[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=8447.msg107505#msg107505 date=1257156420] [quote author=Mozes link=topic=8447.msg107498#msg107498 date=1257126862] Godislove260, I do not know the details of your older post on this matter as I can not find it. I appreciate if you could post the link to the thread. When you say,that "Marriage as such a civil agreement has existed in Roman law", where does that Roman law come from? what I mean to ask is, what is the basis for all law and justice?
I understand what you are hinting at, God created mankind in His image and likeness, He put in a distinction between good and evil (or rather, following God or not following Him) Yet now we are not talking about that eternal divine law, but the very variable worldly law, there are many systems, the law changes a lot, be it geographically or temporaly, the law now is (at least in democratic countries) voted by the people, it is thus a 'mirror' to what society at that point and in that country thinks is fair.. it does not always coincide with divine law, thankfully, because us following divine law or choosing to ignore it is not a state matter (as wordly law is) but an issue between us and God, and He is our jugde when it comes to that.. God is ofcourse to be put first by us believers, yet that should be a choice we make freely and others make freely too.. So in short, ontologically justice is what God thinks is right, yet in practice we have to make a distinction between the laws of man and the law of God, for in most democratic countries there is (or should be) a distinction between religion and state..
are not the worldy laws based on the devine law (whether one believes in the existance of the devine or not)? Is it wrong to argue that the Ten commandments serve as the consititution of the law and justice system? On the other hand, if people tend to reject the devine law and speak of natural laws, why has not evolution favoured same sex pro-creation ? I am asking you these questions , because you tend to represent or support the view on the legal side. Marriage between man and woman has always existed, it is not a Roman invention. The ancient Babylonians had marriage laws that is similar to today's.The issue here is, when it concerns the same sex couples.There is no evidence about such contracts in ancient cultures, be it Roman or otherwise. The law is slowly allowing civil unions,but it is refusing to grant the same benefits as those who seal a marriage contract. It is like not everyone gets the same welfare as there are criterias that one must fulfil to qualify for a certain type of welfare.So you cant blame the system for its flexibility.
I am afraid we are not talking about the same thing... I'm not talking about gays being granted the right to have a certain 'form' of marriage, namely civil unions, I'm talking about them getting the right to get a civil marriage!
Also, I do not agree with you that man-made law is based on divine law whether people like it or not, already in numerous countries abortion for instance (which I'm sure you agree is against God's law) is allowed... I find this a terrible thing and proof that man has chosen to deviate from what is right for the sake of comfort and so called 'freedom'. However, concerning same-sex marriage (it is already allowed in some European countries, as it is a contract that binds two grown up individuals and gives them the benefits and duties that come from marriage, I can see nothing against it. If they had been asking for a church marriage, surely that would be a whole different subject. But as the main function of the law is to regulate society and protect it from itself, I cannot see any not-religious arguments why gays should't get married. Also Mozes, I never said marriage was a Roman invention, my point was that marriage has not always been conducted in a judeo-christians context!!! All civilizations had some kind of marriage, nowadays it is mostly a civil thing (a contract) and not a religious thing in many countries... Also, there is something called man-made law, not all law has to be divided into either natural law or divine law... you seem to be talking about homosexuality in itself, I'm talking about gay marriage! Anyways, to clear any misunderstandings, I don't see any problem in gay people getting married as I see it as an individual freedom to bind oneself in such a civil contract and there is no reason why it shouldn't be allowed as in many laws civil marriage would allow such based on how one defines it. I do not think this is a law one should fight to abolish as much as certain laws on abortion, or sperm-clinics should.
Also as I dt have time for lengthy discussions, I shall leave it at that for the time being.. I think I said what I wanted to say and shed light on the issue from another side!
Comments
[quote author=Mozes link=topic=8447.msg107498#msg107498 date=1257126862]
Godislove260, I do not know the details of your older post on this matter as I can not find it. I appreciate if you could post the link to the thread. When you say,that "Marriage as such a civil agreement has existed in Roman law", where does that Roman law come from? what I mean to ask is, what is the basis for all law and justice?
I understand what you are hinting at, God created mankind in His image and likeness, He put in a distinction between good and evil (or rather, following God or not following Him)
Yet now we are not talking about that eternal divine law, but the very variable worldly law, there are many systems, the law changes a lot, be it geographically or temporaly, the law now is (at least in democratic countries) voted by the people, it is thus a 'mirror' to what society at that point and in that country thinks is fair.. it does not always coincide with divine law, thankfully, because us following divine law or choosing to ignore it is not a state matter (as wordly law is) but an issue between us and God, and He is our jugde when it comes to that.. God is ofcourse to be put first by us believers, yet that should be a choice we make freely and others make freely too..
So in short, ontologically justice is what God thinks is right, yet in practice we have to make a distinction between the laws of man and the law of God, for in most democratic countries there is (or should be) a distinction between religion and state..
are not the worldy laws based on the devine law (whether one believes in the existance of the devine or not)? Is it wrong to argue that the Ten commandments serve as the consititution of the law and justice system? On the other hand, if people tend to reject the devine law and speak of natural laws, why has not evolution favoured same sex pro-creation ? I am asking you these questions , because you tend to represent or support the view on the legal side. Marriage between man and woman has always existed, it is not a Roman invention. The ancient Babylonians had marriage laws that is similar to today's.The issue here is, when it concerns the same sex couples.There is no evidence about such contracts in ancient cultures, be it Roman or otherwise.
The law is slowly allowing civil unions,but it is refusing to grant the same benefits as those who seal a marriage contract. It is like not everyone gets the same welfare as there are criterias that one must fulfil to qualify for a certain type of welfare.So you cant blame the system for its flexibility.
I'm not talking about gays being granted the right to have a certain 'form' of marriage, namely civil unions, I'm talking about them getting the right to get a civil marriage!
Also, I do not agree with you that man-made law is based on divine law whether people like it or not, already in numerous countries abortion for instance (which I'm sure you agree is against God's law) is allowed... I find this a terrible thing and proof that man has chosen to deviate from what is right for the sake of comfort and so called 'freedom'. However, concerning same-sex marriage (it is already allowed in some European countries, as it is a contract that binds two grown up individuals and gives them the benefits and duties that come from marriage, I can see nothing against it. If they had been asking for a church marriage, surely that would be a whole different subject. But as the main function of the law is to regulate society and protect it from itself, I cannot see any not-religious arguments why gays should't get married. Also Mozes, I never said marriage was a Roman invention, my point was that marriage has not always been conducted in a judeo-christians context!!! All civilizations had some kind of marriage, nowadays it is mostly a civil thing (a contract) and not a religious thing in many countries...
Also, there is something called man-made law, not all law has to be divided into either natural law or divine law... you seem to be talking about homosexuality in itself, I'm talking about gay marriage!
Anyways, to clear any misunderstandings, I don't see any problem in gay people getting married as I see it as an individual freedom to bind oneself in such a civil contract and there is no reason why it shouldn't be allowed as in many laws civil marriage would allow such based on how one defines it. I do not think this is a law one should fight to abolish as much as certain laws on abortion, or sperm-clinics should.
God bless
I think I said what I wanted to say and shed light on the issue from another side!
Maine has repealed its vote allwoing same-sex marraige. Just throwing it out there.
Recent news update:
Maine has repealed its vote allwoing same-sex marraige. Just throwing it out there.
Err, just to clarify your statement as I had to read it twice, Maine voted against the same-sex law 53-47. Gay marriage is still outlawed there.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/maine.same.sex/