reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

Agree 100% , almost .. do not have to love anyone and will take care of my own business . My response to the post clearly pointed out that marriage is a religious act (traditionally speaking) and if you are not religious why would you want THAT ceremony .. Personally Singularity , I do not give a damn if you "marry" a donkey , but do not tell me to mind my own business if someone insist such a ceremony can and will be accepted by the church . Perhaps I did not understand the poster's intent . The good lord will judge us all in time , until then I feel same sex marriage is unnatural and immoral .. do as you wish sweetheart ..but stay out of my church with the donkey please .
Perhaps this will clear up any misunderstanding .

Singularity

Your suggestion of a donkey as a partner for anyone specific is unneccessarily provocative, but I shall ignore that kinda crap as obligatory OPP foreplay for now in favor of actual conversation.

No one can legally require your church, God or anyone to perform or accept a religious function or concept because they are not regulatable, being imaginal (look up the complete meaning of that before you start bellowing, please) and all.

Just because someone wants the appearance of a traditional ceremony, if they aren't participants of the mystery it is a sham, religiously, just as they wouldn't be having Holy Communion with the rest of the congregants at a Catholic Mass, but if they should attempt it, it is obvious they could still eat the bread and wine.

What the Church's ceremony accomplishes by religiously solemnizing the ceremony is to convert a regular, legal, secular marriage into "Holy Matrimony."

No government can do that or force that since it is not quantifiable or measurable except by "faith."

Now. Do yall feel comfortably special, again?

Singularity

So you're saying, when you love your neighbor as yourself, because you hate yourself, that means its ok to be a dick?

Sounds lonely.

Singularity

Apologies. The tone and crassness were mostly uncalled for! I was allowing irritants from one source poison another for me. You were collateral damage.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Glen Beck has the best take on it, as far as the feds go anyway. Stop every mention of marriage. No tax breaks, no tax penalties, no special rights or responsibility for spouses. No First Lady, no First Co-Spouse. No mention st all.

It's unfortunate that it's come to this. But it's the best way to go from where are. The traditional family is under assault, and this is the best way to protect families without punishing anyone.

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

I love how progressive constantly say are not attempting to change traditional Christian belief yet they mock , disparage and insult and now have legally changed the term marriage to include the imaginal aspects of our religious faith . I go to church from time to time but am not a member of a "church" . My believe's are with the Creator and I do not require any human approval . I find that the basic morals and tenets of the Christian faith are admirable and provide a foundation .
The progressive and homosexual activist constantly push a little here and a little there and as with water flowing over a stone the stone is reduced over time as is the foundation of the church or for example the foundation of Constitution .
As to being comfortably special ,,, I am ,, and so are you . Do you not feel like a special being to be given the gift of life . However I am only superior to others with certain abilities and inferior with others whose abilities surpass mine .
Now , back to that damn donkey , yes ...I used that as a passing shot over your bow so to speak ,,,, Soooorrrryyyy , I can be an ass also

Singularity

Respectfully, I have never understood the "you can't have a donut cuz I'm on a diet" theory.

If the Church has a lock on the mystery of spiritual reality, a mystery inscrutable to the one who sees only bread and wine, so to speak, it seems believers are in exclusive control of the blessings of matrimony.

The Bible is moot regarding a specified procedural form for a marriage ceremony, is it not?

Help me understand the danger and worry you so obviously feel, if you can.

I'm coming from this kind of approach? What is missing?

http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-constitutes.html
From the article linked:
Question: "What constitutes marriage according to the Bible?"

Answer: The Bible nowhere explicitly states at what exact point God considers a man and a woman to be married. There are three common viewpoints: 1) God only considers a man and a woman married when they are legally married—that is, they become husband and wife in the eyes of the law. 2) A man and a woman are married in God’s eyes when they have completed some kind of formal wedding ceremony involving covenantal vows. 3) God considers a man and a woman to be married at the moment they engage in sexual intercourse. Let’s look at each of the three views and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each.

1) God only considers a man and a woman married when they are legally married. The scriptural support typically given for this view is the command to obey the government’s laws (Romans 13:1–7; 1 Peter 2:17). The argument is that, if the government requires certain procedures and paperwork to be completed before a marriage is recognized, then a couple should submit themselves to that process. It is definitely biblical for a couple to submit to the government as long as the requirements do not contradict God’s Word and are reasonable. Romans 13:1–2 tells us, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

However, there are some weaknesses and potential problems with this view. First, marriage existed before any government was organized. For thousands of years, people were getting married with no such thing as a marriage license. Second, even today, there are some countries that have no governmental recognition of marriage, and/or no legal requirements for marriage. Third, there are some governments that place unbiblical requirements on a marriage before it is legally recognized. As an example, some countries require weddings to be held in a Catholic church, according to Catholic teachings, and overseen by a Catholic priest. Obviously, for those who have strong disagreements with the Catholic Church and the Catholic understanding of marriage as a sacrament, it would be unbiblical to submit to being married in the Catholic Church. Fourth, to make the legitimacy of the marriage union solely dependent on government statutes is to indirectly sanction the statutory definition of marriage, which may fluctuate.

2) A man and a woman are married in God’s eyes when they have completed some kind of formal wedding ceremony. Some interpreters understand God’s bringing Eve to Adam (Genesis 2:22) as God’s overseeing the first wedding “ceremony”—the modern practice of a father giving away his daughter at a wedding reflects God’s action in Eden. In John chapter 2, Jesus attended a wedding ceremony. Jesus would not have attended such an event if He did not approve of what was occurring. Jesus’ presence at a wedding ceremony by no means indicates that God requires a wedding ceremony, but it does indicate that a wedding ceremony is acceptable in God’s sight. Nearly every culture in the history of humanity has observed some kind of formal wedding ceremony. In every culture there is an event, action, covenant, vow, or proclamation that is recognized as declaring a man and woman to be married.

3) God considers a man and a woman to be married at the moment they engage in sexual intercourse. There are some who take this to mean that a married couple is not truly “married” in God’s eyes until they have consummated the marriage physically. Others argue that, if any man and woman have sex, God considers the two of them to be married. The basis for this view is the fact that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is the ultimate fulfillment of the “one flesh” principle (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Ephesians 5:31). In this sense, sexual intercourse is the final “seal” on a marriage covenant. However, the view that intercourse constitutes marriage is not biblically sound. If a couple is legally and ceremonially married, but for some reason is unable to engage in sexual intercourse, that couple is still considered married.

We know that God does not equate sexual intercourse with marriage based on the fact that the Old Testament often distinguishes a wife from a concubine. For example, 2 Chronicles 11:21 describes one king’s family life: “Rehoboam loved Maakah daughter of Absalom more than any of his other wives and concubines. In all, he had eighteen wives and sixty concubines.” In this verse, concubines who had sexual intercourse with King Rehoboam are not considered wives and are mentioned as a separate category.

Also, 1 Corinthians 7:2 indicates that sex before marriage is immorality. If sexual intercourse causes a couple to become married, it could not be considered immoral, as the couple would be considered married the moment they engaged in sexual intercourse. There is absolutely no biblical basis for an unmarried couple to have sex and then declare themselves to be married, thereby declaring all future sexual relations to be moral and God-honoring.

So, what constitutes marriage in God’s eyes? It would seem that the following principles should be followed: 1) As long as the requirements are reasonable and not against the Bible, a man and a woman should seek whatever formal governmental recognition is available. 2) A man and a woman should follow whatever cultural, familial, and covenantal practices are typically employed to recognize a couple as “officially married.” 3) If possible, a man and a woman should consummate the marriage sexually, fulfilling the physical aspect of the “one flesh” principle.

What if one or more of these principles are not fulfilled? Is such a couple still considered married in God’s eyes? Ultimately, that is between the couple and God. God knows our hearts (1 John 3:20). God knows the difference between a true marriage covenant and an attempt to justify sexual immorality.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

It breaks down America's moral fiber, it affects my children and the garbage they may see on TV commercials between news cast, what they are taught in our schools "as normal " when in fact there is nothing normal about it between a man and woman, the animal kingdom for that matter. It affects me when our supreme court justices use the 14th Amendment, not for context but for political pressures, it affects me when our supreme Court justices illegally make laws instead of interpretation of the law.
Yes this affects me

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

It breaks down America's moral fiber, it affects my children and the garbage they may see on TV commercials between news cast, what they are taught in our schools "as normal " when in fact there is nothing normal about it between a man and woman, the animal kingdom for that matter. It affects me when our supreme court justices use the 14th Amendment, not for context but for political pressures, it affects me when our supreme Court justices illegally make laws instead of interpretation of the law.
Yes this affects me
God will not be mocked,
The reprobate minds, willingly
Rejecting God, the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob
Will experience his wrath
The solution is accepting the free gift of salvation, the son of the living God, sacrificed sinless that all who call on the name of Jesus, confess their sins, repent ( turn from sin ) shall be saved.

kenjay Loc: Arkansas

Show that to me in the constitution in those words dumb ass. You can't there is nothing in the constitution about marriage at all.

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

I love my neighbor however they do not lie , steal & kill !
Do you love a child rapist , murderer , pedifile , ect. ect. . I'm let God judge me for not accepting this kind of human trash , in the meantime I will not tolerate .
You can ,, with all your educated superior intellectual psycobable cover and love pedifiles , murders , good luck .. and since you got the ball rolling with the insult , I just want to thank you , your hypocrisy shows your true colors ..

Singularity

I have already apologized for the insult and tone. Are you unable to forgive the slightest offence?

As for your neighbors, it is not love if their behavior determines how you react to them. That is called reciprocity. It sounds like you are talking at the very most about clenched teeth tolerance. I'm sure you know the parable of the good Samaritan, featuring a despised outcast, almost heathen, like myself in your eyes. The Samaritan's behavior is used as demonstrating the example of God approved and commanded neighborly love.

Jesus intended for you to love your enemies, as well. Not some vague, love of the essence of wasted human potential.
He talks a personal love relationship.

So the rapist, murderer and pedophile are your neighbor, your enemy perhaps, but also your beloved.

If you were to be following Christ's teachings, which you claim you don't, you could perhaps answer my inquiry, which is sincerely and respectfully submitted without hypocritical intention. YOU got the ball rolling with the insults.

So your response disqualifies your answer, identifying you as a non Christian or very new, weak, milk fed baby Christian. You probably don't know that answer, yet, so, I can easily forgive the ignorance. The avarice and quick move to nonjoking antagonistic personal insult, for which you probably feel no apology is warranted, I will probably just forget to remember.

I try, out of self protection, to remember associating this kind of hatefulness you are demonstrating with names and events like you and this post today, but they just rarely stick together in my brain no matter how hard I try. It's easy to understand as a reflexive human protective behavior, not to be personal. Maybe that's why I can have positive regard for the common humanity of rapists, murderers and pedophiles and people hopelessly flummoxed about the tenets of their own chosen religion and doing it wrong, and love them enough to wish for their well being and/or rehabilitation.

Have a nice day, reconreb. We should probably refrain from posting each other, till we reach a calmer more amiable state of mind toward one another. That will happen for me in about fifteen minutes, after another cuppa coffee out on the deck. You take all the time you need.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Nobody said you can't have a donut. Nobody said the church has a lock on marriage. Perhaps you should respond to what I post and not what I didn't post.

The danger is the destruction of the family unit. Since you didn't know that, perhaps you should look around, especially in urban areas where social programs are replacing families with more efficiency.

Singularity

But Jack, for a believer, is this not all happening the way the God plans and orders? It promises the world and ungodly humans will always be a thorn in the flesh for its followers.

At least you don't live in the biblical story cities of Sodom or Gomorrah! There is no promise to Christians that the world here will be transformed to their needs and liking.

In fact , just the opposite.

Romans 12:2
“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”
King James Version (KJV)

If one were to submit that the present world and it's people exist and affect you in exactly the manner and degree your God has so ordained, would you disagree?

Singularity

I submit that the original title post of this thread is confused in its actual claims and confusing as to what those claims are, due to the heavy use of sarcasm. Looking back, I may have mistaken your intention, thus mistaken in presenting this inquiry of a religious point in this conversation.
Apologies if my question is unwieldy or off your intended topic for this thread.