mar·riage

[Bob Hubbard]

Just a short background on me:
I spent 4 years in High School in BAC level bible studies.
Have read several different versions of the bible cover to cover, in depth.
Was a star student in my sunday school classes as a youth.
Spent several years hanging out with, and attending seminars, services and missions with a local church.
Also, I shared an apartment with 1 of the gents I mentioned before for 2 years.
I am not now, nor have I been a christian for some time. Why? I found a path that works for me.
I still value my christian friends, and we have some -interesting- debates.

I believe that we all have the capacity to love, if allowed, regardless of race, creed, or preference.

I also believe that we are all entitled to believe what we believe, regardless of the wrongness -OR- rightness of it.

End of sermon.
Peace.

 

[Rich Parsons]

What gets me is that people come crawling out of the woodwork calling Christians Bible Thumpers, Pimitives, Fundamentalists, and hypocrites.

Just shows the level of ignorance, hatred towards Christians which is rarely publicized, and overall downward trend in society, even on this board which is representative of the "good 'ol" martial arts practitioners/teachers.

Mike,

I apologize if I have insulted you. That was not my intent. My intent was to point out that many people use religion to hide behind, and they do not follow the religion, they follow the parts that convient for them, or fit their already established beliefs or bigotry. Yes harsh words. Yet, when people tell me I am going to hell because I do not do what they do, then I take exception. You have presented so far a very nice point of view. You have no insulted me or others as far as I know. So, once again if I have insulted you , I do Apologize. It was not my intent. I know the impact is what counts not the intent. Hence my apology and the the posts directed at the poster, not at Christianity as a whole or a sub-sect as a whole.

With Respect
:asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Mike,
Marrages based on deeply held beliefs tend to succeed more than the 'of convenience' types that occur too commonly today. Its not just the Christians, however they make up the majority so have better stats. That success rate also occurs in business...more businesses founded on a solid spiritual background succeed than those of 'less spiritual nature'. (Sorry, lost my train of thought there.)

Off topic, you ever read Og Mandino's works?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Well if we decided to leave the country for every president we didn't like, there'd be no-one left

Every 4 to 8 years we are going to have someone different. They could have their morals grounded in the different religions, but they are never going to please everyone.

The thing is, it is not just Christians and religious people against these gay marriage decisions. It violates our American family traditions and all practical thought and definitions of the family unit.

I think our elected President is concerned for the preservation of family because the chances of bringing up children properly depends on it. A whole home with a Mommy and a Daddy have a lot more in their favor when it comes time to raise children. I'm not saying there are no cases to the contrary but the divorce rate is up and the grades are going down.

Oh, marriages based out of Christianity have a higher success rate. Just wanted to plug that

Mike,

The number of Traditional Families I know are very few. Married and divorced. kids from previous marriages and no marriage just from relationships.

Also Traditional Families had multiple generations living in the same house, all working on the same piece of land. I know we ave made progress in technology and the family unit has gotten smallr do in part to standard of living increasing, and people not required to live together to get by.

Could you point to some states on the Christian Marriages? I like to read up on that and learn.
Thank You

 

[MisterMike]

I think you are right Kaith. They are not about hate. There is no hate thy neighbor verse.

I wish it wouldn't have to come to the passing of a constitutional ammendment to define marriage. States should do as they see fit. But there is also no reason the same thing couldn't be passed on marrying your sister/brother. Where do you draw the line and why is nobody is going to get hurt?

My thought is that our laws are based out of religion and now people are putting to the test whether we can uphold them that way.

I wait for the future Things may not go the way everyone wants, but to pick "teams" and rub the other side's faces in it..well...I guess that's politics.

 

[MisterMike]

Mike,

I apologize if I have insulted you. That was not my intent. My intent was to point out that many people use religion to hide behind, and they do not follow the religion, they follow the parts that convient for them, or fit their already established beliefs or bigotry. Yes harsh words. Yet, when people tell me I am going to hell because I do not do what they do, then I take exception. You have presented so far a very nice point of view. You have no insulted me or others as far as I know. So, once again if I have insulted you , I do Apologize. It was not my intent. I know the impact is what counts not the intent. Hence my apology and the the posts directed at the poster, not at Christianity as a whole or a sub-sect as a whole.

With Respect
:asian:

No, Rich you haven't. I see people saying "religious" things that I take offense too as well. I think your posts are beneficial in helping us to realize that we have to get to the root of the matter. And I think that matter is in one of my previous posts just a few minutes ago (do we disregard that our laws and morals were based on religous beliefs and how do we deal with it today). Anyways, glad to have you on here. :asian:

 

[michaeledward]

. . . It is very well written and an easy read, with lots of Scripture passages to go with the explanations in the book. Do a little reading before coming up here and tearing into Christianity before you know anything about it.

Mister Mike ... at the age of 17, I became a born-again christian, by accepting Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior. I have been a member of the Full Gospel Businessman's Associate, and an evangelical Christian music ministry. I do understand quite a bit about Christiantity.

I am now 39 years old, a recovering alcoholic (which suggests a belief in a Power Greater than the self) and an athiest.

However, what my personal beliefs are irrelevant to what I think is good for the country. This country was founded on several beliefs and principles, and we could enumerate them ad nauseum, but three of them are:

Opportunity: Each of us is entitle to the chance to work and to succeed on our own merits, regardless of birth or background.
Liberty: Each of us has the right to choose our own path in the world, as long as we do no harm to our fellow citizens; the right to believe what we want to believe, and say so; the right to worship any god, or no god; the right to feel safe in our own neighborhood or any other.
Responsibility: Each of us has the obligation to work if we can; to care for our children, and for our parents when the time comes; the obligation to obey the law, pay our bills, pay our taxes, pull our own weight.

When a person states (as ShoalinWolf has) that the school system teaching evolution is wrong, that we can not have evolved from an amoeba, that is a FUNDAMENTALIST belief; a literal translation of the bible, a dis-regard for any critical thinking.

That is exactly the type of thought process that has been ascribed to the 19 hi-jackers on September 11. That is exactly the type of thought process that has been ascribed to the 'suicide-bombers' in Israel and Baghdad.

And for the very thoughtful among us, that same fundamentalist belief that has caused the current administration to disregard science in almost every policy decision, from stem cell research, to arsenic safety levels in water, to clean air, to the decommissioning of the hubble space telescope.

Thanks - Mike

 

[michaeledward]

But there is also no reason the same thing couldn't be passed on marrying your sister/brother. Where do you draw the line and why is nobody is going to get hurt?

Actually, there was a time when it was common for people of power to take their siblings as their spouse. It consolidated power and property in the family. It was not uncommon for royalty in europe to marry within the family. I think the practice also goes back as far as the Roman empire & the Egyptian empire.

But there is a very good reason to not marry your sibling. Genetic diversity. The term is called inbreeding. At a single generation, there is relatively little chance for danger, however, in a multi-generational inbred situation, the health risks increase quickly. This basic genetic science is not difficult to understand and / or observe.

If you observe dog breeding practices in the pure-bred dog world, you can see many instances of health problems caused by inbreeding. Hip dysplasia, cateract, and cancer are common in some breeds, due to inbreeding. So, adopt a mutt.

For those who choose to see ..... Thanks - Mike

 

[MisterMike]

When a person states (as ShoalinWolf has) that the school system teaching evolution is wrong, that we can not have evolved from an amoeba, that is a FUNDAMENTALIST belief; a literal translation of the bible, a dis-regard for any critical thinking.

That is exactly the type of thought process that has been ascribed to the 19 hi-jackers on September 11. That is exactly the type of thought process that has been ascribed to the 'suicide-bombers' in Israel and Baghdad.

And for the very thoughtful among us, that same fundamentalist belief that has caused the current administration to disregard science in almost every policy decision, from stem cell research, to arsenic safety levels in water, to clean air, to the decommissioning of the hubble space telescope.

Thanks - Mike

I'm with you up to this point but I think ShaolinWolf would be better to defend his point of view than I am, after all, it's his. I can kind of see his point since the theory of evolution could have holes shot through it unitl it looked like Swiss cheese but we've been down that thread before.

The main difference I see between the "Fundamentalists" as people put it is that the Islamists are trying to KILL us. Seems the religion of peace is not all it's cracked up to be?? OR, extremists are the problem, no matter what the topic.

Case in point: Laura Ingraham had a gay caller on the air the other night who said she thought it was a bad idea for the "flaming homosexuals" to be pushing this agenda. It gives a worse image for the group who if they really just want to be equal, should just live quietly like the rest of us straight folk.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, ok 99.9999% of the time, but just because Merriam Webster wants to change it, well, maybe I should come up with MY own dictionary too.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I checked a bit... in the US, laws have been passed that prohibit inter-family relations. I only peeked, so may be a bit off on the exact limits (which may vary for different areas) but I couldn't marry my sister, but could marry my 3rd cousin.
Again, the genetic issues were cited as the reasoning, not the "ewww" factor.

Marrages between relations was used to cement alliances, seal treaties, and extend dynasties since before teh Roman times.
Many Egyptian kings were married to their sisters. (King Tut I think was one)
The English Royal Family is a modern example of the practice, to a limited extent. (cousins)

 

[OULobo]

And I want to thank "rmcrobertson" and "OULobo" for being assumptive also. Again people love putting words in the mouths of others so they look good. Also, What is your definition of a good time, Lobo? You just said good time, so that can mean alot of things. And what do you want, freedom to do whatever you want int this country. I think you both have demostrated wha it takes to ovethrow the government and make it communist...lol...

I made no assumptions, just pointed out that your comments on Catholics were basically wrong. I have many definitions of a good time and some of them are not what you would call a good time, but I am secure in my belief that God is understanding in my reasons for doing them. Now as to the statements you made:

Another issue that bothers me that a few of you brought up is this: Christianity and Catholicism is not the same thing! They believe that you can't talk to God if you have done sins and you have to go to confessional to ask for forgiveness, then, as I've seen with plenty of people I know from Catholic churches, they go out and party, be promiscuous and such, then go back and ask for forgiveness. What the heck is the dividing line between the world and a large majority of Catholics? But then again, Christians basically can do the same thing, but the difference is, a true Faithful Christian will try to turn away from the sin and drive on a straighter path. And for those of you who call Christians bigots and fundamentalists...I don't think you have a right to call us that. First off, do you seriously look into it or just say, "well, they look like religious whackos like my grandma used to be"? I mean, Christianity seriously isn't just chanting and junk and isn't just reading God's Word and just sitting around acting austere and all. Not at all. Heck, Catholic monks do that, aside from constantly reading the Bible.

As has been stated, all Catholics are christians (thought the inverse is not necessarily true) and one of the oldest forms of christianity and by far the largest. Secondly, I believe you are refering to the Roman Catholic church, which is not the only catholic church, and as such you should be a little more specific. Catholics don't believe that you "can't talk to God if you have done sins", only that you will be barred from salvation unless those sins are absolved. Not all Catholics (just like not all christians) "go out and party, be promiscuous and such, then go back and ask for forgiveness". That is a blanket statment that could be applied to many people, not just Catholics. Not all Catholic monks are "sitting around acting austere and all", many don't even live in a monestary or wear the robes of an order.

Another issue: you say they were just catholics and fundamentalists that came over from the European continent? Hmmm, then where do I fit in? I mean, some people seriously just think Catholics and Christians are the same thing. First off, I do not go to Mass and read from some manuscript over and over and over. Then, I don't believe that the Fear of God is the thing that should greatly govern my life. It's the Love of God. Not Fear. Sure there is the Fear of God, but God Love's us like a father. 'Nuff Said.

If you go to a service and read from the bible then you are really doing the same thing a Catholic does when he goes "to Mass and read from some manuscript over and over and over." There are only so many words in the bible to read, when you're done, most Christians start over somewhere. Catholics haven't based their faith on fear of God in a very long time. The belief is based on letting the grace of God and the word of God (through Jesus) govern the choices in life so that we may please God.

Also, did I say that my God is on my side under another category...and don't go putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. I said I'm a Christian. Wow, then I must worship Buddha*sarcastic* or Dagda. Now that was a profound statement. No, Christians(Me) worship Christ, hence the name Christians...and the True Catholic Church calls itself Christian, but how far? Do they accept Christ as their PERSONAL Lord and Saviour? or do they just say stuff...yeah, I thought so... And the truth about Christianity is the fact that Jesus Christ is the common denominator and that those who accept him as personal Lord and Saviour and believe that they have sinned and ask for forgiveness and acknowledge that Christ Died for them is the main part.

Umm. . .which Catholic church is the "True" one? If you are describing christianity by "Jesus Christ is the common denominator and that those who accept him as personal Lord and Saviour and believe that they have sinned and ask for forgiveness and acknowledge that Christ Died for them " then I'd say that Catholics do this all and choose to do more. To say that these things are not in the most basic laws of Catholicism show that you are indeed misinformed about that faith.

 

[MisterMike]

OK so it has been banned in some states since it has been deemed "unsafe" for genetic reasons. (I kind of wonder if that wasn't in God's plan but anyhow...)

Let's go on to sayyyyy...3 men. Can 3 men get married? How about 2 women and one man? Where did this magic number of 2 come from and WHY are we STILL using it???

Maybe we can remove every aspect of what marriage is until it is completely unrecognizeable.

:idunno:

Call me crazy...

 

[OULobo]

I checked a bit... in the US, laws have been passed that prohibit inter-family relations. I only peeked, so may be a bit off on the exact limits (which may vary for different areas) but I couldn't marry my sister, but could marry my 3rd cousin.
Again, the genetic issues were cited as the reasoning, not the "ewww" factor.

Marrages between relations was used to cement alliances, seal treaties, and extend dynasties since before teh Roman times.
Many Egyptian kings were married to their sisters. (King Tut I think was one)
The English Royal Family is a modern example of the practice, to a limited extent. (cousins)

I read recently that first cousins have been give a scientific (read genetic) okay.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I am giving myself a vacation from argument, and just proferring a few random remarks.

1. If you're discussing your faith in Christ, your church attandance, your ideas about the afterlife, your concepts of civil society, you're doing what C.S. Lewis or Emerson or de Chardin or Bunyan did. If you spout bigotry about Catholics not being Christians, if you start demanding that everybody live by your narrow little version of God, if you distort history, if you start announcing who gets to go to heaven, and if you constantly advert to the Bible to justify this sort of nonsense, you're a Bible-thumper in my book.

2. No justification of hate? Uh...anybody read the Old Testament lately?

3. Regrettably, there is a tradition of religious bigotry in the United States. Some may be comfortable, allying themselves with, say, the Puritan persecution of witches and women and Catholics and Baptists, or the ongoing, religion-based hatred of Jews all too visible in the Nation of Islam, or those wacko neo-Nazi, "Jesus was pure Aryan," types, but I am not.

4. Hey, I've got a nifty idea. Let's guarantee the rights of immature children to get married and have kids, let's enshrine the charming doctrine that women (like children) need to be shepherded by a Strong Man, let's be sure that real men have the right to get married, attend church, and behave like utter hypocrites. Let's let dads and moms sink or swim in a hostile market. Let's set things up, economically speaking, so that eeverybody has to work all the time and kinds gets zip, then turn around and blame women for everything. Just no gay marriage; that would Attack The Family.

5. Much of the attacks on gay people and whoever else come from peoplee who are angry and frustrated about what has happened to their lives, or at least their sense of their lives, and who are for ideological reasons utterly unable to confront the extent to which it is the Holy Marketplace Of Capital (which, as Marx corrrectly noted, causes, "everything that is solid to melt into air") that "caused," their problems.

6. Were there any gay people in the Texas or Alabama ANG? That why Hizzoner didn't show up for a year or so? Or was it that Vietnam turned out to be a hotbed of immorality and gay marriage, that what caused Dubya to duck out on the responsibilities now shoved on everybody else?

7. Can you say, "red herring?"

8. Read some Voltaire: "Religion was born when the first fool met the first rogue."

Normally, I try to write more rationally and politely. However, I really, really dislike open bigotry.

 

[Rich Parsons]

OK so it has been banned in some states since it has been deemed "unsafe" for genetic reasons. (I kind of wonder if that wasn't in God's plan but anyhow...)

Let's go on to sayyyyy...3 men. Can 3 men get married? How about 2 women and one man? Where did this magic number of 2 come from and WHY are we STILL using it???

Maybe we can remove every aspect of what marriage is until it is completely unrecognizeable.

:idunno:

Call me crazy...

The Mormons allow and some even expect that there will be multiple wives. They have guidelines and rules to follow, the senior wife is always treated with respect, and never displaced for a junior wife.

In the Islam faith there is an allowance for a man to have up to four wives, more if special conditions are met. This is due to the lack of men after a war, and those men left are resposnible to continue and to repopulate society. They also had harems, which were their sisters and otehr female family members to maintain until they were remarried or married off.

So faiths allow or have multiple people in a Marriage.

:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

I read recently that first cousins have been give a scientific (read genetic) okay.

Kentucky, Allows for just about anyone to get married in a family sense.

 

[OULobo]

Here comes one that'll make me a target for some, but I think that gay marriages/unions/whatever are a great way to help the population problem. They often choose not to procreate and adopt instead. That's a few birds with one stone. Happy gays with the kids they always wanted, less people having babies, more adoptions to a stable home, more children learning that gays (their parents) aren't the devil and less racism being bred into children as many of the adoptions will be cross racial. Okay, now, fire away, I'm ready. :jedi1:

 

[Touch Of Death]

The Mormons allow and some even expect that there will be multiple wives. They have guidelines and rules to follow, the senior wife is always treated with respect, and never displaced for a junior wife.

In the Islam faith there is an allowance for a man to have up to four wives, more if special conditions are met. This is due to the lack of men after a war, and those men left are resposnible to continue and to repopulate society. They also had harems, which were their sisters and otehr female family members to maintain until they were remarried or married off.

So faiths allow or have multiple people in a Marriage.

:asian:

I understand these religions are waiting in the wings to see what happens with the gay marriage thing. If its allowed they plan to challange current restrictions; however, some of these communities that exist outside current law are simply nothing more than child molestation rings. Did you know they all have to go to Canada to swap there children to prevent inbreeding and, of course, prosecution? The husbands are usualy old men who can't support there families so we all pay for it with our taxes. Oy!
Sean

 

[Rich Parsons]

I understand these religions are waiting in the wings to see what happens with the gay marriage thing. If its allowed they plan to challange current restrictions; however, some of these communities that exist outside current law are simply nothing more than child molestation rings. Did you know they all have to go to Canada to swap there children to prevent inbreeding and, of course, prosecution? The husbands are usualy old men who can't support there families so we all pay for it with our taxes. Oy!
Sean

TOD,

I thought according to the laws of the Morman faith, you could not get a second wife unless you had the money and income to support the second wife without affecting the first wife or the children of the first marriage.

I know there are exceptions, I did not know this was the norm, can you provide an article on the web or some other source for me to review and learn from.

Thank You

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Regarding that list of gays in history....

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with some lists because of potential inaccuracies. Julius Ceasar, for instance, is listed. I wasn't aware of his homosexuality or bisexuality. Hadrian, on the other hand, was clearly so (and I didn't notice him on the list)...as was Frederick the Great.


Anybody note the incongruity between the Republican party's stance on states' rights and the proposition for the amendment regarding marriage? What ever happened to "let the states decide"? Republicans have been saying for years that the government that governs the best, governs the least. I guess they throw that out the window during election years.


Regards,


Steve