Marriage will be used to destroy you.

[Guest]

Thanks for the clarification. I honestly don't see that happening, just for the mere fact that those who do such deeds are subject to the same standards. Meaning that they would be too fearful of that happening to them, so they would want to be protected by the law. I think man's selfishness would prevent that from happening.

Also, we do have a sort of marriage contract called the "marriage certificate". I think all we need to do is outlaw the "common law" marriages, which someone already stated is in the process of being accomplished.

[Guest]

" Is this a concern of protecting our stuff and $$?
Jesus said to let them have what they ask for and perhaps even more."

So, you propose to turn over your son in a custody battle to the former college room mate of your wife, who is a Lesbian , who is claiming that she is married to your wife by virtue of their past association?

" "Is this a call to mobilize politically?
Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world."

Yes, it is a call to mobilize politically. Though His Kingdom is not of this world, there are several discussions of legal matters in the New Testament. We are for instance not supposed to take one another to secular courts, but we can, as Paul did in several such venues, defend ourselves there. I seek to get Christians to define what it is they think marriage is, and gain an allowance or "dispensation" from secular society to practice marriage in that way and only that way. The downside of this is the political trade off will be to open the door for others to define marriage they way they want to define it, from a legal standpoint. A scenario. You believe in heterosexual lifelong monogamy, you believe that contract can only be sundered by adultery during that marriage. You write a contract/prenup to that effect and enter into it with your prospective spouse. You publish a legal notice essentially saying, "speak now, or forever hold your peace", a sort of "title search" is initiated and the partners are bonded as eligible, your marriage is defined as simply open to you two only that have written the contract, suits to gain access the marriage, it's children or it's property are enjoined. You marry. You are thus protected. I seek to have the government RECOGNIZE that such arrangements can be made and be legally binding.

" Is this an advocacy of government sponsored marriage licenses?
Jesus affirmed that marriage is God's institution and the government and it's marriage licenses seem pretty useless in upholding the sanctity of marriage."

I fully agree. We opened pandora's box though when we submitted to the notion that Government in any way shape or form had anything to do with marriage.

"Also, we do have a sort of marriage contract called the 'marriage certificate'. I think all we need to do is outlaw the 'common law' marriages, which someone already stated is in the process of being accomplished."

Actually, until recently, all marriages were "common law". The marriage certificate at present is a contract to which new provisions are constantly added, and existing provisions taken away from depending on what suits the current political whim.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Actually, until recently, all marriages were "common law". The marriage certificate at present is a contract to which new provisions are constantly added, and existing provisions taken away from depending on what suits the current political whim.

The question is then, should we forcefully change that? I see no harm in trying to convice others to do what is right, but shouldn't we always keep in mind that we are not of this world? Should we spend time trying to force the world to be something that it never will be? I don't mind voting for the right causes and standing up for righteousnous, but I would be foolish to think this world is going to change for the cause of Christ since it stands under a curse. I think the best we can hope for is to convince others to the cause of Christ through our obedience and hopefully those individuals will be the future law makers.

[Guest]

"I see no harm in trying to convice others to do what is right, but shouldn't we always keep in mind that we are not of this world? Should we spend time trying to force the world to be something that it never will be?"

I'm not proposing to force the world to be something it is not. I am in fact proposing something that will probably facilitate "Gay marriage" in a legal context. They could devise such agreements themselves and our country, egalitarean as it is, would insist that they be provided the same opportunities that we are.

All I seek to do is provide a legal umbrella under which those of us who wish to define marriage in a traditional heterosexual monogamous context, could do so. That would also allow some to define marriage (legally) in other ways. I for instance am an advocate of Polygyny as well as Monogamy.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

In my personal opinion I don't think we should facilitate sin at all. I think we should promote righteousness and let our righteous acts condemn the world. We shouldn't be in the business of compromising our standards, so that we can ultimately protect ourself. God is our defender and not some man-made law which will always be subject to change no matter what we do.

[Guest]

"In my personal opinion I don't think we should facilitate sin at all. I think we should promote righteousness and let our righteous acts condemn the world. We shouldn't be in the business of compromising our standards, so that we can ultimately protect ourself. God is our defender and not some man-made law which will always be subject to change no matter what we do."

First of all, I don't control nor do I care what the unrighteous do. It is our goal to present Christ to them and have them be saved, then righteous behavior results. I have no hope that the world will be righteous because I point out to them how "nice" it is to be righteous. Furthermore I wouldn't think gays who claim to be married are in fact married at all. Government will simply view them as being married. That's a big "so what" issue to me.

As for their practices now they are doing what they do anyway. Having a legal blanket over them that makes them think they are engaging in marriage won't change what they are doing. I am of the school of thought that says marriage is defined by God and if there is no official state blessing or recognition of the marriage that exists in God's eyes, it still exists. Up until recently I advocated that we simply NOT obtain marriage licenses and we conduct ourselves in marriage as God would have us behave.

The problem is that marriage is being defined (again, defined legally, not actually) as an increasingly broad number of relationships. Courts ARE taking an activist position and as I showed, in Canada, they have already declared Polygamous relationships to exist for the sole purpose of dividing up property and assigning custody. This represents a great danger.

Let me ask you these things. Do you propose that Gays cannot own property together? Do you propose that they cannot LIVE together? Do you propose that they may not sue one another for division of jointly owed or contested property? Isn't this what a divorce is? Do you propose that it be illegal for companies to offer "companion" insurance provisions with their health plans so that Gays can offer coverage to their "life partners"? Think carefully before you answer. Why is it that a Health Insurance company CAN'T extend benefits to my room mate? Why is it that I can't own a car with another man (even if I am NOT gay). Are you saying men don't sue one another over joint property in business dealings? Aren't all these the elements of a divorce proceeding in a civil court as well? We have little hope of preventing any of these activities which already mirror marriage in many ways. I'm not proposing that we sanction ANYTHING. I'm just telling you that if you want to protect what is righteous and you want to protect the righteous, the legislation will probably protect the unrighteous as well, just as many of our laws already do.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Let me ask you these things. Do you propose that Gays cannot own property together? Do you propose that they cannot LIVE together? Do you propose that they may not sue one another for division of jointly owed or contested property? Isn't this what a divorce is? Do you propose that it be illegal for companies to offer "companion" insurance provisions with their health plans so that Gays can offer coverage to their "life partners"? Think carefully before you answer. Why is it that a Health Insurance company CAN'T extend benefits to my room mate? Why is it that I can't own a car with another man (even if I am NOT gay). Are you saying men don't sue one another over joint property in business dealings? Aren't all these the elements of a divorce proceeding in a civil court as well? We have little hope of preventing any of these activities which already mirror marriage in many ways. I'm not proposing that we sanction ANYTHING. I'm just telling you that if you want to protect what is righteous and you want to protect the righteous, the legislation will probably protect the unrighteous as well, just as many of our laws already do.

There is a difference between what the government sanctions and what the government allows. If two men want to live together (Gay or Not Gay) that is their business. They have to answer to God if they are living in sin. If you want government to say we sanction gay marriage and protect their rights to have benefits than I disagree because I feel our government shouldn't support things that are against scripture. However, I am completely aware that since we have a secular government, that is a part of this world, that may occur. Doesn't mean I support it.

I just feel that God wants us to do what is right and support the causes of righteousness and not figure out ways to compromise our moral laws with immoral ones just so we can protect the moral ones. I don't believe that God would want us to okay government sanctioned gay marriage just so we can protect ourselves from lawsuits. I think God wants us to do what is right and allow him to take care of the rest.

So, to comment on your above statement:

I'm just telling you that if you want to protect what is righteous and you want to protect the righteous, the legislation will probably protect the unrighteous as well, just as many of our laws already do.

I don't think protecting the cause of righteousness means purposely protecting the cause of the unrighteous. If they get protected as a by-product of a righteous law than so be it.

Now to answer the part of your question about healthcare insurance. The reason I am completely against it is for several reasons:

1) It goes against God's moral law.
2) Practically speaking it doesn't benefit society as a whole. Government should only support marriage between a man and woman for the benefit of offspring. We supply a future work force, whereas a homosexual couple cannot.
3) Forcing healthcare insurance companies to provide insurance benefits to homosexual couples increases the rates for all of us because insurance companies are not going to take a hit in profit just to support some cause.
4) Wether or not the homosexual community wants to accept this fact or not, homosexuals have a higher rate of sexual related illnesses than a heterosexual couple. This again increases rates for everyone.


Also, I don't find comparing a business relationship to a marriage relationship a valid comparison. Business partners aren't living together, children aren't involved, there is no involvement of extended family, and the relationship in a business is usually completely ended at breakup, whereas a marital divorce can last forever.

[Guest]

Hi Hugh,

To my mind, this is just one of a myriad of "what ifs" that we could worry about in our present culture.

I hear people warn me that if our current administration keeps going the way it's going, my sons could eventually be drafted to war (they are 2 and 5 years old). I hear people warn me that if we don't act now, our public school system will soon be taken over by the liberals and our kids will be indoctrinated with an anti-Christian world view (will be?).

But what does Jesus say?

Matt 6:34
34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
NKJV

If we believe and trust in a sovereign God, than why should I worry about something that isn't even a present reality?

If God chooses to judge this nation in the manner you describe, than who are we to stop it? We'll only be fighting against God.

It just seems to me that our business is not to be about protecting our "rights" as Christian/Americans (because as slaves, we have none), but rather we are to be about serving our King as "salt and light", and ambassadors of Christ's kingdom to a dying world.

God is sovereign and will do with this nation whatever He wants to despite the plans devised by mere men.

I'm reminded of Psalm 2:

Ps 2:1-6
Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3 "Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us."

4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The LORD shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 "Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion."
NKJV

Notice that the Lord "laughs" at those who purpose to break free from His judgments and He sets His King up on the holy hill?

We have nothing to fear IMO.

[Guest]

"Well if someone wants to destroy me through marriage then so be it. They can take it all as far as I am concerned. Its not like I am going to need anything in Heaven."

Thanks for a window into your soul. You seem to be saying that nothing we do here is of any importance or consequence.

Hugh McBryde

Well talk about a total miss representation of what I meant. I will make it even more clear for you since it is quite obviouse you are totally concerned about worldly things. Someone can take all my possessions aka material things and my life as it has no value in the end. The only thing of value is bring the lost to Christ and nurturing the babes and the struggling.

Evangalise the world, if you absolutely have to speak.

Jim

[Guest]

"There is a difference between what the government sanctions and what the government allows. If two men want to live together (Gay or Not Gay) that is their business."

So, the government already allows it then, thanks, that's a point that I've been trying to make.

"They have to answer to God if they are living in sin."

They have to answer to God for their rejection of him and his son as Lord and Savior. I am fully confident that if they make Jesus Lord, they will cease (eventually) to behave in a sinful fashion, such as practicing homosexuality.

"If you want government to say we sanction gay marriage and protect their rights to have benefits than I disagree because I feel our government shouldn't support things that are against scripture."

I don't want the government to sanction Gay marriage, I say if we get any law that protects our marriages, we're going to get one that protects their faux marriages as well.

"I am completely aware that since we have a secular government, that is a part of this world, that may occur. Doesn't mean I support it."

Nor do I, that's just probably what we'll get. I would say if we don't move to secure at least this sort of protection, we won't even get a law that can be used to protect us.

"I don't believe that God would want us to okay government sanctioned gay marriage just so we can protect ourselves from lawsuits. I think God wants us to do what is right and allow him to take care of the rest."

Okay, but until you can get a plebiscite supporting your view of marriage, you must go for a carve out, or be subjected to laws that may be, as I said, used to destroy you and your family through your marriage.

"I don't think protecting the cause of righteousness means purposely protecting the cause of the unrighteous. If they get protected as a by-product of a righteous law than so be it."

I think we can get an essentially righteous but vague law that can be used to protect us, but that will be used by those wanting "Gay marriage" and Polyandry and Polyamoury as well. They're doing this already. It won't be any more a marriage because they say it is than it is now, the state does not define marriage, but we could have a law that could be used to protect our marriages and thus our children and our wives as well as our assets.

"Now to answer the part of your question about healthcare insurance. The reason I am completely against it is for several reasons:"

Yeah, but they don't matter as companies can, and will, and in fact have simply made a legal choice to broaden who they will offer healthcare coverage to, including pets. If you say it's wrong to offer insurance to homosexual "life partners", insurance companies will offer insurance to "whoever lives under your roof" and accomplish the same thing. There are too many loopholes, you can't close them all.

"I don't find comparing a business relationship to a marriage relationship a valid comparison. Business partners aren't living together, children aren't involved, there is no involvement of extended family, and the relationship in a business is usually completely ended at breakup, whereas a marital divorce can last forever."

Court divorces are the same as breaking up a business partnership. You have assets, they are divided. Generally the two people involved aren't really friends anymore and don't see each other any more than they have to afterwards. Without "Gay Marriage", gay relationships look like joint business ventures, but dividing up the property of marriage, including any children that might be involved, functions the same way.

"To my mind, this is just one of a myriad of "what ifs" that we could worry about in our present culture."

No, it's an agenda that is being engaged in now and blinkered behavior will result in a predictable result. Your remarks about "what Jesus says" mischaracterize me and what I am saying. I am performing a task like the watchman. You mistake me for worrying. I'm not worried. Ezekiel 3:17-19:

"Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul."

And please don't think that I am claiming a direct revelation from God, I'm not. But if I see something true, and do not warn, I am guilty of it. If I warn, which I am, I have delivered my soul.

"Well talk about a total miss representation of what I meant."

I used the qualifier "seem". Please don't misrepresent me.

"Evangalise the world, if you absolutely have to speak."

Ah, well, now I will make a more definite remark. You're telling me that within the body of Christ, I waste my time to teach, that I should only learn the gospel, and preach it.

Hugh McBryde