Posted on 07/30/2011 3:22:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ah yes, stomping your feet and calling people liars. Well, that is a clear mark of a n00b - can't carry the argument, start making false accusations.
SHOW ME WHERE. You can't, because I never said that. I said marriage is for the Church, and Government is out of the marriage business. Civil unions EXIST TODAY, and have existed for hundreds of years.
civil unions - by definition are set up and acknowledged by government. Must be a mental block eh?
You put pride for others ahead of the truth. That is simply not Christian at all. And yes, I just went there.
Oh and mind reading too, hmmmm talk to me about Christian eh.
Barring your ability to state one way or another that I clearly qualified my statement as GOVERNMENT-RECOGNIZED, I'll just assume you're not much more than a concern-troll who bounced to the aid of an online friend who got caught in their own error.
If that was the case I would have responded to her ping instead of yours. Yet it was her observation that set you off n00b. Now apparently you need to thicken your skin. With your GREAT concern for our society you apparently want to strip ALL restraints, let a small group be "married" while the rest of society does everything and anything they want - through 'civil union' - oopsie, there's that gov't intervention angle again.
DelphiUser perhaps?
I don’t speculate
Good advice.
Dear Savage:
I think I detect more animosity to homosexual marriage than polygamy in your tone and certainily in the amount of words devoted to the subject.
And I’m sure you don’t really mean that women in a polygamous marriage breed cattle but that it is symbolism for the way you perceive their life. I seem to remember that some societies, including the Indians, Chinese and other Asian cultures, Muslims, and even the Jewishy Biblical Patriarchs, have practiced polygamy.
I didn’t even throw in polyandry, since its occurrence is rarer, found mostly in the Himmalayas (no pun intended)and in some areas of Oceania, Africa and Native America.
In America, we legalize both serial polygamy and polyandry. It’s called divorcegamey.
No doubt about it.
We never used to legalize serial polygamy and polyandry—it was the destruction of our Rule of Law-—to create a contract which was meaningless and could be discarded like a piece of toilet paper. No fault divorce destroyed the meaning of the word-— contract -—which is supposed to be between two equals.
So when we had contracts that were honored, there was very little “serial” polygamy and media wasn’t glorifying dysfunctional behaviors to children 24/7.
Lenin ruined the marriage contract in Russia—destroyed the institution of marriage there also.
Any marriage between unequal numbers of people denies the worth of one of the sexes and denies the teleological design of people and the duty (found in Natural Rights and Natural Law Theory—the philosophy of our government) to raise one’s biological offspring.
Because of private property and biology, it is imperative that governments NEVER interfere in the natural design (biological) of mankind. That is what “Just Law” is....Right Reason according to Nature. It is the fundamental principles of our legal documents. Right reason can never justify inequality of the sexes, nor can it justify dysfunctional silly uses of body parts.
It defies logic and reason and the teleological design of human beings which always mocks the idea of “God” (our govt. was based on our rights coming from God —also Natural Law Theory) and mocks human design and degrades the ability of people to do their duty and raise their biological offspring. Children need a mother and father who are considered equals so they learn to respect both sexes and learn how to relate to all human beings whether male or female. It is God’s design and we are a government based on the Creator’s standards of Right and Wrong—not the standards of the sick, twisted Alfred Kinsey.
Well said.
You also tend to not consider the worldview of children in such environments—one a total lie to the teleological design of nature which defies and eliminates common sense and logic and reason and the other which encourages the ideology that some people are more important than others.
All societies that practice polygamy have slavery—they had a system of belief that allowed the “idea” that some people are more powerful, or more important than others.....they have more worth. Polygamy allows this “unequal” acceptance, to where it is normalized in children.
The only reason “women rights” even exist is because of Christians growing up in “one man = one woman” marriage. Christianity elevated the status of women and then eliminated slavery. When you give equal value to women in the sacrament of marriage and make it the norm-—then it will include the idea of equality for both men and women which it did—and extended to all mankind. This is unique to Christianity—a universal religion—rights of women and elimination of slavery—because of the elevation and importance of marriage to a sacrament and the importance of Mary as the mother of God.
In all countries which by law allow polygamy—women are treated as cattle—whether in muslim countries or African ones, etc. Their worth is never equal to man because of fact. Children growing up in societies that promote such beliefs are incapable of treating women with dignity and respect because they learn instinctively that women are worth much less than men by force of laws. All systems which deny biological truths and do not consider women as equal to men in dignity and worth, will be Unjust and unnatural/. (Cicero/Locke). Homosexuality is sexist and eliminates the possibility of uniting the sexes plus elevates such dysfunctional, silly usage of the body it destroys all logic of governments which are supposed to provide a system where societies can flourish and meet their human potentials.
It denies the very children of their biological parents—(the most evil thing which can be done to a human being and their Natural Right)—that psychologically proven system which is most emotionally and physically the safest and most productive and efficient method of raising children—proven and written about by Piaget, Erikson, Freud and all knowledgeable psychologists.
Dear Savage:
I don’t need all the essays about what you believe.
I was just wondering which of these two forms of “marriage”—1.polygamy,2.same-sex—FR posters would consider to be worse for society.
Vote for 1 or 2. (A tie vote is a cop out.)
I vote for 2 simply because I see adopting children into this union as a problem. But I don’t have a problem with some sort of civil union that gave partners some legal rights in medical questions and wills for example.
Really? Since the Government is legally prohibited from recognizing a religion, is all religion abolished?
If the Government refuses to recognize the sacrament of communion, then communion is abolished?
What the Government recognizes affects the existence of our religious beliefs, and impacts the reality of your relation with God?
Whatever is not permitted, is prohibited.
Huh. So the 9th and 10th Amendments don't exist. Thanks for deciding the Constitution no longer exists.
“Because we’ve given Government dominion over marriage, it can make of marriage what it wants. And right now, it’s making it an abomination.
Statists and homosexualists love that many are conditioned to think that marriage is just a collection of rights from the state, that can be granted, enforced, severed and resumed as long as the state gives its permission. They know if marriage is merely viewed as a contract that applies between any people the gov’t deems, then there is no real reason not to accept impossibilities like “gay marriage”.
Freegards
The facts are here - Government sanction, Government recognition of marriage is what I oppose. Somehow you twist that to be opposition of marriage. You cannot show where I stated what you wanted me to state. You twist my words for your own use. I'm still here - apparently the Religion Moderator does not see your side.
Oh and mind reading too, hmmmm talk to me about Christian eh.
OK then, it was from pure spite. Why else would you twist a man's words to mean what he did not say, to edit them to state something other than original? It was either for pride because of a mistake the first time and refusal to admit the error, or spite. You can choose - but neither is right or good.
Yet it was her observation that set you off n00b.
Actually, it was her mischaracterization of what I wrote that I responded to. Her attitude in doing it was one of contempt - and she was dealt with appropriately (and apparently needs her champions to fight her battles).
Now apparently you need to thicken your skin.
Yes, when you lost your way, and been shown to be a willful liar and refuse to admit the facts, you claim I'm at fault. Who's been called names in this thread, who's had their words consistently mangled here? You and your happy little gang...
With your GREAT concern for our society you apparently want to strip ALL restraints, let a small group be "married" while the rest of society does everything and anything they want - through 'civil union' - oopsie, there's that gov't intervention angle again.
Are you seriously this ignorant? Civil unions have been allowed since the beginning of Government. They're called "contracts", and we use a civil union for everything from formation of a partnership or LLC to surrogates for atheist weddings. The facts are, you only think marriage is valid if Government blesses it - show me where in the Bible the laws of God are subservient to man. Show me where my relationship with other believers is dependent upon the Government sanctioning and blessing my union.
Go ahead, put God below Government. That is a very liberal thing to do!
Enjoy, may God give you some peace today.
PRECISELY! I for one refuse to let the sacrament of marriage be so defiled. If it is not honored and revered as it should be, then take it out of the hands of Government altogether. Reserve it for the church, who will treat it as the gift from God that it is.
Leaving marriage in the hands of the Government is like leaving your sermons in the hands of the Government.
They can have a civil union with their godless Government; it is NOT marriage, however. And since the Government refuses to accept the Biblical foundations of marriage, then it should have no say in deciding if the joining of two people is, in fact, a marriage.
If it cannot recognize what a marriage is, then how can it have power to recognize a marriage?
Thank you for your eloquent post!
With absence of proof - need some cheese too?
Government sanction, Government recognition of marriage is what I oppose.
Yet endorse gov't civil unions (only form in which they exist) - ground level getting above you head now?
You twist my words for your own use. I'm still here - apparently the Religion Moderator does not see your side.
I never pinged the RM to complain - and you didn't bother to ping when mentioning them.
Actually, it was her mischaracterization of what I wrote that I responded to. Her attitude in doing it was one of contempt - and she was dealt with appropriately (and apparently needs her champions to fight her battles).
No, you yourself correctly stated her observation - proved her right - now you are in over your head.
Yes, when you lost your way, and been shown to be a willful liar and refuse to admit the facts, you claim I'm at fault.
You seem to have this obsession with calling people liars here in FR's Religion Forum. Especially when failing to 'show' anything.
Civil unions have been allowed since the beginning of Government. They're called "contracts", and we use a civil union for everything from formation of a partnership or LLC to surrogates for atheist weddings.
Hence it is still gov't involvement in marriage ftsl. and you've endorsed this devolution of marriage under gov't approved contracts.
The facts are, you only think marriage is valid if Government blesses it - show me where in the Bible the laws of God are subservient to man. Show me where my relationship with other believers is dependent upon the Government sanctioning and blessing my union.
Heb 13:17 among others.
Go ahead, put God below Government. That is a very liberal thing to do!
You've posted the desire to eliminate marriage and replace it with an amorphous civil union. You desire gov't to conform to the lowest level of morality instead of maintaining its God-given position to hold back evil. Surrender - the last bastion of liberals and progressives.
Fine - go ahead and invent what I said. Change my words, edit away. Lie about it as well.
The truth is here for all to read. Back yourselves up in your little clique. I guess if that’s the face of Christianity here at FR, I want no part of it.
Fine - go ahead and invent what I said. Change my words, edit away. Lie about it as well.
The truth is here for all to read. Back yourselves up in your little clique. I guess if that’s the face of Christianity here at FR, I want no part of it.
Don't need to - you manage that well enough on your own.
blah, blah, blah. Typical, make a statement, call names, change comment and try to back peddal, then leave saying we are ‘Christian’ enough.
Definitely a retread.
If the Government refuses to recognize the sacrament of communion, then communion is abolished?
Huh. So the 9th and 10th Amendments don't exist. Thanks for deciding the Constitution no longer exists.
You did not notice the article on how "Jesus" cannot be mentioned in public prayer, did you? The First Amendment actually says, "Congress shall make no law" not government generally. Twelve of thirteen states had an established church when they joined the union. That has been twisted into a PROHIBITION on Jesus in public in this country. I'm not the one who decided the Constitution doesn't exist, sorry. When I said, "Whatever is not permitted, is prohibited" I was giving an example of the mindset of our overlords and their enablers. Americans used to believe that statement applied to the government, not the people.
Frankly, if Michigan passed a law against public celebration of Communion, I think most people really would believe that it had been abolished in Michigan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.