Jesus (God) defined marriage as Adam and Eve (one man and one woman)

[vsedriver]

Originally Posted by Neofight

And, I guess we agree to disagree. Because in my eyes, if we expect government and not God to manage the sacraments, we are are saying we enter Holy Matrimony because of the "things" the government offers us, and not just for the grace the sacrament gives to us from God.

Pax

you don't think the government should give priveleges to encourage people to do what benefits society? So giving people tax breaks for having kids should be discontinued?

[livingwordunity]

Originally Posted by vsedriver

you don't think the government should give priveleges to encourage people to do what benefits society? So giving people tax breaks for having kids should be discontinued?

Abortion, "doctor assisted suicide", "same-sex marriage", contraception, etc. The liberal goal of all this is to to reduce the human population by taking away any incentive for human procreation, doing whatever prevents procreation, and killing babies and others who can't fight back. If gay couples get benefits for being "married" the government will eventually stop giving benefits for marriage when it runs out of money. This will hurt children.

[chaldobyzantine]

Originally Posted by livingwordunity

Abortion, "doctor assisted suicide", "same-sex marriage", contraception, etc. The liberal goal of all this is to to reduce the human population by taking away any incentive for human procreation, doing whatever prevents procreation, and killing babies and others who can't fight back. If gay couples get benefits for being "married" the government will eventually stop giving benefits for marriage when it runs out of money. This will hurt children.

In what world do you live in where same-sex couples do not have children and procreate? Lesbian couples often have sperm donors and are able to conceive and give birth (what a shock!). Male couples can adopt children whose mothers decided to not abort them, but were unable to care for them, or children who are in orphanages, or they can decide to procreate through surrogacy. Somehow I bet that a child is much happier in a stable loving home instead of an orphanage without someone (or two) to call mom or dad.

Secondly, people need to stop deluding themselves that people will stop having sex if they are urged to wait until marriage. This is near impossible, and to prevent the sin of killing an unborn child, methods such as contraception must be promoted. Whether it is through condoms or the pill, protection against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases should trump the fear of people having sex with no intent to conceive. His Holiness has said so himself.

As a far left liberal, I doubt our overall goal is to reduce the human population as you so intelligently state. The tax benefits of married couples is nothing compared to the tax incentives and cuts that are unnecessarily given to the richest and greediest of this country. You should not be attacking people who wish to live together in love, but those who decide that their wealth is much more important than helping those who cannot afford to live in a home, or to cure their cancer, or to stop gun violence in their communities. Being pro-life is not only reserved for caring for the unborn, but for all those who are born and want to live with dignity and good health.

~God Bless

[JohnAlexander]

This thread has gone off on a tangent as they often do.

The OP wants to know how a Christian can accept anything other than a traditional marriage of one man and one woman. As the OP stated if you are a Christian and you actually follow what Christ taught you can not accept the redefinition of marriage. It is very clear the Jesus is saying that marriage was meant by God to be one man and one woman. Not only that, it is implied that we were made to be married. Adam and Eve were not married by anyone, there wasn't anyone else around. They were made married and it was a permanent union.

No one says you are required to be a Christian. You can believe what you want and enjoy the benefits as well as suffer the consequences of your beliefs. But to call yourself a Christian and then change Christian beliefs to suit your own ideas is just wrong.

To believe that Jesus is God and at the same time to believe that Jesus was wrong about something he taught is irrational.

All politicians who are in favor of same sex marriages are not practicing Christians.

[livingwordunity]

Originally Posted by chaldobyzantine

In what world do you live in where same-sex couples do not have children and procreate? Lesbian couples often have sperm donors

What you are talking about is artificial insemination. It is not natural. The "sperm donor" is the opposite sex. The woman needs a man to have a baby. Therefore, the child is still the product of the union of one man and one woman and not a product of the two lesbians whether you want to ignore the facts of it or not.

"He [Jesus] answered, 'Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.'" - Matthew 19:4-6

So how can anyone say that they are a Christian which means "follower of Christ" and at the same time call Jesus a liar by denying the truth of what he said about marriage?

[Dan Grelinger]

Originally Posted by livingwordunity

Abortion, "doctor assisted suicide", "same-sex marriage", contraception, etc. The liberal goal of all this is to to reduce the human population by taking away any incentive for human procreation, doing whatever prevents procreation, and killing babies and others who can't fight back. If gay couples get benefits for being "married" the government will eventually stop giving benefits for marriage when it runs out of money. This will hurt children.

Not necessarity. The benefits provided to married couples were created when marriage meant children, and the benefits were indirectly tied to producing and raising children for the benefit of society. Now that society has chosen to separate marriage from producing and rearing children, it is time to discontinue all government benefits for simply being married, and provide them to parents creating and raising children. If the current benefits simply for being married are instead used to fund increased benefits to families with children, children will benefit more than today's current system.

[livingwordunity]

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

Not necessarity. The benefits provided to married couples were created when marriage meant children, and the benefits were indirectly tied to producing and raising children for the benefit of society. Now that society has chosen to separate marriage from producing and rearing children, it is time to discontinue all government benefits for simply being married, and provide them to parents creating and raising children. If the current benefits simply for being married are instead used to fund increased benefits to families with children, children will benefit more than today's current system.

My point is there's an overall push to reduce the population and homosexual unions don't naturally produce children. A homosexual couple has to go out of their way resorting to unnatural and expensive means to have children, and many probably don't want children whereas most heterosexual couples have to go out of their way not to have children. Even when a heterosexual couple is contracepting, a child sometimes still results. Therefore, it makes sense that if homosexual behavior becomes the norm then birth rates will go down. This fits right in with all the other aggressive government efforts to reduce the human population.

[Dan Grelinger]

Originally Posted by chaldobyzantine

In what world do you live in where same-sex couples do not have children and procreate? Lesbian couples often have sperm donors and are able to conceive and give birth (what a shock!). Male couples can adopt children whose mothers decided to not abort them, but were unable to care for them, or children who are in orphanages, or they can decide to procreate through surrogacy.

You describe a world where children are now a commodity to be created at the will of adults for their own wants, as some such property or as pets, rather than for the real benefit of the children. This is not a good thing.

Originally Posted by chaldobyzantine

Somehow I bet that a child is much happier in a stable loving home instead of an orphanage without someone (or two) to call mom or dad.

A poor alternative (non-natural family) is not the right solution to this problem (children in orphanages), and should not be accepted as a real solution.

More response later.

[livingwordunity]

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

Not necessarity. The benefits provided to married couples were created when marriage meant children, and the benefits were indirectly tied to producing and raising children for the benefit of society. Now that society has chosen to separate marriage from producing and rearing children, it is time to discontinue all government benefits for simply being married, and provide them to parents creating and raising children. If the current benefits simply for being married are instead used to fund increased benefits to families with children, children will benefit more than today's current system.

Even if children didn't suffer financially from so-called "same-sex marriage" they would suffer spiritually from it by society normalizing sin and rejecting the concept of absolute truth in morality and rejecting God's word. Also, with homosexuals having children by artificial insemination, many abortions would come from it from all the extra unwanted fertilized embryos which means many babies getting murdered in the womb.

[fix]

Originally Posted by chaldobyzantine

In what world do you live in where same-sex couples do not have children and procreate?

The real world. Where two same sex people can never be a mother and father. Even a first grader can understand such basic things. The problem is we have deceived ourselves so much we no longer know right from wrong.

[livingwordunity]

Originally Posted by chaldobyzantine

In what world do you live in where same-sex couples do not have children and procreate?

This world.

[livingwordunity]

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

Funny how you turn a passage about Divorce into one about Homosexuality.

Jesus was asked a question about divorce, but he answered it by talking about marriage.

[interestedman]

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

I am not satisfied to disagree with you. I actually have as my goal to agree with you. But first, you must understand what I said, because I certainly did not suggest that we should expect the government to 'manage' the sacraments. That would be futile, as all the sacraments come from God. I DO expect the that society (and the government) respect the good that comes from the sacraments, much like I expect society (and the government) to respect the good that comes from God's commandments.

Would you suggest that the government has no business 'managing' the commandments? Just like the sacraments, they came directly from God.

You believe that the sacraments came from God. I believe they came from men that lived thousands of years ago and have no bearing today. Some of them still hold true, some of them are nonsense.

You expect that society respect the good that comes from the sacraments? Really? Without belief in the Catholic church they serve zero good at all. This is like someone saying that the government should respect the good that comes from a pilgrimage to mecca. Without a belief in Islam, a pilgrimage to mecca is not something that is objectively good.

[livingwordunity]

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

Not necessarity. The benefits provided to married couples were created when marriage meant children

In most cases, marriage still means children. Even in this contraceptive culture, it's rare to see a man and woman get married and never have a child. Where I work, the women have been getting pregnant left and right usually shortly after getting married. And these are liberal working women I'm talking about.

[livingwordunity]

Originally Posted by interestedman

You believe that the sacraments came from God. I believe they came from men that lived thousands of years ago and have no bearing today. Some of them still hold true, some of them are nonsense.

You expect that society respect the good that comes from the sacraments? Really? Without belief in the Catholic church they serve zero good at all. This is like someone saying that the government should respect the good that comes from a pilgrimage to mecca. Without a belief in Islam, a pilgrimage to mecca is not something that is objectively good.

Natural marriage predates the sacraments of the Catholic Church. It goes all the way back to the first man and woman on earth. You should be thankful that they weren't homosexuals or you and I would have never been born.