#205429 - 19/02/2004 02:57
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
I would absolutly weep with joy to hear a Christian say this.
The closest you will get out of me is this (since I don't agree with that statement by Mike):
Many parts of the Bible are easily misunderstood. If you are going to base a belief off of something in the Bible (especialy the old testement) be very sure you understand it's meaning within the full context of the Bible and the historical/sociological setting which it was written "to". This is not to say we should not belive something because "that's what they would have said then" but rather we should not take something ment for a specific person or group as being ment for everyone.
EDIT:
Got mixed up on who was being quoted.......It's late, I'm tired.
Edited by m6400 (19/02/2004 03:05)
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205430 - 19/02/2004 03:03
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: mcomb]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
Hmm, it seems to me that people where living together in some sort of loving union before any Christian religion defined the term marriage.
Yes, and when it was a union recognised by the local state/religion, it was almost always (with a few exceptions) male-female. Furthermore while yes, loving unions existed, Judiasim (which Christianity branched off from) set aside a specific kind of loving union and called in marriage. Thus it belongs to the Jews and to us by inhearitance. I suppose the Jews could say we can't use it, but they haven't, mainly, I think, because we use about the same definition for it that they do.
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205431 - 19/02/2004 03:27
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Well it always talks about marriage as being between a male and female, True, but the absence of discussion about something is not the same as forbidding it. From what I recall, the bible is actually pretty explicit when it forbids things.
and it forbids homosexual intercourse. Well, I honestly can't find the verse that says this, either. I mean, the clearest verse I can find regarding that is the one in Leviticus, and... well... as you said just above, that's Jewish law, not Christian, and if Judaism doesn't recognize Christ as being Christ, then I'm not quite sure how/why Christianity is required to suddenly believe this part of the Jewish religion, either.
And since the Bible makes it clear that marriage is intended for the creating a suitable enviroment for the begating and raising of childeren Which, again, I submit is not strictly the domain of straight people. I've seen some environments made up of gay couples that were far more suitable for raising children than a number of environments produced by the holy matrimony of straight people. And what about straight, but infertile couples? Should they not allowed to be married, since they can't have children? Or couples that decide they don't want to have children? Should they be barred from marriage?
(since you can love someone without being married to them or having sex with them) You can also not love someone, and be married to, and have sex with them. I'm with Doug on this one -- sex isn't the important thing in a marriage (mind you, I have neither his years of experience, nor a wife, so take that with a grain of salt).
then I think from that alone we can safely infer that homosexual marriages would be frowned upon. I wouldn't exactly call that a safe inference, given that I can see a few significant holes in the argument.
But no, I don't know of a specific verse. I'll ask my betters when I get a chance. I await your reply...
we would like for people to stop calling them the same thing as well. That's all. But for those who hold the belief that marriage is a commitment between two people, marriage is a civil union, and a civil union is a marriage. The terms are synonymous.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205432 - 19/02/2004 03:39
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
member
Registered: 18/09/2002
Posts: 188
Loc: Erie, PA
|
I can see a few significant holes in the argument.
Well I'll have to patch those tomorrow if I have time. It's way past my bedtime and my brain is about fried. I do have answers for some of them though.
Goodnight all, it's been fun.
_________________________
___________________
- Marcus -
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205433 - 19/02/2004 04:21
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Furthermore while yes, loving unions existed, Judiasim (which Christianity branched off from) set aside a specific kind of loving union and called in marriage. While marriage does seem to be a construct (there's no sign of it in the earliest societies), it certainly wasn't the Israelites who invented it. The oldest references to it are in the Code of Hammurabi, an artefact of the Babylonian civilisation from about 1760BC -- before the Torah was written -- and those aren't references to its invention, they're references as though it was already a well-established concept. (Of course, that's in archaeologists' dates, not young-earthers' dates; I guess if you believe that when the earth was created it already had two married Jews on, then that gives them a certain primacy.)
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205434 - 19/02/2004 05:11
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Homosexual couples "want the respectability that is attached to marriage without intending to pay the price" same as the athiest couples. The price, in this case being, finding a partner of the opposit sex and having the discipline to learn to get along with them dispite your differences, as well as, of course, beliving in the God you are making these vows to. That's an attitude -- that the love and commitment and discipline shown by gays (and atheists, and Hindus, and so on) is somehow of a lesser quality or importance than the same things shown by straight Christians -- that I'm afraid I find distasteful.
And while I don't know what CS Lewis's thoughts on gay marriage were, I do wonder whether it would alarm him to see that sentence of his which you quote above -- written, as your fuller quote makes clear, against infidelity in loving relationships -- used by you to demean perfectly committed loving relationships.
Incidentally, I completely agree with you that atheists who want church marriages do a disservice to both religion and atheism, and I even agree with you that if they're clearly not taking the theistic parts of the ceremony seriously, it makes you question whether they're taking the human-scale parts of it seriously either.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205435 - 19/02/2004 05:22
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Christian marriage is a population thing, just like opposition to birth control is a population thing. I'm afraid you are wrong on both accounts. As I said before, this is about God, and what He has chosen marriage to be. Ah, I wasn't being very clear. I don't doubt for a minute that straight marriage is one of the tenets of your religion. I was just trying to offer an explanation of why so many religions have that as one of their tenets: because if there ever had been religions that didn't promote widespread childbearing, demographics would cause the religions that did to swamp them. (Families have always been religions' best training schools: even today, when migration and evangelism mean that in most Western cities finding a new religion is no harder than finding a new brand of toothpaste, the overwhelming majority of religious people have the same religion as their parents did.)
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205436 - 19/02/2004 05:31
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
I don't doubt for a minute that straight marriage is one of the tenets of your religion. Nor, in case that bit wasn't clear, do I doubt that there are plenty of gay people who are good Christians and for whom it would be completely appropriate to have full-scale church weddings. But it's not the state's problem or mine if there are Christian groups who don't want gay weddings in their churches, any more than it's the state's problem or mine if you put a sign saying "No Blacks" on the loo door in your own home.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205437 - 19/02/2004 06:35
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
This is not to say we should not belive something because "that's what they would have said then" but rather we should not take something ment for a specific person or group as being ment for everyone.
By that reasoning you can take most of Paul's writings and ignore them as they were letters aimed at very specific groups of people.
Also, didn't Christ specifically say that he didn't come to replace the Jewish law, implying that you should still be paying attention to the Old Testament ?
P.S. does anyone know of a verse in the Bible that forbids sex before marriage ? I always hear Christians (usually taking to teenagers) saying that the bible outlaws sex before marriage, but I have yet to find one that provided any evidence that this is true. I spent a long time looking for such a verse when I was a 17 year old Christian... (I'm not a Christian anymore)
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205438 - 19/02/2004 06:48
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: lastdan]
|
addict
Registered: 13/07/2002
Posts: 634
Loc: Jesusland
|
Wow... pretty hot topic. No, I didn't read many of the posts but I'll keep it simple.
First off... I'm not a Christian.
Second... Marriage, in my opinion, was created as a partnership to create a family. If two people of the same sex do not have the ability to naturally create life of a child on their own.... well then they can't be married. Civil union maybe I'll go along with for the benefits of inheritance and so forth that were pointed out somewhere in this thread.
Three:: If it's that big of an issue then put it to a vote and let the people decide.
And finally: You can't be a fireman if you don't have any arms and legs. Deal with what you have and don't try to make society accomodate you just because you're not happy with the hand you're dealt.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205439 - 19/02/2004 06:53
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Jerz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Second... Marriage, in my opinion, was created as a partnership to create a family. If two people of the same sex do not have the ability to naturally create life of a child on their own.... well then they can't be married. Civil union maybe I'll go along with for the benefits of inheritance and so forth that were pointed out somewhere in this thread.
So if a hetrosexual couple are known to be sterile for some reason they should not be allowed to be married ?
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205440 - 19/02/2004 06:55
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: andy]
|
addict
Registered: 13/07/2002
Posts: 634
Loc: Jesusland
|
So if a hetrosexual couple are known to be sterile for some reason they should not be allowed to be married ?
That would be discrimination. 
The laws of nature do not allow two people of the same sex to have offspring; however, the laws of nature do allow a male and a female to have offspring. Whether one is sterile is a totally different issue.
Edited by Jerz (19/02/2004 06:58)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205441 - 19/02/2004 08:06
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Jerz]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 10/09/2002
Posts: 285
Loc: DFW Area, Texas, US
|
The laws of nature do not allow two people of the same sex to have offspring; however, the laws of nature do allow a male and a female to have offspring. Whether one is sterile is a totally different issue.
So does that mean that lesbian weddings should be allowed, as they would both be capable of producing offspring? Infact I think it would double their chances of giving birth to the next son of god, as no man would be required.
_________________________
Mark.
[blue]MKI, MKII & MKIIa, all Blue, and all Mine![/blue]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205442 - 19/02/2004 08:13
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Chimaera]
|
addict
Registered: 13/07/2002
Posts: 634
Loc: Jesusland
|
So does that mean that lesbian weddings should be allowed,
LMAO! The spin is unbelievable. Let's not even talk about humans... If you put to female rats in a cage and it is a given that they are both fertile what is the probability that one of them will get pregnant with no interference from the outside world?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205443 - 19/02/2004 08:21
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Jerz]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 10/09/2002
Posts: 285
Loc: DFW Area, Texas, US
|
I admint that the probability of that happening is very very low, but 'history' clearly states it has already happened with a human around 2000 years ago, so I would never say it was impossible
And yes I am just playing devils advocate, but I have some gay friends who have been in relationships longer than some of my straight friends, why should they not be allowed to be married after they have proved they are in a commited lasting relationship but my straight friends can have a nice Christian church wedding after only knowing each other a couple of weeks just because they are able to reproduce with each other?????
_________________________
Mark.
[blue]MKI, MKII & MKIIa, all Blue, and all Mine![/blue]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205444 - 19/02/2004 08:53
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: canuckInOR]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Well, I honestly can't find the verse that says this, either. I mean, the clearest verse I can find regarding that is the one in Leviticus...
Also note Leviticus. 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:26-28.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205445 - 19/02/2004 08:57
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: mcomb]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
At least, assuming we are talking about the US, we are supposed to have a separation of church and state.
Would someone please point out to me the words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205446 - 19/02/2004 09:22
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
First part of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205447 - 19/02/2004 09:42
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 09/06/2003
Posts: 297
|
The thread has probably gone way beyond this topic, but I figured this is salient point to respond to:
> Marriage is a religious term.
Marriage, or the social equivalent, has been around way longer than christianity, islam, or judaism.
[In my view, marriage has been co-opted by religious authorities over the ages for many reasons, but at it's core it is a social tradition that predates today's religions.]
-brendan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205448 - 19/02/2004 10:04
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Jerz]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 09/06/2003
Posts: 297
|
> Second... Marriage, in my opinion, was created as a partnership to create a family.
I have a slightly off skew take on that. My guess is that marriage, as a social tradition, was originally created as a way to formalize a few things in a tribal situation. The most important was this: we now have *two people responsible* for keeping those annoying tiny people out of our stuff.
> Three:: If it's that big of an issue then put it to a vote and let the people decide.
Ah yes, the tyranny of the majority.
-brendan
Edited by brendanhoar (19/02/2004 10:06)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205449 - 19/02/2004 10:08
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: m6400]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
The US has recognized marriages officiated by Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, Buddhists, Atheists, etc., ad nauseum, yet calls them all marriage, and has done so for quite some time. I didn't hear anyone from the Christian camp complaining about those before now, so stop claiming that you don't want the word coopted by the government or whomever; it's been that way for ages. Any posturing about it now is just to hide disapproval of homosexuality. If you believe that homosexuals or homosexuality is immoral or evil or whatever, stop hiding behind absurd semantics that never mattered under similar situations (by your argument) and admit that you don't want them to get married. Stop lying to us and to yourself.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205450 - 19/02/2004 10:10
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: wfaulk]
|
addict
Registered: 23/12/2002
Posts: 652
Loc: Winston Salem, NC
|
Exactly. The words "separation of church and state" don't exist.
And by establisment, which of the following does it refer to?
- The act of forming something
- An organization founded and united for a specific purpose
Based on the religious backbone that our country was founded upon and flight from the strict government-imposed religion of England at the time of the Constitution's writing, I would have to lean towards the former.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205451 - 19/02/2004 10:18
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Uh, yeah. So, to restate in less Constitutional language: The government will not be allowed to make a law that promotes or restricts religion.
How is that not separating church and state? Just because it's easier to say one way than how it's actually worded in the document doesn't make it less true.
I suppose, technically, that means that the Executive or Judicial branch could have policies that support or restrict religion, but I think that's probably outside the spirit of what the amenders were trying to say.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205452 - 19/02/2004 10:20
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Cybjorg]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
And by "establishment", which of the following does it refer to? "Establishment" is a technical term in religious circles, with the precise meaning of a state-supported church. Outlawing such state support would be a very popular policy among those constitutioneers who had seen the consequences of England's established church at that time, not to say the terrible conflicts that used to ensue every time someone disestablished one church and established a new one in its place.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205453 - 19/02/2004 10:38
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
You're not reading the Bible as written; You're reading someone's translation. Even if everything could literally translate, you could still have problems because a person wrote down the translation and could easily have made a mistake in doing so.
And for some reason all I can think of is "Our Lady of Transliteration"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205454 - 19/02/2004 10:52
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
"Establishment" is a technical term in religious circles, with the precise meaning of a state-supported church. Thank you! You'd be amazed at the number of people in the United States that think that this equates to "separation of church and state" in the sense that the government should be entirely secular.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205455 - 19/02/2004 10:57
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Thank you! You'd be amazed at the number of people in the United States that think that this equates to "separation of church and state" in the sense that the government should be entirely secular. *Shrug*. You'd be amazed at the number of people outside the United States who think that not every really good idea about how to run a fair and just society can necessarily be found in the US Constitution...
But even in the technical reading it does appear to say that the government shouldn't single out any one religion for special support.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205456 - 19/02/2004 11:03
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
But it also says that it should not restrict any religion, too. Supporting one or any group, unless all-inclusive, would inherently mean restricting the rest. And I won't get into my argument that functionally, it's impossible to support all religions equally, considering the huge influence of the Christian church. At best, it's frought with fractiousness, and is best avoided altogether.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205457 - 19/02/2004 11:08
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
You'd be amazed at the number of people outside the United States who think that not every really good idea about how to run a fair and just society can necessarily be found in the US Constitution... Admittedly. I'm sure most people here would agree that government should be entirely secular (though I do not). I was just trying to point out that if they are interpreting the Constitution as saying that, they are making it say what they passionately believe it should say rather than what the original intent was. Its fine to believe that the government should be secular, just don't try to back it up with the Constitution. Of course the precedent has now been set in case law, so the point is moot anyway.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#205458 - 19/02/2004 11:11
Re: Same-sex marriage
[Re: Daria]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
You're not reading the Bible as written; You're reading someone's translation. Even if everything could literally translate, you could still have problems because a person wrote down the translation and could easily have made a mistake in doing so.
I agree 100%. And since I don't speak early aramaic, greek or hebrew, I'll have to live with the translation.
Problem is, since I'm assuming nobody else here has read an original first-edition of the bible, I really don't see your point. I think it would be obvious that we have to go with a translation. And the point is, the TRANSLATION is the version christians are using for their views. So it only makes sense to use that translation in any rebuttal.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index