Holy Matrimony

[Diplomat]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:

Originally posted by CEW:

Originally posted by Fledgist:
.

She wasn't thinking...

Come on CEW your mind has been on suspend lately, you just don't want to be bothered admit it!

When I see an irrational statement, yes [img]/forums/images/graemlins/704555_dwl.gif[/img]

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:

Originally posted by CEW:

Originally posted by Fledgist:
.

She wasn't thinking...

Come on CEW your mind has been on suspend lately, you just don't want to be bothered admit it!

When I see an irrational statement, yes [img]/forums/images/graemlins/704555_dwl.gif[/img] [/qb]

Oh so you don't see a difference between holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties. O-Kaaaaaaay! Then I guess I am being irrational.

[neutral]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:
Oh so you don't see a difference between holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties. [/QB]

jedi,he must be looking at it through his sword,instead of his spectacles [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/704555_dwl.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/704555_dwl.gif[/img]

sorry jedi,I`ll get out your serious matrimonial thread now [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[fOrTyLeGz]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:

Oh so you don't see a difference between holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties. O-Kaaaaaaay! Then I guess I am being irrational.

Couples going through either ritual come out married. After the ceremony, there will be a party. The married couple may go off on a honeymoon after the party.

[Fledgist]

Re: Holy Matrimony

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
I've answered your point as completely as possible. You keep missing it. Marriage is a matter of law, 'holy matrimony' is a matter of particular religious belief. The concept of 'civil agreement' is vague to the point of meaninglessness, since it could cover private contracts (which are governed by civil law) as well as public acts. [/qb]

Is this your final answer? and are we to take that as a no there is no comparison between the two? [/qb]

We are to take it that one is a public act, sanctioned by the state, and the other is a religious act sanctioned by private beliefs.

[Diplomat]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:
Oh so you don't see a difference between holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties. O-Kaaaaaaay! Then I guess I am being irrational.

First of all, I have not given an opinion on the question you asked. I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue.

Secondly, 'holy matrimony' is, IMO, a churchified expression. The issue is marriage, which I accept to be a legally sanctioned union between a man and a woman. Whether or not two people make their vows in a church, or on a beach somewhere is irrelevant. A officiating person is still required to say something to the effect of "By the authority vested in me by <law of state, province, country, whatever> I now declare you husband and wife".

It is interesting that though you have stopped short of another calling this another 'gay thread', your words: "...holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties..." strongly implies, in the latter, two persons of the same gender. Personally, this is a whole different kettle of fish, and is most definitely different than marriage, as I have accepted it. A much better clarification of what consitutes a 'civil union' would be nice, though again, I am inclined to go with Fledgist's position as stated above in his last post.

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by fOrTyLeGz:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:

Oh so you don't see a difference between holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties. O-Kaaaaaaay! Then I guess I am being irrational.

Couples going through either ritual come out married. After the ceremony, there will be a party. The married couple may go off on a honeymoon after the party. [/qb]

[img]/forums/images/graemlins/704555_dwl.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/704555_dwl.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/704555_dwl.gif[/img]

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by fOrTyLeGz:
[qb]Couples going through either ritual come out married. After the ceremony, there will be a party. The married couple may go off on a honeymoon after the party. [/qb]

That was funny [img]/forums/images/graemlins/704555_dwl.gif[/img] ....sorry, carry on [img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] .

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CEW:
[QB]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
Oh so you don't see a difference between holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties. O-Kaaaaaaay! Then I guess I am being irrational.

First of all, I have not given an opinion on the question you asked. I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue.

{Jedi: Your agreement implies that you are of the same opinion as Fledgist}

Secondly, 'holy matrimony' is, IMO, a churchified expression.

{Jedi: Wrong! Picture you using the word churchified [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] }

The issue is marriage, which I accept to be a legally sanctioned union between a man and a woman. Whether or not two people make their vows in a church, or on a beach somewhere is irrelevant.

The issue in case you have missed it is holy matrimony as compared to a civil union and there is a big difference.

A officiating person is still required to say something to the effect of "By the authority vested in me by <law of state, province, country, whatever> I now declare you husband and wife".

There is a BIG difference between a minister upon whom all the rights of agency of both heaven and earth has been bestowed and a JUDGE upon whom is conferred the rights of acting on behalf of the state. HUGE differnce!

It is interesting that though you have stopped short of another calling this another 'gay thread', your words: "...holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties..." strongly implies, in the latter, two persons of the same gender.

But you see I never said the "gay" word so it is your assumption, and based on that assumption you have made your response.

Personally, this is a whole different kettle of fish, and is most definitely different than marriage, as I have accepted it. A much better clarification of what consitutes a 'civil union' would be nice, though again, I am inclined to go with Fledgist's position as stated above in his last post.

I believe I made myself clear enough, the question reads: "IS THERE ANY COMPARISON BETWEEN HOLY MATRIMONY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND A CIVIL UNION BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE?" But obviously instead of attempting to answer the question as it is read, everyone has run headlong trying to squeeze the "gay" question into it assuming that because I am a Christian then I must mean....
Now please allow me to respond to the question since no one has answered correctly and those who might, probably wouldn't do so because of opposing belief.

Holy Matrimony Is a covenant between a man and a woman made in the presence of a Minister acting as an agent for God and the State.
It is a holy covenant which is binding in heaven as well as on the earth. It takes on the all the characteristics of God in that it is first of all holy, secondly eternal, and thirdly an immutable covenant that cannot be broken. PERIOD. Hence we see that Jesus said that if a man and a woman chooses to divorce let them do so but they may never marry anyone else because to do so is to commit adultery. Why? because once a covenant has been made before God it can never be broken.

A Civil Agreement Between two people
Is a legally binding agreement between two parties which carries all expressed and implied rights of the State and is valid as long as both parties have agreed to remain bound to the agreement. However either party can at anytime withdraw from this agreement by filing for a divorce.

In short the difference is

One is bound in heaven and on earth and the other is bound only on the earth.

One is spiritual in import the other is strictly legal.

One is bound by a covenant of love (God is love) the other is bound by a covenant of law.

[mountaingal]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]Now please allow me to respond to the question since no one has answered correctly and those who might have do not have the capacity to do so by reason of opposing belief.[/qb]

well, because i believe differently from you, i believe your answer is incorrect.

[rufian]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by neutral:
[qb] the whole concept of marriage is flawed,and unnatural anyway,it goes against our basic human nature,which is to procreate,and multiply.
the whole precept is based on religious beliefs,that we should stick with one partner for life,which as we can see by the amount of divorces,is not only unworkable in the majority of cases,but impossible for some. [/qb]

Just a but een.
You till haffu know a who fa [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
you can stick with one partner when you have children and remain with them for the good of those children.
If the partner cant have children find a next one. If one partner can't have good and healthy children, find a next one.
But in church dem say wait pan de lord and have faith - that a de religious aspect dat na mek sense.

[Guest]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by mountaingal:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]Now please allow me to respond to the question since no one has answered correctly and those who might have do not have the capacity to do so by reason of opposing belief.[/qb]

well, because i believe differently from you, i believe your answer is incorrect. [/qb]

[img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Diplomat]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by Jedi l:

Originally posted by CEW:
First of all, I have not given an opinion on the question you asked. I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue.

{Jedi: Your agreement implies that you are of the same opinion as Fledgist}

Which part of "I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue." wasn't quite clear?

[Diplomat]

Re: Holy Matrimony

Originally posted by mountaingal:

Originally posted by Jedi l:
Now please allow me to respond to the question since no one has answered correctly and those who might have do not have the capacity to do so by reason of opposing belief.

well, because i believe differently from you, i believe your answer is incorrect.

Apparently, no one is allowed to have a differing opinion. Makes me wonder if the only acceptable answer is the one she has, why bother ask the question in the first place.

[Fledgist]

Re: Holy Matrimony

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by CEW:
[QB]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
Oh so you don't see a difference between holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties. O-Kaaaaaaay! Then I guess I am being irrational.

First of all, I have not given an opinion on the question you asked. I was following the thread and agreed with a point Fledgist made on a particular issue.

{Jedi: Your agreement implies that you are of the same opinion as Fledgist}

Secondly, 'holy matrimony' is, IMO, a churchified expression.

{Jedi: Wrong! Picture you using the word churchified [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] }

The issue is marriage, which I accept to be a legally sanctioned union between a man and a woman. Whether or not two people make their vows in a church, or on a beach somewhere is irrelevant.

The issue in case you have missed it is holy matrimony as compared to a civil union and there is a big difference.

A officiating person is still required to say something to the effect of "By the authority vested in me by <law of state, province, country, whatever> I now declare you husband and wife".

There is a BIG difference between a minister upon whom all the rights of agency of both heaven and earth has been bestowed and a JUDGE upon whom is conferred the rights of acting on behalf of the state. HUGE differnce!

It is interesting that though you have stopped short of another calling this another 'gay thread', your words: "...holy matrimony between a man and a woman and a civil union between two parties..." strongly implies, in the latter, two persons of the same gender.

But you see I never said the "gay" word so it is your assumption, and based on that assumption you have made your response.

Personally, this is a whole different kettle of fish, and is most definitely different than marriage, as I have accepted it. A much better clarification of what consitutes a 'civil union' would be nice, though again, I am inclined to go with Fledgist's position as stated above in his last post.

I believe I made myself clear enough, the question reads: "IS THERE ANY COMPARISON BETWEEN HOLY MATRIMONY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND A CIVIL UNION BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE?" But obviously instead of attempting to answer the question as it is read, everyone has run headlong trying to squeeze the "gay" question into it assuming that because I am a Christian then I must mean....
Now please allow me to respond to the question since no one has answered correctly and those who might, probably wouldn't do so because of opposing belief.

Holy Matrimony Is a covenant between a man and a woman made in the presence of a Minister acting as an agent for God and the State.
It is a holy covenant which is binding in heaven as well as on the earth. It takes on the all the characteristics of God in that it is first of all holy, secondly eternal, and thirdly an immutable covenant that cannot be broken. PERIOD. Hence we see that Jesus said that if a man and a woman chooses to divorce let them do so but they may never marry anyone else because to do so is to commit adultery. Why? because once a covenant has been made before God it can never be broken.

{Fledgist: Apparently, then, people who are not Christians cannot get married. As to why, see below.}


A Civil Agreement Between two people
Is a legally binding agreement between two parties which carries all expressed and implied rights of the State and is valid as long as both parties have agreed to remain bound to the agreement. However either party can at anytime withdraw from this agreement by filing for a divorce.

{Fledgist: A civil agreement between two people is a contract, enforceable on the parties by the courts. Marriage is a legal term, definable in law, and granting rights which are enforceable in law to the parties jointly.

Because marriage is definable, and defined, by law, the law, not your private interpretation, determines the conditions of its termination.

These are of two kinds:

Annulment, signifying that the marriage was from the beginning a legal nullity.

Divorce, signifying that the marriage has ceased to exist and the legal rights appertaining to it become void.}


In short the difference is

One is bound in heaven and on earth and the other is bound only on the earth.

One is spiritual in import the other is strictly legal.

One is bound by a covenant of love (God is love) the other is bound by a covenant of law. [/qb]

I got married by a judge. Are you telling me that my wife and I are not bound in love?