Wil you (all my Gazzfriends) marry me?

TorontoSun.com

Okay, help me here. There has been an angry, even hysterical reaction to the revelation that there are a number of polygamous families in Canada where Muslim men are married to up to four wives. Immigration law is fluid on the issue, with some experts arguing that immigrants already in such relationships may continue them in Canada.

Columnists and editorialists ran amok the past few weeks in condemning this alien arrangement and letters to newspapers screamed that the world was about to end if such immorality was allowed to continue.

But hold on just one little Canadian moment. Not so very long ago those of us who believed that marriage was the union of one man and one woman argued that to redefine the institution to include people of the same gender would inevitably lead to polygamy.

Wil you (all my Gazzfriends) marry me? This marriage would be purely PLATONIC--i.e. NON-PHYSCIAL; however, consider how practical it would be! Who has the best health and retirement benefits on the board? OC, Ziggy, Stephanie...??We'll make you the Alpha-partner.

Stephanie hasn't worked since August of 2000! I'll be dead weight. However, I am one of only 2 female members and I am the only member who posts regularly.

Of course, if I do this, I don't have to clean up after all of you, do I? I'm sick of picking up dirty socks, coffee mugs, etc, after the hubby I already have.

Keli,

I love you, but I am not "in love" with you.

SheikBen wrote:Keli,

I love you, but I am not "in love" with you.

Okay...I'll put you down as undecided.

Hi Keli,

Like you, I believe that God has ordained marriage as between one man and one woman, for life. I also agree that polygamy is the expected result of the redefinition of marriage.

I also think, though, that the prevalence of divorce within the Christian church is the place in which we need to fight the culture wars, rather than worry about Muslims in Canada or non-Christians in the United States. We are to be an example for the world and when it comes to Biblical marriage, I fear the Church is failing and that is a real crisis.

Like you, I believe that God has ordained marriage as between one man and one woman, for life. I also agree that polygamy is the expected result of the redefinition of marriage.

Your god has. What about the Mormon god or the Hindu gods or the Muslim gods? I think those gods may have ordained differently.

No kind of marriage between adults should be illegal. Anything else is religious discrimination.

TerryRC wrote:

(Mike) Like you, I believe that God has ordained marriage as between one man and one woman, for life. I also agree that polygamy is the expected result of the redefinition of marriage.

Your god has. What about the Mormon god or the Hindu gods or the Muslim gods? I think those gods may have ordained differently.

No kind of marriage between adults should be illegal. Anything else is religious discrimination.

Well now, to cite a quick Wikipedia reference, to wit:

Separation of church and state is the political and legal idea that government and religion should be separate, and not interfere in each other's affairs. [1]

In the United States separation of church and state is often identified with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

It is my learned opinion that the "root of the problem" is that the Federal and/or State Governments are in violation of the First Amendment because they either recognize, honor and/or require a "Religion/Religious based document" (Marriage License) as a legal contract for a partnership between consenting males and females.

Now I do not see how anyone can deny the FACT that a State issued Marriage License that limits the licensees to one (1) male and one (1) female is not a Christian Religion based Law in that the Muslim Religion mandates no such thing. To wit:

There has been an angry, even hysterical reaction to the revelation that there are a number of polygamous families in Canada where Muslim men are married to up to four wives.

Therefore said “one (1) male and one (1) female” thingy is “Christian Religion specific”.

And added proof of said is, ....... the Federal mandate that Mormons "cease and desist with polygamous Marriages" if the Territory of Utah was to be given Statehood.

Thus, said mandate was in effect ....... "prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" the Mormon Religion.


cheers

No kind of marriage between adults should be illegal. Anything else is religious discrimination.

What if a majority of the voters limit marriage to one man and one woman?

ohio county wrote:

No kind of marriage between adults should be illegal. Anything else is religious discrimination.

What if a majority of the voters limit marriage to one man and one woman?

Why should the majority of voters have control over how other people live?

What if suddenly, do the the hysteria over global warming etc, the majority of voters suddenly decided to limit the number of children a couple could have to 2?

That's a legitimate question, Stephanie. But would you limit the right of the citizenry to vote on any question?

http://www.voteyesmarriage.com/wst_page7.html

What if a majority of the voters limit marriage to one man and one woman?

I would limit the citizenry from voting on it. The bill of rights is VERY CLEAR on the subject. Should the people be able to vote on having Protestantism as the official US religion? Of course not. Regardless of the "will of the people" (what I call, like Madison, the "tyranny of the majority"), certain rights are not to be infringed upon and certain powers are not to be taken by the government.

To some, marriage is a religious sacrament. The government has no right to prevent the "free exercise there of" as long as no one else's rights are infringed upon.

ohio county wrote:That's a legitimate question, Stephanie. But would you limit the right of the citizenry to vote on any question?

http://www.voteyesmarriage.com/wst_page7.html

I don't think the way I live should be determined by a majority vote. It is my life and mine to live and so long as I'm willing to accept the consequences, I don't think the government, or my neighbors, or the voters of this state or country should be able to tell me how to live it, provided I'm not hurting others.

They shouldn't be able to tell me who I can and can't live with, or who I can and can't love. They shouldn't be able to tell me how to raise my children, or how to educate them. Whatever happened to "the land of the free"?

I also don't think the government, or a majority of the voting public, should be able to compel an organized religion to perform marriages that they don't agree with. I don't think florists and photographers and printers should be forced to service weddings they don't agree with either.

I don't want anybody intruding on my life, and I have no desire to intrude on theirs. The only people I feel in any way accountable to are my husband, my children, and to a lesser degree my parents, my granddaughter, my grandmother and my brothers. They are also the only people I feel are in any way accountable to me.

TerryRC wrote:Like you, I believe that God has ordained marriage as between one man and one woman, for life. I also agree that polygamy is the expected result of the redefinition of marriage.

Your god has. What about the Mormon god or the Hindu gods or the Muslim gods? I think those gods may have ordained differently.

No kind of marriage between adults should be illegal. Anything else is religious discrimination.

TerryRC,

Did you read my entire post? You are surely aware that I do not think there should be a "legal" status to anyone's marriage.

I challenge my church to challenge my brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ to sacrificially show the culture the value of covenant marriage.

ohio county wrote:

No kind of marriage between adults should be illegal. Anything else is religious discrimination.

What if a majority of the voters limit marriage to one man and one woman?

Good question, OC. What if a majority of people want prayer returned to the public schools?

What if a "majority of the people" want Catholicism as the preferred religion- and the practice of other religions disallowed?

ziggy wrote:What if a "majority of the people" want Catholicism as the preferred religion- and the practice of other religions disallowed?

Ziggy,
Does this mean no to my proposal? (I hope so.)

Ziggy,

I would say that it depends on the size of the covered area, the degree of majority for the Catholics, and the ease of egress to non-Catholics. I am also assuming that, like anywhere in the US, while the Catholic religion would be presented in public forum, the alternatives would not actually be banned as you suggest.

Until quite recently I lived a mile and a half from an overwhelmingly Muslim part of Chicago, and banners on city lightposts wished me a happy Eid. I didn't mind in the least, as such was the prevailing religious attitude of the area (although my church supported a Christian mission in the area and I am glad that we did).

When it comes to matters of marriage, I am leary of allowing the state to practice moral policing, not because I don't believe in the moral itself (I do very strongly) but rather because I do not trust the state with such affairs, and suppose their time is better spent attending to other things. I am not nearly as concerned about two gay men "getting married" in a courthouse as I am two professing Christians getting divorced.

Did you read my entire post? You are surely aware that I do not think there should be a "legal" status to anyone's marriage.

I did, Sheik and I was aware of your stance.

I was merely pointing out that far too many of your brothers and sisters feel that what the majority wants, the majority should get.

Sorry to imply that you are among the ranks of those particular people.

-removed double post-

Good question, OC. What if a majority of people want prayer returned to the public schools?

Surely you know that prayer was never taken from the public schools.

You can pray any time you like in school, as long as you do in in a non-disruptive manor and do not ask for the school's seal of approval.

Why must people like you distort the truth? Also, Keli, why do you need two incarnations on this board when one suffices for most of us?

Is it because your posts so frequently lack respondents that you needed to divide yourself?

What if a majority of the voters limit marriage to one man and one woman?

Why should the majority of voters have control over how other people live?

What if suddenly, do the hysteria over global warming etc, the majority of voters suddenly decided to limit the number of children a couple could have to 2?

What if a majority of people want prayer returned to the public schools?

What if a "majority of the people" want Catholicism as the preferred religion- and the practice of other religions disallowed?

What if, …….. what if, ………….. what nonsense.

Maybe I had better ask “What for”, ……… what for would you want your “what if”?

What for is the “real motives” behind someone wanting them implemented as Law?

Can it really be anything other than one’s delusional thoughts that they think they know what is the best choice for other peoples’ life style?

Anything other than the "fame and/or money thingy", that is.

The only damn thing in the world a "signed Marriage License" is any good for ....... is to better insure monetary and/or in-kind benefits ............. and to better insure one's share of "equal property distribution" in the advent of divorce or death.

Cheers

And ps: the religious whackos and/or their religious affiliated Church groups who keep clamoring for "one man, one woman marriages" ……. do not provide any monetary and/or in-kind benefits specifically for said “married couples”, ……. therefore their “married status” means nothing in respect to the other members of the group.

But on the contrary, their “married status” means one hell of a lot to the Church itself and its Leaders because it is them who expect said “married couples” to provide all the money and in-kind services for their benefit.

Without said "one man, one woman marriages" ..... the Christian Churches and their Leaders FEAR that they will be unable to survive and their "good times" will be gone forever.

Keli wrote:

ziggy wrote:What if a "majority of the people" want Catholicism as the preferred religion- and the practice of other religions disallowed?

Ziggy,
Does this mean no to my proposal? (I hope so.)

Last night I thought it was a serious proposal- that you would still respect me in the morning. And so I allowed you my virtue. Now you're teling me you weren't serious- that you hope I am saying 'no" to it? Why does this keep happening to me over and over again?

Ziggy,

It must be a West Virginia thing. It only happens to me once or twice a month. I must be getting old or something.

Sam,

You are quite correct that the Christian family is the hallmark of the Christian church, and that the latter will suffer if the family suffers. I wholeheartedly concur that the Christian church needs healthy Christian families, and I should say that the promotion of healthy Christian families should be in the church's top 3 of "things to do."

Where I disagree with Keli is that I believe that the Christian church should be fighting for the Christian family within the Church, and it is precisely there where we are losing. The divorce rate among Christians is absolutely comparable with that of non-Christians. I truly believe, as does most any evangelical, that God's desire is for marriage to be between one man and one woman, for life. Yet the Church has already grown tolerant of "no fault" divorces within her ranks. My past church actually expelled someone who filed for divorce against his wife (no abuse, no adultery) because he wanted to be free. I'm glad the Church did, there are a great many other places that will have him. I think such actions have far more power than political activity meant to influence how non-Christians behave.

To put it another way, until the Christian church is willing to police her own ranks, we have no business judging those outside. A solid, faithful, and unapologetic Bible-believing Christian generation would do more for the Kingdom, I dare say, than any change in the laws of man.

SheikBen wrote:Sam,

You are quite correct that the Christian family is the hallmark of the Christian church, and that the latter will suffer if the family suffers. I wholeheartedly concur that the Christian church needs healthy Christian families, and I should say that the promotion of healthy Christian families should be in the church's top 3 of "things to do."

To put it another way, until the Christian church is willing to police her own ranks, we have no business judging those outside. A solid, faithful, and unapologetic Bible-believing Christian generation would do more for the Kingdom, I dare say, than any change in the laws of man.

Mike, you are absolutely right on that point but I fear they have let it go too far and the Churches and their congregations are so corrupt that it might be impossible to ever reform them back to living the virtues of the Christian principles.

And this just didn’t happen over-night, it has been in the making for the past 88 years when it took a “great leap forward” as a result of the enacting of Prohibition in 1920. Prohibition was a double-edge sword, it not only ushered in the greatest wave of organized crime in this nation but it forced many righteous living people to lay aside their somber way of living and engage in illegal activities just so them and/or their families could survive. It also forced many good, honest, Christian believing persons who enjoyed a “sip of whiskey” to become lawbreakers when purchasing said. Also, it taught the younger generation that it was a “fun thing” to do to go out “drinking n’ dancing” at the illegal “speakeasies” which resulted in the degradation of their Christian morals.

And this problem has exacerbated ever since from what once was plain and simple Churches with Ministers and Preachers dedicated to instructing their congregations on the principles and virtues of Christianity ………… to the now “hole-in-the-wall”, fancy and mega Churches with the majority of the Ministers and Preachers dedicated to “fleecing their flock” out of their money and valuables. And because this is now their “primary dedication”, said Ministers and Preachers have to “cut a lot of slack” for the evil deeds done by their parishioners and thus they can’t be criticizing, berating or banning them from Church activities.

Mike, the only hope of survival of the Christian Church in getting it back on the “right track” is to begin a slow 180 degree “about face” …….. and rid their ranks of “the money changers” and recapture the minds of the youth by teaching them good virtues and morals of family and married life. And any attempts on their part to initiate new or change current “prohibitions” on the general public will not aid their “cause”, but on the contrary will do them harm as it did in 1920.

Mike, now days one has to give the youth some reason other than “fear” to induce them into attending a Church of their choice. And candy and games is no longer an effective “con”.

cheers