Comments for BrianMichaelSteck.com

Comment on Desperation and Trust: a Psalm for the weak by brianmichaelsteck

brianmichaelsteck — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 01:21:41 +0000

Thanks Troy! Not that I’d invite anyone voluntarily, but it’s good not to be alone in these trials.

Comment on Desperation and Trust: a Psalm for the weak by Tcreamer1919

Tcreamer1919 — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:24:00 +0000

Love your heart Brian ! I really needed to read this as I am too walking into season where I need to trust jesus. – Troy

Comment on Marriage is what brings us together here today by brianmichaelsteck

brianmichaelsteck — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:39:51 +0000

Thanks Barb. Living and learning. I’ve missed you and Pete. It makes my heart glad to hear all that you guys are doing.

Comment on Marriage is what brings us together here today by Barb K.

Barb K. — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:02:38 +0000

Brian,
I stumbled over to your blog archives and just finished reading this. Very right on and intelligent. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Love in Him, Barb

Comment on Marriage is what brings us together here today by Elizabeth Gronert

Elizabeth Gronert — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:19:04 +0000

You have so many talents. Thanks for sharing your insights!

Comment on Marriage is what brings us together here today by Shaina

Shaina — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:19:22 +0000

I come down to the same thing but from a more political view. It’s more about telling the government to mind their own business. I believe the government has no power over the declaring of two people as married or not married. I think ALL legally binding unions between two people that are registered by the government should be called something completely different. For example: Joint Tax Union. As a social expression for a union we already have a word for it: Partnership. Marriage is NOT a state issue. A long time ago the state decided to recognize a religious union and provide tax benefits and other benefits to those people, fine. But now they decide they have control over a religious union? ABSOLUTELY NOT! So while most people fight for the government to say gay people should be able to get married, I say the government doesn’t have the right to marry anyone, gay or straight. Marriage is a religious union between one man and one woman and one God. If you want to get married go to your local church and talk to someone about it. If you want to get tax benefits lobby for a legal union status. If you want to be recognized socially as a committed couple come up with a fitting social expression and social ceremony and do it. You don’t need permission from your government to spend the rest of your life committed to someone. But you do need God to recognize it if you want to call it marriage. God has a monopoly on marriage, even your government can’t change that no matter how much you lobby them.

Anyway, that’s my viewpoint.

Comment on Marriage is what brings us together here today by Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:03:03 +0000

well said brother.

Comment on Marriage is what brings us together here today by Matt Rittle

Matt Rittle — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:04:34 +0000

Brian,

Good blog. I appreciated a lot of what you said, especially the way you framed asking for civil discussion – that’s key with this issue. I completely agree that no one really knows what “is” anymore, so saying “it is what it is” has lost all meaning.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this issue and the jury is still out for me. I like a few of the points you made about and will consider them. However, for the sake of philosophy, I have a question I wanted to discuss….

You spoke about how marriage has “historically been defined” and said, “When we take a concept of “marriage” and change the whole definition of the word………..the game changes. The word changes.”

At first I thought this was a great point…but then I began considering some of the other things in the world’s past that have “always been defined as” until it was changed. We thought the earth was flat. We thought the sun revolved around the earth. When our country was founded black men weren’t counted as whole men and it wasn’t until this last century that women couldn’t vote at all.

I’m not arguing the other side of your point. I’m just raising the philosophical counter-point…Sometimes changing the game is good. How can we differentiate the times when the game should change from the times when the game shouldn’t?

I’m not sure there is a clear and easy answer for that….but that’s my struggle. Thanks for giving me more fodder to ruminate on.