Defend Marriage Between a Man and a Woman!

[Comprehender]

Family is the basic unit of society & marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of most families. Legalizing gay marriage is negating the importance of mothers and fathers, by saying one or the other is not needed, when we know they are! We need to stand up for marriage between a mand and a woman, especially for the future of society - our children, their children & so on.

Legal marriage is primarily for the benefit of the future of society: CHILDREN.
Children are created by a man and a woman.
Studies and common sense, show that children also thrive best by being raised by the 2 opposite sexes that created them (nature is wise).
Gay marriage denies the right for a child to have both a mother and father, when they need both to thrive best socially & psychologically.

"Children Need Both A Mother And A Father" Dr. A. Dean Byrd
Children Need Both A Mother And A Father

"Why Children need both Mother-Love and Father-Love" Glenn T. Stanton
http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArch ... I0804G.pdf

"Mothers' and Fathers' Socializing Behaviors in Three Contexts: Links with Children's Peer Competence"
Pettit, Gregory S.; Brown, Elizabeth Glyn; Mize, Jacquelyn; Lindsey, Eric
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/se ... o=EJ563106

"Why Children Need a Mother and a Father" Bill Muehlenberg
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/ ... -a-father/


Another consideration is the health consequences of homosexual sex...Because statistically, homosexuals (both men and women) change partners more often and are less monogomous than heterosexuals, STDs and AIDS statistically are known to spread quickly among homosexuals, especially gay men...
CDC - Sexually Transmitted Diseases - Gay and Bisexual Men's Health
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/...nal508comp.pdf
We also know that anal sex is risky (for anal fissures, bacterial infection, colon rupture & anal cancer), even in 2 healthy males.


Children should not be legally placed with couples who engage in harmful behavior, when children learn most by imitation.
Homosexuality is not only harmful medically, but usually it is the product of psychological problems (except for rare instances ie hermaphrodites). We are born with brains that are only 25% developed, so that our brains can adapt to environmental influences & better survive.

"1. No research has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals & homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior.
2. In 2 large studies conducted... Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.
3. Older homosexuals often approach the young
4. Early homosexual experiences influence adult patters of behavior
5. Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors - esp. religious convictions
6. Many change their sexual preferences
7. There are many ex-homosexuals"
Environmental factors may influence sexual orientation
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archiv ... t/06102608

The APA changed the definition of homosexuality not because of scientific studies, but because of political harrassment from gay lobbyists.
The Born "Gay" Hoax |



Speaking of harassment, others' rights have been denied in order to cator to "gay rights"...
Children have the right to not be taught homosexuality in school. Yet, in places where gay marriage has been enacted, these rights have been infringed upon. Here are a few examples where those with homosexual preferences have pushed their assumed rights, which infringed on the rights of others...
*Freshmen were told not to tell their parents about a pro-gay seminar & were required to sign a confidentiality agreement (Derrfield, Illinois Mar. 2007).
*In March, 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.
*In October, 2008, First graders (6 year-old students) were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding.
*In Oct 2008, a Hayward CA public elementary school celebrated "Coming Out Day."

Normalizing & even encouraging children to explore homosexuality obviously causes more to experiment with homosexuality.
"The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Schools... This report is part of an integrated strategy to inform and educate parents, students and school officials across the nation of its contents and of their respective rights and duties. It has documented the concern that the health of students in many schools across the country may have been compromised and their First Amendment rights may have been denied."
http://www.afamichigan.org/images/Legal ... 200504.pdf

Also, others' rights have been infringed upon in favor of supporting gay rights.
*In April 2008, an Albuquerque photographer was fined over $6,000 for refusing to be hired to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.
*In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the U of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.
*An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 even violently attacked & injured a Proposition supporter in Oct. 2008.
*On November 19, 2008, eHarmony, a Christian-based matching service was forced by New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights to provide website matching services for homosexuals.<!-- google_ad_section_end --> <!-- / message -->

 

[Milk-Drops]

Lets pretend for a second that Gay marriage is made completely illegal. All the Marriages performed are forcefully divorced. All the children in Same sex house holds are taken away by the government. And it is made illegal to mention anything about he reality of LGBT, and that all information is censored.


How then dose this fix the US's problem with divorce, Single Parents, Gay people, and all the other plethora of issues the socials conservatives throw out to object to gay marriage and people?


I'll just go ahead and point it out..... NOTHING. Banning same sex marriage dosen't fix broken families. Gay Marriage actually has nothing to do with Children. Its about extending the same protections to same sex couples, we give to Opposite sex couples. that is it. Same sex parent adoption is an entirely different issue.


Also, your posts forgets that the 1st amendment also protects the rights of those that disagree with your stance. The first Amendment dose not protect people from learning about LGBT or about Gay People. Children don't have a right to not learn about Gay people, as they don't have the right to not learn about people of different races, religions, nationalities, or about people in general. Also Children don't have the right to both parents being opposite genders.

 

[Milk-Drops]

To simplify and show what the real issue is, I'll give you an analogy.

Lets say a group of people have these Sandwiches that are given to them when they get together. The paring is usually a male and female. They have the option of either getting this sandwich by either going to a courthouse and signing a contract, or have a Pastor/Rabi/priest/etc give them a sandwich.

Now, because of various issues, some people don't make good sandwiches. So the Sandwich turns out crummy.

This other group that just happens to be 2 people of the same gender put forth a case to also get sandwiches. Pointing out that there is a protection that says they can also have sandwiches.

The first group has mixed feelings about letting the 2nd group also have sandwiches. A portion of the first group campaign and get mad when they see the 2nd group ask or defend why they also deserve sandwiches. The first group is so mad that they want to take the sandwiches away from the 2nd group and stomp on them . They do this because they don't want the second group to have sandwiches and don't like the idea that they aren't the only ones who get sandwiches.
They even blame all their crummy sandwiches on the 2nd group and state that its all in the name of protecting children from bad sandwiches.

In reality, the first group is just getting overly worked up over sandwiches and instead of figuring out ways to fix their sandwich problem, they mess up other people's ability to get sandwiches.

You see how silly this is. Preventing Gay people from getting Marriage contracts from their state or federal government dosen't fix any existing problem. It just makes the people against it look like they are fighting over sandwiches. ;)

 

[JPPT1974]

God intends for a marriage to be between one man and a woman.
To love one another through thick and thin no matter what.
In the eyes and laws of God.
Until only to be departed by death and death only.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I think gay marriages a) won't be as common in the gay community as they are amongst heterosexuals and b) will have a shorter duration and higher divorce rate.

I think if we legalize in one state (or a couple states...) and then wait it out and crunch the numbers, we'll see that homosexual marriage is even more prone to failure than modern heterosexual marriage. I think we'll also see that AIDS rates won't be affected and neither will other problems associated with homosexual behavior (drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, mental health problems).

After that, it'd be up to the powers that be to either legalize it everywhere based on ideology or follow the numbers and grant civil unions but restrict marriage to heterosexual couples.

 

[CalledToServe]

I'm going to reply with the seven (eight) types of marriage in the Bible. Do you support any of them other than the one you stated as being between one man and one woman? Why are you ignoring the other six (seven) types of marriage from the Bible?

a. Man + Woman
i. Wives subordinate to their husbands
ii. Interfaith marriages forbidden
iii. Marriages arranged and not based on love
iv. A bride that couldn’t prove her virginity was stoned to death

b. Man + Brother’s Widow
i. Widow who had not given birth to a son was required to marry her brother in law
ii. She had to submit sexually and serial raping condoned

c. Man + Wife (Wives) + Concubines
i. Abraham (2 concubines)
ii. Gideon (1 concubine)
iii. Nahor (1)
iv. Jacob (1)
v. Eliphaz (1)
vi. Gideon (1 or more)
vii. Caleb (2)
viii. Manassah (1)
ix. Solomon (300)
x. Belshazzar (1+)
xi. Raping condoned

d. Rapist + His Victim
i. Post marriage a woman had no say over her body and was raped by her original rapist
ii. Rapist had to pay 50 shekels of silver for property loss

e. Man + Woman +Woman’s Slaves
i. The husband could acquire his wife’s property including slaves

f. Male Soldier + Prisoner of War
i. Under God’s command during the time of Moses, Israelites killed every Midianite man, woman, and child; save for the virgin female girls that were taken as spoils of war (Raping condoned of the girls)

g. Male Slave + Female Slave
i. The slave owner could assign a female slaves to male slaves
ii. Female slaves had to submit sexually to their new husbands (Raping again condoned)

The ninth one came into existence due to some translators changing the name of Priscilla to Prisca and making her into a man. She/he was married to Aquila and mentioned by name in several of Paul's letters. The next one is Junia being changed to Junias to again change her gender to hide the importance of women in the ministry. She was possibly married Andronicus. Due to translators mucking with the Bible they introduced same sex marriage. Now, I do not believe in homosexuality.

The problem with this is that the OP is posting under the assumption that we are a theocracy. We are not. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States prohibits Congress from passing any law that is based upon a religious source, like the Bible, and they are prohibited from interfering with religious practice. Establishment as used by the founding fathers means settled regulation; form; ordinance; system of laws; constitution of government.*

There are two clauses in the Constitution of the United States that guarantees equal protection and application of the law. The first is Article IV Section II Clause I and the other is the Fourteenth Amendment Section I.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Bible has been used by Christians over the past 319+ years to deny people life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Look at the Salem Witch Trials, the Christians that supported slavery, etc... If you actually read scripture we are commanded by Jesus Christ to love your neighbor as yourself and to love them as He loves us. Do you support denial of Christ's commandment? Do you support denying yourself rights and liberties? If you do then you are adhering to Christ's commandment. If you don't then you are breaking His commandment.

*Definition from the first United States English dictionary, Webster's 1828.

 

[handy]

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> Here's the thing the Church needs to realize about same-sex marriages....

They are here to stay.

We can talk all we want about how God's plan for marriage is much better, we can talk all we want about how children are better off with a married dad and mom, we can talk all we want about how society will be more stable if we keep marriage the foundational building block it always has been.

But...

Same sex marriage advocates have the US constitution on their side and there isn't a blessed thing we will be able to do about it, save a Constitutional amendment... and that ain't gonna happen.

Same sex marriage was unlocked and constitutionally available since 1967. The door was opened in the landmark Loving v. Virginia decision when the Supreme Court ruled that laws against inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional. The court unanimously pointed to the 14th Amendment showing that any state that banned inter-racial couples from marrying were in violation of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment couldn't be clearer:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No law can abridge he privileges or immunities of citizens nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...

Loving v. Virgina has already established that marriage falls under the scope of the 14th Amendment.

It is only a matter of time before a couple legally married in one state will move to North Carolina or any other state that bans same sex marriage and challenge the law. The Court, unless filled with activist judges more concerned with legislating from the Bench as opposed to upholding the Constitution will have to recognize that laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.


I think what really should concern the Church isn't whether or not gays marry.... As I said on a different thread, if Adam and Steve are not allowed to get married, but we fail to effectively share the gospel with them, they will still be condemned for eternity (or something like that, I forget the exact words)...

Our task, brothers and sisters, has not changed since Jesus looked upon the field and saw it was white for harvest...

Our task is to effectively share the gospel. Frankly, if we would do a better job of that, and become more concerned about winning souls for Christ as opposed to whether Adam and Steve gain some legal rights, then the issue wouldn't be as widespread anyway.. Should we share God's love and forgiveness with Adam and Steve and they turn their hearts to God, the Holy Spirit can then renew them into new creations and give them victory over the homosexuality... as some brothers right here on this forum can testify to.

I don't think that same sex marriage is healthy for this nation. But then again, I don't think it will wreak the awful toll against our families and society that divorce has... and the Church as been pretty embracing of divorce. We can't yell "sinner" on one issue and turn a blind eye against the other.

Frankly, our nation hasn't been healthy for a long time... mainly because the Church ranged itself against both God and humanity in the fight for civil rights.

Now, with God, all things are indeed possible. And God has always promised that when "My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

If we don't want to see same-sex marriage or abortion or legalized drugs or anything else, then we...Christians, "God's people called by His name" need to humble ourselves and turn from our wicked ways...

If we do so... if we truly do... then we will see true revival.

 

[jasoncran]

why do christians oft quote that if my people.. verse? in context it only applies to isreal. god didnt come to the earth to make another nation like isreal but to make a nation of all the goyim(gentile nations).

while i agree with that sentiment but its off to day that the word hamashiach is anywhere in the names of God. its a title meaning annointed one but not his name.

yeshua or jesus is his name. minor detail though and i wanted to put this ought to see if anyone one has taken this note before. my tanach translates that verse if my people which are called out.

 

[handy]

I realize that Jason, but nonetheless, if American's were to truly live up to the claim of being a nation of Christians...

The numbers are changing but around 75% of Americans call themselves Christian.

Honestly, if wholly 75% of this nation were true, reborn, regenerated Holy Spirit indwelled Christians...would there even be an issue of homosexuality being embraced the way it is?

I do believe that if all 75% of us people who call ourselves Christian were to humble ourselves, pray, seek after God and turn from our own wickedness, God would certainly turn His face and begin to bless this nation once more.

 

[cupid dave]

Lets pretend for a second that Gay marriage is made completely illegal. All the Marriages performed are forcefully divorced. All the children in Same sex house holds are taken away by the government. And it is made illegal to mention anything about he reality of LGBT, and that all information is censored.


How then dose this fix the US's problem with divorce, Single Parents, Gay people, and all the other plethora of issues the socials conservatives throw out to object to gay marriage and people?


I'll just go ahead and point it out..... NOTHING. Banning same sex marriage dosen't fix broken families. Gay Marriage actually has nothing to do with Children. Its about extending the same protections to same sex couples, we give to Opposite sex couples. that is it. Same sex parent adoption is an entirely different issue.


Also, your posts forgets that the 1st amendment also protects the rights of those that disagree with your stance. The first Amendment dose not protect people from learning about LGBT or about Gay People. Children don't have a right to not learn about Gay people, as they don't have the right to not learn about people of different races, religions, nationalities, or about people in general. Also Children don't have the right to both parents being opposite genders.

You are right.

What WILL fix the marriage issue is for Christians to excommunicate any married members who divorce except for infidelity, which is what Jesus recommended.

The Gays do not want fidelity in marriage.
By the seventh year, two men living as a couple are divorced more than 70% 0f the time.
During that seven year "marriage" they have been involved sexually every year with between 6 and 10 other sex partners.

Straight marriage is what has broken down.

The sexually motivated hormonally drive teens are raised to believe they are too young to get married until age 26, now, on average.
That sets up for failure these young people whi adults require to live from pubert, 12, through 14 years until age 22, controlling drives and urges and irresistible impulses to have sexual relationships.

What do adults believe,... that these young people can beforced to act like priests and nuns without actually be ordained willingly?
It is just foolishness, lack of common sense, and the adult drive for status and financial reasons nthat teens are prohiited from using marriage as a safe haven for sexual expression.

christians MUST teach and encourage early High School age marriages.
Marriages that can not be divorced.

 

[CalledToServe]

It's curious that no one will answer my questions about the other types of marriage in the Bible and why they do/don't support them.

Handy, I really enjoyed your reply since it mimics mine on the legal basis. There is another clause in the Constitution of the United States that supports gay marriage.

Article I Section X Clause I

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Marriage is a contract between two people and no state can impair anyone's ability to enter into a contract or prohibit the obligations that the contract carries.

 

[cupid dave]

Marriage is a contract between two people and no state can impair anyone's ability to enter into a contract or prohibit the obligations that the contract carries.

All too true.

Marriage is a contract that prohibits sexual infidelity and No Fault Divorce.

The contract denies divorce except for infidelity.
It makes the unfaithful partner libel for such unfaithfulness.

These terms have been changed thereby creating something that is not marriage, whether straight or gay.
What we really are arguing is whether Gays can be as sexually promiscuous beofre coupling up with other gats as are the straights, today.
We are debating whether Gays can be just as insincere, unfaithful, jaded, and adulterous as other people and say they are "married."

The reason for Government support of marriage through various social and financial benefits had been that good citizenship in the next generation was a by-product of marriage between the straight girls and the straight boys, one to be encouraged as a preventative to more Welfare, Abortions expenses, and the high criminal activity among fatherless kids.
None of these things, i.e.; abortions, welfare or criminal fatherless kids are remotely connected to Gays contracting to live together.

But marriage now occurs after these problems have been encountered and is no longer what was once called marriage.


It is the Christians who need to enter into Civil Unions through contracts which set terms for joining two people together and stating the consequences should they part.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I think gay marriages a) won't be as common in the gay community as they are amongst heterosexuals and b) will have a shorter duration and higher divorce rate.

The 6 States that allow same sex marriage have not had this issue.

I think if we legalize in one state (or a couple states...) and then wait it out and crunch the numbers, we'll see that homosexual marriage is even more prone to failure than modern heterosexual marriage. I think we'll also see that AIDS rates won't be affected and neither will other problems associated with homosexual behavior (drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, mental health problems).

Massachusetts has had same sex marriage since the early 2000s, and for the most part, the rates of divorce are lower to around the same as heterosexual marriage. Also the Rate of AIDS has actually been dropping back in all demographics thanks to safe sex avocation. Also the second half of your post applies to all demographics. Especially amongst the poor and highly in minorities.

After that, it'd be up to the powers that be to either legalize it everywhere based on ideology or follow the numbers and grant civil unions but restrict marriage to heterosexual couples.

How about this, the US constitution will still protect the church's right to deny marriages as they see fit, and we'll let people call their union whatever they want. Making it illegal to use the word marriage is just petty.

 

[CalledToServe]

All too true.

Marriage is a contract that prohibits sexual infidelity and No Fault Divorce.

The contract denies divorce except for infidelity.
It makes the unfaithful partner libel for such unfaithfulness.

These terms have been changed thereby creating something that is not marriage, whether straight or gay.
What we really are arguing is whether Gays can be as sexually promiscuous beofre coupling up with other gats as are the straights, today.
We are debating whether Gays can be just as insincere, unfaithful, jaded, and adulterous as other people and say they are "married."

The reason for Government support of marriage through various social and financial benefits had been that good citizenship in the next generation was a by-product of marriage between the straight girls and the straight boys, one to be encouraged as a preventative to more Welfare, Abortions expenses, and the high criminal activity among fatherless kids.
None of these things, i.e.; abortions, welfare or criminal fatherless kids are remotely connected to Gays contracting to live together.

But marriage now occurs after these problems have been encountered and is no longer what was once called marriage.


It is the Christians who need to enter into Civil Unions through contracts which set terms for joining two people together and stating the consequences should they part.

I agree with you. Marriage between two adults is no business of the government. I always tell Christians that the best way to protect marriage is to get the government out of it. Government marriage started as a tool to keep minorities and whites from marrying each other. It serves the same person in denying rights to certain types of individuals.

However, I get a kick when Christians say that marriage is only between one man and one woman while ignoring the Bible and what God had set down. That's why there are seven (eight) types of marriage in the Bible that God gave us.

 

[Mike S]

How about this, the US constitution will still protect the church's right to deny marriages as they see fit, and we'll let people call their union whatever they want. Making it illegal to use the word marriage is just petty.

A liberal government considers the Constitution to be nothing but a speed bump on their path to a secular utopia. It's a living document, remember, that is, the Constitution means nothing more than what liberals want it to mean. The Church - as a competing center of authority - represents a threat to government that has to be brought to heel and turned into a compliant tool, or destroyed.

Liberal government is an exemple of Antonio Gramsci's political thought being played out in real time.


Cultural Marxism - http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html

Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a "long march through the culture."

 

[cupid dave]

It's curious that no one will answer my questions about the other types of marriage in the Bible and why they do/don't support them.

.

Well there are three different types of "marriage" mentioned in the bible.

One is stated in the Old Testament, a polygamism among patriarchs much as seen in Islam today.
The other was what the pagan gentiles called marriages, preceeded by abortions at the highest levels of their societies and full of infidelity and pre-marital sexual promiscuity.

These matriarchies where the rule and surrounded the Jews in the days of Moses.
The decadence so weakened these matriarchies that the Hebrew patriarchs had little trouble dispatching their societies and raiding and destroying them.
This desctiption of events was the message from God that sexual promiscuity is dangerous for a culture.

Then, in the new testament, we find marriage described as one man and one woman uniting as virgins and refraining from all others forever thereafter.





note:

3 ... Is it lawful for a man to put awayhis wife for every cause?
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5And said , For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder .

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to puther away ?
8 He saith unto them , Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it wasnot so.
9And I say unto you , Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery : and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery .

 

[cupid dave]

I agree with you.

However, I get a kick when Christians say that marriage is only between one man and one woman while ignoring the Bible and what God had set down. That's why there are seven (eight) types of marriage in the Bible that God gave us.

It is merely historical accuracy that accounts for the Bible describing different relationships between people which they call marriage.
The bible is not conconing all those relationships, but is rather consistent in opposing all forms of Sexual Promiscuity before and during and after marriage which seems defined as either Gentile, Patriarchic, or Christian.

 

[CalledToServe]

Well there are three different types of "marriage" mentioned in the bible.

One is stated in the Old Testament, a polygamism among patriarchs much as seen in Islam today.
The other was what the pagan gentiles called marriages, preceeded by abortions at the highest levels of their societies and full of infidelity and pre-marital sexual promiscuity.

These matriarchies where the rule and surrounded the Jews in the days of Moses.
The decadence so weakened these matriarchies that the Hebrew patriarchs had little trouble dispatching their societies and raiding and destroying them.
This desctiption of events was the message from God that sexual promiscuity is dangerous for a culture.

Then, in the new testament, we find marriage described as one man and one woman uniting as virgins and refraining from all others forever thereafter.





note:

3 ... Is it lawful for a man to put awayhis wife for every cause?
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5And said , For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder .

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to puther away ?
8 He saith unto them , Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it wasnot so.
9And I say unto you , Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery : and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery .

Very good David, but you're missing the other types of marriage that I have in my list and the same sex marriages that Paul writes to the couples from specific mistranslations to remove women in positions of the ministry.

 

[cupid dave]

Marriage between two adults is no business of the government.


Government marriage started as a tool to keep minorities and whites from marrying each other..

You are dead wrong here.

1) The governments interest in marriage has nothing to do with race.
In fact, the government encourages and needs all peoples to marry regardless of race, becuase it is cripplingly expensive to the State for kids to be raised outside of wedlock.

Money, (taxes), is the focus not race.

2) The government ALSO has a strong vested interest in promoting marriages between young people who will have babies regardless of sex educatuon, free contraceptives, and shame for illegitimacies and abortions.

Abortions ultimately are an expense to the State but dwarfted bythe cost of Welfare, now tending towards half of all households in the Nation.

Good citizenship arises out of families where the father and mother raise the kids in the same household.
70%of violent crime in America and most all the socual problems of every kind exist becuase of children rised in fatherless homes by Single Mothers.
This crime is both expensive to the State and the community and evidence of poor citizenship.





NOTE:

 

[CalledToServe]

You are dead wrong here.

1) The governments interest in marriage has nothing to do with race.
In fact, the government encourages and needs all peoples to marry regardless of race, becuase it is cripplingly expensive to the State for kids to be raised outside of wedlock.

Money, (taxes), is the focus not race.

2) The government ALSO has a strong vested interest in promoting marriages between young people who will have babies regardless of sex educatuon, free contraceptives, and shame for illegitimacies and abortions.

Abortions ultimately are an expense to the State but dwarfted bythe cost of Welfare, now tending towards half of all households in the Nation.

Good citizenship arises out of families where the father and mother raise the kids in the same household.
70%of violent crime in America and most all the socual problems of every kind exist becuase of children rised in fatherless homes by Single Mothers.
This crime is both expensive to the State and the community and evidence of poor citizenship.





NOTE:

Funny, but that's not what history says. I rarely use Wikipedia as a source, but this is an excellent article about the history of marriage licenses.

Anti-miscegenation laws have been a part of American law since before the United States. They were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967. The term miscegenation, a word invented by American journalists to discredit the Abolitionist movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of white-black intermarriage after the abolition of slavery, was first coined in 1863, during the American Civil War.[1] In those of the original Thirteen Colonies that became states and enacted such laws, they were enacted as state law in the early 18th century a century or more after the complete racialization of slavery.[2]

In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws (also known as miscegenation laws) were state laws passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, nowadays more commonly referred to as interracial marriage and interracial sex. Typically defining miscegenation as a felony, these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies. Sometimes, the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would be brought against them instead. All anti-miscegenation laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.[3]

What you describe is what it has morphed into. It is social control.