Does Government have the right to force someone to marry homosexuals?

[Alithis]

Our God is rational. He defines morality, but he also reasons. Romans (who's divine author is God) makes it clear that homosexuality is an offense against the image of God. A homosexual is one who practices homosexuality, much as a thief practices thievery. Sodomy refers only to male homosexuality.

umm and when was the term homosexuality phrased? /i agree with what your saying don't worry ...its just a terminology thing .what does a homosexual man do.. he commits sexual immoral acts with another man .

but sodomy referring to only male... ? i 'll require biblical basis for splitting the definition between male and female .i presently am unaware of any .

 

[charis en excelcis]

umm and when was the term homosexuality phrased? /i agree with what your saying don't worry ...its just a terminology thing .what does a homosexual man do.. he commits sexual immoral acts with another man .

but sodomy referring to only male... ? i 'll require biblical basis for splitting the definition between male and female .i presently am unaware of any .

Sodomy refers only to men. That is why I use the term homosexuality. Romans refers to both male and female homosexuality.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Reached any sort of majority opinion on "Does Government have the right to force someone to marry homosexuals?"

 

[brinny]

Does Government have the right to force someone to marry homosexuals?

No.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Does Government have the right to force someone to marry homosexuals?

No.

I thought not.

I still think that if a chap has a job that requires them to issue marriage licenses in accord with the laws of the land and if the laws of the land change so that same sex marriage is recognised as legal then the chap with the job will either need to resign or issue the licenses.

 

[psalms 91]

I thought not.

I still think that if a chap has a job that requires them to issue marriage licenses in accord with the laws of the land and if the laws of the land change so that same sex marriage is recognised as legal then the chap with the job will either need to resign or issue the licenses.

Or else someone else will do it as that is only one part of a county clerks job

 

[MoreCoffee]

Or else someone else will do it as that is only one part of a county clerks job

I suppose, but what happens if nobody else is available?

 

[psalms 91]

I suppose, but what happens if nobody else is available?

I cant imagine a county clerk without a staff

 

[MoreCoffee]

I cant imagine a county clerk without a staff

In a small county ...

 

[psalms 91]

We are a small county and she still has three people working for her

 

[MoreCoffee]

We are a small county and she still has three people working for her

Government excess!

 

[Josiah]

Adding to another discussion that came up recently do you think the Government has/should force someone to marry homosexuals? Does the Government have the power over judges opposed to religious figures?

IN MY OPINION, the secular civil government doesn't have ANY "rights" concerning marriage.

The institution of marriage and the family is MUCH older, MUCH broader than the United States of America (and especially one man on the Supreme Court thereof). Marriage is an institution from FAMILIES and (usually) RELIGION. As we survey the THOUSANDS of years of this institution - in every place and time, in every culture and land, you just don't see the USA being a dominate, determining, defining factor. In fact, until VERY, VERY recently - NO goverment did.

The secular, civil government certainly CAN control CIVIL, SECULAR things - like legal contracts, corporations, taxes, etc. THAT stuff belongs to the secular, civil state. So if some state wants to issue, acknowledge, govern and control SECULAR, CIVIL unions, partnerships, personal corporations - that's fine, that's it's business. And it MAY choose to give the same CIVIL, SECULAR "advantages" to such CIVIL partnarships as now found commonly with MARRIAGE.... but that doesn't make it marriage. And if the CIVIL, SECULAR government wants to say that a civil partnership can consist of two little old ladies in the nursing home, or six football players, or an old man and his dog - FINE, civil, secular, legal contacts are the responsibility of the civil, secular, legal STATE.

For 1.5 billion people today, marriage is a religious SACRAMENT. For nearly all the rest of us, this is something that comes from God, from our families: not from one guy on the US Supreme Court.

I think the secular, civil, US Government needs to GET OUT of religion! GET OUT of the bedroom. GET OUT of interferring with ancient, precious institutions which are none of its business. IF it wants to issue civil, personal corporations and set up whatever responsibilities and privileges it wants for that - fine, THAT'S IT'S BUSINESS. But stop authorizing Sacraments.... stop interferring with families and religion. It needs to mind it's OWN business (heaven knows, it's got a LOT on it's plate there and is doing a lousy job with that - stop pretending to be the church, the family, civilization).





.

 

[tango]

Our God is rational. He defines morality, but he also reasons. Romans (who's divine author is God) makes it clear that homosexuality is an offense against the image of God. A homosexual is one who practices homosexuality, much as a thief practices thievery. Sodomy refers only to male homosexuality.

It's worth drawing a distinction between homosexual desires and homosexual acts. Technically a homosexual is one whose sexual desires are directed towards members of the same sex regardless of whether or not they act on those desires.

So assuming that homosexual acts are sinful (which is itself a topic that generates a lot of discussion), homosexual desires are no more than one of many forms of temptation. A person who has desires for members of the same sex but chooses not to act on them is no more sinful than the married man who is tempted by the pretty young ladies around him but chooses not to act on his desires.

Another minor issue, a man can sodomise a woman so the term "sodomy" doesn't exclusively refer to activities between two men.

 

[MoreCoffee]

IN MY OPINION, the secular civil government doesn't have ANY "rights" concerning marriage. ...

Governments have authority because they have armies and police to enforce their decisions if a majority of the people are willing to go along with their decisions. I do not think it has anything to do with government rights.

 

[psalms 91]

As the athiests like to say it is a matter of seperation of church and state, the state has no right dictating anything chuurch related, they use it to kick reasonable things out of public places to the point of ridiculous, lets apply it to this issue and see if they howl.

 

[charis en excelcis]

It's worth drawing a distinction between homosexual desires and homosexual acts. Technically a homosexual is one whose sexual desires are directed towards members of the same sex regardless of whether or not they act on those desires.

So assuming that homosexual acts are sinful (which is itself a topic that generates a lot of discussion), homosexual desires are no more than one of many forms of temptation. A person who has desires for members of the same sex but chooses not to act on them is no more sinful than the married man who is tempted by the pretty young ladies around him but chooses not to act on his desires.

Another minor issue, a man can sodomise a woman so the term "sodomy" doesn't exclusively refer to activities between two men.

Good points

 

[Ruth]

I think someone should marry gay couples but I don't know who.

 

[psalms 91]

A civil union should be performed by civil authorities

 

[MoreCoffee]

A civil union should be performed by civil authorities

Unless some denomination chooses to celebrate same sex marriages then it is within their civil and religious freedoms to do so, right?

 

[psalms 91]

Yes it is and I know there are those who do s but I am not in agreement with it and I think they risk their souls in doing so