Marriage created by God

First, God created the Earth, and then created plant life, followed by animal life. Next, he created a man, Adam. He then created a female, Eve, to keep Adam company. Of one male and one female, the first human beings were born, followed by countless new births.

Now, if God had created a second man, instead of a woman, to keep Adam company, the entire population of the Earth would still be only two, providing both were still living today. So, why should state officials pass a law creating a different kind of marriage than the one created by God?

Just where does separation of church and state begin, and where does it end?

Roger Jalbert, Lewiston

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

Lil's picture
verified

Marriage licenses are issued

Marriage licenses are issued by civil authorities.
______________________

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

citrus's picture

Roger Don't argue with

Roger
Don't argue with idiots.

news4u's picture

...or with arses ;-)

...or with arses ;-)

jalbrecht1's picture
verified

joojolou, Did you ever go to

joojolou,
Did you ever go to school. "The constitution was based on the Bible, look into your history books." This statement is totally false and please do read your history books. They will make it very clear that jojolou doesn't know what he's talking about.
James Madison was the author of the "Virginia Plan" which is the core of the Constitution and because of that named the father of the Constitution. James Madison was religious, but not Christian as far as anyone can tell (He would not tell people where he went to church if he did). Certainly not a Christian in any modern sense of that term. He developed his plan by reading something in the neighborhood of 200 books many sent to him by Thomas Jefferson while in France. Jefferson was then and should be now considered a athetist. He wrote his own bible by removing anything supernatural like Jesus' divinity (there goes Christianity), miracles, etc. The books covered ancient Greek and Roman Republican history, modern political theory, American history, and Native American political science. No bible. The concepts he employed like check and balance and using ambition to counter ambition are completely foreign to the bible.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

rstonge's picture
verified

Jon, Our laws are based on

Jon,
Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values.
Thou shall not steal.
Thou shall not kill.
Thou shall not bear false witness.

LewistonNative...'s picture
verified

So, three things out of how

So, three things out of how many in the Constitution? Just because they have some similarities doesn't mean that it was based off Christian views. Just saying.

queenhoneeybee's picture
verified

how about population

how about population control? haha! we need some of that! oh yeah-when gays/lesbians still be able to marry, its going to end the world! haha!

VOTE NO on QUESTION 1!!!

EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE! =]

John 28's picture

Roger, I know you well and

Roger,
I know you well and so surprise to hear that you are against ALL of God's children. No switch to turn on or off at birth as to how God wishes to create a person in His image and for His purpose. Also, God had a long way to finish 'creating' the world, after Adam and Eve. Vote NO on 1 to be on God's side.

Nancy1's picture

So incest is okay but not

So incest is okay but not gay marriage? Because following the Bible's tale of the beginnings of mankind. Adam and Eve and their kids were the only ones around to procreate.

Keep your beliefs in your church and don't force them onto those of us who believe in equality for ALL citizens, not just some.

BTW, I am a non believer with no children from my present marriage. Legally I am just as married as someone who took vows in a church and then had 5 kids. I needed a license from the state of Maine, permission from a church was not necessary. My husband is a believer, yet with love and understanding we manage to get along just fine.

fanclub's picture

It's not about "rights" and

It's not about "rights" and it's not about marriage. It's about the Democrat party forcing everyone to accept a vile depraved sexual perversion.

VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAT IS GAY

DON'T BE GAY.

`

FC_Observer's picture

I think YOUR perverted mind

I think YOUR perverted mind is picturing two gay/lesbians in the bedroom. I think that you are calling the kettle black.

LewistonNative...'s picture
verified

Hrmmm Priest touching little

Hrmmm Priest touching little alter boys? Nuff Said! :)

gdls1's picture

Here's a good example of the

Here's a good example of the type of derogatory and offensive remarks that gays and lesbians are frequently subjected to..

John 28's picture

LOL!!! Such stupidity on

LOL!!! Such stupidity on your part. No surprise from such a right wing!

cranky yankee's picture

Again the Adam and Eve

Again the Adam and Eve argument. Wow! Great thinking. EXCEPT that the concept of marriage is a legal concept, not a religious one. The various religions co-opted marriage as a part of their dogma as much to perpetuate their existance as much as anything else. Why do think the Holy Roman church decreed that birth-control was a no-no? So that couples would have more kids, leading to more members of the church. More members, more influence in society. More influence, more control. And do on ad infinitum.

As an intersting aside, I heard a spokesman for the Catholic church yesterday, when commenting on the proposal by Pope Benedict to allow Anglican clergy, who may happen to be married, to become Catholic priests, and the obvious conflict with the policy of celebacy for Catholic priests. He explained that the original concept of celibacy came about because of the thinking that the initial celebates, monks, were "married to Jesus Christ." Yes, that's exactly what the said. I almost drove off the road when I heard it. He said that the idea of celebacy is that the priest are already "married to Jesus Christ" and that for them to be married to anyone else would be bigamy. I'm guessing the Catholic church is beginning to suffer from a real identity crisis.

logoposition's picture

Actually, for your

Actually, for your information, whoever was speaking was a little off in his explanation. According to the Catholic understanding, priests act in the "person of Christ" and so they are considered as acting in his place when they provide the sacraments. Christian belief has always recognized that the relationship of Christ to his Church is like a marriage. Christ's bride is the Church, whom He suffered and died for. A priest's "marriage" so to speak in a spiritual sense, is to the Church. His whole life is to be dedicated to serving Her as a good husband serves his wife. Authentic Catholic Nuns consider themselves the brides of Christ in a similar spiritual manner.

The Church developed different practises in different parts of the world, and in some of them, married men have always been allowed to become priests. The anglican situation would probably follow upon this practise. Once priests however, they have never been allowed to marry, unless they leave the priesthood first.

jfvhmkx's picture

I'm sorry, I just can't let

I'm sorry, I just can't let this one go. First let me say that I am a Catholic and an historian who has a master's degree in theology from the University of Notre Dame. The history of marriage and celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church is quite interesting. In the early days of the Church, it was common for priests to be married and to have children. Without boring you all with the details, the 'rules' changed as centuries went by for a variety of reasons. In the fourth century, it was decreed that priests could not marry AFTER ordination. Then Pope Siricius decreed that it was wrong for a priest to have sexual relations with their own wives. In the sixth century, Pope Pelagius II declared that he wouldn't do anything about married priests as long as they did not hand over church property to their wives or children. This was the first indication, perhaps, of the real intent that brought on the Church's change of policy on the matter of marriage. Church history from that point on is riddled with incredible stories of priests 'hiding' their wives and children, extortion, polygamy, and concubines. In the 12th century, Pope Innocent II forced priests to divorce their wives if they wanted to say Mass or perform the Sacraments. This was done with the sole purpose of protecting Church property, which was extensive (have you ever been to Rome?). The Church continued to tweak the rules and come down harder on priests, eventually banning marriage all together. Most Catholics (and I hate to say - some of the priests I have known) are fairly ignorant about the history of our Church and picture it, not as a body that evolves as needed to meet the needs of the times, but as an unchanging entity with fixed rules.

logoposition's picture

As a long time student of

As a long time student of Church History, I am rather amazed at your account.

Oh, I am well aware that of the historical development of celibacy in Church law for secular priests. This development varied among different rites of the Church.

I am also well aware of the intervention of the Church in correcting abuses among the priests, including the fact that in many areas the priesthood was used as a position of power by the political powers of the time. This of course included property, (secular priests don't take a vow of poverty) and it was not uncommon for such worldly priests and bishops to keep wives/concubines, nor uncommon for popes to crack down on the practice.

No, what is telling in your account is not so much your take on the development of married vs. unmarried priests, but your declaration as to the motivation involved on the part of the Church. That is typical black legend history, and is the account of anti-catholic bigots. Even when one can find examples of worldly motivations among politically minded priests, bishops, and popes, it doesn't change the fact that the theological understanding of celibacy for both the priesthood and nuns is well established and easy enough to find in Church teaching - certainly easy enough to show that when priests take their vows, they are espoused to the Church.

With a masters in theology, you should know that. I do understand though, why you might not. The fact that you got your degree from the University of Notre Dame speaks volumes. It explains why something so simple as the Church's teachings on priestly celibacy needs to be explained away by accusing the Church of unworthy motivations in the development of the practice. The Notre Dame theology department is notorious for promoting such things.

jojolou's picture

Good letter Mr. Jalbert.

Good letter Mr. Jalbert. The constitution was based on the Bible, look into your history books. People take God out of the school and replace it with teaching our children homosexuality. Give me a break, it's all about redefining marriage. What next a man marrying his dog or three people getting married. Have you no morals. May God bless us all.

queenhoneeybee's picture
verified

That was then, this is now...

That was then, this is now...

news4u's picture

Jojolou you stated "People

Jojolou you stated "People take God out of the school and replace it with teaching our children homosexuality." There is mention of God in school every day... I pledge allegiance to the flag... one nation under God...

How do you teach a child homosexuality?? You keep stating this in all your SJ posts, yet you fail to elaborate. Once again, I will ask how you teach a child homosexuality? Is it taught the same way as you teach heterosexuality?? Do you ask two men to stand in the front of the class and the children guess which one is homosexual and which one is heterosexual? Do you stand 4 women up front and ask which ones have men as spouses and which ones have women? I'm just curious, because I've never attended a class that teaches homosexuality.

"What next a man marrying his dog or three people getting married. This is the other topic you obsess about when you post. As I have mentioned many times, there is more to an individual than their sexual preference. How about looking at the whole individual? You sound sexually frustrated and a little perverted jojolou.

LewistonNative...'s picture
verified

The constitution was no

The constitution was no based by the bible, the founding fathers where the ones who wanted seperation from Church and State. They knew well in advance that others views should no be imposed on others who don't have the same views, such as this issue we are seeing today. Marriage is a bond between to people thru the government. You have to go to the courts to get a marriage license and you no longer NEED a priest, pastor, etc. to perform the ceremonies. So, please give me an actually reason as to why two people who love each other should be denied their right as American citizens to marry, other then your religious rhetoric.

P.S. The whole "What next a man marrying his dog." makes you sould like a tool.

Gary C's picture

Separation of church and

Separation of church and state is a two way street. The church should refrain from entering into politics just as the government has no business interfering with religion. When any church urges it membership to vote for or against any legislation, the church has violated this constitutional mandate, and should be liable for taxes on all of its income, just like any other business.
I have yet to see the U.S. government interfering with the church's domain in such a fashion.
So, if you really want to invoke separation of church and state, be careful: you might (and should) get what you ask for.
I would suggest that you consider this:the Bible has had no place in the formation of our government, and should have no place--as a document of morality and reason, it fails utterly. If you want to get some separation in your life, separate yourself from other people's personal business---live and let live.

Gary C's picture

Another quick thought: Cain

Another quick thought: Cain killed Abel. By your reasoning, sibling murder is God's plan, too. After all, the first two children in the world are involved.
Also, I have wondered, who was there to record the creation and the subsequent morality play you are invoking? Is it at all possible that it was all made up, or at least garbled through the centuries that followed until it was written down? How could Aam get so bored so quickly that he needed companionship? Wasn't he busy enough naming every_single _thing _he saw?
You really need to consider the quality of the information you read in the Bible. There are enough contradictions present for you to possibly come to the conclusion that not everything you read in the "good book" is true.

Traylblaze's picture

The issue is based on

The issue is based on fairness. There are voer 1138 federal priveledges and about 400 state rights that marriages allow. Laws should not be based on any ones faiths believe but on fairness to all of its citizens. I urge everyone to please vote No on 1!

tron's picture

so how do you justify Jacob

so how do you justify Jacob having two wives, and Solomon have 700? It seems things change for the times and so should they now.

jchick's picture
verified

There is nothing TO justify

There is nothing TO justify Jacob's or Solomon's actions.

The Bible is a book of contrasts, not contradictions. It shows both the good and the bad. God's plan for marriage didn't change because they deviated from it. Both Jacob and Solomon had to deal with the repercussions of their actions. In Jacob's case, there was rivalry between his two wives, rivalry between their offspring and favoritism on Jacob's part for Rachel's children, which further exacerbated the situation.

In Solomon's case, it was his relationship with God that suffered in the end. Now supposedly, this guy was the wisest man that ever lived, but it does make one wonder in light of the 700 wives thing.

John A. Chick

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)

Advertisement