Follow Main Street Monroe: Facebook Google+ Twitter

 
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Hillary: Marriage between Man and Woman
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Hillary: Marriage between Man and Woman

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
John Beagle View Drop Down
Voice Official
Voice Official
Avatar

Joined: Nov 21 2000
Location: Monroe, Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 19662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Beagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Hillary: Marriage between Man and Woman
    Posted: May 01 2015 at 11:51am

"I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults."
The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are.
-Joseph Campbell
Back to Top
MElass View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 11 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote MElass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 01 2015 at 1:18pm
I personally would support the civil rights of gays to marry.....WITH the caveat that any
Religious institution/community that opposes it on religious principle NOT be required to perform such ceremonies under duress of law/subsequent "punishment".
Back to Top
dad0f3 View Drop Down
Voice Citizen
Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Feb 10 2010
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dad0f3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 01 2015 at 1:21pm
Three things come to mind:

1)  I'm sure it pained her to say that, even in 2004.
2)  Just another in a long list of high-profile Democrats who had a profound "change of heart" on this particular issue as they sensed changing cultural and political winds.  Curiously, no important Republicans come to mind other than maybe Rob Portman.
3)  John, have you changed your own position on this issue?  Are you still pro same-sex unions?
If it matters, seek the truth.
Back to Top
John Beagle View Drop Down
Voice Official
Voice Official
Avatar

Joined: Nov 21 2000
Location: Monroe, Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 19662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Beagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 01 2015 at 2:05pm
QUOTE=dad0f3]Three things come to mind:

1)  I'm sure it pained her to say that, even in 2004.
2)  Just another in a long list of high-profile Democrats who had a profound "change of heart" on this particular issue as they sensed changing cultural and political winds.  Curiously, no important Republicans come to mind other than maybe Rob Portman.
3)  John, have you changed your own position on this issue?  Are you still pro same-sex unions?
[/QUOTE]

I was never against gay marriage, just against passing laws that make gay marriage equal to traditional marriage. Now I have softened my position when I realized what devastating impact it is to couples who are in a life and death situation (for example). When one isn't allowed to see the other in the hospital because they are not related that is just horrible and wrong.

Gay marriage must be recognized equally as marriage between a man and a woman to protect their legal, moral and ethical rights. 

I still believe that a church should not be torn down because their religion don't recognize gay marriage.








The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are.
-Joseph Campbell
Back to Top
MElass View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 11 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MElass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 01 2015 at 4:36pm
Agree, John.
Back to Top
MElass View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 11 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote MElass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 01 2015 at 4:48pm
I FIND IT HYPOCRITICAL that many who oppose gay marriage on the basis of the "sanctity of marriage" are OK with divorce ( and many are divorced themselves)! ( ala Rush Limbaugh). If two people--ANY two people - are committed to one another...let them marry. Just do NOT REQUIRE Religious institutions who find it objectionable on a religious basis to perform religious ceremonies.
Back to Top
dad0f3 View Drop Down
Voice Citizen
Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Feb 10 2010
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dad0f3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2015 at 10:50am

Hope you don’t mind if I unpack your statements with some questions so I can better understand where you’re coming from. 

Originally posted by John Beagle John Beagle wrote:

Now I have softened my position when I realized what devastating impact it is to couples who are in a life and death situation (for example). When one isn't allowed to see the other in the hospital because they are not related that is just horrible and wrong.

There are federal laws in place that prevent denial of visitation to domestic partners and anyone who is a health care proxy with power of attorney cannot be denied hospital visitation.  This issue seems to be a smoke screen designed to tug on heart strings rather than offer proof of a real problem.  So what am I missing?  Where’s the evidence that indicates this is a real problem in 2015 that can only be remedied by redefining marriage?  

Originally posted by John Beagle John Beagle wrote:

Gay marriage must be recognized equally as marriage between a man and a woman to protect their legal, moral and ethical rights. 

What do you mean by moral rights?  

If it matters, seek the truth.
Back to Top
John Beagle View Drop Down
Voice Official
Voice Official
Avatar

Joined: Nov 21 2000
Location: Monroe, Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 19662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Beagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2015 at 11:05am
Morality is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

I think it is morally wrong to keep loved ones away from each other at the hospital for example.
The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are.
-Joseph Campbell
Back to Top
dad0f3 View Drop Down
Voice Citizen
Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Feb 10 2010
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dad0f3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2015 at 11:25am
Originally posted by MElass MElass wrote:

I FIND IT HYPOCRITICAL that many who oppose gay marriage on the basis of the "sanctity of marriage" are OK with divorce ( and many are divorced themselves)! ( ala Rush Limbaugh). If two people--ANY two people - are committed to one another...let them marry. Just do NOT REQUIRE Religious institutions who find it objectionable on a religious basis to perform religious ceremonies.
It may be hypocritical, but it's not a good argument for redefining marriage.  

MElass, you've always been polite and civil when discussing opposing opinions, so hopefully that hasn't changed Big smile

Yours is a popular opinion. In other words, let the culture and politicos of the day define what marriage is. My question is, if marriage is a living, breathing thing that can be defined by the whims of culture, why limit it to two people for example?  Why shouldn't 3 or 4 loving, committed people be allowed to marry so they too can enjoy the legal benefits of a "marriage"?  If marriage is a definition and not description, do you not agree that it can be defined as anything?  


If it matters, seek the truth.
Back to Top
dad0f3 View Drop Down
Voice Citizen
Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Feb 10 2010
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dad0f3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2015 at 11:29am
Originally posted by John Beagle John Beagle wrote:

Morality is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

I think it is morally wrong to keep loved ones away from each other at the hospital for example.
OK, I agree.  But that has nothing to do with marriage.  As I said, laws are already in place to address this and there are legal moves that domestic partners can make to guarantee that doesn't happen.  It doesn't require redefining an institution that has stood for millennia. So is that the only "moral" issue at play here in your opinion?  
If it matters, seek the truth.
Back to Top
MElass View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 11 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MElass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2015 at 6:13pm
Dadof3, Thanks for the compliment...I do try to be civil and reasonable ( difficult with "that guy"). While I consider myself a spiritual person and had 12 years of Catholic education, I find myself at the junction of "legal" vs. "Religious" Marriage. I believe that no Religious community/Faith-bound group should be compelled to perform religious Marriage ceremonies that go against their Religious beliefs/Tenents.
However, I now think that legal ( non -religious) marriage should be afforded to every citizen under our (U.S.) Constitution (All are equal and should be given equal CIVIL
rights) Separation of Church and State should be maintained!


Back to Top
MElass View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 11 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MElass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2015 at 7:00pm
I guess I am secure enough in my personal spiritual life and 50+ year marriage that I do not in any way feel threatened by what anyone wants to call marriage--- 2 men, 2 women, 2 of each....how can their relationship(s) affect me and my spiritual life/faith in God??? Let Hm be the judge--not me.
Back to Top
dad0f3 View Drop Down
Voice Citizen
Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Feb 10 2010
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dad0f3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2015 at 10:17pm
Originally posted by MElass MElass wrote:


However, I now think that legal ( non -religious) marriage should be afforded to every citizen under our (U.S.) Constitution (All are equal and should be given equal CIVIL
rights) Separation of Church and State should be maintained!
Ah, it's so nice to have a discussion like this and not be called names like The Most Difficult Human Being On Earth liked to do...

OK lass, let me ask you another question:  Who or what determines what is a civil/human right? For the purposes of this discussion, under what authority have you determined that same-sex marriage is a right?
If it matters, seek the truth.
Back to Top
dad0f3 View Drop Down
Voice Citizen
Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Feb 10 2010
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dad0f3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2015 at 10:34pm
Originally posted by MElass MElass wrote:

I guess I am secure enough in my personal spiritual life and 50+ year marriage that I do not in any way feel threatened by what anyone wants to call marriage--- 2 men, 2 women, 2 of each....how can their relationship(s) affect me and my spiritual life/faith in God??? Let Hm be the judge--not me.
Wow MElass, congrats on 50+ years!  What an accomplishment!  Clap

I don't agree that something has to personally impact me in order to be concerned about it.  There are a lot of things that don't directly affect me or aren't likely to affect me that matter, that I think are of great importance which I'm deeply concerned about.  This is one of those issues in my opinion.

As a follower of Christ, I believe that God has spoken on many things and I believe marriage is one of them. God has a lot to say about all manner of sexual sins and  He has clearly and specifically spoken on the issue of same-sex relationships.  How can I call something good that He has condemned?  I mean, does this verse really leave any room for interpretation?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor fneffeminate, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God?

I understand these are hard verses and that they're offensive to non-believers, but can Christians and spiritual folks dismiss them so easily?  
If it matters, seek the truth.
Back to Top
MElass View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 11 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MElass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2015 at 10:35pm
Ahhhhh....perhaps a civil and a human right are different????? As to a civil right, I would look to the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. ALL men ( and we view that as all HUMANs, right?) are created equal and are to be given equal rights. I think of the Constitution as a civil document guaranteeing civil liberties as opposed to a religious document ( ie: the bible or individual Church/denomination tenets) that might ensure or dictate religious doctrine or beliefs. So I am thinking that the Constitution upholds the Civil rights of any individuals to marry. I do not find a definition of marriage in the Constitution. And let's admit that our dictionary definitions are antiquated and rooted in a time when the definition of "gay" was "happy". I just hope that the Supreme Court will not demand/dictate/require   Religious organizations to perform same-sex marriages. I want my Church to be able to follow it's religious tenents!!        Did I make sense?? Am I just influenced by "modern" thinking, political correctness, left wing media?......,Naah!! At my age none of THOSE things influence me---LOL :)
Back to Top
dad0f3 View Drop Down
Voice Citizen
Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Feb 10 2010
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dad0f3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2015 at 10:49pm
Originally posted by MElass MElass wrote:

Ahhhhh....perhaps a civil and a human right are different????? As to a civil right, I would look to the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. ALL men ( and we view that as all HUMANs, right?) are created equal and are to be given equal rights. I think of the Constitution as a civil document guaranteeing civil liberties as opposed to a religious document ( ie: the bible or individual Church/denomination tenets) that might ensure or dictate religious doctrine or beliefs. So I am thinking that the Constitution upholds the Civil rights of any individuals to marry. I just hope that the Supreme Court will not demand/dictate/require Religious organizations to perform same-sec marriages. I want my Church to be able to follow it's religious tenents!!        Did I make sense??

Perfect sense.  And here's where it gets tricky.  The rights conferred in the Constitution are a wellspring from the Declaration of Independence which used the term "inalienable" to describe our rights.   The founders believed that God was the only entity with the moral authority to discern and declare what those rights were.  Which is a good thing, right?  Because if it were up to a king or some governing body, they could take our rights away from us or decide on a whim what suited them.  The early documents are thick with religious elements despite what we're taught today.  

So to come full circle, if our rights come from God, He is not going to include something that is contrary to His word.  This is one of many reasons why I don't believe it's a civil rights issue.  Does that make sense?
If it matters, seek the truth.
Back to Top
MElass View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 11 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MElass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2015 at 10:56pm
ABSOLUTE sense... and something for me to ponder! Thanks, MEL
Back to Top
MElass View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 11 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote MElass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 04 2015 at 11:03pm
What a CIVIL (☺)! discussion! Isn't this fun?!? You did not "put me down", or make a snide/sarcastic comment once!! Halleleuja!!
Back to Top
MElass View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 11 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MElass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 05 2015 at 8:28am
After thinking about this, I have 2 comments:
1) The Declaration of Independence was written by one man and was just that...a declaration of independence from England using the justification that God created all men equal. The Constitution was written by representatives from all the states and was a document to "layout" (?) how the newly independent nation was to govern itself.  It is no accident that any reference to God in the Constitution was avoided (except for the 1st amendment allowing for freedom OF (not FROM) Religion.
 
2) Bible quotes.....the bible also says that homosexuals should be killed and that adulterers should be stoned--- are you OK with that? (It is, after all, in the bible) There are many references in the bible regarding divorce/sexual relations outside of marriage, yet I don't see anyone getting their knickers in a bunch over THAT issue.  No one demanding that the Supreme Court declare divorce illegal!
 
Just sayin'.......
Back to Top
dad0f3 View Drop Down
Voice Citizen
Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Feb 10 2010
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dad0f3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 07 2015 at 11:44am
MEL - sorry for the late reply.  These last few days have been hectic...

Anyhow, good comments/questions.  I'll start with #2 because this charge is levied at Christians all the time and on the surface, it seems like a totally legitimate complaint.  Below is a really good article that addresses this issue.  It's not light reading, but it's well-written and the author conveys the points in a clear and concise way.  If you're interested in the theology, I recommend it highly. 

The Reader's Digest version is there are three types of law in the Bible:  moral, ceremonial and judicial or civil.  The latter two were specific to ancient Israel and include all those odd things like shell fish, treating of servants and slaves, clothing restrictions, stoning of disobedient children, etc.  As the article explains, this 3-tiered understanding of the Biblical law is not a new convention and is considered orthodox.  In other words, we didn't invent this defense in the last 20 years to answer this charge.  



If it matters, seek the truth.
Back to Top
MElass View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 11 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MElass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 07 2015 at 9:34pm
dadOf3, I WILL read the article although it will take me some time to read and ponder!!   Thanks, MEL
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

The Voice | Weather | Advertisers | Advertising Information | Lending Library | Monroe Church Directory

Archived Monroe News From: 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011

Website Design © Xponex Web and Media Services | Contact | Terms of Use | Copyright ©2012 MainStreetMonroe.com