Should we respect Biblical marriage?

The resolution on your image is too low to read, but I do know from my own independent studies of FBI data that both violent and non-violent crime have been falling for decades, and are at, or near, all time historical lows since we started tracking such things, so I think your point is moot.

 

Yes. Also Qur'anical marriage. Buddhist, Shinto, Hundu, Sikh, Secular, Gay, Straight, Atheist, Shackin' Up and all other choices by consenting adults living their lives in ways that make themselves and others happy in positive and loving ways.

 

Actually given the number of states that deny homosexuals basic human rights, I would say you guys are anything but silent.

 

That's a pretty bold claim considering it's factually incorrect, one of the things we were founded on was religious freedom because many people saw the problem with state religions. Now Christianity was more than likely the most accepted religion among united states citizens but all religions are protected by the constitution therefore we are a secular nation.

I wasn't really interested in this part but since I'm responding I'll do so in full I think you misunderstood the way people on this thread have been describing "Christian marriage" as they were attempting to show that marriage has had many different definitions under the same and different cultures, as it's not that long ago people in western countries were marrying 13 year old girls. For my view personally I've always been split on the issue of marriage as I can see many of the practical uses for it being done by the state but I've always been sympathetic to the libertarian view as it makes sense for it to be a personally defined institution now obviously this leaves out many of the legal issues of it but like I said I'm split between practicality and ideology but to answer your question your marriage or "Christian marriage" should be allowed assuming all the people involved are consenting adults and you can define it however you want since it's your life.

 

Well ... considering a woman was considered property in those days, "lie with" was akin to rape.

I think the "lay hold on her" pretty much describes that the sexual union was not consensual.

 

You can respect biblical marriage while allowing others to get married. Marriage transcends any religion because almost all religions hold the same marriage ideals. You can not restrict someone from their ideals. If someone showed up and told you that you could no longer believe in what ever you want to, then you would be a bit upset no?

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ... " Romans 13 1-7

If they decide Gay marriage is alright then you must Obey that law.

 

We were founded upon Christian principles. One of the most basic Christian tenets is that every man is equal under God, and each man has the right to worship as he pleases. Also the separation of church and state is a Christian tenet.

What the meme implies is that we aren't and never had been a Christian nation because we aren't a theocracy. Theocracy is not synonymous with Christian nation or Christian republic...though anti-Christian zealots pretend it is...it helps them when it comes to changing the history of our country in order to make people more amenable to discrimination against Christians, and the eradication of Christianity from open political discourse, our schools, and our public squares.

As said Congressman Randy Forbes, in his memorable speech on the floor of the US House:

"Mr. Speaker, you would find that the very first act of the first congress in the United States was to bring in a minister and have congress led in prayer, and afterwards read four chapters out of the bible. A few years later, when we unanimously declared our independence, we made certain that the rights in there were given to us by our creator. When the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, it ended the revolutionary war and birthed this nation. The signers of that document made clear that it began with this phrase, “in the name of the most holy and undivided trinity.”

When our constitution was signed, the signers made sure that they punctuated the end of it by saying, “in the year of our lord, 1787”, and 100 years later in the supreme court case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, the Supreme Court indicated, after recounting the long history of faith in this country, that we were a Christian nation. President George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, all disagreed with the President’s comments, and indicated how the bible and Judeo-Christian principles were so important to this nation. Franklin Roosevelt even led this nation in a six-minute prayer before the invasion of perhaps the greatest battle in history, in the Invasion of Normandy, and asked for God’s protection. After that war, congress came together and said, “Where are we going to put our trust?” It wasn’t in our weapons systems, or our economy, or our great decisions here. It was in God we trust, which is emboldened directly behind you. So, if in fact we were a nation that was birthed on those Judeo-Christian principles, what was that moment in time when we ceased to so be?

It wasn’t when a small group of people succeeded in taking prayer out of our schools, or when they tried to cover up the word referencing God on the Washington Monument. Or, when they tried to stop our veterans from having flag-folding ceremonies at their funerals on a voluntary basis because they mentioned God, or even when they tried in the new visitor’s center to change the national motto, and to refuse to put “in God we trust” in there. No, Mr. Speaker, it wasn’t any of those times because they can rip that word off of all of our buildings and still those Judeo-Christian principles are so interwoven in a tapestry of freedom and liberty, that to begin to unravel one is to unravel the other.

That’s why we have filed the Spiritual Heritage Resolution, to help reaffirm that great history of faith that we have in this nation and to say to those individual’s who have yielded to the temptation of concluding that we are no longer a Judeo-Christian nation, to come back. To come back and look at those great principles that birthed this nation, and sustain us today. We believe if they do, they will conclude as President Eisenhower did and later Gerald Ford repeated, that “without God, there could be no American form of government. Nor, an American way of life.” Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, the most basic expression of Americanism. Thus the founding fathers of America sought and thus with God’s help, it will continue to be."

 

That has exactly zero merit, and is completely ridiculous. Lie with was not akin to rape because "a woman was considered property", we know what these words mean.

I love the re-structuring of history and language when it's done by people who are so obviously ignorant of both.

 

What human rights are being denied?

See this is an insult because it's patently untrue, and makes light of real human rights offenses. Gays are not denied human rights. They are afforded the exact same rights as everybody else in every state. It isn't a *right* to get a tax deduction. They have the perfect right to marry anyone they choose, within the state's definition of marriage. If they don't want to participate, that's their choice. They have the right to leave their money and property to whomever they choose...having your partner on your insurance is not a *right*...it is your right, however, to insure anyone you wish privately, at your own cost.

See, they aren't being denied rights. They just aren't being allowed the privileges that are associated with marriage for the purpose of helping the traditional family, which is the foundation of our society. They are privileges, however...not rights. And if gays don't care to participate in the structure that these privileges are granted to, they don't have to. But it isn't a *right* that they be afforded the privileges anyway. They opted out.

 

Several courts have already ruled that this preposterous statement is wrong. I expect SCOTUS will do the same come June. What will you say then?

 

I'll say they're wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

And the majority of Americans agree with me.

Which is why you are seeking legislation from the bench to overrule them.

 

Not anymore, they don't. That line was crossed in 2011, and I think the trends you observe in the picture below will only continue until the Anti's are such a small portion of the population that nobody will give them a second thought, as they will be (actually, pretty much already are) irrelevant.

 

Why would you adhere to a version of the Bibke that even its own authors admitted was badly translated?

- - - Updated - - -

Why would you adhere to a version of the Bibke that even its own authors admitted was badly translated?

 

You got to start somewhere. Consistency has its virtues. Continuously re-translating it to the current devolving language isn't helping anything.

And cite your unbiased and impartial claim if you would be so kind.

 

We were founded upon many principles some of which had influence with their religious beliefs, many of the founding fathers disagreed on very important issues because of their principles like slavery, federalism even the bill of rights was disputed by quite a few people. Saying we were founded on one set of principles is preposterous. Though even if I granted you Christianity supports secularism which I don't really care if it does it doesn't change the fact that it's still secularism, it is the equivalent of me saying federalism is a catholic principle therefore we are a catholic nation it's not a logical argument, what you could say is that we are a secular republic with many Christians who support good Christian values. As for what the founders believed personally or even believed what would be best for the nation is irrelevant as some of them believed people should go to church and read the bible for personal morals but that says nothing about the actual constitution and how our laws work, so just like secularism you can believe that your religion is good for yourself and would be good for everyone else but you cannot pass laws enforcing or infringing religious belief which the first amendment is for.

 

http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

If you don't want to read the whole thing or wade through the attrocious early Modern English, the translators admitted their translation was flawed due to a combination of lack of good original texts in England and words that did not properly translate into English forcing them to choose what words went in to take their place, meaning that those words may not accurately reflect what the actual texts meant.

 

Wrong. If you would actually read the New Testament, you would see that Christianity sees itself as the fulfillment ofthe Old Testament.

The OT is viewed as the worldy microcosm of Christ, a symbol of things which were to come. (This is according to the writings of St. Paul.)

 

Equal protection under the law.

The Christian right chooses to deny homosexuals basic human rights.

Tax Benefits

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why when asked Christians typically cite Lev 22 as an argument against gay marriage. LOL

I need not create strawmen, you guys give me everything I need.

 

Ah. I misunderstood you. I took it meaning that they were simply being sloppy and careless. Yes it quite true there are things that simply do not translate. This is wholly understood by me. And missing material is a massive problem as well.

All that being said, there is great merit in remaining consistent in stead of changing with the morality and intellect of the current day.

 

If you are knowingly using a flawed copy, then your theology is knowingly flawed.

Modern translations are superior. They were made with greater understanding of ancient languages and with better original documents to draw from.

 

You're equating Protestantism with Christianity.

 

Meh. When in doubt over meaning, pray. Works for me.

Since there are no 'perfect' copies, it is kind of moot. And it is wise to make sure that the translations are done by those without interest to the meaning. Bias and all that nasty business...

 

Feel free to demonstrate how modern translations are biased.

 

I am really not interested in entertaining the No True Scottsman Fallacy.

 

Compare a few versions and I think you'll see for yourself. People interpret things the way they want to. Religion is no exception. If you are paying a translator, you can pay them to write certain things that you agree with. Corruption is not only limited to politics.

It is a logical inevitability given the track record of human nature.

Long story short: No. Not worth my time.