As a Christian I believe God made woman for man and told them to go out, multiply and prosper. I have stated specific scriptures regarding  that a man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home. But I have not run across scripture that says that a man and woman have to be married by a minister or religious person to be married in the sight of God.

So I can be enlightened please offer the scriptures you are basing your position on so that I might study and understand your point more clearly.

Also, I previously have stated that I believe God's word is sufficient for all men at all times. I am not sure if you are referring to the statement memphisguy mad or not since you did not mark the quote. As for allowing others to influence my thinking, that is far from the truth. You may have been speaking in generalities but even with memphisguy I have been up front telling him that I do not agree with his interpretations of God's word. We all must stand before God our maker and be held accountable for the things we do. I don't want to stand before God resting on what someone else told me was right. I will read God's word and interpret what it says and thus try to live by those words and example that Jesus set for me. At the end, it won't be enough, since I am a sinner. But, thanks be to God, His grace is sufficient for me.

I look forward to your post.

Wildcat_Dad

[The_reality_is...]

"You know, this whole debate on homosexual marriage is so stupid. We have all these things going on in the country today....Iraq, Afghanistan, Terrorists, John Ashcroft, Anthrax, SARS, WMD's.....and we want to debate gay people living together?!?! On the list of things we should worry about as a country, homosexual marriage is at number 97, right above 'Are we eating to much garlic as a people?' "-Lewis Black

Go listen to the stuff he did while Clinton was president...."I think Bill Clinton is a great reason to not elect another president from Arkansas for another, oh, 100 years."

He is not Leftist, he is apathetic.

"Everyone thinks I have a problem with Republicans, and I say No. I don't have a problem with republicans, I have a problem with Authority."

But you are dodging the real point of my post......Are we eating too mch Garlic as a country?

Here's a good quote that I hope makes you laugh....."F*ckin Clinton, then F*ckin Bush....if this is evolution, then in 12 years, we will be voting for Plants."
As if I am going to put much stock into a far left Comedy Central comedian.

I found this on the web describing Lewis Black.

Lewis Black's style of comedy is that of a man who, dealing with the absurdities of life and politics, is approaching his personal limits of sanity. Sarcasm, strong language, shouting, and trademark angry finger-shaking bring emphasis to his topics of discussion. He once described his humor as being on the Titanic every single day and being the only person who knows what is going to happen.

Wildcat_Dad

[Chief_Osceola™]

A marriage performed by a justice of the peace is not a religious event.

[WCD]

A marriage performed by a justice of the peace is not a religious event.

hmmmmmmmmmmm, that's what I said several posts ago. I also believe in the eyes of God that He recognizes that ceremony (getting married by a JP) as legitimate.

Wildcat_Dad 

p.s. hey, nolefan, you said on another thread that you avoided religious and political posts because it was argued out on another thread. lol   that's right, I read your stuff!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chief_Osceola™]

Yes, yes He does - it was a response to exorcist's post saying all marriages are religious ceremonies.  Sorry I didn't read your post saying such more closely.  And yes, anymore I usually stay away from religious/political debates because I feel as if I'm repeating myself, but this one was actually different for a change.  I'll take it as a compliment that you think highly enough of me to read my stuff. 

[WCD]

Yes, yes He does - it was a response to exorcist's post saying all marriages are religious ceremonies.  Sorry I didn't read your post saying such more closely.  And yes, anymore I usually stay away from religious/political debates because I feel as if I'm repeating myself, but this one was actually different for a change.  I'll take it as a compliment that you think highly enough of me to read my stuff. 

YES, YES, YES! It was only offered as a compliment! lol

Wildcat_Dad

[Chief_Osceola™]

Actually I didn't say all marriages, I said marriage itself was a religiously significant event. The use of holy men or whatever in every culture and so on. I realize that non believers may marry in a civil ceremony where they actually try to take God out of it, but trying doesn't make it so.

What's that you say?

I am merely saying that marriage is indeed a religious event, even in non-christian religions.

I'm not sure I follow you.  First you say it's a religious event, then you say not all marriages are religious events, then you say marriage is a religiously significant event.  Don't get me wrong, I believe whole-heartedly marriage should be between a man and a woman, and I think homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, but I don't think the marriage-between-man-and-woman-on-religious-grounds is what will keep it between a man and a woman in our country.  I don't think that angle will ultimately work, unfortunately.  I do believe, however, that tradition throughout all of civilization should hold bearing when these amendments are sought to be passed.  As activist judges have shown, religion is not enough to keep far-left laws from being passed, but 6000+ years of tradition is impossible to ignore.

[The_reality_is...]

"6000+ years of tradition is impossible to ignore"

umm....what are you talking about? Christianity?