Question:
What do you think about gay marriage?
victor s
2006-10-10 12:59:27 UTC
Which level of government should make the law on a controversial issue like "gay marriage"? Should it be legal?
What difference would it make which level of government decided? Whats your opinion on the issue of whether there should be "gay marriage" or "civil unions"?
34 answers:
anonymous
2006-10-10 13:01:09 UTC
Let them get married.
BuckFush
2006-10-10 13:16:14 UTC
Well, as a gay man, I would like to see the law protect choice and allow freedom for all adults who are not related and are capable of entering into a legal contract to be allowed the right of marriage.However, I also understand the religious stand that marriage, as defined by most religious beliefs, is between a man and a woman.But, and this is a big but, in order for religion to have a say in how we define marriage in the free western society, we must end the structure of freedom and religious freedom in-particular.

Now, with that said, a church does not have to marry gay and lesbian couples.They have the right to discriminate based on their own belief system.And it is this that I have no problem with.But when such a belief system is converted into a law then either the belief system has become a part of government and is a system that can be voted upon and/or taxed or it has become a system that goes against the nature of a free society of all faiths.

I am however, willing to accept civil unions.And also I have thought that if gays wanted to get married, why not call it egairram, which is marriage backward.

One more thought,

When a society feels the need to ban marriage from a group it should first be able to show that it has perfect marriage within itself.Given that divorce rates have climbed over the past 30 years to record highs I would think that this society is in no position to lecture or make laws pertaining to limitations of marriage rights.
anonymous
2006-10-10 13:18:18 UTC
I think that marriage is the problem, not gay marriage.



More than 50% of marriages end up in divorce... so what exactly is the point of marriage???



However, since marriage is not going to end anytime soon, then YES, gay marriage should be legal in the states. The only reason it's not is becuase US citizens allow their government to be controlled by a religious statute. (not to mention that they elected Bush.... again!!??!!??!!)



The only problem with civil unions in the states is that they do not give the same legal benefits of marriage, so civil unions in my opinion are a disgrace to gay couples.



Government should not decide, the people of the world should.



(on the side note: I would think that people would be all for gay marriages... since most couples complain all the time about being married... shouldn't they want us to "suffer" like they do too.. LOL )
anonymous
2006-10-10 14:23:19 UTC
All citizens of a country need to be governed by the same laws. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman deliberately excludes a section of the community from benefits bestowed on others.



In the US, the federal marriage law provides over 1000 protections, tax advantages and other benefits to a married couple the minute they are married. A gay couple will spend thousands of dollars on special power of attorney, wills, statements of intent, house registration and other measures, and will still not get those benefits.



The federal government in the US should remove any restrictions on gay marriage and recognize those that are allowed under state laws to benefit from any federal regulation. However, the states must be encouraged individually to change their laws and repeal constitutional amendments that have been passed on this issue.



It is still important under our constitution to leave the control of local marriage laws to the states.



To the God people.... NO-ONE has asked that churches be required to marry gays and lesbians. That is a religious issue and needs to be left to the churches. What is required is that our secular laws cover all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs. I know Christians believe a gay marriage is sinful; they are entitled to that view and shouldn't give a religious marriage to a gay/lesbian couple; but it is NOT the business of churches to meddle in how our secular federal government deals with the laws that affect our hindu, budhist, jewish, atheist, humanist, agnostic or any other 'ist citizens.
Phedre D
2006-10-11 08:49:03 UTC
I think it should be allowed, and here's why (read through):

1. Being gay is not "natural." Real Americans always reject unnatural things- like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, just like hangin out with tall people will make you tall.

3 Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all sorts of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets, because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Staight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, just like straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and female role model at home. That's why we, as a society, forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never accept new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life-spans.
it
2006-10-10 13:12:55 UTC
There should be federal legislation forcing states to recognize gay marriage.



If it's at the state level, other states may not honor the marriage.



A civil union is marriage but with a name change. The name change is insulting, because it implies homosexuals aren't good enough for marriage. Also, civil unions will only complicate law and corporate bureaucracy (insurance, etc).
anonymous
2006-10-10 13:04:41 UTC
Marriage rights are given by and administered by the state. Therefore religion should have no say in this matter, and all citizens should have equal rights, since this country values the separation of church and state. Supporting anything else is hypocritical for those who supposedly espouse "peace and justice."



Marriage is a perfectly good term to use for a ceremony or legal rights given by the state to all. However, I'm not that hung up on terminology. The state can call it whatever it wants - and must use the same term for everyone - when it finally grants everyone the same rights.
ddyk
2006-10-10 14:12:58 UTC
i'm for it. Both union or marriage must be possible. Marriage is not an order of god, it's a totally social happening which has been invented by mankind...So religion's got nothing to say about gay marriage..Neverthless homosexuality is not a sin at all, u don't hurt anyone, and it's the common approval of two conscient people, so is marriage..
GreenEyedLilo
2006-10-10 13:46:21 UTC
Yes, it should be legal. Everyone else gets to decide on another adult, even if their family or community disapproves. Why the hell can't we?



And I'm not just saying this because I'm married, or would be had Massachussetts' and New York's courts not invalidated the legal aspects of our marriage.
forjj
2006-10-10 13:06:06 UTC
I have no problem with gay marriage with one little exception.

I am a Christian, and I think there needs to be a provision that protects ministers from NOT performing gay marriages. I would hate to see a minister get sued by the ACLU for not performing a marriage that he doesn't believe is morally right for him to perform. gay marriage can still be done at city hall/courthouse, etc.
anonymous
2006-10-10 13:03:13 UTC
It's already legal here in Canada and the world didn't end so let them be.



Note to forjj, your statement is legitimate and in fact is the law here in Canada. Marriage for gays can be religious if the church approves or civil, in which case the J.P. cannot refuse re: agent of the state.
st.uncumber
2006-10-10 13:33:26 UTC
No government involvement. Let people do as they like when its to do with 'true lerv' i disagree with marriage at all levels. As long as people are given human rights.
redcatt63
2006-10-10 20:02:38 UTC
we're tired of being treated like second class citizens. if 2 people are consenting, unrelated adults in a committed relationship, why should they not be allowed to be married? all the so-called "reasons" against it are based on ignorant bigotry....nothing else!
DEATH
2006-10-10 13:05:58 UTC
Seperate but equal is NOT equal. Civil Unions seperate gay marriages from other marriages. I refuse any monacher that is not 100% equal.



Yes, I can give you 1,138 reasons why it should be legal and it's high time our Constitution was upheld properly and equally.
anonymous
2006-10-10 13:15:32 UTC
All forms of government should ban/outlaw this perverted scheme. And NO it should NOT be legal. No queer marriage or civil union. WHF is civil about two queers butt f**ken each other. That is perverted and condemned by God. Just read the Bible and you will see just what He said about this perversion. When God created HIS world he created a man and placed him in the garden of Eden. Then God created all sorts of animals to try to accompany man. But none of them appealed to man. Then God put the man into a deep sleep and removed a rib, and out of that rib He created a WOMAN to be mans companion.
♥D@t_bLaSiaN♥
2006-10-10 13:24:25 UTC
In my opinion i think gay marraiges are so gayyy cuz its a SIN and God didnt create us to live like that cuz he said that he created us to fill the earth and gay men or women cant do that,get it?? so its a SIN number 2.But i dont really care cuz that person is going to have to face God during the judjement day and be judged,i think i would even go to the wedding,its not like im getting married.
anonymous
2006-10-10 14:22:56 UTC
Marriage for all
Karrien Sim Peters
2006-10-10 13:03:48 UTC
let em get married. It should be legal. Government out of the bedroom!
j3572h
2006-10-10 13:02:48 UTC
I am straight and it makes no difference to me if a homosexual couple are married. I don't know why it has been made into such a big deal.
mystic_lonewolf22
2006-10-10 14:59:32 UTC
I have had just read the two books based on gay marriage, “Gay marriage” by Jonathan Rauch and “why you should give a damn about gay marriage” I have had to say these books are meant to be heard, the people needs to be heard.

Yes the politics always gets a lot of angry protesters and angry demands on many sides, both for some things, another anti on some things. It forces the balance in many things on which they may or may not come to pass according to the law. Will it be the prejudice and hate that will prevail, or will the justice and goodness be the victor?

The fanatic religious followers and leaders have been battling on with their desire to make amends of the religion request be passed into laws, but is rejected. Which I believe it should be rejected, for religion is will become a chaotic mess that’ll create imbalance and throw the world into the darkness and tragedy.

The battle between pro and anti gay marriage continues for years and still presses on. I myself am by far for gay marriage.

When I have finished reading the “Why you should give a damn about gay marriage.” I found myself thinking, why are anti gay marriage fanatics so blind with their hate and paranoia? I believe America is by the most paranoid society I have met. They have led themselves to believe the sky will fall if things change, like if gay marriage will be legalized, the world will burn. But it has been legalized in few countries, and the world is in no serious danger. In fact, not a speck of danger ever occurred with gay marriage. Things turned into an ugly mess when gay marriage was not legalized.

If you read the, “why you should give a damn about gay marriage.” You would be saying the same thing about why we should give a damn. If by anything, marriage would not only be good for the country and the growing families, it would also create strong bind in many things, and lessens the tragedy many has to go through. Without the gay marriage, it doesn’t just hurt the gay people, it also hurts heterosexual people too. Read the book to understand, I implore you.



Many people felt that if gay marriage were given the right to be legalized, and then it would open the door to polygamy, bestial, incest, and more. As Jonathan Rauch said in his book, they have potential harm that gay people don’t have. Thus homosexual marriage wouldn’t hurt anything. It doesn’t harm the marriage in any way. It’s not like gay people would walk around with bombs in their pants during gay marriage.

I bring myself to think, I love cats, a lot, but I never thought of marrying them since it sounds retarded. Animals cannot do anything that would be beneficial and they cannot do anything with the legal terms either. With polygamy, it is high potential that it would be messy and cause multiple problems. We’ve seen what incest could do, it has created birth defects and mentally retarded children. And as Jonathan said, we’re pretty sure people would just avoid incest as possible, however, some may not be willing to heed from getting into incest.



I have never thought of marriage is anything but love. It scares me to believe people would marry one another without actually loving them. Some says it’s about procreation, but there’s many that can’t produce children or some that don’t want children.

In some one reads Jonathan Rauch’s book, “Gay marriage” they would understand how silly it sounds to say marriage is procreation only.

Plus you can’t marry someone you don’t love. THAT destroys the traditional marriage, and makes a mockery in marriage rights. For example, someone marries one for money and they don’t love each other. Is this what people wants to see? Do people see domestic violence, child abandonment, child abuse, martial rape, adultery, and so much more as a traditional American family? If you reply no, then you should understand it’s folly to suggest Gay marriage possess a threat to marriage. If you think, yes, you need help, seriously.





Reasons I believe gay marriage should be legalized



1)gay people CAN love.

2)It strengthens the country and traditional family values.

3)Homosexuality can provide better and healthy home for orphans.

4)







In the American marriage constitutional rights, gives rights for the rights for men and women. There is many major arguments over whether or not to allow gay marriage. I see no problem with the idea of legalizing gay marriage.

What protection does a marriage needs against gays? Within the marriage of both women and men, there has been lots of sham marriage. There were marriage that fails, and marriage that has turned the world inside out. There have been very high divorce cases between heterosexual couples. Things have not really turned well even for the children. Too many parents abandoned their own children, disowned them for many reasons, committed murder on a family member, committed adultery, family members seems to scatter miserably.

Gay marriage is nothing different from what heterosexual marriage can provide. When it comes to two men, they want to provide same service to their country by being a family. What gay couples do is their own business as is heterosexual couples’. What gay people can do for the country is help keep the country strong as hetero couples can do. They can raise children well as heterosexual couples can. They can apply for jobs that They can keep the country going strong and well. There is a chance of less divorce rates in homosexuals. They can raise children very well and most likely be more like the American’s ideal of traditional family.

The marriages of gay couples are seen as a meltdown that brings the country to mass destruction. They, the America society, feel that allowing gay marriage to be legal in many or all of the states would bring chaos. They feel that gay couples would weaken the family value the country has built. Politics and religion needs to provide solid proof that gay marriage can be dangerous, not by their homophobia. Through the bible they believe marriage is a tradition between men and women and always has been. With that being said, the tradition of the marriage is vague because it shown no solid reason why gays should not marry.

The rights of gay marriage should be legalized not because of someone’s belief, but by solid proof that it brings no harm. A blind rage against each other’s belief and homophobia keeps things from being set right. The marriage is about love and upholding commitment to each other and the country they serve under.



I have just read the book “gay marriage” by Mr. Rauch. And from what I read, I think it should be certainly heard.

The people that are against gay marriage feels threatened by the fact it was gay people that wants marriage. Some feels that by letting gay people marry, it would open the door for those who are into incest, polygamy, bestiality, and/or underage child marriage. There is some who I think, by making fun of it, that people would want to marry inanimate objects.

We have seen what those things like polygamy and incest could do and it seems like it would hurt marriage, unlike gay people, gays are very much like just any other heterosexual couples.
amyjane307
2006-10-10 13:20:50 UTC
i think a marriage is between a man and women.. not the same sex..god made both sex for that purpose, and i dont agree on the same sex adopting a child either..
anonymous
2006-10-10 13:58:40 UTC
i'm totally for marriage.
HI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-10-10 13:04:22 UTC
honestly i think anyone should marry who they love and the goverment shouldn't have a saying in it
tristanrobin
2006-10-10 15:02:17 UTC
roflmao



Randy W: are you sure you don't have something more to say on the subject?



lol lol lol
anonymous
2006-10-10 13:47:10 UTC
I think your going against god if you do that and that's not good. (No offense to anyone who is gay it's just how i was raised.)
?
2006-10-10 13:03:22 UTC
let them get married for goodness sake, oops i forgot all the religious nut heterosexual couples will feel cheated..boo hoo.
IM THE GAY GOD ALL FEAR ME
2006-10-10 13:10:03 UTC
my teacher Ms/Mr Garrison says it's cool
opaulo30
2006-10-10 13:01:37 UTC
gay marriage should be between a man and a woman-

ar noid

/
anonymous
2006-10-10 13:04:02 UTC
im straight and its none of my business who you marry. invite me to the reception.
anonymous
2006-10-10 13:13:21 UTC
It's still bad and wrong. If you close to God, you'll see that, so I'd have to say no.
anonymous
2006-10-10 13:02:43 UTC
its all rong wrong wrong !!!! the thought of it turns my stomach

******* should be put on an island and abandoned so up yours all the queer lovers who give me a thumbs down
anonymous
2006-10-10 13:05:14 UTC
hi, its all bad and sick
?
2006-10-10 13:13:34 UTC
it's not right, it's sick
♂ Randy W. ♂
2006-10-10 13:17:33 UTC
I am against it because I do not want the state in my marriage.

I want a civil union and leave my marriage covenant between me and my g0y mate.

I didn't write the following document but it desearves a read.



Marriage: It is what it is...

(not necessarily what you think it is...)



According the the US Supreme Court, forming "PARTNERSHIPS" is a RIGHT of the Common Law, antecedent to government; & not subject to regulation thereof.



The concept of "marriage" (domestic partnerships) is as old as civilization. The current battle over the issue in the US & other countries is a result of many confusions working together to overthrow natural law in favor of some statutory attempt to work an abomination of law into the acceptance of the public psyche. The term "Marriage" is a word with several meanings ... and depending on the meaning - the execution at law will vary. So, this document will attempt to clarify the term, explain the origin of "State marriage" & put the issue into proper theological context. What you'll discover is that the commonly held beliefs about what marriage is - are mostly based on myths about the law; And that once you understand the actual legal history of the Government's posturing, - you'll see that the Devil is indeed in the details. If there is a single issue I can think of that will damn the likes of Religious Reich, -- it is on this subject of "Marriage".

According to Black's Law Dictionary:



... a "License" is a permission slip to do something that would normally be unlawful



... a "Marriage License" is a document that "allows" miscegenation (inter-racial marriages).



So, here's the question for those who may be seeing a seeming contradiction: If the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a Common Law RIGHT that cannot be regulated by government, - how is it that government issues "licenses" to do what the Supremes say can't be regulated? It's because what the government CALLS 'MARRIAGE' - is actually something quite abominable.





------------------------------...



The 'Devil got his foothold' back after the Civil War. Prior to the 14th amendment, Blacks were seen in the eyes of the law as "different" than white. Different Flesh. Sound absurd? Up into the 1960's, those favoring segregation often made identical assertions -- including several high profile politicians who were recorded saying it. Because the law-makers of so many states did not question such bigoted assertions, there came to be "laws" in place that made interracial marriages illegal -- under the premise that Blacks were not recognized w. the rights of Citizens' -- & that Blacks were not "men" in the same way as were "white-men".



Ironically, in a recent article on 'beliefnet' - called Slouching Toward Chimeras, -the writer asked the rhetorical question of "What happens to the near-human hybrid"? Of course, his queries were hypothetical in his mind. However - if you look at his questions, you'll see that they relate to legal issues already raised in the US - not over Chimeras - but about Blacks!

"Fusing a human and chimpanzee embryo–a feat researchers say is quite feasible–could produce a creature so human that questions regarding its moral and legal status would throw 4,000 years of human ethics into utter chaos.



Would such a creature enjoy human rights and protections under the law? For example, it’s possible that such a creature could cross the species barrier and mate with a human. Would society allow inter-species conjugation? Would a humanzee have to pass some kind of “humanness” test to win its freedom? Would it be forced into doing menial labor or be used to perform dangerous activities?"



Am I alone in feeling that the laws passed & battles fought over the LIE that blacks "weren't quite human" represents the epitome of evil? And it's those very lies & resulting "miscegenation laws" that define "marriage" on the state & federal level today! Anyone who applies for a government marriage license is asking permission to marry another species! That's HOW the government can "regulate" it. If people understood that marriage is a civil RIGHT - then government would lose ALL regulatory control. So, to deceive people, the state pushes something IT CALLS "MARRIAGE", which is really based on an ABOMINATION! This understanding of Law give a whole new understanding to Romans chapter 1. Many people refer to the quote I'm about to cite as a "gay-clobber passage". Oh really? Read & make up your own mind:



"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator..." - Rom 1:22-25a



People who call government - God: Cursed! The state "marriage license" is but one facet of this sin. A man who asks another mere-man for what is a RIGHT - professes by the asking - that he himself is less than a man! It is idolatry! But you reader: Make up your own mind!



Miscegenation proponents often quote from the Bible -- where God forbade intermarrying among the Israelites. What those who quote such "scriptures" fail to clarify is WHY God forbade it - as if God was concerned about "racial purity". It turns out, that it wasn't about race at all, -- but about pagan religions being introduced into Judaism's culture by the associations of married relatives. The truth is made crystal-clear in texts like: 1KI 11:1 King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh's daughter--Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, "You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods." Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.



Therefore, the "miscegenation laws" were based on these false premises:



that Blacks were not "mankind", (I can't express how this lie sickens me!)



and the teaching that God was opposed to mixed race marriages. (In violation of the establishment clause.)





I would add that the separation clause in the 1st Amendment raises a legitimate issue of Constitutionality about such Mala-Prohibita laws -- but I know of no court where such an argument was ever raised . After the Civil War, people who had a spine & decided to marry interracially moved clumsily through the political process, and "Marriage Licenses" were issued as the "solution" to those who wished to marry "outside of their race". This is "how" government got a foothold into regulating what was actually a RIGHT of the Common Law. Exceptions via "license" were made to the standing miscegenation laws at the time (an unconstitutional set of laws based on lies).

This is also where the judgment of God should become a serious issue. After all, if a person BELIEVES that marrying "interracially" is marrying "other flesh", then what you essentially have is a person's own conscience declaring that they are guilty of the sin of Sodom, -- as it is written: "Even as Sedom and `Amorah, and the cities around them, having, in the same way as these, given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire." STRANGE FLESH? The Greek term is: "σαρκὸς ἑτέρας" -- HETERO, SARKOS. Notice the term is "HETERO". Many scholars generally agree that Sodom idolized sexual relations with angels -- perhaps as a religious cult. This activity,- by the very definition in the text about Sodom's sin, - is HETERO-SEXUAL (Sex with the 'Other' - 'Strange flesh' - 'men with angels' - 'mating other kinds').".

I want to be very clear here. The text is NOT condemning interracial marriages. The text is condemning sex with HETERO SARKOS (other/different flesh). God made Adam; & the descendants of all humanity are from him. There is NO actual HETERO-SARKOS among men. Men are (1) kind of flesh ... as it is written: "But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another." - I Cor 15



Grasp this: God judges by the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb 4:12). If a person believes that an act they do is wrong; - Then for them, - it is wrong (because by doing the act, they violate their own conscience)! This is the reason that the Apostle Paul spent a great deal of time building people up and explaining to them the "WHY" ... so that men would have strong consciences that granted them liberty to act, - because their consciences were not tossed about by whimsical teachings ... like "miscegenation laws". Paul taught wonderful "heresies" like: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male & female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" - Gal 3:28 Yeah, Paul taught that RACE, CLASS, & GENDER collapsed into a singularity in Christ! However, people who don't believe that will be judged by the same measure they use to judge others! It is written: "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." - Mt 7:2



To recap:



Modern Marriage Licenses have their foundations in miscegenation laws.



Miscegenation laws consider the races to be "different flesh".



A "Marriage License" is a government permit to mate "different flesh" / "HETERO SARKOS". (Not that interracial flesh is "different", but that was the BELIEF at the time those laws were passed)...



A Sin of Sodom was the pursuit of "HETERO SARKOS"



So then, the form of "MARRIAGE" that requires a State License is defined by LAW, to be a form of union that was specifically declared to be the Sin of Sodom!



Men are judged by the measure they use to judge... so those pushing State marriage licenses while yelling "sodomite" at others - are themselves, - the 'sodomites'! How's that for divine irony?



Do you see where the "fundamentalists" like those pushing for a "Constitutional Marriage Amendment" may be in deep trouble with God? Contemplate it in the back of your mind and read on...





------------------------------...



I N S E R T :



"But the Spirit says clearly that in later times some will be turned away from the faith, giving their minds to spirits of deceit, and the teachings of demons; -- Through the false ways of men whose words are untrue, whose consciences are seared as with a heated iron; -- Who keep men from being married and from taking food which God made to be taken with praise by those who have faith and true knowledge. Because everything which God has made is good, and nothing is evil, if it is taken with praise: For it is made holy by the word of God and by prayer." - Apostle Paul





------------------------------...



In his 1st letter to Timothy, Paul points out the habits of end-time false religion. Huh ... would you look at that: "Who keep men from being married" The word for "married" in the Greek is "Gam-'e-oh" & it means EITHER GENDER! The 2nd part I've highlighted has (2) scriptural connotations: First, it symbolizes communion (food taken with praise that has been made sanctified). Second, it relates to men who have strong faith vs. those of weak -- because Paul hit on the exact issue in Romans 14. Churches that don't allow men to marry or take communion (eat certain foods); -- Do we have a 'match' in the modern? If your 'church' matches the pattern -- then it's doctrines are demonic (say "evil"). It's time to come out from among them -- don't you think?







------------------------------...



I know what some of you are thinking: "State Marriage Licenses ... The Sin of Sodom!?", -- surely that's a stretch! In light of the New Covenant of the Gospel, -- it is a fascinating dynamic! Do you need another "witness" to the accuracy of this assessment? I will give another.



It is written: "`And a man who gives his lying with a beast is certainly put to death, and the beast ye do slay. `And a woman who draws near unto any beast to lie with it--thou hast even slain the woman and the beast; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them." - LEV 20:15-16



Of course, this is the Law of Moses forbidding intimacy with "other flesh". However, Paul wrote that the Law is SPIRITUAL, meaning that there is a metaphysical explanation for this law that transcends the direct implications of the text. Want a hint as to the "bigger meaning"? OK. It is written: "I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. I approached one of those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this. "So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: `The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth." - DA 7:15-17



Do you recall above where I quoted Paul as he spoke of "different kinds of flesh". Well, I've shown you in Daniel where "Beasts are Kingdoms". According to Paul, they too are "flesh", as it is written: "And there are bodies of heaven and bodies of earth, but the glory of the one is different from that of the other.".



So then ... who are the PARTIES to the STATE MARRIAGE LICENSE?

Answer:



You,



your Spouse,



and the STATE!



According to the Scripture in Daniel, governments are BEASTS.

According to Moses, people who intimately couple with BEASTS are to be put to death & the BEAST is to be slain!

The sin of HETERO SARKOS: is the mating of the intimate life affairs of man (made in the image of God) with that of a government (a proverbial "Beast" ridden by men)! Did you ever wonder what legal basis the state has to rule in a divorce or determine child custody? It's the "Marriage license" that gives the STATE a legal interest Without that, a common-law court, not "family court" is the only legal recourse.

Would you have sex with a snake between you & your "spouse"? Then why would you sheath your genitals in a "license" issued by a "servant government" - to obey its terms regarding the upbringing of your household?





Will the "Real MARRIAGE" please stand up?



Technically, "REAL Marriage" is a Common Law, Domestic Partnership. That's all it is. Trying to make it something more is a violation of the US Constitution (& common sense). The US Constitution forbids "Titles of Nobility". This means that a person/s may not be elevated in status above any Citizen by title, and that human rights are guaranteed equally to all. Part of the problem with current "State Marriage" is that a body of laws have sprung up around it to grant certain privileges to a class of people who possess the State License of Marriage. This is merely a "Title of Nobility" being bestowed upon a partnership. It may be an established practice, but it does not make it any less unconstitutional. To a Christian like myself, I see this as nothing more than a proverbial "Bowl of pottage" to coerce the unknowing into giving up their birthright for a "bowl of soup" in the now (which is about all you can afford with Social Security spousal survivor benefits).



Ironically then: The "REAL" marriages being conducted today are like those done by the MCC -- where vows are exchanged publicly WITHOUT the STATE license! Before God, these are holy! The Common Law recognizes them as the domestic partnerships they are!

However, those "Marriages" that are sealed with the STATE "License", are Scripturally: ABOMINATIONS -- the very Sin of Sodom! And yet, the "Religious Reich" wants to clutch State "Marriage" with both hands -- as if they have something desirable they don't want to share! They love a curse; & by feigning to "deny" it to others -- the principle of coveting takes hold!

Don't be deceived! What the Religious Reich claims as "sacred exclusivity", is Satan's-counterfeit for what g0ys have had all along via civil-unions!



The prophet Isaiah said: "Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isa 5:20 Indeed!



Marriage Amendment for the U.S. Constitution?

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

-- Patrick Henry





So, I suggest that we let George W. & Jerry F. have their phony "Amendment"! Let them horde this wickedness to their "HETERO-SEXUAL"-constituents! Let those who indiscriminately call us "Sodomites" (simply because we are men who love men), - clench tightly in their grasp upon their deathbeds a legal document, signed, notarized, & bearing legal-witness to the fact that THEY are the "SODOMITES"! Let them stand before God at the end of days - awestruck - as men damned by the very measure they mercilessly judged others with; -- & let that measure declare with proper seals, signatures & salutations: - that they were the very thing they claimed to have detested in their "holy hypocrisy"!

Let Hayman build his gallows!



You may ask, "Who will be judged?". The answer was already given: Those who judge others in light of the license! You see, there are many people who could care less about the government's "marriage permission slip", -- and many of these people live with another person without the document (as did almost everyone prior to the 20th century). Very often, the Religious Reich accuses such people of "shacking up" & "living in sin" - "FORNICATORS". While that "might" be the case; -- I think the bigger question is: "Who are you to judge the relationship of another?".

I.E: I had an uncle who had a "live in housekeeper". They lived together until he died. The family (a bunch of 'pagans' by the standards of Pat Robertson), did not raise an issue as to the estate. As far as they were concerned, my uncle & his housekeeper had been "married" -- even without the permission slip. An oddity today, -- a century ago, this perspective was the norm! Had the family had the name "Falwell", - can you imagine the fight in probate court over the estate of this Common-Law widow! Jesus said of the legalists of his day: "As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." - MK 12:38-40 Jesus was exposing the deeds of the wealthy religious teachers of his day. The term "lengthy prayers" is a legal expression meaning they spend lots of time in court. This is precisely the means they use to devour widows houses through probate.



"But unknowing members of my family & friends have marriage licenses! What of them?", you may ask. Same answer. Do they judge other's right-standing based on the paper? Do they judge their "righteousness" by it? Would they deny any of the "benefits they perceive" the documents grants, -- to another who does not have the document? By the measure they judge will they be judged! This is the beauty of the Covenant of Grace: "(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)" - Romans 2





------------------------------...

"TELL ME MORE!"



Nothing damns a man much better than his own testimony. It would be a shame to miss the Kingdom of God by 6 inches. Let me point you to a brilliant website that has some fantastic insight -- written by someone whom I believe misses the Kingdom by about 6". This site is penned by a well-intentioned & brilliant FUNDAMENTALIST. I include the link for several reasons, & because I am not co-dependant on you hearing another "opinion" -- especially from a site who speaks prejudices against same-sex unions so blatantly. Read what this anti-gay researcher writes about "marriage". And then, as you read, keep in the back of your mind that his opinions about same-sex relationships are formed by his inability to let go of the gender-issue (Gal 3:28) & distill the real issues down to their basis. What you'll conclude is likely what I've written here; -- & you'll see by this man's own words that those persons "fighting to protect civil marriage", are indeed -- fighting to protect the sin of Sodom! Ironic, but a testimony to the deadliness of hate.



http://famguardian.org/index.htm......

Some Brilliant Stuff Here



http://famguardian.org/subjects/familyla...



One final note: The site above has some essay's on "homo-sexuality". The use of the term to label people with is evidence that the writers do not understand the very Scriptures they purport to explain; -- But in addition to that, you'll notice that much of what is "described" is stereotype of the BPT (& as G0YS.ORG points out: The BPT does indeed have a problem with abusing people in the name of 'pleasure').





------------------------------...



BTW: David & Jonathan in the Bible, were indeed "Civilly Union'd'"


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...