CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Noah would turn in his grave...

Main Entry: mar·riage [url=javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?marria01.wav=marriage')][/url]
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

www.m-w.com has truned against me
Oh i feel sick... as if abortion isnt bad enough. Our country needs prayer,big time. Everyday I seem to see my story being played out.

(Sorry... I hit "Reply" instead of "Edit" by mistake; please ignore this.)

Um... be glad you posted this topic here.

The mods here have pretty tight control.

If you had posted this topic anywhere else, it would be a guarnteed flamewar. As it is here, if anyting starts, it will be quickly closed. I know I'm certainly not brave enough to post such a topic...

this country is messed up. ive started praying for it alot lately. i dont think this country has a good future ahead of it if it keeps going in this direction.

I do agree that this is a tragedy for our nation... to be going in such a direction.

However... I think we can only argue against such things in a moral sense. It is a very difficult issue to argue from a purely legal standpoint. Unfortunately, when we try to bring morality into legal/social issues these days, we often wind up just looking like hypocrites or idiots. ... I wish we could argue effectively against society's decaying morals in way that makes sense legally/civilly.

Wrong... so wrong...

edited. it could have started a fight...

Haibane Shadsie wrote:I do agree that this is a tragedy for our nation... to be going in such a direction.

However... I think we can only argue against such things in a moral sense. It is a very difficult issue to argue from a purely legal standpoint. Unfortunately, when we try to bring morality into legal/social issues these days, we often wind up just looking like hypocrites or idiots. ... I wish we could argue effectively against society's decaying morals in way that makes sense legally/civilly.

I agree. Well said.

personally i dont think a fight could start here considering the fact that same sex marriage is an abomination. its against Gods law. there's either Gods law or mans lawlessness. I believe someday this contury will become what it was, but i think we now know all to well what happens when the church gets lazy.

ShiroiHikari wrote:

Haibane Shadsie wrote:I do agree that this is a tragedy for our nation... to be going in such a direction.

However... I think we can only argue against such things in a moral sense. It is a very difficult issue to argue from a purely legal standpoint. Unfortunately, when we try to bring morality into legal/social issues these days, we often wind up just looking like hypocrites or idiots. ... I wish we could argue effectively against society's decaying morals in way that makes sense legally/civilly.

I agree. Well said.

There is a Christian webzine I sometimes read called "Boundless" that is addressed towards Christian college students. One of the regular columnists is Professor Budziszewski from University of Texas at Austin, who specializes in philosophy and government studies. He had wrote in his regular column called "Office Hours" (where he writes hypothetical conversations between students and his alter-ego, Prof. Theophilus) on the gay marriage issue. In this column, he guides the student in making a legal/social argument against gay marriage. I thought it was interesting. Maybe you would too.

Office Hours: So-Called Marriage

As for Webster himself, I do not know much about him, but I think he would be shocked by that definition Ruroken quoted.

Hey Omega, thanks a lot for that link. It was really interesting.

Omega Amen wrote:As for Webster himself, I do not know much about him, but I think he would be shocked by that definition Ruroken quoted.

He would have been, for certain. He was a devout Christian himself, and actually authored a translation of the Bible that you can find on bible.crosswalk.com (The Webster Bible, under Older Translations).

Honestly I'm not surprised at this...

[sarcasm]
Why should people follow the traditional marriage anyway? After all it's based on Genesis which EVERYONE knows is only fictional, science ahs disproved it... Adam and Eve never reaaaally existed
[/sarcasm]

I think I've made my point

old noah must be turning in his grave. hey, nice reminder, akaida. only this time it applies to womenxwomen too.

all i can say is i hope that doesn't happen here, although i think it's inevitable, since everyone in the world seems to be doing it. >.< my prof was saying that the US started becoming aware of same-sex issues when it experienced a boom in economic prosperity and advancement in technology and industrialization and an expansion in the workforce (this was after WW2, i think)...she said if some time in the future we'd be noticing how we're also becoming aware of issues like that, it could possibly mean that we're on the road to prosperity too.

and i was like ---> O.O;;.

but it does have a grain of truth. when you're in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial state, you don't exactly have time to bring up issues like that. ^^;;

but anyway...but this is currently a state thing in the US, right? each state gets to choose its stand? or am i so completely out of touch with the news now? XD

but anyway...but this is currently a state thing in the US, right? each state gets to choose its stand? or am i so completely out of touch with the news now? XD

Well, yes-- sorta. It's a state issue, but every state has to endorse another state's rulings. For example if same-sex marriage is ruled legal in a court in one state than in another where it is illegal (or has no stance on it), it has to be recognised as a legal marriage in the state where such a thing would be illiegal. Besides, there have been only court rulings from what I can remember, and the courts cannot make law, but only interpret, which they haven't been doing for a few decades. No court has jurisdiction on this issue since there is no law in defence of same-sex marriages, but only for the protection of man&woman marriages (Defense of Marriage Act).

Back in Noah Webster's day people would have flipped over such a definition.

PRAISE THE LORD!!! Wisconsin just passed an ammendment that my college (a christian college) has been praying for. It states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Wisconsin has now took a stand and defined marriage, so that same-sex marriage will not take place in Wisconsin. Let's hope that some other states follow wisconsins good lead.

Wow... boundless.org (and 'hours' in particular) is really cool!

"Speaking of love and marriage, let me leave you with this: A reader of this column, reacting to an item about the gay-marriage debate, wrote, 'If marriage is a civil right, can I sue the government to appoint me a spouse?" (Jay Nordlinger, National Review Online ).

*runs to check his American Heritage Dictionary*
This is interesting: "1.The state of being married; wedlock. b.THe legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. 2.The act of marrying or the ceremony of being married; wedding. 3.A close union: 'a true marriage of minds.' 3.The combination of the kind and queen of the same suit; in pinochle."

Nothing about same-sex "marriage" there.

Akaida wrote:JUST DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE! *sobs*

*hands Akaida some tissues and gently pats her on the back.*

ShiroiHikari wrote:Hey Omega, thanks a lot for that link. It was really interesting.

JediSonic wrote:Wow... boundless.org (and 'hours' in particular) is really cool!

Umm... thanks. Prof. Budziszewski is my favorite columnist in that webzine, and he writes two regular columns "Office Hours" and "Ask Theophilus." I eagerly wait for his columns. In my opinion, he tends to write very clearly and provides some interesting ideas and arguments about social, legal, and Christian issues that tends to come up within the college environment (some of which I have seen discussed here in the CAA). I think his stuff is interesting to read. Personally, I endorse Boundless and recommend it to my fellow CAA members.

Well, enough about that. Back on topic.

Swordskill, I believe andyroo described the dilemma of the gay marriage issue taking place fairly well, but I feel the need to add on something else.

I am not sure how well you know the U.S.'s federal system of government, but the Defense of Marriage Act (a federal law) is supposed to allow each state make its own state law defining marriage. However, if I remember correctly from my government studies class six years ago, there is a clause in the U.S. Constitution saying that makes states respect the laws/licenses of other states (for example, a Florida driver's license is respected as a legal driver license in Georgia). Hence, there is the possibility that someone might bring up a federal court case saying that this Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, saying that act goes against this constitutional clause and should be removed (and a civil rights spin might be added on). Of course, if a constitutional amendment defining that marriage is between a man and a woman actually passes through, then this gay marriage issue would end (I think). (Note these sentences is just meant to state current events. I am not trying to start a political discussion.)

It has been a while since I studied government. If anyone can correct/clarify what I just said here, I would appreciate it.

U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Sections 1 and 2, the "Full Faith and Credit" clause, is what you're thinking of, Omega. You can read the text here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html

Although it's been argued that the whole recognition of one state's marriages by another is a courtesy matter rather than a legal one, I don't see how to reconcile that position with the text.

What's next?

The cities in question are Sodom and Gomorrah. The whole account can be found in Genesis 18-19 (yes, it is rather long). The judgment against them reads as follows:

"Then the Lord said, 'The ouctry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know" (Genesis 18:20-21).

Three angels/messengers of God were sent into the city to judge it. They stayed with Lot, and "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them" (Genesis 19:4-5).

Although the text does not specifically say that the cities were destroyed due to widespread homosexuality, the fact that all of the men (except for Lot's family) in the city were ready to sodomize messengers of God implies that this is the reason for their destruction.

The sin homosexuality is named Sodomy because of Sodom and Gomorrah right? Their city NAMED a sin! I think that'd be a good reason for its annihilation.

That is correct, although sodomy originially referred to a variety of unsavory sexual practices.