Should the state be involved in marriages?

Post by **otseng** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:39 am

Should the state grant/register/define marriages? Why or why not?

What level of involvement should the state be in regards to marriages?

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:11 pm

Gandalf wrote:Please! You can not be serious. I can not offer any more proof to of the things I believe than you can of the things you believe. And if you CAN give any form of respectable proof then I would be fair enough to read it and possibly give an opinion, if that is what you are looking for here. Although I can not give any proof of what you are asking, I CAN tell you that I live by something very valuable in human life ... FAITH! It is rather important for not only a Christian but anyone from any religion to have faith in what they believe. And I obviously have faith in God and in His Wisdom and Power and of course His Law. So, now that you know that I am humbly admitting to you that I am unable to give proof that would be enough to convince even the most feeble minded and ignorant, I would like to ask you to prove to me why it is that you believe what you believe in this complicated situation. For FAITH is MY weapon of choice in the battle against all that is against God and His Law.

In case you haven't noticed the NAME OF THIS SITE, it's about DEBATING CHRISTIANITY AND RELIGION.

This isn't the place for telling us what you believe, it's somewhere you are expected to DEFEND YOUR POSITION through accepted debate rules. If all you have is faith, go home, you're completely unarmed.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:16 pm

Gandalf wrote:Please! You can not be serious. I can not offer any more proof to of the things I believe than you can of the things you believe. And if you CAN give any form of respectable proof then I would be fair enough to read it and possibly give an opinion, if that is what you are looking for here. Although I can not give any proof of what you are asking, I CAN tell you that I live by something very valuable in human life ... FAITH! It is rather important for not only a Christian but anyone from any religion to have faith in what they believe. And I obviously have faith in God and in His Wisdom and Power and of course His Law. So, now that you know that I am humbly admitting to you that I am unable to give proof that would be enough to convince even the most feeble minded and ignorant, I would like to ask you to prove to me why it is that you believe what you believe in this complicated situation. For FAITH is MY weapon of choice in the battle against all that is against God and His Law.

Yes, I am serious. You may not have noticed but this is a debating site. The weapons of debate are reason, logic and evidence. If your weapon of choice is faith, then may I humbly suggest that you really do not belong in a debate.
You have posted your postition on this debating site. According to the rules of debate you are obliged to Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. I have been told that one christian virtue is that christians try to honour their obligations. In order to help you with your task, I have provided a few of the logical and practical problems with your stated viewpoint. I look forward to your reply.

Gandalf · Post by **Gandalf** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:31 am

Well Mr.McCulloch, you seem rather positive in attempting to make YOUR point, however, you have declined the opporunity to show this forum any proof of YOUR beliefs on the topic. You seem to enjoy demanding proof from others whom you may disagree with, but it seems the only reason you do that is to distract the others from YOUR points. You can't seem to deliver your side of a debate in a debate forum, for you are too busy trying to tear down others beliefs. I had told you why I believe what I do, and HOW I can continue what I believe what I do. FAITH! Yes, you do seem to have difficulty with that word and what is behind it, only because you yourself obviously have little or no faith. I have not checked your profile or read anything about you, but I am guessing you are an athiest or agnostic. Am I correct? For it seems that obvious. So again Mr.McCulloch, I am awaiting YOUR proof or reason as to why you believe what it is you believe.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:13 pm

Gandalf wrote:Well Mr.McCulloch, you seem rather positive in attempting to make YOUR point, however, you have declined the opporunity to show this forum any proof of YOUR beliefs on the topic. You seem to enjoy demanding proof from others whom you may disagree with, but it seems the only reason you do that is to distract the others from YOUR points. You can't seem to deliver your side of a debate in a debate forum, for you are too busy trying to tear down others beliefs. I had told you why I believe what I do, and HOW I can continue what I believe what I do. FAITH! Yes, you do seem to have difficulty with that word and what is behind it, only because you yourself obviously have little or no faith. I have not checked your profile or read anything about you, but I am guessing you are an athiest or agnostic. Am I correct? For it seems that obvious. So again Mr.McCulloch, I am awaiting YOUR proof or reason as to why you believe what it is you believe.

Gandalf,
You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of debate. You chose to post a position. I pointed out that there are some moral, logical and practical difficulties with your position. You have now repeatedly refused my request for you to honour the rules set out on this site by providing evidence, logic and reasoned argument in support of your views. Instead, you have resorted to a trick called argumentum ad hominem, or attacking the person. Your position is not strengthened by your claim that I am not being a good debater. Your position remains unsupported by anything but faith. If you care to look up my history on this site, I do try to support with evidence, logic and reason any position that I have taken. But that is absolutely irrelevant to whether your position has merit.

My position on this matter is that what

Gandalf wrote:The global society should give the entire marriage situation back to the church ... the CHRISTIAN church. And leave the government out of it.

is practically and morally wrong. I have asked a number of questions which then illustrate the difficulties in applying your stated position:

Has the god you believe in granted legal authority to the Christian church to exclusively administer marriage.
How should the christian church should marriages of non-christians. Should Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and atheists be forced to be wed in christian churches with christian clergy.
Do you think that marriage should be restricted only to christians?
Which particular christian institutions should be allowed to administer marriage. Catholic? Orthodox? Coptic? Anglican? (how about the Anglicans who support same-sex marriage?) Evangelical? Mormon? Jehovahs Witness? Progressive Christians (some of them also support same sex marriage)? Independent?

What I believe is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that I have no faith is irrelevant to the discussion. Whether I am an atheist, agnostic, skeptic, humanist or pagan is irrelevant to the discussion. The allegation that I only wish to tear down is irrelevant to the discussion. You have stated a position and you are obliged by the rules of this debate site to support your position by evidence, logic and reason.

Please, if you find one of my posts on this site where I have stated a position that I have not adequately supported, do me the favour of pointing it out to me. I will endeavor to correct the situation or withdraw my position.

You have stated that your position is based on faith. I am unaware of any recognized faith which advocates that marriage is the exclusive domain of the christian church. Would you please provide some references to support your claim? Bible verses, papal bulls, confessions, creeds, a voice from the clouds, whatever you have.

The bible tells christians to "prove all things" in 1 Thess 5, and "always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you" in 1 Peter 3. Paul instructs, "Give diligence to present yourself approved by God, a workman who doesn’t need to be ashamed, properly handling the Word of Truth." in 2 Tim 3.
I suspect that some reading your post may come to the conclusion that your recommendation that the christian church should have sole jurisdiction over marriage has not been fully thought out.

Gandalf · Post by **Gandalf** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 4:06 pm

Mr.McCulloch, you seem to be the type of person that believes they posess a world of knowledge. Please allow me to be one of possibly many to congradulate you on how much knowledge you seem to contain in that precious but yet naive mind of yours. Yes, it is true that you are rather educated ... i can only guess that you would mainly be self educated on a number of topics such as the one at hand in this forum ... nevertheless, you are educated. There is however one word that I am certain you must be familiar with, and that word is ignorance. I am guessing that you must hear that word quite often and so you may have researched the word ignorance in a dictionary (that is, unless you have decided to leave your mark, and give the word your own meaning without truly researching it fully). For I can only imagine that you fully rely on the King James Version or possibly the New KJV of the Bible when attempting to disprove Christians in certain topics. However, if you would have researched further to find if that was the correct translation to choose in your battle to try to thwart Christians with our own Weapons of Warfare, you would have found that it does have certain flaws in it that lead it to be a little inaccurate. Not to say that it is a bad book, just saying that they have proven it to have some minor inaccuracies here and there. I grew up studying the the KJV and the NIV, mostly, however, I have gone from there and expanded my personal research to a number of other translations (even in other languages) to find the most accurate one. Now, you had used certain Biblical scriptures such as 2 Timothy 4:5 to use to say that I, as a Christian, should "prove" my theories in what I believe pertaining such topics as this one in this forum. However, I had found that the word "proof" was mentioned in the KJV translation but not in others. Others, such as the New Revised Standard Translation (which was written to correct the inaccuracies in the KJV). And so, I am asking that you please don't only read or study from the one translation when you are trying to offset Christians in their teachings or studies, but try to find the most reliable and accurate translation, study it, and then if you are really that confident in your studies on the topic then please, by all means, let your opinion be known. I would also appreciate it if you were to read a little more of that particular chapter of Timothy. By reading 2 Timothy 4:2-4 as well as verse 5 then you will get more of what Christians are being asked to do in this scripture. "Proclaim the message; be persistent; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching." That sir, is the way a Christian teacher should live their lives,and that is how God wants us to bring forth His truths and His laws and His message. Asking questions is a far better and more productive way to learn the truth than it is for anyone to show another person their own ignorance.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 8:34 pm

quote="Gandalf"]Mr.McCulloch, you seem to be the type of person that believes they posess a world of knowledge. [/quote]You do not know that .

Gandalf wrote:Please allow me to be one of possibly many to congradulate you on how much knowledge you seem to contain in that precious but yet naive mind of yours.

One of the rules of this debating forum is no personal attacks. That very much seemed like a personal attack. Please provide evidence that my mind is naive.

Gandalf wrote:Yes, it is true that you are rather educated ... i can only guess that you would mainly be self educated on a number of topics such as the one at hand in this forum ... nevertheless, you are educated. There is however one word that I am certain you must be familiar with, and that word is ignorance. I am guessing that you must hear that word quite often and so you may have researched the word ignorance in a dictionary (that is, unless you have decided to leave your mark, and give the word your own meaning without truly researching it fully).

This is totally irrelevant to the debate.

Gandalf wrote: For I can only imagine that you fully rely on the King James Version or possibly the New KJV of the Bible when attempting to disprove Christians in certain topics. However, if you would have researched further to find if that was the correct translation to choose in your battle to try to thwart Christians with our own Weapons of Warfare, you would have found that it does have certain flaws in it that lead it to be a little inaccurate. Not to say that it is a bad book, just saying that they have proven it to have some minor inaccuracies here and there. I grew up studying the the KJV and the NIV, mostly, however, I have gone from there and expanded my personal research to a number of other translations (even in other languages) to find the most accurate one.

Actually, most of my bible study was with the New American Standard.

Gandalf wrote:Now, you had used certain Biblical scriptures such as 2 Timothy 4:5 to use to say that I, as a Christian, should "prove" my theories in what I believe pertaining such topics as this one in this forum. However, I had found that the word "proof" was mentioned in the KJV translation but not in others. Others, such as the New Revised Standard Translation (which was written to correct the inaccuracies in the KJV). And so, I am asking that you please don't only read or study from the one translation when you are trying to offset Christians in their teachings or studies, but try to find the most reliable and accurate translation, study it, and then if you are really that confident in your studies on the topic then please, by all means, let your opinion be known. I would also appreciate it if you were to read a little more of that particular chapter of Timothy. By reading 2 Timothy 4:2-4 as well as verse 5 then you will get more of what Christians are being asked to do in this scripture. "Proclaim the message; be persistent; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching." That sir, is the way a Christian teacher should live their lives,and that is how God wants us to bring forth His truths and His laws and His message. Asking questions is a far better and more productive way to learn the truth than it is for anyone to show another person their own ignorance.

However, you still have not lived up to your obligation as a registered member of this debate site. You have made the assertion that marriage should be the exclusive domain of the christian church. You have provided no logic or evidence to back up your claim. I have provided some moral, ethical and practical problems with your viewpoint. You have provided no answers to those problems. You have further stated that your viewpoint is backed by faith. You have provided no evidence that any recognized faith teaches what you suggest. Do please try to stay on topic. I have asked a number of questions. You could at least shine some light on my ignorance by answering them instead of trying to find some fault with my lack of understanding.

Post by **otseng** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:34 pm

Gandalf wrote:Mr.McCulloch, you seem to be the type of person that believes they posess a world of knowledge. Please allow me to be one of possibly many to congradulate you on how much knowledge you seem to contain in that precious but yet naive mind of yours. Yes, it is true that you are rather educated ... i can only guess that you would mainly be self educated on a number of topics such as the one at hand in this forum ... nevertheless, you are educated. There is however one word that I am certain you must be familiar with, and that word is ignorance.

Gandalf, actually, you are violating the rules with statements such as these. The number one rule is "No personal attacks of any sort are allowed." Comments about another poster are prohibited here.

What is allowed is backing up your positions through logical arguments. And if you can use scripture to back up your position, by all means share them. So, please do try to engage in a civil debate where we can discuss about issues rather than about other posters. Thanks.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:38 am

otseng wrote:Gandalf, actually, you are violating the rules with statements such as these. The number one rule is "No personal attacks of any sort are allowed." Comments about another poster are prohibited here.

What is allowed is backing up your positions through logical arguments. And if you can use scripture to back up your position, by all means share them. So, please do try to engage in a civil debate where we can discuss about issues rather than about other posters. Thanks.

Thank you otseng.

Here is a summary of the debate so far between me and Gandalf, with ad homs, personal attacks and my rather unsuccessful attempts to convince Gandalf to obey the rules and provide evidence or logical arguments removed.

Gandalf wrote:New guy here! I have a quick and very important point to make. But first, I will start with a question. What came first, God's Law or political law? For those of you reading this that answered the former then you are correct! God's Law did precede ANY other law in history, and is therefore the only law to base all other laws on. The global society should give the entire marriage situation back to the church ... the CHRISTIAN church. And leave the government out of it. Marriage is based solely on God's Law, His Will for a couple (that being a man and a woman), and above all else, love. The global society, including the governments around the world, have turned precious love into a political debate. HOW ROMANTIC! Keep it in the church, where love prevails.

McCulloch wrote:Then prove that [...] god [...] has granted legal authority to the Christian church to administer marriage. Then answer how the christian church should administer marriages of non-christians. Should Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and atheists be forced to be wed in christian churches with christian clergy. Or maybe you think that marriage should be restricted only to christians. Having solved that dilemma, answer which particular christians should be allowed to administer marriage. Catholic? Orthodox? Coptic? Anglican? (how about the Anglicans who support same-sex marriage?) Evangelical? Mormon? Jehovahs Witness? Progressive Christians (some of them also support same sex marriage)? Independent? In Canada, it is not just a political debate, it is a human rights issue. Do you believe that those who believe that their god or gods oppose same sex marriage be allowed to impose their unsubstantiated faith-based morality on those who do not subscribe to their particular faith? What a dangerous precedent you are suggesting!

Gandalf wrote:[...]For FAITH is MY weapon of choice in the battle against all that is against God and His Law.

McCulloch wrote:I have asked a number of questions which then illustrate the difficulties in applying your[Gandalf's] stated position:
Has the god you believe in granted legal authority to the Christian church to exclusively administer marriage.

How should the christian church should marriages of non-christians. Should Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and atheists be forced to be wed in christian churches with christian clergy.

Do you think that marriage should be restricted only to christians?

Which particular christian institutions should be allowed to administer marriage. Catholic? Orthodox? Coptic? Anglican? (how about the Anglicans who support same-sex marriage?) Evangelical? Mormon? Jehovahs Witness? Progressive Christians (some of them also support same sex marriage)? Independent?
I am unaware of any recognized faith which advocates that marriage is the exclusive domain of the christian church.

I would like to clarify and expand on my objections to Gandalf's stated position.

Gandalf wrote:The global society should give the entire marriage situation back to the church

This statement implies that the "marriage situation" was once the exclusive domain of the church. This is demonstatably false. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, members of the North American First Nations and Buddhists have been getting married for centuries without help from the christian church.
The bible indicates that Noah, Abraham, Pharaoh and others were married prior to the existence of Christianity or even of the Jewish faith. There is no indication anywhere in the bible that the godly should preside over the marriages of the ungodly. Gandalf's argument that his position is supported by faith seems to be unsupported by evidence.
The christian church which Gandalf suggests should control the "entire marriage situation" is rather hopelessly divided. There are parts of the United Church of Canada which support same sex marriages. The same sex wedding ceremonies which have been published in the Toronto Star were conducted at the Metropolitan Church in downtown Toronto. So it appears as if Gandalf's suggestion that the government turn control of marriage over to the church will not achieve his objective of restricting marriage to a man and a woman unless the government gets into the business of differentiating between theologically correct and heretical christian churches. On the surface of it, Gandalf seems to be suggesting the return to an established religion and the removal of the separation of church and state.
Gandalf's position also raises the difficult issue of non-christian marriages. On the face of it, he seems to be suggesting that the many who reject the christian faith, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Pagans and Atheists would have to subject themselves to christian marriages ceremonies.

If Gandalf wishes to honour his commitment to obey the rules of debate, I can only see two options:

Provide evidence and logical support for his position and answer these objections OR
Retract his statement.

Given his stated position and the rules of this forum, I cannot see any other option that complies with the rules of debate.

Gandalf · Post by **Gandalf** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:59 am

First off Otseng, with all due respect, I have made no personal attacks on Mr.McCulloch. By saying that he is being naive, is merely an observation not an opinion. Also, if you are taking complaints Otseng, I was rather offended by Mr.McCulloch (in not so many words) telling me that my faith is not good enough, when the Bible clearly teaches that it is. As I do consider that a personal attack as well as an attack on Christianity as a whole I have not sat here and complained about that until this point, only because I am basically stating that Mr.McCulloch is complaining about "the speck in MY eye" when he clearly has not attempted to "remove the plank in his own".
Now Mr.McCulloch, you have complained that I have not given "proof" as to why I believe what it is that I believe, when I have repeatedly told you that I have faith. If I "have the faith of a mustard seed then I can move mountains". Did you read the entire Bible Mr.McCulloch, or only extract certain parts so that they can be twisted around to benefit your arguments on modern, liberalistic, atheist points of view? You have used a version of the Bible that is somewhat accurate in many ways, however, it has been found with several flaws by many people. Please do not misunderstand me, I have learned much from that translation, but I have also learned of it's few inaccuracies. Not to mention, you are quite aware that I am a Christian, for I have stated that already, but yet you have chosen to back up your statements by using a version of the Bible used by people that study under the name of Catholicism. Anyone who has studied the Bible as you have claimed to have done should know that Catholics and Christians generally tend to use different translations of the Bible. By trying to prove your points to me while using a book that is not accurately relevant to our discussion is not the greatest way to go about proving your point. Would it make much sense if I were to go and attempt to disprove your points by using, let's say, Essential Tibetan Buddhism?

Post by **otseng** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:24 pm

Gandalf wrote:By saying that he is being naive, is merely an observation not an opinion.

Saying anyone is naive is an attack. Let's take all further discussions in private and not further clutter this thread with posts not relevent to the debate. Gandalf, please be checking your PM for a message from me.