Thank you, thank you, thank you very much.

The question was satirical, MarthaA…..  you hymenista…

The question is “What’s Love Got to Do With It?” The answer is in God’s Word, I John 4:2-10 which tells what Love has to do with it:

2) Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:  and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

4) Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

5) They are of the world:  therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

6) We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us.  Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

7) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is Love.

9) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten son into the world, that we might live through him.

10) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Now you know what love has to do with it, since God is Love.

LOL..  You are so Dark Ages…  I don’t have a ‘condition.’  But you sure do.

Not accepting the Gospel as the Word of God is the cause of your condition.  You should read it.

Okay, I’ll reply since you introduced a different angle.

So now you’re a spokesman for God based on what the Bible says???  You can only make such claims if you believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. 
Thankfully, fewer and fewer people today believe this way.  Personally I believe the bible is a collection of writings by numerous people who lived thousands of years ago, and whose writings were inspired mostly by the world view they held at the time. 

But even for a literalist, the idea that there is no mention of 2nd marriage in the Bible therefore God must not recognize them is illogical.  The absence of any mention of 2nd marriages does not tie God to non-recognition. 

Just how does the hymen ‘protect’ the virgin birth of Christ? 
As for Sodom and Gomorrah, the idea that the sins of Sodom were homosexual lust are laughable.  In fact, that is not the original interpretation of the story.  I would assume you believe that Lot himself was probably more aware of the nature of the mob’s intentions than you are.  So tell me please, if the mob was really consumed with homosexual lust, why would he have offered them his daughters for their sexual fulfillment?  He obviously didn’t see them as homosexuals or as men consumed with homosexual lust or the offer of females would not have made sense. 
The original interpretation of the story, supported by other biblical and non-biblical writings is that God’s wrath at Sodom was due to their inhospitality to strangers.  Hospitality codes were set up in those times as a means of survival.  The citizens of Sodom were not only inhospitable to strangers, but did them bodily harm.  And this angered God and he sent down angels to see how they’d be treated.
Eziekiel listed the sins of Sodom, and included not only inhospitality but gluttony.  He said nothing about homosexuality or sexuality of any sort.  I assume you would also accept that Eziekiel might also know more about the story than modern day readers? 

Moreover, even if the men of Sodom had wanted to rape the angels (which clearly that was not their intent despite 400 years of this story being given a gay interpretation), the ‘sin’ then would be one of rape or sexual violence.  Rape does not define homosexuality or heterosexuality, so using Sodom and Gomorrah as some sort of excuse to discriminate against loving committed gay couples is baseless. 
Because the reality of sexual orientation was not known to people from biblical times, and due to the prejudices existing then, one should not expect to read about gay characters or any mention of gay marriages.  Gay unions weren’t part of their world so they didn’t write about it. 

This means nothing. 

They did write, defend, and promote slavery.  Since it’s biblical, I suppose you support slavery?  And if not, why not?  For a literalist, I’d like to know what justifications you have for ignoring that biblically sanctioned institution?  They did write, defend and heartily promote the subjugation of women.  You obviously don’t take the bible seriously on that or you would not speak unless spoken to.  For that was what they prescribed for women. 
Our world view is not the same as theirs.  We also have inspiration and can rise above their ignorance’s.  We’ve done that with slavery and women.  It’s high past time we do that with homosexuals. 

And finally, your last statement is entirely unsupportable.  Nowhere in the bible did God even mention homosexual unions let alone ‘make it really clear’ they are abominations. 

One can only believe that if they are a literalist who believes the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs lived alongside people.  This seems to be where you are at in regards to a belief in the bible.  And that explains your obsession with the hymen.  Something few others will take seriously.

Regardless of what you prefer to believe, according to the Bible, God doesn’t recognize any 2nd Marriage, only the 1st, the marriage that breaks the hymen.  Moses recognized divorce because of infidelity, but no mention of 2nd marriage.

People legally recognize 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th marriage, ad infinitum, not God.  All unions after the 1st are just as well called civil unions and can be done at the Court House, many churches do 2nd marriages.  People can agree to call anything whatever they want, what they do is between them and God. 

Women were made with a hymen to protect the virgin birth of God’s Son, Jesus the Christ, throughout the ages of humanity.  Jesus the Christ was virgin born, which means Jesus’ birth broke the hymen from the inside.  The hymen only gets broken once and is intended by God to be broken in Holy Matrimony. 

God loves us and recognizes 2nd marriages as civil unions of males and females, but it isn’t original pure white marriage unless there is a hymen broken.  As for homosexual unions to be accepted by God as Holy Marriage, I can not find anything in the Bible that agrees that God would accept those as marriage in any way, because God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for same sex lust. 

The Bible say that whatever two or more believers agree with on earth is agreed in Heaven, but the consequences of that agreement when it’s an abomination to God could be disastrous.  God made it really clear that homosexual unions are an abomination.

“Surely I’m not the first person to bring name prefixes to your attention.”

In the context of this discussion, you surely are.  And it’s bizarre. 

“Name prefixes have significant meanings to describe relationships to marriage, etc.”

Significant to who, and for what purpose? 

“....even if the gays manage to get civil unions called marriage, they aren’t real marriages.”

That is simply your opinion which doesn’t mean much of anything to anyone but you.  In those countries and states where marriage equality has passed, the law says they are real marriages.  To the couples they are real.  And I believe they are real to God. 

That is all I’m going to say on the matter.  You may be the most judgemental person I’ve encountered here, what with your proclomations that our ‘marriages’ aren’t real.  Referring to us in feminine terminology, and referring to women whose hymens are broken before marriage as sluts. 

You’re a nut and I’ve wasted far too much time on you already…

This is not anything new.  Apparently you think so. Sometimes forms just ask unmarried, married, or separated; others have (Mr) (Miss) (Mrs) (Ms); if you will start noticing, it’s all over the place.  Surely I’m not the first person to bring name prefixes to your attention.  Name prefixes have significant meanings to describe relationships to marriage, etc. 

Miss is single girls, virgins, who have never been married (hymen, or cherry, unbroken).

Mrs. is married women who lose their cherry, their virginity, to their husbands.

Ms. is women who have lost their cherry, their virginity.

For the life of me I cannot see how a gay woman could ever naturally lose her cherry, her virginity, unless she slutted herself with a male to break her hymen.

It used to be a common practice for the mother of the husband to get evidence of the hymen being broken when the marriage was consummated on the wedding night, the blood, the cherry, would be wiped on a napkin and presented for the family to rest assured that her children would be only from their son.  They didn’t want their son being a cuckold.

Now I’m seeing advertising that women can have their hymens restored.  I have no idea why any woman would want to have her hymen restored, unless it would be to fool some man into thinking he was marrying a virgin.

Never the less, it is so.  Marriage vows and commitments are meant to be between male and female.

If gay people choose to live together, that’s up to them, but it is a distorted far cry from marriage between male and female.  Civil union is all a union between gays can be, even if the gays manage to get civil unions called marriage, they aren’t real marriages.

Which you no doubt support in your little world of titles.. 

I mean, there is no title for that.  Miss doesn’t apply because, according to you - the hymen has been broken. 

Mrs. doesn’t apply because there is no marriage. 

And Ms. won’t cut it, because according to you (and only you), Ms is for formerly married women whose hymens have been broken. 

The poor ‘sluts’ and ‘rape victims’ (not to mention others who aren’t sluts or rape victims) have no titles. 

We can’t have that now, can we?  I mean, it sort of makes our black and white view of the world a little grey..

A slut, or possibly rape, which used to be the death penalty.

One more thought… or better - question. 

In your silly set of definitions of titles…  what do you call a woman whose hymen has been broken before marriage?  You know, from riding a bike or a horse?  Or from pre-marital sexual contact? 

In your mind, a Miss is a single ‘girl’ who is not yet married and whose hymen hasn’t been broken. 

What about the single ‘girls’ who aren’t yet married whose hymens ARE broken? 

What’s your title or word for them????

MarthaA is an idiot.  Ms. was never created for divorced women whose hymens have been broken.  It was created by feminists who were upset that a married or single man uses Mr. in either case and it protects his privacy to his marital status. 

It offends me that you would say that because no hymen is involved in gay male relationships, “...maybe you can stay Miss forever.” 

It amuses me that anyone would use hymen breaking as a requirement to what constitutes a ‘legal marriage.’ 

In being offensive in the first part you show yourself to be a bigot.  In making they hymen claim you prove yourself to be an idiot. 

“The natural order of hymen breaking,” she says…  Honestly, just when I thought the looney tunes in this country couldn’t come up with anything more pathetic than they had… this.  I’m not surprised. 

As for civil unions, I’ll say it again.  It is not your place to decide for us what we will or won’t have.  The courts of this land will make that decision based on a constitution that guarantees us equal treatment. 

You will see the day, MarthaA, when marriage equality is reality.

Just when I began to believe that this discussion could not get any weirder it did. Both civil marriage and civil unions are legal contracts. In fact marriage is a form of civil union. The one championed by MarthaA for gay couples is a form of discrimination by the State because it is exclusive.
Civil marriage does not demand that a hymen be broken to become valid. Since hymens can be broken without the insertion of a penis into a vagina, “true marriage” according to MarthaA cannot have become “true” until the hymen is broken by the insertion of a male penis into the woman’s vagina and her hymen is broken. Hence, a male who is impotent can never really marry a virgin according to MarthaA! If she has her say, then all males who want to obtain a marriage license from a State must submit medical proof that they can break hymens!! As I said, it is getting weirder and weirder. I wonder whether MarthaA is on the staff of the Onion.

Marriage has to do with the breaking of the hymen.  Miss is a single girl that has not yet married and doesn’t have her hymen broken, Mrs. is a married lady that has had her hymen broken through marriage, and Ms. signifies divorced ladies who have had their hymen broken through failed marriages.  There is no way the hymen can be broken in same sex unions, so maybe you stay Miss forever.  That is why same sex couples can not be considered actually married, it is contrary to the natural order of hymen breaking.  Civil unions are for same sex unions.

I said:

“And in all cases Ms. would be an option for them to use if they didn’t want anyone to know their marital status.”

should have said ‘And in all cases where a female of either orientation is involved, Ms. would be an option for them to use if they didn’t want anyone to know their marital status.”

Mr. and Mrs. reveal gender.  A married male couple would both be Mr. and Mr.  A married straight couple would continue to be Mr. and Mrs.  And a married female couple would be Mrs. and Mrs.  And in all cases Ms. would be an option for them to use if they didn’t want anyone to know their marital status. 

Is that so hard? 

And if they have to change the forms to accomodate these options, then I say again… so what?

Are you Mr, Miss or Mrs?  I think this is significant, with three sexes, how do you know?.

MarthaA said:

“As I said before, if this is changed all forms within government and private enterprise will have to change and no longer show or request the designation of Ms, Mrs, or Miss as the prefix designations to names as to whether divorced, married, or single will no longer be significant.”

So the hell what? 

You’re concerned with the forms within government and private enterprise?  Is this America?  Aren’t we supposed to be concerned with equal treatment for ourselves and fellow citizens? 

Civil Unions are not equal under the law.  Moreover, it is not for you or anyone else to have a say that a lesser institution is the ‘solution for other relationsips’ than male/female.  That is your prejudice, not your right.

None of the propositions that passed in the various states outlawing marriage equality are constitutional.  Equal treatment under the law is a constitutional right, not something that can happen if a majority of citizens feels like allowing a minority to enjoy it.  The constitution exists to protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority. 

We are not a majority rule society, contrary to popular belief. 

Those of us who are gay believe our relationships and love is just as smiled upon by God as yours.  And we belong to churches that believe the same way.  Thus this is also a religious freedom issue.  It is not for the Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to prevent those religions who would gladly perform marriage ceremonies for gay coulples from performing them.  They should have the freedom to perform them if they so choose.

When the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were written slavery was the current status of most blacks in our country. Will someone please explain to me what MarthaA is writing about because I have not the foggiest.

Currently marriage is committed to male and female commitments to stay together and raise families as Mr. and Mrs.  As I said before, if this is changed all forms within government and private enterprise will have to change and no longer show or request the designation of Ms, Mrs, or Miss as the prefix designations to names as to whether divorced, married, or single will no longer be significant.

I have seldom read two paragraphs so totally contradictory as those offered by MarthaA at 12:06 today. Paragraph one states that marriage is a commitment to stay together. Paragraph two states that marriage is not for gay couples even if they commit to stay together!
In the legal sphere marriage is a contract issued and protected in our country by individual states although it is also settled law that states must honor each others marriage contracts. Commitment is not a fundamental legal issue with regards to male/male and female/female marriages because states have accepted divorce. The fundamental issue is not love either which no state can enforce anyway. The fundamental issue is discrimination. It is also a settled issue that states must show “compelling interests” to deny a marriage license to a gay couple which is a discrimination against a group of pairs. Not one shred of what MarthaA has written could possibly survive the test of “compelling interest”. What she writes is the standard pablum against gay marriages.

These people didn’t really commit.  If you don’t do what I want, I will just leave is not a commitment.

If marriages were limited to only those how love each other, marriage would be rare indeed. Most marriages are a matter of convenience, have to (pregnant)if of that mindset, arranged,to get out of their parents house or a bad situation, don’t want to be alone(marriage is no guarantee of this), seemed like a good idea at the time or other half thought out excuse.

I know one heterosexual who was married 5 times by age 56 and the last marriage lasted less than 2 weeks. My mail carrier, also male, was on marriage #7 and he wasn’t even 40 yet. So much for commitment or love when it involves marriage. Single sounds better more all the time.

All marriage related designations of Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mademoiselle, Madam, etc. would go down the drain should desired same sex unions be considered equal to male/female marriage?  Would gender prefix name designations become obsolete, or what?

Marriage is a commitment to stay together and has nothing to do with love.  If the commitment is strong on both parties, love may come, but only commitment is necessary for marriage between male and female. 

There is definitely a difference between the male/female relationship in marriage, and male/male or female/female.  Marriage should be for the male/female and civil unions are the solution for other relationships that choose to commit to each other for life.