CFA part Deux (Page 5)

Just had someone say something very interesting that made me think. Marriage is both a government and religious institution.

If someone gets married at a church but does not do it threw the government are they married in the eyes of the state? If not the religious marriage doesn't matter for the couple’s rights hence shouldn’t matter in what the state considers a marriage.  

Marriage is only religious if you choose for it to be.

again, my marriage is civil only.  My marriage happens to be hetero, though.  We do not recognize the church (any church) as a valid authority on our relationship.

I agree with you

I just want the people who are saying the word means more in the eyes of the church to answer my question. In the US marriage is a state given right not the churches does anyone dispute this?

Marriage is only religious if you choose for it to be.

again, my marriage is civil only.  My marriage happens to be hetero, though.  We do not recognize the church (any church) as a valid authority on our relationship.

in the US, marriage is ALWAYS granted by the state, and SOMETIMES granted by the church as well.  (e.g. it is one of the 7 holy sacraments given in a Catholic church)

But the state does not need the churches permission to grant the marriage correct?

no, but that's not the question you asked.  you said it's ONLY the state.  that was incorrect, it is in some churches. 

And to people who say `just make it a civil union' don't understand one bit what it feels like to be denied something that others take for granted because of something as arbitrary as sexual orientation (or race or skin color or religion). 

That could NEVER be the case in a gay marriage. 

I held off on this one, but since you brought up Biblical examples, how to you reconcile your beliefs about the definition of marriage and what it has meant for thousands of years with the very clear Biblical examples of polygamous marriages?

Well, I don't know about all that, but to clarify my thoughts on civil unions, I've just fine calling all "marriages" civil unions - straight or gay.  You and your church can take it from there and call it whatever you want. 

That being said, if I'm faced with a ballot that would allow same-sex marriage, with all the rights of marriage as it is now, but calling same-sex marriages a "civil union," I'm voting yes.

I held off on this one, but since you brought up Biblical examples, how to you reconcile your beliefs about the definition of marriage and what it has meant for thousands of years with the very clear Biblical examples of polygamous marriages?

I'll chime in because it was the one thing that jumped up.

Someone said that having children between a hetero couple is ALWAYS possible with devine intervention and cited Ruth and elizibeth.  Thefore, since they can have kids, it's a marriage and we can all follow the trail back from there on the deffinition of marriage...

So let me ask.  There is a common phrase I have heard, "Through devine intervention, ANYTHING is possible".  It IS GOD we are talking about now?  No?  God can make ANYTHING possible.   My deffinition of ANYTHING would perhaps be, if God wanted it bad enough, to allow a man to concieve?  We are talking GOD here.  Or are we saying God CAN'T make that happen?

So two men/women CAN concieve with devine intervention as well.  They fall under that arguement of being able to have kids/familly.  No?

You do realize that there is quite a bit of evidence to show that the Christian Church allowed and even performed same sex religious rites in the early Middle Ages...