Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Deeper

'Bride' and 'Groom' Deemed Unacceptable by California

Recommended Posts

If I have ever heard anything dumb in my life, I promise you. I used to REALLY want to visit Cal., but right now I really despise the state. So much homosexual support. It's really sad what this nation is coming to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have ever heard anything dumb in my life, I promise you. I used to REALLY want to visit Cal., but right now I really despise the state. So much homosexual support. It's really sad what this nation is coming to.[/b]

Oh please... it's not "homosexual support," it's "treatment of all humans as equals" support. Get over it. And it's not gonna bleed through into your vacation, either. Trust me, when you come to California, you will not be molested by a horde of flaming, stripping Chip n' Dales. We're just like any other state out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh please... it's not "homosexual support," it's "treatment of all humans as equals" support. Get over it. And it's not gonna bleed through into your vacation, either. Trust me, when you come to California, you will not be molested by a horde of flaming, stripping Chip n' Dales. We're just like any other state out there.[/b]

sweet I'm going to californa next year! it shud be awsome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this the homosexuals fault?

It's not right to blame them for this "Party A" and "Party B" thing.

It may say that in the legal documents but in reality people will still be called "Bride and Groom" wherever you go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main thing here is that in order to not offend someone, our government or state rather is impeding on our institutions which in and of itself is offensive. But they don't care. We've been founded on certain principles and established certain laws, but believe me, if we didn't have homosexual marriage, no one would be offended and we wouldn't make it party a party b. Because only a man and a woman could get married thus making them Groom and Bride. But now since a man and a man can get married, well since none of them want to be known as brides we might as well make it gender neutral.

It's not that homosexuals took this to court (or at least I don't think that happened) but it's about not wanting to offend people and in doing so they rip our institutions to shreds. See what I am saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main thing here is that in order to not offend someone, our government or state rather is impeding on our institutions which in and of itself is offensive. But they don't care. We've been founded on certain principles and established certain laws, but believe me, if we didn't have homosexual marriage, no one would be offended and we wouldn't make it party a party b. Because only a man and a woman could get married thus making them Groom and Bride. But now since a man and a man can get married, well since none of them want to be known as brides we might as well make it gender neutral.

It's not that homosexuals took this to court (or at least I don't think that happened) but it's about not wanting to offend people and in doing so they rip our institutions to shreds. See what I am saying.[/b]

To be fair, things change, homosexuals are now allowed to marry in California. As a result, two words in a legal document have been changed, because it wouldn't have made sense for them not to have been changed. I don't see how this is "ripping our institutions to shreds." It's just a very minor change. Everyone outside of that legal document is still going to refer to the male and female getting married as the groom and the bride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, things change, homosexuals are now allowed to marry in California. As a result, two words in a legal document have been changed, because it wouldn't have made sense for them not to have been changed. I don't see how this is "ripping our institutions to shreds." It's just a very minor change. Everyone outside of that legal document is still going to refer to the male and female getting married as the groom and the bride.[/b]

Well, to start maybe you could try seeing it from my perspective? The issue lies in that marriage has been defined as a man and woman being united UNDER GOD, and that was taken away, it's no longer man nor woman when it's always been that way, even since Biblical times. I still don't care if it's just a piece of paper, that's still a horrible excuse. You may not see it as an issue, but slowly Christians' rights are being taken away because people are attaining petty offenses. I should have the ability to have "Bride and groom" listed where ever I want, but I can't because it's offensive to two people of the same sex who don't want to be listed as either of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People getting all offended is childish, but forcing people to be labeled as bride and groom is also unjust (but from my understanding such was not the case here anyhow, the two who wrote bride and groom were just being obstinate). Either way, my plan is the best: let them write what they want. Even our native Catholic apologetic agrees with me = Epic Pwn. ;):lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, to start maybe you could try seeing it from my perspective? The issue lies in that marriage has been defined as a man and woman being united UNDER GOD, and that was taken away, it's no longer man nor woman when it's always been that way, even since Biblical times. I still don't care if it's just a piece of paper, that's still a horrible excuse. You may not see it as an issue, but slowly Christians' rights are being taken away because people are attaining petty offenses. I should have the ability to have "Bride and groom" listed where ever I want, but I can't because it's offensive to two people of the same sex who don't want to be listed as either of those.[/b]

I understand your perspective. But what you need to understand is that a legal marriage and a religious marriage are distinct from one another. If our Government always viewed marriage as a strictly religious institution then non-Christian folks wouldn't be allowed to marry as they would not be getting married "Under God." You also need to understand that we live in a secular nation. Please correct if i'm wrong, but you seem to think that your beliefs are being oppressed because they are no longer getting special treatment from the Government (well, in some areas). I don't think that's right, and I can't respect that perspective. "Party A" and "Part B" keeps it fair and appropriate for everyone, and considering it is in a legal document and not a religious one, that's all that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People getting all offended is childish, but forcing people to be labeled as bride and groom is also unjust (but from my understanding such was not the case here anyhow, the two who wrote bride and groom were just being obstinate). Either way, my plan is the best: let them write what they want. Even our native Catholic apologetic agrees with me = Epic Pwn.[/b]

well, I don't think forcing them to do anything is right, everyone has free choice. I think it is fair to allow people to write in what they want. However, again, we wouldn't be in this situation if we had kept to our foundations, our statutes, to our core marriage principles and institutions.

I'm getting this shirt (my friends company) it won't resize

s-marriage.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, I don't think forcing them to do anything is right, everyone has free choice. I think it is fair to allow people to write in what they want. However, again, we wouldn't be in this situation if we had kept to our foundations, our statutes, to our core marriage principles and institutions.[/b]

I agree, if only we had kept to our foundational institution of slavery also, we wouldn’t have to deal with this “equal opportunity,†and “ethnic background†junk on all the job applications, and wouldn’t have had to change the laws on who could vote [then I could get a T-Shirt that says, “I won’t apologize for the laws of votingâ€]. Oh yes… /end sarcasm

Seriously, how can you say, “I don't think forcing them to do anything is right, everyone has free choice.†but promote the idea that we should have regulations against gay marriage? XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, I don't think forcing them to do anything is right, everyone has free choice. I think it is fair to allow people to write in what they want. However, again, we wouldn't be in this situation if we had kept to our foundations, our statutes, to our core marriage principles and institutions.

I'm getting this shirt (my friends company) it won't resize[/b]

So, in other words, we should keep a group of people from getting married so we can keep two words in a legal (not religious) document...but for religious reasons? This feels a wee bit selfish to me.

To repeat my other post, we have a secular government, not a religious one. Marriage is a legal institution. It does not and, to my knowledge, has never required any sort of religious ceremony in order for two people to be considered legally married. A religious ceremony alone does not automatically make you married in the eyes of our Government. So, taking "bride" and "groom" out of legal documents is in no way hurting the institution of marriage. It's hurting your perspective on what marriage should be, but really never was in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, if only we had kept to our foundational institution of slavery also, we wouldn’t have to deal with this “equal opportunity,” and “ethnic background” junk on all the job applications, and wouldn’t have had to change the laws on who could vote [then I could get a T-Shirt that says, “I won’t apologize for the laws of voting”]. Oh yes… /end sarcasm

Seriously, how can you say, “I don't think forcing them to do anything is right, everyone has free choice.” but promote the idea that we should have regulations against gay marriage? XD[/b]

Oh cool, now here's the kicker, have you ever read what Paul taught on bondservants? I'm not for slavery, and I am not for your sarcasm either. Seriously, I can easily say what I said because marriage, according to the BIBLICAL STANDARDS OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED ON is between a man and a woman who can PHYSICALLY BECOME ONE because we were DESIGNED to.

a man and a man or woman and woman were not designed to procreate nor become one flesh nor get married. sorry. we were founded on Judeo-Christianity and that's what Christians believed, especially those who founded this country. Don't you think they would have allowed gay marriage back then if they believed it to be ok? yes. but they didn't because it's not biblical. again we were founded on Christianity and now we've left that.

To repeat my other post, we have a secular government, not a religious one. Marriage is a legal institution. It does not and, to my knowledge, has never required any sort of religious ceremony in order for two people to be considered legally married. A religious ceremony alone does not automatically make you married in the eyes of our Government. So, taking "bride" and "groom" out of legal documents is in no way hurting the institution of marriage. It's hurting your perspective on what marriage should be, but really never was in this country.[/b]

as far as the Bible is concerned, God created a man and a woman to be together and He created the bond between the two, other wise known in our terms as marriage. Obviously that definition's been thrown out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main thing here is that in order to not offend someone, our government or state rather is impeding on our institutions which in and of itself is offensive. But they don't care. We've been founded on certain principles and established certain laws, but believe me, if we didn't have homosexual marriage, no one would be offended and we wouldn't make it party a party b. Because only a man and a woman could get married thus making them Groom and Bride. But now since a man and a man can get married, well since none of them want to be known as brides we might as well make it gender neutral.

It's not that homosexuals took this to court (or at least I don't think that happened) but it's about not wanting to offend people and in doing so they rip our institutions to shreds. See what I am saying.[/b]

They're not doing it to avoid offense, they're simply doing it because it makes more sense. If they didn't they'd have to make three different forms, one for heterosexual couples, one for gay couples, and one for lesbian couples. That's a hassle, and it's expensive. Therefore, party A and party B is the best solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh cool, now here's the kicker, have you ever read what Paul taught on bondservants?[/b]

You’re not fond of my sarcasm and I’m not fond of yours; the difference is I rarely use mine. Your own medicine tastes rather bitter doesn’t it? To drive home the point, here you go again assuming my ignorance with some of that sarcasm you’re so fond of; and to that rhetorical question, I’d have to ask it in return. Luckily we need to seriously debate the matter because of my sarcasm.

“Seriously, I can easily say what I said because marriage, according to the BIBLICAL STANDARDS OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED ON is between a man and a woman who can PHYSICALLY BECOME ONE because we were DESIGNED to.â€[/b]

First off, you evaded (probably not on purpose, I’ll give you that) the real question. I wasn’t asking how you could say that America’s Biblical foundational belief system calls for marriage as one man and one woman, but rather probing your moral position on allowing them to marry anyway. On the one hand you said that it is wrong to force people to do anything, but on the other you advocate preventing people from doing things. It was rhetorical, and still is.

Secondly, there is so much more to marriage, becoming one flesh, than sex. A thorough debate on marriage should be conducted in the homosexuality debate thread.

“Don't you think they would have allowed gay marriage back then if they believed it to be ok?â€[/b]

It probably wasn’t a huge concern and might not have even been brought up. Homosexuality is a fringe element in society that probably wasn’t even discussed, [certainly wasn’t well understood] at the foundation of the country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You’re not fond of my sarcasm and I’m not fond of yours; the difference is I rarely use mine. Your own medicine tastes rather bitter doesn’t it? To drive home the point, here you go again assuming my ignorance with some of that sarcasm you’re so fond of; and to that rhetorical question, I’d have to ask it in return. Luckily we need to seriously debate the matter because of my sarcasm.[/b]

i was being totally serious :mellow:

First off, you evaded (probably not on purpose, I’ll give you that) the real question. I wasn’t asking how you could say that America’s Biblical foundational belief system calls for marriage as one man and one woman, but rather probing your moral position on allowing them to marry anyway. On the one hand you said that it is wrong to force people to do anything, but on the other you advocate preventing people from doing things. It was rhetorical, and still is.

Secondly, there is so much more to marriage, becoming one flesh, than sex. A thorough debate on marriage should be conducted in the homosexuality debate thread.[/b]

1. I was making the point that our founding fathers didn't view it as morally accepted nor morally appropriate, I am assuming they got that based upon what they read in the Bible. Now secular world views have crept in and distorted that Biblical worldview. My point? to show how marriage was never taught as two men or two women, thus, defining what marriage is, that being between a man and a woman since the foundations of this country, up until the sexual revolution which was forwarded by Kinsey, a sick sick perverted man.

2. Of course there is more to it then just sex, but God defines marriage and how He designed the marriage bed to be, that is between a man and a woman.

It probably wasn’t a huge concern and might not have even been brought up. Homosexuality is a fringe element in society that probably wasn’t even discussed, [certainly wasn’t well understood] at the foundation of the country[/b]

Of course it was well understood. They had the Bible and that's what they followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I was making the point that our founding fathers didn't view it as morally accepted nor morally appropriate, I am assuming they got that based upon what they read in the Bible. Now secular world views have crept in and distorted that Biblical worldview. My point? to show how marriage was never taught as two men or two women, thus, defining what marriage is, that being between a man and a woman since the foundations of this country, up until the sexual revolution which was forwarded by Kinsey, a sick sick perverted man.

Of course it was well understood. They had the Bible and that's what they followed.[/b]

Not all of them. In fact it is well documented that they were diverse in beliefs, affiliated with a wide array of Christian denominations (including some I’ve heard spoken of as not Christian at all, here on CTF), a few, including prominent ones were desists, some agnostic, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some closeted atheists. They tried very hard to restrain from mixing church and state, and I've never seen any documentation to prove they even considered homosexuality’s existence, let alone deemed it morally inappropriate. Don’t get me wrong, many probably would have seen it as wrong, but keeping with the foundation of freedom, democracy, and separation of Church and State, I doubt had the issue arose marriage would have been defined by religious standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not all of them. In fact it is well documented that they were diverse in beliefs, affiliated with a wide array of Christian denominations (including some I’ve heard spoken of as not Christian at all, here on CTF), a few, including prominent ones were desists, some agnostic, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some closeted atheists. They tried very hard to restrain from mixing church and state, and I've never seen any documentation to prove they even considered homosexuality’s existence, let alone deemed it morally inappropriate. Don’t get me wrong, many probably would have seen it as wrong, but keeping with the foundation of freedom, democracy, and separation of Church and State, I doubt had the issue arose marriage would have been defined by religious standards.[/b]

I don't want to be rude, but, if I may, please go study our history as a nation. I am quite annoyed, not at you, but at the general public when it comes to lack of knowledge about our states history concerning religion. They did not at all try to keep Christianity out of the state and government. That is the biggest lie that anyone has ever taught the american people. Do you know where they held church?! i mean seriously? Please watch

to get an idea of how our government never tried to keep the church separate from the state.

They aren't allowed to impose a state religion, that's the law, the law never says anything about not having Christianity in our government, but they can not force any particular religion on our countrymen, that is the epitome of why they left their roots. Read our state Preambles, they ALL OF THEM thank God. Every. single. one. I mean come on, why aren't we being taught this in schools?

Jefferson refers to God as "Creator", here: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Why would he refer to God, and why would all our state preambles thank God our Father for the constitution and among other things if they "tried very hard to restrain from mixing church and state?" the fact is, they didn't, but they would not ever impose a state wide religion.

separation of Church and State[/b]

That has got to be the biggest joke I've ever been taught in school and so many fall for it. Look, God is everywhere in our Government, well He was until the last 50 or so years. I mean, now I have to show you because the schools did a bang up job teachin all of us:

State Preambles

Government is a derived entity that sometimes gets out-of-bounds with what the people want. Below is just one example of that. Recently there has been discussion of removing all references to God from our national documents, monuments, etc… for fear that non-believers might be offended.

The info below was originally sent to me via email. I did a little research to add authenticity to the statements. It appears that every one of our 50 states makes references to God in their preamble, their bill of rights, or their state constitution.

State Year Document Text

Alabama 1901 Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.

Alaska 1956 Preamble We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.

Arizona 1911 Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…

Arkansas 1874 Preamble We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government…

California 1879 Preamble We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom…

Colorado 1876 Preamble We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe…

Connecticut 1818 Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.

Delaware 1897 Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.

Florida 1885 Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Co nstitution…

Georgia 1777 Preamble We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution…

Hawaii 1959 Preamble We , the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance … Establish this Constitution.

Idaho 1889 Preamble We, th e people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.

Illinois 1870 Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

Indiana 1851 Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.

Iowa 1857 Preamble We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.

Kansas 1859 Preamble We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891 Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties…

Louisiana 1921 Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.

Maine 1820 Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.

Maryland 1776 Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty…

Massachusetts 1780 Preamble We…the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction .

Michigan 1908 Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.

Minnesota, 1857 Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desir ing to perpetuate its blessings:

Mississippi 1890 Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to All mighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845 Preamble We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution… Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God f or the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution.

Nebraska 1875 Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.

Nevada 1864 Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution… New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individu al has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844 Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

New Mexico 1911 Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..

New York 1846 Preamble We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our f reedom, in order to secure its blessings.

North Carolina 1868 Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those…

North Dakota 1889 Preamble We , the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of ci vil and religious liberty, do ordain…

Ohio 1852 Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common…

Oklahoma 1907 Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this…

Oregon 1857 Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences

Pennsylvania 1776 Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His gu idance…

Rhode Island 1842 Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing… < B>

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota 1889 Preamble We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties .

Tennessee 1796 Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience…

Texas 1845 Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.

Utah 1896 Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.

Vermont 1777 Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjo y their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man .

Virginia 1776 Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other

Washington 1889 Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution

West Virginia 1872 Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious libert y, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God …

Wisconsin 1848 Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility…

Wyoming 1890 Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution..[/b]

"The Congress...desirous...to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely.... on His aid and direction... do earnestly recommend...a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life,...and through the Merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain His pardon and forgiveness."

Journals of Congress (1905), Vol. IV, pp. 208-209, May 17, 1776.

"Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received...[to offer] humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot [our sins] out of remembrance...and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth "in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."

Journals of...Congress (1907), Vol. IX, 1777, pp 854-855, November 1, 1777.[/b]

God was intended to be in our Government, but it is those who hate God who have tried to take Him out of our government and they are winning because Christians have been lulled into this lie of "separation of church and state." No, there, legally, can not be a state imposed religion, but there most definitely can be religion in the government and there has been since day one of this nation.

We had high standards. They followed God's word and that's why marriage has always ever been between a man and a woman. I am done as it seems that not even our education has taught us truth but has distorted and perverted the vary founding of our country and the faith we've held as a nation. We have fallen as a nation from God's grace and it's no wonder, we deny Him in our actions, we've taken Him out of our nation, and we are even trying to pervert our legal and national documents to rid them of God who used to be the center of this nation, the driving force of our land and we as Christians can't even see beyond the veil that covers our eyes from the truth. Where is our discernment, where is forbearance? Let's step it up and do our jobs as Christians and stop believing the lie that is being taught us by our schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as far as the Bible is concerned, God created a man and a woman to be together and He created the bond between the two, other wise known in our terms as marriage. Obviously that definition's been thrown out the window.[/b]

The word 'marriage' may come from the Bible, but the concept of marriage has been around long before the Bible and in many different societies. The American Government probably decided to continue the use of the word "marriage" because we do come from England and they had a state church. It probably didn't make sense for them to change the word, but they did change the definition from a religious one to a legal one.

And no one knew that homosexuality existed back when America was being founded. They had no idea that it was a legitimate sexual orientation. They were very ignorant about the topic, and continued to be until only relatively recently. That's why it was not included at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And no one knew that homosexuality existed back when America was being founded. They had no idea that it was a legitimate sexual orientation. They were very ignorant about the topic, and continued to be until only relatively recently. That's why it was not included at the time.[/b]

You know that sounds great and everything, really it does, but the fact is they read the Bible and followed it. And well, we know what the Bible says about homosexuality. NO we're not debating this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want to be rude, but, if I may, please go study our history as a nation. I am quite annoyed, not at you, but at the general public when it comes to lack of knowledge about our states history concerning religion. They did not at all try to keep Christianity out of the state and government. That is the biggest lie that anyone has ever taught the american people. Do you know where they held church?! i mean seriously? Please watch
to get an idea of how our government never tried to keep the church separate from the state.

....[/b]

I've had two college courses in American History (both of which I aced) and have researched the religious beliefs of our founding fathers, I suggest you do the same. You'll be surprised to find that some were not Christian. I'm not arguing that America wasn't founded on Christian values, [in fact I'd be one of the first to argue it was. Undoubtedly Christians were the majority], only that in this case, the case of defining marriage as based on the Christian values of our nation was irrelevant, as homosexuality was not well understood in the least. The idea that someone could be naturally, born, uncontrollably attracted to the same sex was outside their realm of understanding (and still is, unfortunately). In ages past as far as history shows, we only understood homosexuality to be the result of heterosexuals "messing about," or some kind of perverted sexual pleasure seeking. I bet, when considering marriage, they did not even think that two people of the same gender would even consider wanting to be married; in short, they probably didn't even recognize homosexuals as a class of people, who would seek such rights.

With regards to separation of Church and State, I said they tried, I didn't say they succeeded. Christians were, after all, the majority and had a great influence, but to say that all the founder fathers were Christians as we understand the faith (as you seemed to imply) and didn't fight the integration of [a] specific religion/religious policies and government, would be false. That is what I was addressing.

And well, we know what the Bible says about homosexuality. NO we're not debating this.[/b]

Clearly we all do not agree on what "the Bible says about homosexuality," lest we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. But yes, we'll save that for another time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know that sounds great and everything, really it does, but the fact is they read the Bible and followed it. And well, we know what the Bible says about homosexuality. NO we're not debating this.[/b]

You have to realize their point of view on what homosexuality is, is different from our point of view. Homosexuality only became a word recently, before that we had no English word for it. No one, Christian or otherwise, realized it was a legitimate sexual orientation at the time. And there's no doubt that religion heavily influenced society in that way, but it wasn't until studies that were conducted in the last century that began to fully realize that it is a legitimate sexual orientation regardless of what religions say. Obviously, there are certain people who still have their doubts. Keep in mind, the Bible only addresses homosexuality in a purely sexual context. It never gave the full picture. Many people thought that, at most, it was just some sexual fetish. Why would those people want to get married? I mean, really, ignorance is more to blame on this one.

But we have the knowledge now, we live in a secular nation (not one dictated by religion), so it would make sense to legalize it. If not, then let's keep all non-Christians from getting married in this country.

I don't want to be rude, but, if I may, please go study our history as a nation. I am quite annoyed, not at you, but at the general public when it comes to lack of knowledge about our states history concerning religion. They did not at all try to keep Christianity out of the state and government. That is the biggest lie that anyone has ever taught the american people. Do you know where they held church?! i mean seriously? Please watch
to get an idea of how our government never tried to keep the church separate from the state.

They aren't allowed to impose a state religion, that's the law, the law never says anything about not having Christianity in our government, but they can not force any particular religion on our countrymen, that is the epitome of why they left their roots. Read our state Preambles, they ALL OF THEM thank God. Every. single. one. I mean come on, why aren't we being taught this in schools?

Jefferson refers to God as "Creator", here: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Why would he refer to God, and why would all our state preambles thank God our Father for the constitution and among other things if they "tried very hard to restrain from mixing church and state?" the fact is, they didn't, but they would not ever impose a state wide religion.[/b]

Thosmas Jefferson, and many of the other founding fathers, were not Christian or had an alternative take of Christianity. Jefferson was a Deist. So, he believed in a higher-power, but did not believe that that higher-power was in anyway involved with the daily lives of people or wished to dictate how they lived. The original wording that Jefferson had used for the Declaration was:"All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." But Congress changed it to "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence, we are governed by the Constitution. And, in any case, the founding fathers were inspired by the teachings of the Enlightenment era.

And, some quotes...just for fun. :)

Treaty of Tripoli:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism, he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it." - to Carey, 1816

"... I am not afraid of priests. They have tried upon me all their various batteries of pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying and slandering. I have contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the Saints of the West and I have found no difference of character, but of more or less caution, in proportion to their information or ignorance on whom their interested duperies were to be played off. Their sway in New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares there to develop itself."

- letter to Horatio Spofford, 1816

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."

-letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT

"The Complete Jefferson" by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519

Benjamin Franklin:

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."

- Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

"I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did."

- letter to his father, 1738

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

Thomas Paine:

"The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.''

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. "

"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith."

James Madison:

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

- "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

-letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I'm confused as to what actually happened.. either way, sounds like two people high on their horse trying to make a point against homosexual marriage. They can take their point and..... Well, there are a lot of things they could do to it, but it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say. ;)[/b]

No, actually, it sounds like two people who had to wade through a sea of bureaucracy because the state rejected a document for referring to them as "bride" and "groom." I don't think you'd want your marriage certificate rejected over something clerical like that, were you ever to marry.

Careful, your haughtiness is showing.

See, the real problem is that all the homosexual couples in California couldn't decide who was going to be "the man" and the state decided that changing the form was cheaper than paying law enforcement to handle all of the inevitable domestic disputes.

Still, I'm sure some people are pretty excited now that the new term doesn't exclude dogs. ;)

(Or goats, Brandon and Andrew :P )

Oh, Canada..[/b]

Yeah... also known as "America if it were run by Hillary Clinton and the French."

Trust me, if you (and anyone else who seems to think fleeing to Canada is an option) are trying to find freedom from the Homosexual agenda, you're not going to find it in liberal, socialist Canada, where the men are men and the cows are scared.

Seriously, though, their views and laws on "hate speech" and homosexual marriage make California look mild by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×