A great judge from Georgia declared just 162 years ago
The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observations show us that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sick and effeminate.
Such connections never elevate the inferior race to the position of the superior, but they bring down the superior to that of the inferior. They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good.
Let’s not let this racial bastardization lead us to the worst outcome of all like the judge stated: effeminate offspring. They’ll want marriage too.
Please share widely!
First, let me confess that I can’t stop laughing at your Post! If keeping alive is accomplished by a belly-laugh a day, I confess I will live until at least tomorrow! And the cracker judge in your citation was probably talking about his OWN race — the Crackah-Supremes. This, I understand, includes Nazis, Fascists and your friend the jeoja judge.
<
p>
Having digressed into base ingratiation, let me then add the sulphur to the molasses; Marriage is NOT a civil affair, in the eyes of the church. While the church is admonished (Westminster Confession Chapter on The Civil Magistrate) to follow civil laws which do not go contrary to God’s commandments, the fact remains that the church may only view marriage as a sacrament.
<
p>
Generally speaking, the Christian church (that is, the universal church of Christ as described by Paul in the New Testament), recognizes certain acts as Sacraments. These are acts above and beyond one’s normal life, and must be treated with the same reverence as one’s relationship with God. Indeed, these acts may only be performed and consummated with that end in mind, according to our belief. They include Baptism, the Eucharist or Last Supper, Marriage, and Christian Burial or Cremation.
<
p>
While the Old Testament may dictate that marriage is between a man and a woman, it is not the source of Christian belief in this sacrament. In fact, the Mosiac Law defines the right to divorce in a rather lenient way, adhering to today’s typical divorce law. The Christian view is somewhat more conservative, disavowing divorce save for adultery and desertion.
<
p>
The Christian view of marriage would also disavow a union of any kind between people of the same sex. But as the Christian is bound by his belief to support the “Civil Magistrate” and the civil law, as long as it is not contrary to the commands of God and His Son, we would view civil unions as outside the bounds of marriage, and would disallow marriage not meeting Christian criteria as being marriages at all.
<
p>
I strongly support a separation of our sacraments from the civil magistrate, again, in keeping with the cited chapter of the Confession. Should the “civil magistrate” then elect to make a law that does not infringe on the sacrament of marriage, much as I may oppose that law on OUR moral ground, I would, per my own Confession, happily “render unto Caesar!” On this point, there can not be a compromise that will satisfy that to which we are commanded. I suspect you would find consent, if not actual support, from most of the Christian community on that last.
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
and I still can’t figure out your bottom line. So you’ll have to spell it out for me. Are you saying that your version of Christianity would, or would not, accept the legalization of same-sex couples getting married, assuming (as everyone has always assumed) that the state’s actions would in no way affect whether religious institutions choose to conduct or recognize such marriages?
<
p>
Sorry to be dense.
Please BEAR WITH ME, and hopefully, this will be an eye-opener NOT related to Bloody Marys! This may seem to the non-Christian a convoluted path, but it gets you to the truth, and, hopefully, helps you understand us.
<
p>
This will take a little bit of explanation. Again, PLEASE BEAR WITH ME! What I am saying is this:
<
p>
1. Marriage is a SACRAMENT to the Reformed Christian (who is, by definition, the progenitor of modern Christianity, as far as New Testament-based Christianity is concerned).
<
p>
2. Reformed Christians OBJECT to a marriage, divorce, or anything else related to their sacrament that is either outside the church, or that violates the concept of marriage as espoused by Christ in the New Testament. But the language of our Confession allows us to tolerate MARRIAGE performed outside the church (I keep tellin’ ya, ya gotta go read the WCF!)
<
p>
3. Same-sex relationships violate the spirit, intent, and language of same.
<
p>
4. Therefore, by definition, the church cannot legitimately accept same-sex unions as MARRIAGE.
<
p>
5. As marriage is a sacrament, civil law which violates the sacrament is in direct opposition to the scriptures of the New Testament, and to the commands of Christ. (Please see the Westminster Confesson Chapter on “Of the Civil Magistrate” in the same document, available online.)
<
p>
6. Therefore, traditional “marriage” between same-sex couples, whether civil or within a “church,” is in direct contradiction to our Sacrament of Marriage.
<
p>
BOTTOM LINE:
<
p>
7. Reformed Christians (who, BTW comprise the majority of the Christian faith) are bound by their own Confession (the WCF) to obey the “Civil Magistrate.” Thus, while we are bound to confront those who champion same-sex MARRIAGE (which is a Sacrament violation), and even those who advocate for same-sex unions of ANY kind, our faith compels us to accept this fact; should the law choose to champion same-sex unions NOT considered marriage, we are bound by our beliefs and our Bible not to interfere. We must, per the commands of Christ, “Render unto Caesar.”
<
p>
This is not to say that our Bible tolerates same-sex unions. Indeed, it considers such unions abominations! BUT, per the command of Christ to obey the Civil Magistrate, we are bound not to interfere beyond our objections, and not to interfere in the execution of the law. And I will happily take on anyone from within the Christian community who wishes to take an opposing position to that latter.
<
p>
What this means is that if two people, obviously not reformed Christians, choose to establish a relationship that is within the CIVIL law, SHORT OF MARRIAGE, as espoused by the CIVIL magistrate, that, while we may not approve, we cannot claim a right to interfere, beyond our faith-based objections.
<
p>
I can think you are wrong, I can SAY you are wrong, I can elaborate and remonstrate with you WHY you are wrong, but, in the end, I am powerless, even within my faith, to prevent you from DOING what I perceive as a moral wrong.
<
p>
But the relationship MUST stop short of our sacrament. To accept that is not possible for a Christian.
<
p>
It is for that last reason that I implore, IMPLORE all to not seek to call such a Civil Union a Marriage.
<
p>
Finally, to those both inside and outside the Christian Community who would question why I deal with this at ALL, and especially among “sinners,” such as, well, YOU;
<
p>
Christ set the example. He dined with hookers, tax collectors, and other sinners. He didn’t come down here to save those who didn’t need it, now did He?
<
p>
My Best to you and all,
Chuck
“Christ set the example. He dined with hookers, tax collectors, and other sinners. He didn’t come down here to save those who didn’t need it, now did He?”
<
p>
You convieniently leave out that he said,
<
p>
FOLLOW ME AND SIN NO MORE
Republican fight!
In fact I did state, if you read it, that I perceive same-sex unions as an abomination. But if Reformed Christians are to follow the 1789/1936 Westminster Confession, then we are bound by it in its entirety, and cannot pick and choose what we accept. XXIII.4 of same requires obedience to the “Civil Magistrate,” even if that person or body differs in religion, or is unfaithful (to God). It further disavows ecclesiastical persons from exemption. The Scriptural citations used by the Divines to support this include 1Pet.2:13-13,16; Rom.13:1; Acts 25:9-11; 2Pet.2:1,10-11; and 1Ki.2:25
<
p>
The exceptions the Divines take to this are where the Civil authority assumes to itself the administration of the sacraments, citing 2Chron.26:18. In fact, XXIII.3 TOTALLY disavows tolerance for Civil Authority meddling in the sacraments in ANY way. The exact language (1647 English!) “And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in His Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof . . .”
The state issues marriage licenses. No one can get legally married without one. And no one needs to go through any kind of religious ceremony to get legally married if they don’t want to; it is only because state law permits clergy to solemnize marriages that church weddings that also create a legal marriage are possible. If that statute were changed, people could still get married, but they’d have to go to a justice of the peace or other authorized state officer to do it.
<
p>
Given that state of affairs, how can you possibly claim that legal marriage is a “sacrament”? A sacrament is by definition a religious rite, and legal marriage is not necessarily that.
<
p>
Through the coincidence of legal marriage and the religious rite of marriage having the same name, it seems to me you’re confusing two distinct things. It makes no sense to me that you’d “accept” (if not be happy with) same-sex civil unions, but “not accept” (whatever that means) same-sex couples getting legally married.
<
p>
Finally, as to your notion of Christ not “coming down here” to “save those who didn’t need it”: is it your view that there is anyone who doesn’t “need it”? That’s a serious question, by the way.
to the confusion people have because the state allows clergy to solumnize civil marriages is to remove that allowance. Maine introduced a bill to that effect this year. It was called “An Act To Remove Clergy as Signatories on Marriage Licenses”. Bill text here. The RCC, ahem, hated the idea. So much for rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s… Looks like the bill is dead: “Latest Senate Action: Placed in legislative files (DEAD)” But we have to start somewhere, and this bill provides a great model for what could and should be done in every state.
We had a looong discussion about it a few months ago here.
<
p>
People should be able to have the legal wedding take place in the setting at the time they want it to. If they want it in a church to add a spiritual element, or on a beach to add a beautiful aesthetic component, they should be abel to. They shouldn’t be forced to have their legal status change in a dingy clerks office on a tuesday after lunch.
you really know nothing of what you speek. there is no mandate that the marriage happen in the justice of the peace’s office. it can happen anywhere the couple wants. a friend of mine just got married out at the harborside (dont hyperventilate, they’re straight, or at least of opposite sexes). but hey! don’t let legal truth get in the way of your sick fantasies!
I just looked at the Maine bill, which doesn’t restrict the location to the clerks office. Rev Spero’s proposal for Massachusetts was to make the marriage official in the city hall and have only a “celebration” at a church after the fact. Both of the ideas are tremendously mean-spirited and don’t serve the interest of the state one bit.
Who cares where Rev Spero imagined the civil solumnization would take place, she was writing an op-ed. I was quoting an actual bill. your pathetic “woe are we” is more hollow than mitt romney’s head.
I assumed it would have been more similar, and hence the same debate we had before, sorrry! But still, that bill is pointless and mean-spirited and very confusing. Would a JP go to the church and step in to do the vows and declare them married? Or would they already be married when they arrive at the church? Why should anyone care if the person that officiates the legal change of status is a church official too? How does it help serve state interest?
It would get the government out of the sacrament business. That would be nice.
The government would still be performing the sacrament of marriage, it just wouldn’t let clergy do it. Only lawyers, JP’s and judges would be allowed to perform the sacrament. I’m not sure if Maine has that law where the governor can give the authority to people temporarily, so they can officiate at a friend’s wedding. I suppose they don’t.
— your opening statement. The state has no choice in the matter of “allowing” clergy to solemnize a sacrament! The position of the Roman church notwithstanding, taking that tack will result in an IMMENSE, and overwhelming, Christian backlash that will wind up in every court in the country!
<
p>
At this point, I think the secular community has a decision to make; either it will stop trying to challenge the right of the church to its sacrament, or it will not go further than a defeat within the legal system.
<
p>
You’re a legal beagle, you should know better! Espousing an ungranted position politically is understandable; espousing an ungranted LEGAL one in the face of stiff opposition, and trying to move to make it law usually results in more conflict that the spouse can handle!
<
p>
Damn! And I had pledged to leave you alone for the weekend! 🙂
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
The state has no choice in the matter of “allowing” clergy to solemnize a sacrament!
<
p>
It used to be that churches set the rules and kept the records about who was marrying who, and local people enforced the rules about fornication and adultery based on their church record of church weddings. The state respected what the church said about who’s married. But the state has always been the final authority of marriages, it is part of what should be “rendered unto caesar”. People and territories are governed by the state.
<
p>
The state has to have its own criterea of what to accept as a legal marriage that applies to citizens of the state. We can’t let some so-called church marry people to 13 year olds, or allow people to terminate marriages at their whim, right? Enforcing the law about who is married isn’t just a matter of keeping records or bookkeeping, it is about policing a physical activity that is either allowed and is good, or is not allowed and is bad. Being allowed to join in conjugal union and to conceive people together is a physical matter enforced by the police. Different people can have their own opinion about whether a particule couple should be allowed to conceive or not, but when the state says a couple is married, it doesn’t matter how anyone else feels about it. It’s not up to anyone anymore. They can’t change churches and get unmarried, the state still says they’re married.
you will find that i am right and you are wrong. do you have the nerve to do it, or will you stay in your pathetic little cloud of wishful thinking?
Since I am in Washington, and you are in Mass., I have a difficult time relating to the state law of a state that has been developing its embedded legal system some 100 years before this Wild Indian Territory became a state! (I have been assured by the local, if somewhat committed liberal, media, that we should not expect another Indian attack before Tuesday, so I should not have to stray too far from this keybored . . . unless they are, as usual, wrong . . .)
<
p>
Seriously, Laurel, it is entirely possible, even probable, that the secular left will win legal battles, and maybe even some at the polls, allowing both same-sex marriage, and estoppel of the church. Both would be an error on the part of said left.
<
p>
America’s reformed Christian community, in the words of Hammamoto, is a “sleeping giant.” With respect, mon ami, awaken it at your peril! . . . . .
<
p>
But then, Laurel, it is not my intent to pick a fight with you, or anyone who espouses same-sex unions. Sorry to be the burr under you saddle though I may be, but it is my intent to help establish the line in the sand. This line should not, necessarily be viewed as a challenge, but rather as the Christian equivalent of estoppel . . .
<
p>
Best Wishes,
Chuck
If a couple chooses to have their marraige perdromed solely by a religious official, then they can file their taxes individually, have no inheritance rights, and can own their property as tenants in common rather than by the entireties.
<
p>
If they want to take advantage of the non-religious benefits offered, they can vist the JoP.
Except today they don’thave to visit a JP seperately, the religious official can officiate the legal wedding, if they have a valid license from the city hall.
And I will TRY . . .The brutality of this explanation is aimed not at anyONE, but at the problem, BTW.
<
p>
As to licenses, they’re an outgrowth of the original partnerships between the thirteen states that grew out of the colonies, and the churches that spawned many of them. The bond between these states and their sponsoring churches was far stronger than today’s teaching illustrates. (For substantial non-revisionist enlightenment, delve into the tome written by Larry Schweikart, and Michael Allen, “A Patriot’s History of the United States;” Sentinel/Penguin, 2004. Fathead Limbaugh’s endorsement notwithstanding, it’s fairly accurate, to this history student’s thinking.)
<
p>
Being such hardly anticipated the direction the freedoms developed over the next two-hundred-plus years would take the particular directions they did – the church stayed ecclesiastical, and the state turned toward secularism. The states bureaucratized the sacrament of marriage, beginning with age requirements laid down as CIVIL law, progressing into fees and further structure, and to take away from the church the marriage perogative of personal decision, through bureaucratic regulation. The church, meanwhile preoccupied with things that churches do, hardly paid attention to this, to the detriment of one of their four important sacraments.
<
p>
I think this was pretty much the situation through the explosion of what, with your indulgence, I will call “liberal dogma,” starting in the 1960’s in earnest, and continuing through today, across the gamut of moral values. The recent backlash to this has been the church digging in its heels and fighting back – HARD! I think this is kind of where we stand on the marriage issue today. (This is REALLY abbreviated, and begs expansion, but we just don’t have that much column space!)
<
p>
Your discussion of “legal marriage,” in light of the sacramental nature of marriage, thus means very little to the church. As part of the “magistrate’s” usurpation of sacramental function (forbidden to him by scriptural admonition!), the state, in its less-than-enlightened bureaucratic mindset, elected to first regulate, then secularize, then usurp rights forbidden to it by the sacramental nature of marriage. That the church in the past tolerated this is the church’s error. This will not, I assure you, be the church’s position in the future; some of the finest legal minds in the world are also rather Christian, and will ultimately mount overcoming challenges to this secularization.)
<
p>
None of this violates the requirement for the church to respect the law, as espoused by the “civil magistrate.” And certainly, it does not denigrate any CIVIL union recognized by the state; that would not be in keeping with our belief. What it does is simply to defend the institution of MARRIAGE as a sacrament. The state may not usurp sacraments of the church; go there at your legal peril!
<
p>
Finally, as to your question on salvation; this is not so simple as you think. Reformed Christians understand the concept that the Godhead (Trinity, if you will) have predestined all things from the beginning. (Scriptural citations available offline; too many to enumerate here!) Christians are bound to take the message of salvation to everyone, because we are not give the knowledge of who is, and who isn’t among those predestined to election. (Even YOU may be, you heathen! :-). No one is beyond the need for salvation. That includes me, BTW.
<
p>
Finally, I realize that this discourse is like two people with a language barrier trying to communicate. Hopefully, we have succeeded. In any event,
<
p>
My best to you,
Chuck
Chuck’s comment, though completely wrong, points to an important historical fact.
<
p>
In the Puritan church, marriage was specifically not a sacrament. This created the institution of civil marriage, which is the legal framework for the (limited, alas) marriage equality that we enjoy on Massachusetts.
<
p>
It is also the root of property rights for women, since the civil marriage was constructed as a contract between man and wife (In order to enter into a contract you have to own the “property” you are contracting about, in this case yourself).
<
p>
That’s a lot of equality to come from one moment of separation of church and state!
<
p>
Lest anyone beat me to it, I note that the Puritans were generally not nice people and would have been aghast at rights for gays or women or just about anybody. Fortunately we enjoy the fruits of progress over time, and are not bound to keep the ignorance and hatreds of the past, just as the Puritans have mellowed into Congregationalists and Unitarians.
I’ve been trying to understand that, and just haven’t been able to come up with it. Please explain in detail (1) about WHAT, and (2) WHY I am completely wrong, so that I can turn that around.
<
p>
The Puritan Church was hardly reformed, in that it did not necessarily subscribe to the strict scriptural interpretations prescribed by Calvin, Luther and oters. It would be an error to view the Purtians as synonomous with the reformed chruc, for that reason.
<
p>
Thanks, and my best,
Chuck
Seems to me that the word “marriage” describes two things. One, it describes a religious sacrament. Two, it describes a legal status.
<
p>
The two concepts do not completely overlap. My church does not recognize or permit divorce except in very narrow circumstances in which an anulment can be granted. If I get divorced and remarried, I will be legally married, yet living in a state of adultery in the eyes of the Church.
<
p>
I don’t see why the dame distinction can’t be drawn for SSM. If a religion doesn’t want to recognize it, then it need not. End of religious discussion.
<
p>
It is an unfortunate accident of history that the state become involved in “marriage” in a religious sense. It would have been better had it developed as in Europe, in which everyone–single sex or otherwise– had a civil union in the eyes of the law, and then can go to a church to get married if they so choose.
<
p>
Unfortunately, we use the word “marriage” to describe what is in essence a civil union, and I see zero harm in using it to describe all civil unions.
<
p>
Your pastor may differ. He can choose to refuse to perform certain marriages, as he may already do for divorcees.
Marriage, regardless of the usurpation of the government, is NOT a civil union. For understanding, refer to my post citing the Westminster Confession above, and study the seciptural citations used by the Divines as scriptural proof therefor. Both the Catholic Church, and the Reformed Protestant Church (that is, the Protestant church that has returned to the Westminster Confession and the Principles of Calvin) decry the performance of “marriages” by the civil authority, and in fact do not recognize them as marriages No sacrament was performed, and such, by Christ’s dictate, cannot be performed by the civil authority.
<
p>
A civil authority can create a legal arrangement between two people, but it cannot be called a marriage, as the civil authority cannot perform sacraments. And as to ordained pastors performing marriages, neither the Catholic Church nor Reformed religions allows anyone else to do so!
<
p>
Marriage can confer a civil status, if that is within the terms of the law (it is, in all fifty states). But no matter HOW you stretch it, a civil ceremony cannot confer marital status, as the church reserves that sacrament unto itself.
Who cares what convoluted definition or significance some church group may come up with, what we are talking about is whether we should put someone in jail for risking a person’s life by attempting to create it by joining the genes of two people of the same sex.
<
p>
Marriage is a civil right to have children together. Religions can have their rules about who ought to be given that right, and they can attatch rites and ceremonies to make it stronger, but they aren’t the ones with the police force that allow or disallow the conception of children.
“Marriage is a civil right to have children together.”
<
p>
Well, hardly. From the very first, God instituted the sacrament of marriage: Genesis, Chapter 2:
18: ” The Lord God said, “It is not good for man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him.”
24: “For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they shall becoome one flesh.”
<
p>
Without female companionship and a partner in reproduction, the man ADAM could not, per God’s edict, fully realize his humanity. And in that latter, a man leaves his parents and their protective custody, and with his wife, establishes a new family unit. The divine intent for husband and wife was monogamy. Together, it is/was God’s intent that they form an inseparable union, of which “one flesh” is both a sign and an expression.
<
p>
Marriage, as a sacrament, thus has a twofold purpose. First, it provides companionship, such that man has a helper, and companion for his work on earth. Second, it provides that inseparable union, within which it is possible to produce legitimate offspring.
<
p>
These are the fundamental reasons why marriage is one of the church’s inviolate sacraments, and why ANY encroachment on that sacrament is a violation of the First Amendment.
<
p>
Invite that argument before the Supreme Court, and you will learn a lesson you may not wish to learn.
<
p>
Uh, right Laurel? 😉
<
p>
My best,
Chuck
There are many church-sanctioned marriages where there is no companionship and the helper doesn’t ever help, and many that do not provide an inseperable union. Many married people go off and commit adultery and the marriage is disolved, the union is seperated. But they’re still marriages, even though they are missing your fundamental reaons.” What is true about every single marriage though, even the most tragic ones, is that, for as long as the marriage is valid, the couple has a right to become one flesh – literally conceive of themselves as one flesh and create people from that conception. If that isn’t true about a couple, if they are not allowed to become one flesh and conceive people of that flesh, then they are not married.
<
p>
The church knows that the civil authority is what is ultimately going to allow or not allow the couple to conceive together. Not every person is in a church, but we all live in a civil jurisdiction. And people that live in the same area might be in many churches, but they all live under the same civil law.
Yes it is true that marriages fail — to an alarming extent, IMHO. It is true that “marriages” need not take place inside the church, per todays legal definition of marriage. But several comments and observations are in order.
<
p>
The failure rate of marriages sponsored by and solomnized within the reformed Christian church is exceptionally low, by comparison to the overall failure rate. This is only true for those who take their church seriously, attend it regularly, and support it from the heart. The reasons for this are many, but include the fact that the Reformed Christian espouses a far more sober approach to selecting a lifemate. Courtships tend to be much longer, and the focus then is far more on the cerebral, spiritual and romantic aspects than on the banal and physical. Sensible; if failure is to occur, it should not be after taking vows before God.
<
p>
Marriage outside the church does not prevent couples in what the Reformed Christian views as a civil arrangement from producing offspring. The risks inherent in civil marriage, and its immense divorce rate is a failure on the state’s part; the state, in usurping the right to license and marry people has an utterly DISMAL track record! Instances of adultery and divorce within the PCA Presbyterian Church are almost (I did say ALMOST!) unheard of, FOR THOSE CHRISTIANS WHO PRACTICE their faith and ATTEND AND SUPPORT their church. And in every divorce case within the PCA, I know of no single instance that did not involve a couple who had fallen away from the church.
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
for churches to perform weddings. It definitely makes them stronger.
When the Catholic Church or a Protestant church, Calvinist or otherwise, exercisies the police power and sets tax policy in this country, then I will care what their definition of marriage is. Then, also, I will work to overthrow and destroy what would necessarily be a tyrannical regime.
<
p>
Until that happens, any church’s definition of marriage has exactly nothing to do with the sate of the civil law. Zero. It is so much irrelevant nonsense.
<
p>
If a church chooses not to recognize certain marriages, they are free, as they already are, to refrain from doing so.
<
p>
Marriage will not be the first word in Websters to have two definitions, and it won’t be the last. It isn’t that hard to understand.
Is what I think we’re doing here. One thing, however; it is not the intent of the church to redefine marariage, it is rather the intent of the secularist institutions to redefine marriage. And as I pointed out above, given the incredibly high divorce rate, the number of children declared wards of the state, and the resulting statistics for poor physical and mental health, failing grades, and juvenile delinquency for kids from broken homes, the state has made a MESS out of its redefinition!
<
p>
This fact alone speaks poorly of what the state has done to marriage. Again, there is more than one kind of peril.
<
p>
And please be assured the reformed Christian community has NO intent of taking over the government anytime soon . . . we happily render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s!
<
p>
Thanks, and Good Day, All,
Chuck
nice post, CMD! just one minor but important adjustment. european countries DO use the term marriage for the civil contract you are calling civil union. they DON’T capitulate the term to the religious bodies. i know this for a fact for the netherlands and england. i could be wrong for other countries.
Then I’ll Leave you in peace for the rest of the weekend. (“HAIL MARY!! The Repubnican is gonna shut up!”)
<
p>
I can call a fish filet a steak until it rots, but it will never be a steak . . .
<
p>
Have a nice weekend, all!
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
..of your wishful thinking. have a nice weekend dreaming of a world that doesn’t exist and never did.
<
p>
with fondest regards for your improved mental capacity,
Laurel
No one cares what you call it. And even if the government calls it a steak, you don’t have to.
There are numerous Protestant denominations in which marriage is not a sacrament.
<
p>
And please do not claim the “Christian view” of marriage as you have when there are Christian churches that do support equal marriage.
have arbitrarily elected to go outside the dictates of scripture and embrace non-scriptural concepts. These concepts cannot be demonstrated scripturally, thus are not Christian, and are not acceptable to those churches who follow scripture in determining their course. Perhaps you can cite scripture of which I am unaware, which supports non-sacramental marriage? And perhaps you can justify that churches who espouse positions utterly contrary to scripture somehow meet Christ’s requirements in “the Law and the Prophets?”
<
p>
As to your first claim, please support it with fact — do you have a denominational list of these “Christian” churches, in which marriage is not a sacrament? I should be pleased to receive same, such that we can go help them understand the error of their ways . . .
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
Ruling Elder
Presbyterian Church in America
So let’s start with what used to be called the Congregationalists — the United Church of Christ has 2 sacraments, Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.
<
p>
The United Methodist Church holds the same view — baptism and The Lord’s Supper.
<
p>
Fascinatingly enough, the Presbyterian Church in America, of which your sig-file says you are part, has the following to say about sacraments:
<
p>
“There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.”
<
p>
Nope, not marriage.
<
p>
**
<
p>
And in regards to your comment:
<
p>
“I should be pleased to receive same, such that we can go help them understand the error of their ways”
<
p>
How arrogant.
Arrogantly elaborate a little on the Third Sacrament?
<
p>
First, the Congregationalists and Methodists have little in common with the PCA Presbyterians, as we do not vote on what we think. Rather, we have an appointed form of government which takes it dictate from the scriptures. I am a Ruling Elder in that denomination, and my service is a lifetime appointment, unless removed for cause by an appointed judicial comittee from within the regional body, called, in our case, the Pacific Northwest Presbytery. Within my tenure, only one person has ever been so removed; I served on the judicial committee for his removal, and he was removed for destroying a church.
<
p>
You seem to have read WCF XXVI, 1.-4. and stopped there. There remains WCF XXVI.5, which addresses the sacraments of the Old Testament, and brings them forward to be in substance the same as those of the New Testament. Those include the Sacrament of Marriage, ordained by God Himself in Genesis, Chapter 2, for the FIRST man created.
<
p>
May I arrogantly suggest you find your Bible, dust it off, and read Genesis, Chapter 2? May I then arrogantly direct your attention to the Confession, Chapter XXIII.3, which tells the Civil Magistrate to butt out of the administration of the Sacraments?
<
p>
BTW, I TEACH a course in the WCF. You are cordially invited to join me on Wednesday evenings, 33 Wednesday nights a year, at the Bellewood Presbyterian Church, of Bellevue, Washington, for that class. You may find it enlightening . . .
<
p>
My Best,
Chuck
It is good to remember that this debate was not about hospital vistation or health insurance, it was about the right to create babies together.
<
p>
The judge had the facts wrong, Laurel, there were no health risk involved. It was pure racism.
<
p>
Also, there is no fundamental difference in the manner by which interracial couples conceive. It does not require a government regulated commercial industry to mess around with one of their gametes so that it could be joined with the other’s. It does not open the door to all forms of genetic engineering.
<
p>
Do you really think that black people are so different from white people that scientists have to “coax” the gametes so that they can join together?
Of course, at the time a lot of people didn’t think that was true.
True, some people seemed to think it would make unhealthy babies, but there was ample evidence that that wasn’t true all along, and a long history of interracial babies that were quite celbrated, such as the children born from Julius and Antony to Cleopatra. In fact that Coontz book makes a point of how important inter-racial marriages were to world politics, the children of the elites were almost always inter-racial to some extent. The probable health of inter-racial babies is why they so desperately tried to keep such evidence from being created at all. It upset white supremacy completely. But in spite of the prohibitions, people were having “inter-racial” babies all the time, because it didn’t take a huge investment in lab equiptment, it just took having sex together, whether married in places that allowed it, or out-of-wedlock in places that didn’t.
<
p>
You have to concur, David, that inter-racial babies are not analogous to the genetic engineering that would have to be done to make same-sex conceived babies. Sex is not a sub-catagory of humanity, it isn’t a genus or species or race or breed. Rather, species and genuses are all derivitives of sex. Sex was the breakthrough that enabled evolution to begin and different species to break apart. All sexual species have a common ancestor way back there when sex first started happening, and it has been males and females having sex ever since. To compare this difference with racial differences is very ignorant and offensive.
“ample evidence that” SS conception is a health risk?
<
p>
I’d like to be persuaded by evidence.
They’ve done experiments, it’s not like it’s a mystery. Making educated guesses about what genes to turn off or on is incredibly dangerous and we can’t predict in advance what the effects will be. They might not become fully apparent until the next generation, or during old age. Kids that are born from this would have to be the subjects of lifelong tests and probes to see how they are doing, and they will very likely have new dibilatiting diseases that no one has ever seen before.
who are “they”? what experiments have “they” done? PROVIDE REAL EVIDENCE. You can’t, because the only experiments involving bringing actual human beings to term have involved HETEROSEXUALS ONLY. IVF (“test tube babies”) is an experiment of enormous proportions which the medical world is still monitoring closely. Will people so creted be able to reach old age without undue levels of death, disease and mutation? NO ONE KNOWS. You heterosexuals are experimenting RIGHT THIS MINUTE on babies. But because it is heterosexuals doing it, you, John Howard, call it “restorative”, or some other crap. You are full of crap. Are you Paul Cameron? He is the most notorious slinger of fake, anti-gay “data”. You have no place in a “reality-based community”.
In 2004, Scientists led by Tomohiro Kono, a biologist at the Tokyo University of Agriculture, have created baby mice without the introduction of sperm. 10 were born alive out of 450 embryos, one survived to adulthood.
<
p>
Also, Dr. Richard Scott of Reproductive Medical Associates in New Jersey says research is moving rapidly to allow two men or two women to have a baby using stem cells. Here’s the text of an article containing his prediction that a baby will be born in three to five years. Apparently research is going on all over the world, presumably on animals, but also using human stem cells.
<
p>
And then there is this new development where researchers are asking permission in England to try to create sperm for women. They don’t need to ask permission in the US.
<
p>
Regarding IVF, it is natural conception, it is not genetic engineering. It is a right of a married couple to try to conceive children together, and a private medical procedure. There are many people who want to ban IVF but no regulations exist at all, because it is such a private right of marriage. It does seem to be riskier, but so is smoking or waiting an extra year to get pregnant.
<
p>
We don’t have to allow genetic engineering though. We don’t have to allow same-sex couples to marry, we don’t have to give a same-sex couple the right to conceive together. Genetic engineering of humans is past the “Enough” point, and same-sex conception is unnecessary and too risky and unethical to allow. It is not a private medical procedure, there is no right to attempt it.
Not yet! 😉
I see the wink; but it’s important to explain why same-sex conception is not private, and is not medicine.
<
p>
It can’t ever be private because people’s sex is public. Unless the parents choose to conceal that they are both genetic parents, and the doctor goes along with it, choosing not to announce such an amazing scientific breakthrough, and the children themselves are kept in the dark, then the fact that a same-sex conception procedure was done is public. There is no way to keep it between yourself and your doctor. Two fathers would be a matter of public record. See the difference with IVF? We might gossip that a couple used IVF, it might seem obvious, they might announce it, but it is never a matter of public record, nor can it be inferred with infallable logic from the public record. The children would know, and so would the public record, that they are genetic engineered kids that is are a halfway mix of Bob and Steve together in one person, because Bob and Steve love each other so much so they had this halfway mix created.
<
p>
And that isn’t medicine, since medicine is by definition to restore health, and there is nothing unhealthy about not being able to conceive with someone of the same sex. It’s like going to the moon; being able to breathe on the lunar surface was not medicine, because not being able to breathe where there is no air does not make you unhealthy. Everyone would die with no air to breathe, even the healthiest people. But someone with emphesma has trouble breathing on earth, where healthy people can breathe. So, it is perfectly healthy to only be able to conceive with someone of the other sex. There’s every reason to believe doing it would make more unhealthier people than if it were not done, so it is not medicine.
i asked for proof that people were being created with this method. you gave me mouse pups. i smell a rat.
<
p>
i never called IVF genetic engineering. it was that science dolt Eabo that claimed that. but IVF is an ongoing experiment. some scientists gave high fives recently when the first IVF baby was able to sucessfully reproduce. why were they holding their collective breaths? because they know that any problems resulting from IVF fertilization may not become evident until the 3rd generation. you should care deeply about this big experiment the public is undertaking. alas, no gays involved (that you know of, but there are some actually…), so you could care less.
Yeah, the experiments are being done in animals at this point, and they are proving that it is incredibly dangerous. Each species is different, so they can’t even perfect it in mice and make it safe to try in humans. It will always be unsafe to try in humans.
<
p>
You want me to be more upset by IVF? Or do you want me to be less upset by genetic engineering? I smell a rat. I am officially against IVF Laurel, for the reasons the Pope is against it. I just see that it is totally impossible to regulate because it is a private medical procedure and people have a right to conceive with their spouse, it goes on all around us and the babies are usually healthy (it is hard to tell if the higher rates of problems are due to the IVF or to the reasons that IVF was required in the first place). It is useless for me to put any energy into stopping IVF when so many people are using it and it isn’t particularly bad. What is much more important at this stage is to stop genetic engineering, whether it is done by straight couples or gay couples.
<
p>
Why are yo so insistant that two women or two men should be allowed to try to create these half=mix children? And why should they be allowed to try it today, right now? You recognize the risks of IVF, and those are miniscule compared to the risks of genetic engineering. But because they are a gay couple, you suddenly put aside all rational thinking and insist that they be allowed to do whatever a straight couple can do, even if it is totally stupid and wasteful and unethical.
<
p>
You really should consider how much real ground could be gained by giving up same-sex conception demands and accepting that same-sex couples should not have all the rights of marriage. With civil unions that were not “marriage in name only”, it will be much easier to get federal recognition and recognition in all fifty states, and that will make a real differene to same-sex couples. They don’t want to have narcissitc experimental half-and-half mixture children that will probably suffer horrible defects, they want equal benefits and protections. Right??
I think what Laurel was doing was having her tongue so far into her cheek that people must have wondered about the protrusion!
<
p>
bEST,
cHUCK
It is good to remember that this debate was not about hospital vistation or health insurance, it was about the right to create babies together.
<
p>
The issue that you have projected has nothing to do with the right “to create babies together”. The right that you have been discussing is the right to state marriage. Unless you are a total dolt, you will understand that those are two separate rights.
It’s always been marriage by which we declare that a couple has the right to create babies together. That’s why you didn’t see any suggestions in 1967 that they were seperate questions. Or in 1978 with Zablocki, either. They are the same question and we should seperate them now, after ten thousand years of consistently being the same question.
<
p>
The reasons we shouldn’t seperate them is because marriage is all that protects our conception rights. Nothing else does. We shouldn’t allow anyone to think that a marriage can be prohibited from conceiving together.
I mean, we should seperate them now [pause] NOT!
You may see them as being the same but the law most certainly does not.
It is true that more and more people seem to think that they are seperate questions, but they are not, and it’s very dangerous to allow them to be seen as such. Just look at all the history of case law and formal law, it’s clear that marriage always gives conception rights, and nothing else in formal law or case law gives conception rights. Ever since the first marriage thousands of years ago, every marriage has had the right to conceive. Never, not once, has there been a marriage that has not been allowed to conceive. Even those “cousin” marriages where a state allows it only if there’s proof of infertility or they are over 60 or something like that, those marriages are nevertheless allowed to conceive. Their children would be legitimate.