Gay marriage bill signed into law in New Hampshire

[Danke]

... do you then use the words husband and wife when referring to them or do you abstain from using those words since they do not seem applicable?

Maybe "Pitcher" and "Catcher" are more appropriate.

 

[Krugerrand]

Married Gay People is an interesting concept, for example, do you then use the words husband and wife when referring to them
or do you abstain from using those words since they do not seem applicable?

I wonder if gay people will in future use the legislature to redefine the traditional meaning of husband and wife.

Look for the terms "husband," "wife," "mother," "father" to become politically incorrect. After that, they will become offensive. Then, they will become hate-words spoken only by "homo-phobes."

Somewhere between steps 2 and 3 you will see any institution that accepts government funds prohibited from using such offensive terminology.

 

[Theocrat]

False Nomenclatures & True Stewards

Churches may be formed around many different belief systems and religions. Christians do not hold a monopoly nor have the authority to dictate what constitutes a church. Even a wiccan church must be given equal standing under the law. Christianity is not the exclusive church of this nation, nor is it the only one with Constitutional protections.

You do not get to decide what a church may believe and teach. Period!

If an organization of corporate worship is not formed around the word of God, you can rest assured that it is not a church. At best, it's a false church. That is what I'm talking about. In our culture today, we're losing definitions of terms because people think they can just make the terms mean whatever they want to. That is exactly what's happening to the term "marriage". People now think marriage can mean a union between two men or two women. However, that goes against the original and proper definition of what God defined as "marriage".

Christians do not have a monopoly nor authority to dictate what constitutes a church, but God does. He has made it abundantly clear what a true church is, and it's not up for debate since it's His institution and not man's. The issue has nothing to do with my personal decision of what a church is. It must come from an absolute authority above myself, and that absolute authority is God's word. I agree with you that other faiths are afforded the freedom to worship their gods, but they are not true churches.

Marriage as the institution of God (as revealed in the Bible) is defined only as the marital/sexual union between a man and a woman for life. That is true whether you believe it or not. Religious pluralism is a horrible way for deciding what marriage should be, for it is irrational. It cannot both be the case that marriage is the union between a man and a woman and that marriage is the union between two men and two women. Logically speaking, that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. Historically speaking, our republic has always understood that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that came from the Judeo-Christian teaching of marriage derived from the Bible. Accordingly, our nations early laws (particularly in the states) forbade any other union as being called "marriage". Since the Christian Church is the steward of God's institution, to keep it holy and blessed, it is their responsibility to preserve the true essence of what marriage is, not the State and not individuals.

 

[ceakins]

If an organization of corporate worship is not formed around the word of God, you can rest assured that it is not a church. At best, it's a false church.

Bullshit.

 

[Sandman33]

It also doesn't teach fascism, but you don't seem to care-as long as your opinion is allowed to trump others you don't agree with. Yeshua would be ashamed of you, indeed.

Wrong.

First the bible actually DOES teach fascism in regards to Gods laws. You obey them or you will pay later.

Secondly it's not just HIS opinion you are speaking of, it's what Millions of men and women feel is GOD'S opinion.

Sodom and Gammorah ring a bell?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Wrong.

First the bible actually DOES teach fascism in regards to Gods laws. You obey them or you will pay later.

Secondly it's not just HIS opinion you are speaking of, it's what Millions of men and women feel is GOD'S opinion.

Sodom and Gammorah ring a bell?

You've got a bit of a point. I was thinking of the new testament, especially Yeshua's teachings. I should have been clearer-thanks. ~hugs~

 

[Theocrat]

Changing Lanes and Stealing Names

Look for the terms "husband," "wife," "mother," "father" to become politically incorrect. After that, they will become offensive. Then, they will become hate-words spoken only by "homo-phobes."

Somewhere between steps 2 and 3 you will see any institution that accepts government funds prohibited from using such offensive terminology.

It certainly seems to be moving in that direction, now does it? One way to tear down a culture or society is to undermine its language. Not only are we seeing this done in how our media and politicians are redefining "free markets," but we're now seeing it in social/religious affairs like marriage. It is my contention that this attitude breeds from a false political view of pluralism as well as humanistic conventions of social and moral behavior due to relativism.

 

[MCockerill08]

This issue really isn't very complicated at all. If gay people want to get married, it is no one's business but theirs. As Charley Reese says, a government contract doesn't exactly sanctify anything.

Like the Christian Right, there is a strong statist component to the gay rights movement that wants to impose their values on public schools, private corporations, and all of society. We must, of course, repudiate that element of it wholesale. We all need to oppose unconstitutional "hate crime" laws, as well as any infringement on the private property rights and freedom of association that every individual has. But regarding gay marriage, who cares, so long as the gays don't impose it on anyone else?

Libertarians need to realize that these issues really aren't very important. They are a matter of personal lifestyle. I personally have no problem with the "homosexual agenda" but I don't care if my neighbor finds it repugnant, which certainly is his right. I don't even care if my neighbor is a roundabout bigot, so long as he doesn't harm anyone else. If I did, I'd just be a busybody.

 

[ceakins]

 

[TonySutton]

The word church does not belong to Christians alone. It's roots go back beyond the time of Christ.

 

[Theocrat]

Right Back At Ya

Bullshit.

 

[ceakins]

Not everyone suffers from right frontal lobe seizures.

 

[Theocrat]

Neurology is Not the Subject at Hand

Not everyone suffers from right frontal lobe seizures.

I agree with you because I know I don't. However, that gets away from the issue of gay marriage being authorized by NH, so I'll just leave it there.

 

[Wineman77]

If an organization of corporate worship is not formed around the word of God, you can rest assured that it is not a church. At best, it's a false church. That is what I'm talking about. In our culture today, we're losing definitions of terms because people think they can just make the terms mean whatever they want to. That is exactly what's happening to the term "marriage". People now think marriage can mean a union between two men or two women. However, that goes against the original and proper definition of what God defined as "marriage".

Christians do not have a monopoly nor authority to dictate what constitutes a church, but God does. He has made it abundantly clear what a true church is, and it's not up for debate since it's His institution and not man's. The issue has nothing to do with my personal decision of what a church is. It must come from an absolute authority above myself, and that absolute authority is God's word. I agree with you that other faiths are afforded the freedom to worship their gods, but they are not true churches.

Marriage as the institution of God (as revealed in the Bible) is defined only as the marital/sexual union between a man and a woman for life. That is true whether you believe it or not. Religious pluralism is a horrible way for deciding what marriage should be, for it is irrational. It cannot both be the case that marriage is the union between a man and a woman and that marriage is the union between two men and two women. Logically speaking, that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. Historically speaking, our republic has always understood that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that came from the Judeo-Christian teaching of marriage derived from the Bible. Accordingly, our nations early laws (particularly in the states) forbade any other union as being called "marriage". Since the Christian Church is the steward of God's institution, to keep it holy and blessed, it is their responsibility to preserve the true essence of what marriage is, not the State and not individuals.

That is NOT true. Ancient Greeks and Romans practice marriage. There was no Judeo-Christian influence involved. This predates any biblical institution. The ancient Chinese also practiced marriage, also with no biblical influence. If anything, the institution you claim as biblical in origin, was in fact borrowed from long standing and ancient cultures and traditions.

 

[Theocrat]

Answer in Genesis

That is NOT true. Ancient Greeks and Romans practice marriage. There was no Judeo-Christian influence involved. This predates any biblical institution. The ancient Chinese also practiced marriage, also with no biblical influence. If anything, the institution you claim as biblical in origin, was in fact borrowed from long standing and ancient cultures and traditions.

It's interesting that you failed to go back as far as Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, for that is where all men and women come from. In Genesis 2:24, God says, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." Notice God did not say "A man shall cleave unto his wives, and they shall be many flesh." He said the two shall become one, which, by the way, is why polygamy is sin, from a creational standpoint.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It's interesting that you failed to go back as far as Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, for that is where all men and women come from. In Genesis 2:24, God says, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." Notice God did not say "A man shall cleave unto his wives, and they shall be many flesh." He said the two shall become one, which, by the way, is why polygamy is sin, from a creational standpoint.

You forgot to do a thorough review of Genesis, Theo-

4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

(King James Bible, Genesis)

4:23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech

(King James Bible, Genesis)

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

(King James Bible, Genesis)

30:26 Give me my wives and my children, for whom I have served thee, and let me go: for thou knowest my service which I have done thee.

(King James Bible, Genesis)

32:22 And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two womenservants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok.

(King James Bible, Genesis)

(etc, etc...)

 

[Theocrat]

Start With Creation

You forgot to do a thorough review of Genesis, Theo-

4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

(King James Bible, Genesis)

4:23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech

(King James Bible, Genesis)

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

(King James Bible, Genesis)

30:26 Give me my wives and my children, for whom I have served thee, and let me go: for thou knowest my service which I have done thee.

(King James Bible, Genesis)

32:22 And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two womenservants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok.

(King James Bible, Genesis)

(etc, etc...)

However, you missed the point I made that God created one man to be married to one wife for life, as I quoted from Genesis 2:24. That is the Biblical model for marriage, and even Jesus Christ Himself confirms that when He says in Matthew 19:4-5,

And He answered and said unto them, "Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female," and said, "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh?"

Those men who took more than one wife in the Old Testament were sinning, and the Scriptures record for us the many struggles and miseries which came from those men who took more than one wife as their own. The Biblical model as always been one man and one woman for life, and that's fulfilled in a more glorious way in Christ when He took a Bride for Himself, the Church. Period.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

However, you missed the point I made that God created one man to be married to one wife for life, as I quoted from Genesis 2:24. That is the Biblical model for marriage, and even Jesus Christ Himself confirms that when He says in Matthew 19:4-5,

Those men who took more than one wife in the Old Testament were sinning, and the Scriptures record for us the many struggles and miseries which came from those men who took more than one wife as their own. The Biblical model as always been one man and one woman for life, and that's fulfilled in a more glorious way in Christ when He took a Bride for Himself, the Church. Period.

I also quoted Genesis. I thought that was your point...you weren't getting into the gospels in your previous message. Nice try at backtracking, though. You would be a good politician considering your chronic lying (especially about anarchism and libertarianism) and playing rhetorical games like you did in this thread! lolz