Your Opinion on Marriage

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

OR, one could say the broken families were caused by one party ACTING on inappropriate feelings and wrong desires.

 

:iagree: I agree. For a gay person to marry a straight person by deceit is extremely inappropriate. As to being a wrong desire, likely it is no desire at all. Completely wrong, and horribly inappropriate.

[Melinda in VT]

OK, ignore everything I've said and just read Pam's response. She says it much better than I did.

[Kelli in TN]

I realized that if I'd seen this happening I'd have fought to prevent it.

 

 

There are many people who might not feel the same as you do that still would step in, or call the police, or do whatever they could to make the horrible, violent event cease.

 

One can prefer not to change marriage laws, and still wish no harm to people who see it differently.

[Scarlett]

However, I do not see the fact that some gay men married women and then cheated on them to be an argument against gay marriage.

 

 

Me either. Nor do I believe that open acceptance of homosexuality is healthy. In fact, I think the more that 'society' says it is ok, the more people will act out on feelings and desires that they once felt to be wrong and thus permanently scar themselves and others who love them.

[Danestress]

That people with different world views can not rationally discuss this. Rational people can rationally discuss difficult issues. Irrational people can't. It's a simple as that.

 

Yes, we must spend time discussing how to define the terms and identify where we differ. And we must acknowledge that we may not ever agree. But to me, a major goal of education is to train our our children to be able to think, listen, argue effectively, listen intelligently, persuade and accept the limitations. I can't imagine deciding that one can not have a rational discussion unless the parties already agree.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

That people with different world views can not rationally discuss this. Rational people can rationally discuss difficult issues. Irrational people can't. It's a simple as that.

 

Yes, we must spend time discussing how to define the terms and identify where we differ. And we must acknowledge that we may not ever agree. But to me, a major goal of education is to train our our children to be able to think, listen, argue effectively, listen intelligently, persuade and accept the limitations. I can't imagine deciding that one can not have a rational discussion unless the parties already agree.

 

Absolutely. Yes. I'm out of rep, sadly, but this was perfectly stated.

 

I love it when the people who disagree with me can state their case in a way that makes me consider their opinion and *think*. Being a little dittohead has never appealed to me. (Though it appears I am one in this case. :-PPP)

[Caroline]

Me either. Nor do I believe that open acceptance of homosexuality is healthy. In fact, I think the more that 'society' says it is ok, the more people will act out on feelings and desires that they once felt to be wrong and thus permanently scar themselves and others who love them.

 

I have seen too many young people go through turmoil and permanently scar themselves by denying that they are homosexual. I think denying who you are is always a bad thing. Unless you think that people aren't really homosexual?

[Mama Lynx]

I wonder... are people who are married without a preacher or a religious ceremony (or any consideration of religion at all) considered "married" by the folks in this thread who talk about "leaving out the religious part of it"? Or do they simply have a "civil union" in your eyes?

 

My parents were married by a justice of the peace, but I consider them married.

 

(And I'm not asking antagonistically. I've just never even considered that people wouldn't consider non-religious folks or people that don't consider marriage as ordained by a god "married." Or am I just totally reading this wrong?)

 

I wish I had a civil union.

 

We were married by my uncle, a Baptist preacher. Neither I nor my dh are/were Baptist, but he was family, so we felt very pressured to let him perform the ceremony. Then the preacher went on to be a drug-addicted spouse and child abuser, whose wife won't leave him because "It's not Biblical."

 

When I think of my wedding, it's very much tainted by the presence of that man. I so wish we'd just gone down to the justice of the peace.

 

I'm voting "I don't care." Truth is I haven't worked out how I think about plural marriages. They make me uneasy, but I haven't worked out why, yet.

[Julie Herbster]

Gay marriage doesn't threaten God-designed, heterosexual marriage; it MOCKS it, and to me, that's worse... You can guess my opinion.

 

Personally though, as a Christian, homosexual practice is immoral and therefore not something *I* will participate in or promote to my children as a healthy lifestyle. I cannot control others' actions or beliefs and I wouldn't want to, we are each accountable for ourselves and our actions...I vote to voice my opinion which is based on my beliefs of right and wrong.

 

 

OIL...and WATER

 

 

To me personally, it just means two people committing to share their lives. But I also realize that to some people it can mean more than two people sharing their lives.

 

In our society, gay men [ETA: and women] have played straight for generations just to be marginally accepted by society, to not be disowned by families they adored and were adored by. If they didn't feel forced into living a lie, to making the desperate attempt to please their god and their fellow man by making "righteous" choices (marrying, procreating, attempting to pass, attempting to at least DO the "right" thing), would they be so hurtful?

 

 

I think you see it differently when it is personalized.

 

 

Neither of us are religious and we've both seen so many failed marriages in our friend's parents growing up that the idea of "marriage" signifying an everlasting commitment doesn't hold.

 

 

 

Just to be clear, I'm not calling anyone names. I'm just elaborating on my previous point that a rational discussion cannot be had between parties with two mutually exclusive worldviews...with two totally different starting places--unless the discussion is about "the definition of marriage."

 

In a discussion such as this one, people (on both sides) can bolster their own arguments by citing "experiences" and "backgrounds." Pragmatic arguments of all kinds can be used. However, we will continue to talk past each other (and get nowhere) unless the real question is dealt with: what is marriage? Parties disagreeing on this point can have no discussion on any kind of marriage.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

In a discussion such as this one, people (on both sides) can bolster their own arguments by citing "experiences" and "backgrounds." Pragmatic arguments of all kinds can be used. However, we will continue to talk past each other (and get nowhere) unless the real question is dealt with: what is marriage? Parties disagreeing on this point can have no discussion on any kind of marriage.

 

Julie, it's ok. There's no obligation at all to answer my or anyone else's post with whom you disagree. Some of us, though, will continue to discuss and refine our understanding.

 

Oh, and I meant to say this with a smile. :)

[Old Dominion Heather]

 

One can prefer not to change marriage laws, and still wish no harm to people who see it differently.

 

I can't rep you again, Kelli, but I agree.

[Julie Herbster]

That people with different world views can not rationally discuss this. Rational people can rationally discuss difficult issues. Irrational people can't. It's a simple as that.

Let me see if I can understand what you are saying here.

 

Is this what you are saying?--> A Christian who believes that God instituted marriage between one man and one woman for the reasons explained in the Bible can have a rational discussion about same-sex marriage in America with someone else who believes that "marriage" has no inherent meaning.

 

If that is what you are saying, how is rational discussion possible? There is no agreement of terms to base the discussion on. It would be like a mom trying to teach algebra to a child without having established that "equal" means "the same."

 

I don't know which perspective you're coming from, but you might be saying that rational discussion between a Christian (as described above) and a "post-modern party" (as described above) cannot take place because the Christian is not rational at all, but is basing her beliefs on faith.

[Julie Herbster]

Julie, it's ok. There's no obligation at all to answer my or anyone else's post with whom you disagree. Some of us, though, will continue to discuss and refine our understanding.

 

Oh, and I meant to say this with a smile. :)

It's not that I disagree with you. (Have I said that? ;)) I do get the idea that you believe the definition of marriage (or gender identity, for that matter) is relative--or that it has no definition that is any more important than any other definition. Am I correct? (I don't want to assume anything.) I would love to attempt a rational discussion!

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

I don't know which perspective you're coming from, but you might be saying that rational discussion between a Christian (as described above) and a "post-modern party" (as described above) cannot take place because the Christian is not rational at all, but is basing her beliefs on faith.

 

I think you and I might have a harder time with such a discussion because you have defined who I am and what I believe before we even speak and even have a term, complete with scare quotes, with which to describe me. (And I'm not sure you meant the term as complimentary.)

 

What's the point of all this education in logic and reason and rhetoric if we can't have rational discussions with those who disagree with us? I agree that our typical talking media heads and our public school systems eschew rational discussion.

 

Even Paul said, "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." How are you going to manage to do that if you don't open yourself up to the question? How will you compel them to think you even care if you won't listen to them, when you pigeonhole them immediately as unregenerate and post-modern?

[Crissy]

I sympathize with people whose families have broken up because one of the marriage partners is gay. But it seems to me that the cause of the problem is not homosexual marriage but that the partner pretended to be straight.

 

I agree, Melinda.

 

When a man chooses to lie to his wife, to cheat on her, and to ultimately leave her for a life with another person, it is his character that allowed him to do so, not his sexual orientation.

 

There are a number of women here who have stories similar those of SolaMichella and Sahamamama's friend. The difference being that their former husbands are straight. No less havoc was created in the lives of those families.

[Scarlett]

I have seen too many young people go through turmoil and permanently scar themselves by denying that they are homosexual. I think denying who you are is always a bad thing. Unless you think that people aren't really homosexual?

 

I think a person could be sexually attracted to the same sex and not actually become involved in sexual activity with the same sex. Depending on the definition you use of the word 'homosexuality', you may or may not be a homosexual if you don't act on the desire. We (humans) don't have to act on every desire we have. A young person *could* acknowledge wrong desires and determine to not act upon them. I don't see how that could be harmful to them.

[Kay in Cal]

I agree with Pam. Marriage in which one person is deceitful, about their sexual orientation or anything else, for that matter, is indeed a mockery.

 

I have a very high view of marriage. I think that those entering into it should take it as a serious life-long commitment. I know in our broken world that is not always possible, but I believe both partners should have that intent. I think that some (not all) homosexuals do intend to create lifelong monogamous commitments. Just like some (not all) heterosexuals intend to create lifelong monogamous commitments. Those are the kind of questions I ask when I do pre-marital counselling, because I am speaking from a religious perspective. Of course, my denomination does not perform same-sex unions, but not all lay people or clergy agree with that perspective.

 

I simply don't think the state can be the arbiter of who is and is not "really" married. Marriage in the sense that this law is addressing is a civil property issue. Various churches may take various positions--I assume everyone knows that not all Christian denominations deny homosexual marriage--but that is a religious issue for the church. As citizens of a free plural society all persons should have the same legal opportunites.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

It's not that I disagree with you. (Have I said that? ;)) I do get the idea that you believe the definition of marriage (or gender identity, for that matter) is relative--or that it has no definition that is any more important than any other definition. Am I correct? (I don't want to assume anything.) I would love to attempt a rational discussion!

 

Oh, I do believe that some definitions have more value than other definitions. But it feels -- and I could be very wrong -- that because I'm not using your definition, I'm a relativist and have no moral moorings. I feel the discussion is shut down before it can even take place because of what you assume about my perceived relativism (perceived as present because I'm not Christian).

[Scarlett]

Even Paul said, "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." How are you going to manage to do that if you don't open yourself up to the question? How will you compel them to think you even care if you won't listen to them, when you pigeonhole them immediately as unregenerate and post-modern?

 

I'm all for discussion, but it seems to me with this issue some believe practicing homosexuality is wrong and some do not. Once those beliefs are established what else is there really to say? (you will note however, that I've continued to have plenty to say. ;))

[Julie Herbster]

I think you and I might have a harder time with such a discussion because you have defined who I am and what I believe before we even speak and even have a term, complete with scare quotes, with which to describe me. (And I'm not sure you meant the term as complimentary.)

Pam, I think we posted at the same time. I wasn't attempting to "define" you personally...in fact, I purposely left the names off of the quotations I selected to show the difference in thinking. If I misrepresented you, I apologize. Certainly, misrepresentation is a huge stumblingblock to a rational discussion.

 

What's the point of all this education in logic and reason and rhetoric if we can't have rational discussions with those who disagree with us? I agree that our typical talking media heads and our public school systems eschew rational discussion.

Maybe you missed my point. I'm probably not expressing myself as clearly as I had hoped. Certainly we can have a rational discussion about the meaning of marriage--let's go for it! But we can't discuss "same-sex marriage in America" until we've established that important point. If "marriage" means something different to you than it does to me, we are at an impasse, discussion-wise.

 

How are you going to manage to do that if you don't open yourself up to the question? How will you compel them to think you even care if you won't listen to them, when you pigeonhole them immediately as unregenerate and post-modern?

Did I label anyone as "unregenerate?" Does "post-modern" have a generally negative connotation? I apologize if I have offended anyone. I merely used the term "post-modern" to describe a way of thinking that acknowledges no absolutes. If I over-generalized or broad-brushed anyone, again, I apologize. I certainly don't mean to belittle anyone's opinion. My point was that I fear that different parties are talking past each other, and I attempted to explain why I think that is true.

[Julie Herbster]

 

Oh, I do believe that some definitions have more value than other definitions. But it feels -- and I could be very wrong -- that because I'm not using your definition, I'm a relativist and have no moral moorings. I feel the discussion is shut down before it can even take place because of what you assume about my perceived relativism (perceived as present because I'm not Christian).

Thanks for the clarification, Pam. I never assumed or meant to insinuate that you are a relativist. Would you mind sharing upon what you base your definition(s) of marriage? Do you believe that there is "one right view" of marriage?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

Did I label anyone as "unregenerate?" Does "post-modern" have a generally negative connotation? I apologize if I have offended anyone. I merely used the term "post-modern" to describe a way of thinking that acknowledges no absolutes. If I over-generalized or broad-brushed anyone, again, I apologize. I certainly don't mean to belittle anyone's opinion. My point was that I fear that different parties are talking past each other, and I attempted to explain why I think that is true.

 

Julie, when I read your first post, I got defensive. I'm answering from that position of defensiveness, and I suspect it's not very pretty and is bordering on unkind. It's certainly not full of "meekness and fear." I'm really sorry. I'm going to lurk for awhile this morning, then I'll probably come back and play tomorrow.

 

Forgive me? I'm not sure why I'm so "tetchy."

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Thanks for the clarification, Pam. I never assumed or meant to insinuate that you are a relativist. Would you mind sharing upon what you base your definition(s) of marriage? Do you believe that there is "one right view" of marriage?

 

See my post elsewhere. :) Do you mind if I pass? I'm being a butt today, and I'd sorta like to stop being one. I think I might need to stop typing in order to do so. :D

[melissel]

I think a person could be sexually attracted to the same sex and not actually become involved in sexual activity with the same sex. Depending on the definition you use of the word 'homosexuality', you may or may not be a homosexual if you don't act on the desire. We (humans) don't have to act on every desire we have. A young person *could* acknowledge wrong desires and determine to not act upon them. I don't see how that could be harmful to them.

 

Again, this is assuming that everyone agrees with your religion's, and your God's, definition of "wrong" desires. If it were so easy to ignore those desires you may think of as wrong, this country would be a whole lot skinnier and a whole lot less populated.

[Mommy22alyns]

If a heterosexual couple is considered "married" whether they did so in a church or a courtroom, then a same-sex couple should have the same right. I'm not sure what the societal hangup is on that word, "marriage." What is truly the difference between a marriage and a civil union?

 

I don't think the government should step in and legislate this. It's a religious issue 99.9% of the time. If churches don't want to recognize or perform same-sex marriages, then I fully support their right to do so. But where is the line? Should the government decide that someone who committed adultery go to jail, because it's "immoral" and against many religious beliefs? What about marrying someone who is of a different faith, a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic for example? That's the Catholic church's business, not the government's.

 

Again - the whole country can acknowledge that a heterosexual couple married in a courtroom with even zero religious involvement is married. Not a "civil union," they are married. So as far as governmental, legal staus goes, same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights and status.

 

As far as plural marriages go, I'm not into the whole idea, but if it's all consenting adults involved, then why should it be legislated? If the man consents and the woman consents, and they're both legal adults... it doesn't matter to me. Like "open marriages" - not for me, I don't understand it, but who can really make a law against it?

[Julie Herbster]

See my post elsewhere. :) Do you mind if I pass? :D

Not a problem, Pam. Hope you can relax and "reset."

[Greta]

Would you mind sharing upon what you base your definition(s) of marriage? Do you believe that there is "one right view" of marriage?

 

Julie, do you mind if I jump in here? I'm very interested in where this is going. I'm not sure if my comments here will really get to the heart of what you're saying, but these are the thoughts I have when reading your questions and comments.

 

In my examination of whether or not there are "moral absolutes" I have come up with only ONE: "The Golden Rule". Every religion and every secular philosophy on this planet has always come up with this same rule, though worded somewhat differently. I think it is the basis for all morality, because we act morally towards others when we have empathy with them, when we realize that they, like us, wish to be happy, and do not wish to be unhappy or to be harmed. So when we treat others the way we would wish to be treated, we are behaving morally. When we treat others in a way that we would not wish to be treated, we KNOW on some level, even if we don't like to admit it, that we are behaving immorally. I try to let the Golden Rule be my guiding principle. Sometimes I succeed at it better than others, but it is my guiding moral principle, my one moral absolute that I believe in most passionately.

 

So it informs my stance on marriage, as it does on many other issues. At the time my dh and I got married, he did not want to have children, and I had mixed feelings about it, but had no real intentions to get pregnant (I changed my mind later! But that's the way I felt at that time). I'm trying to imagine if the official who married us had said something like 'marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation, so you two can't get married'. I love my dh very much, and I wanted to share that bond with him of having exchanged vows to love each other for the rest of our lives. It was very important to me. So to have someone tell me that I couldn't do that because our marriage didn't fit their definition of what a marriage should be, that would have torn me up. It would have hurt. When I try to mentally put myself in the shoes of someone who wants to exchange vows and share a marriage bond with someone they love, and then they're told they can't because the person they love is of the same sex, I can feel that hurt. I have no wish to inflict that pain on someone, so my moral conscience leads me to conclude that since marriage is a deeply personal decision, and since people are different, marriage is going to take many different forms. And while one form may look more comfortable or natural or acceptable to me than another, it would be immoral of me to impose my ideas on others.

 

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is this. I get the impression you think that acceptance of different types of marriage is based on a lack of a moral conviction. Perhaps I am wrong. But if that is what you think, I just want you to know that it very much IS a moral conviction which leads me to support gay marriage. My moral principle is that I must treat gay couples the same way I would wish to be treated. And I would want to be free to choose my marriage partner myself, without having to get anyone else's approval.

[Sixmeadows]

cheri

[Apiphobic]

I voted! Can I get one of those "I voted" stickers now?

 

I don't think any minds are going to be changed today and others are discussing valid points much better than I could, so I don't think I'll be singing "Up with People" or "Down with the Sickness."

 

I do want to say the following statement has stuck with me. I'm not trying to single out any person/s, but I do have a problem with this statement and I'll try to explain why.

 

I think you cannot forget the children.

 

I remember hearing this argument against interracial marriage. I didn't agree with it then, and I don't agree with it now. It focuses on an emotional appeal instead of a logical argument. If your main argument is "I think children do best with both a mom and dad," then focus on that. When you try to pull on our heartstrings with the first statement, you lose me because I feel like I'm being manipulated. (Support the troops! has become a way of shaming those who disagree with the Iraq war, and it's based on an emotional appeal.)

 

There were still laws in the 70's prohibiting interracial marriages, and some of the arguments against it were because it would make things difficult for the children. Well, I think we've adapted. It's not so much of an issue anymore.

 

Yes, kids need their moms and dads. Unfortunately, many kids don't grow up with both mom and dad in their family. Divorce, abandonment, death in the family, battering, drug abuse, etc., and then they're being raised by single parents, grandparents, extended family, foster families, etc. Not a perfect world, but we adapt and do the best we can with what we have.

 

Others have mentioned that having both mom and dad doesn't necessarily guarantee an idyllic childhood. Is it more important to have the mom and dad figureheads regardless of whether or not they're responsible, caring adults? Don't limit their choices by demanding the standard mom/pop family network.

 

Wish I could clarify more but I have to head out now. Sorry to just hit and run! Enjoy your weekend!

[Julie Herbster]

Thanks for your post, GretaLynne. I'll try to address your ideas.

In my examination of whether or not there are "moral absolutes" I have come up with only ONE: "The Golden Rule". Every religion and every secular philosophy on this planet has always come up with this same rule, though worded somewhat differently.

You are probably correct on this one. I cannot say for sure that you are, since, for example, Hindu practice seems to fly directly in the face of the Golden Rule.

 

Here's where you lost me:

I think it is the basis for all morality, because we act morally towards others when we have empathy with them, when we realize that they, like us, wish to be happy, and do not wish to be unhappy or to be harmed. So when we treat others the way we would wish to be treated, we are behaving morally.

In defining "morality," you appear to have used the term in its own definition, and are perhaps guilty of circular reasoning..."Treating others as we wish to be treated" is "moral" because "morality" is "treating others as we wish to be treated." What is lacking here is a solid definition of "moral behavior."

 

Your attempt at a definition of morality is based only on "how you would have others treat you." It is not an objective standard, but a subjective one, correct? Theoretically, an action that is "moral" for you might be "immoral" for someone else. This standard (of morality) cannot be applied to anyone but yourself...IOW, you cannot ever call anyone else's actions definitely "immoral"...just your own. Please correct me if I'm not representing your view accurately.

 

When we treat others in a way that we would not wish to be treated, we KNOW on some level, even if we don't like to admit it, that we are behaving immorally. I try to let the Golden Rule be my guiding principle. Sometimes I succeed at it better than others, but it is my guiding moral principle, my one moral absolute that I believe in most passionately.

I totally agree that the Golden Rule is a wonderful "guiding principle" in life for personal actions.

 

When I try to mentally put myself in the shoes of someone who wants to exchange vows and share a marriage bond with someone they love, and then they're told they can't because the person they love is of the same sex, I can feel that hurt. I have no wish to inflict that pain on someone, so my moral conscience leads me to conclude that since marriage is a deeply personal decision, and since people are different, marriage is going to take many different forms. And while one form may look more comfortable or natural or acceptable to me than another, it would be immoral of me to impose my ideas on others.

GretaLynne, I'm going to change your wording here to see how far you want to go with this line of reasoning. NOTE: The following are not the words of GretaLynne. They are of my own construction. When I try to mentally put myself in the shoes of someone who wants to engage in necrophilia or bestiality (sex with the dead, or with an animal) and share a sexual bond with someone or something they love, and then they're told they can't because the person or animal they love is dead or of a different species, I can feel that hurt. I have no wish to inflict that pain on someone, so my moral conscience leads me to conclude that since sexuality is a deeply personal decision, and since people are different, sexual preferences are going to take many different forms. And while one form may look more comfortable or natural or acceptable to me than another, it would be immoral of me to impose my ideas on others.

 

IMPORTANT NOTE #2: I am not in any way, shape or form equating same-sex marriage with necrophilia or bestiality. I'm just seeing if you apply the Golden Rule principle consistently, as your only sure basis for morality, and how you decide what is "moral" or "immoral" when interests conflict.

 

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is this. I get the impression you think that acceptance of different types of marriage is based on a lack of a moral conviction. Perhaps I am wrong. But if that is what you think, I just want you to know that it very much IS a moral conviction which leads me to support gay marriage. My moral principle is that I must treat gay couples the same way I would wish to be treated. And I would want to be free to choose my marriage partner myself, without having to get anyone else's approval.

No, I don't believe that acceptance of different kinds of marriage is necessarily based on a lack of a moral conviction. I just think (saying this again at the risk of over-repetition) that we have different definitions of the basic terms of this discussion (morality, sexuality, and marriage, mainly). Your post reinforced this fact in my mind.

[Julie Herbster]

Ok... there are several issues that I can see and they've been spelled out much better than I can in the posts above. Yes, I agree, for those that are convinced that homosexuality is wrong there can be no middle ground.

Right...This is all I was saying.

 

There are three specific passages that this belief is based upon. The first is in Genesis, chapters 18 and 19....<<snip>>....The next mention of homosexuality is in Leviticus....<<snip>>....The only passage that can still be used is in 1 Corinthians 6 -

I would LOVE to comment on these passages, as well as on Romans 1:18-32 (which I am surprised that you did not include, since it seems to be the most obvious one on this topic). But, not having a lot of time to continue on here just now, I'll satisfy myself by merely saying that you are mistaken that in Leviticus, dietary rules are listed in the same verse as the one forbidding homosexual behavior. As a matter of fact, all of chapter 18 is about laws for sexual behavior...not an animal mentioned in the whole chapter, other than in the verse forbidding bestiality. (Maybe you were thinking of a different reference?) In 1 Cor. 6, both the terms "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" express disapproval of homosexual behavior. Also, you might want to check out Romans 1:18-32--It would take some pretty good spinning to get past that one! :tongue_smilie:

 

I will try to get to the rest of your post later...So much to be said, so little time to say it!

[TXMomof4]

This is one of those things where the terminology is what gets me. In my mind (as confused as it may be) marriage is a covenant between me, my husband and God. The state recognizes it because marriage is an ancient custom and that is the way most civilized societies have been organized since....forever?

 

I can see civil unions between same sex couples allowing them the legal benefits. No argument there, but why does it have to be called a marriage? That is a religious covenant first, then a legally recognized situation. A civil union could provide the same benefits legally without trying to change what marriage is and has been for centuries. I understand historically marriage was a contract between families, etc, etc, but the basic idea of it has always been man + woman = marriage.

 

Again, it's just terminology, but it makes me crazy to have things that have a real value to me and many others made to be intolerant and arrogant, when I am not the one who created marriage, but honor it for what it is and has historically been. Not all things have to be changed to suit everyone in the world.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

This is one of those things where the terminology is what gets me. In my mind (as confused as it may be) marriage is a covenant between me, my husband and God. The state recognizes it because marriage is an ancient custom and that is the way most civilized societies have been organized since....forever?

 

I can see civil unions between same sex couples allowing them the legal benefits. No argument there, but why does it have to be called a marriage? That is a religious covenant first, then a legally recognized situation. A civil union could provide the same benefits legally without trying to change what marriage is and has been for centuries. I understand historically marriage was a contract between families, etc, etc, but the basic idea of it has always been man + woman = marriage.

 

Again, it's just terminology, but it makes me crazy to have things that have a real value to me and many others made to be intolerant and arrogant, when I am not the one who created marriage, but honor it for what it is and has historically been. Not all things have to be changed to suit everyone in the world.

 

But... I'm married. To a man. But it's not a religious covenant.

 

??

 

Should my marriage be redefined to be simply a civil union?

[Audrey]

But... I'm married. To a man. But it's not a religious covenant.

 

??

 

Should my marriage be redefined to be simply a civil union?

 

Good question, Pam. Maybe I'm "unworthy" of being married, too. Is my marriage a "mockery" as some have used that label? My marriage has never had any "god" in it. Funny how that piece of paper I've got that says "MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE" in huge letters across the top also has no mention of anybody's "gods" on it. Could it be that the entire province of Ontario has conspired to mock marriage? ;)

[Caroline]

Good question, Pam. Maybe I'm "unworthy" of being married, too. Is my marriage a "mockery" as some have used that label? My marriage has never had any "god" in it. Funny how that piece of paper I've got that says "MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE" in huge letters across the top also has no mention of anybody's "gods" on it. Could it be that the entire province of Ontario has conspired to mock marriage? ;)

 

Along with the state of Maryland?:lol:

[Kate in Arabia]

You are probably correct on this one. I cannot say for sure that you are, since, for example, Hindu practice seems to fly directly in the face of the Golden Rule.

 

I will admit that I am not terribly conversant in day-to-day Hindu practices, but they at least have a version of the Golden Rule in their teachings:

 

In addition to the law of karma, the Bhagavad Gita contains a dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna with the statement:

 

That one I love who is incapable of ill will, And returns love for hatred.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

 

FWIW

 

Kate

[Fourmother]

I don't care what gay or straight or bi people do as long as it isn't with my man!

 

:smilielol5:

Karen, thanks for adding some levity to what can be a very heated issue. You reminded me of my mother's comment, "I'll worry about gay marriage when I receive a proposal from a lesbian." For me the proposal would have to come with a shotgun and a preacher before I would get too worried. Anyway, here are my mixed up thoughts ...

 

-My husband and I were married by a Justice of the Peace. Everyone considers us "married." That is everyone except the dreadful woman at a church we attended who referred to my dh as my fiance for years. Maybe to her dh and I are merely members of a civil union. (:lol: Whatever, lady!)

 

-There are some moral matters in which the state actively outlaws certain behaviors - murder, rape, theft, fraud, narcotic drug addictions, etc. Other behaviors have been decriminalized and/or regulated (either deliberately or by default practice) - sodomy, alcohol/nicotine addiction, adultery, fornication, abortion, etc. Caring people will disagree about which behaviors should fall into which categories. I guess I think same sex marriage falls into second category. Outlawing same sex marriage won't have any more effect on homosexuality than laws banning sodomy. Same sex couples will cohabit, raise children, leave estates, require next of kin in hospital settings, and desire to share insurance benefits, etc. I see no harm in state sanctioning of same sex marriage to regulate these legal matters.

 

-Polygamy makes me uncomfortable. I have to be honest and say that this comes from my own cultural prejudice, not any rational or moral argument. I know that people choose this lifestyle regardless of legal and social stigmas against it in the US. I also know that polygamy is a normal way of life for many people around the world. I wouldn't like the idea of legal polygamy, but I wonder if decriminalizing it would allow more protections for its participants. I just don't know.

 

-This question might open a can of worms, but I will ask anyway... I wonder at conservatives who oppose government regulation in people's lives, yet have no problem regulating who can marry or whom. This seems to me the most intimate of government invasions. If one believes it is wrong to legislate charity by taking money from people to give to the poor, why is it OK to legislate sexual morality by saying Steve can't marry Tom, or Steve can't marry Betty and Alice? (I do believe that state has an interest in preventing close kinship marriage on the grounds of public health. So I'm not questioning these kinds of restrictions.)

[Julie Herbster]

TXMomof4, I can see that we most likely have a similar view on this topic. One question, considering the following material from your post:

I can see civil unions between same sex couples allowing them the legal benefits. No argument there, but why does it have to be called a marriage? That is a religious covenant first, then a legally recognized situation. A civil union could provide the same benefits legally without trying to change what marriage is and has been for centuries. I understand historically marriage was a contract between families, etc, etc, but the basic idea of it has always been man + woman = marriage.

Would you be opposed to the idea of, say, two sisters, or a mother and son, or people in other kinds of nonsexual relationships forming "civil unions" in order to receive legal benefits? Where would this end?

[vmsurbat]

:iagree:

Regardless of how many people we know who engage in same-sex sex, regardless of how "nice" they may be, there needs to be a firmer philosophical ground for either accepting or rejecting homosexual acts than just our anecdotal experiences.

 

On the one hand, yes, people who engage in same-sex sex are people who need to be loved. On the other hand, same-sex sex -- along with a host of other deeds -- is morally wrong. This is not to say that only one behavior is wrong, or worse than other behaviors -- just that what IS wrong, IS wrong. Same-sex sex is wrong.

[Phred]

In 1 Cor. 6, both the terms "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" express disapproval of homosexual behavior. Also, you might want to check out Romans 1:18-32--It would take some pretty good spinning to get past that one! :tongue_smilie:

Oh yes, Romans 1. I'm sorry, I'm not sure how that escaped my attentions. Paul is discussing a group of Romans who were Christians and left the faith for Paganism. They participated in an orgy. Something quite common in those days. He's condemning what they did. All of 'em piled up there nekkid and all. Why is this suddenly more important than say, the passages regulating slavery, or those that require prostitutes to be burned alive? Those that advocate genocide and those that require the victim of rape to marry the rapist? Shall we execute non-virgin brides?

 

I don't have to spin the Bible. It's very clear... Paul saw the Greek temple and didn't like what he saw. The former Christians gave themselves over to a whiz-bang orgy with men and women all together at the same time. How is this a condemnation of the homosexual person himself?

 

By the way...you might want to turn the page.

 

Romans 2:1

 

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

 

Always a good read that Bible...

[Phred]

This is one of those things where the terminology is what gets me. In my mind (as confused as it may be) marriage is a covenant between me, my husband and God. The state recognizes it because marriage is an ancient custom and that is the way most civilized societies have been organized since....forever?

 

I can see civil unions between same sex couples allowing them the legal benefits. No argument there, but why does it have to be called a marriage? That is a religious covenant first, then a legally recognized situation. A civil union could provide the same benefits legally without trying to change what marriage is and has been for centuries. I understand historically marriage was a contract between families, etc, etc, but the basic idea of it has always been man + woman = marriage.

 

Again, it's just terminology, but it makes me crazy to have things that have a real value to me and many others made to be intolerant and arrogant, when I am not the one who created marriage, but honor it for what it is and has historically been. Not all things have to be changed to suit everyone in the world.

Long before it was a religious covenant it was a survival covenant. The man stayed with the woman because the two of them could survive better together than apart. Later, as agriculture took hold the benefit of children to work the farm became the reason to stay together. There were many religions in place long before Christianity ever came to be. You're trying to maintain your hold over religion... and every word of your argument was spoken fifty years ago regarding interracial marriage.

 

Why in the world not just let more people in? Be inclusive, not exclusive. If you think your god won't like it then set parameters in your church. But please stop blocking this on the outside of your church.

[Amy in NH]

As usual, I agree with Pam.

[nukeswife]

But... I'm married. To a man. But it's not a religious covenant.

 

??

 

Should my marriage be redefined to be simply a civil union?

 

That too would be me, so a month from now on June 13th I guess dh and I will actually be celebrating our 11th anniversary of our Civil Union, not our marriage although the paperwork from the state of RI clearly says MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE across the top.

[Myrtle]

The option of "no official recognition for any sort of marriage" wasn't an option or I might have considered selecting it. Maybe we should just all shack up and if you raise a kid together then society views you as "married".

 

I have some questions the answers to which I don't know:

 

1. How does marriage work in a culture (present or past) in which the marriages are not recorded with the government?

 

2. Why must the government give special tax breaks and legal privileges to officially married couples to begin with? What sorts of issues handled by family law can NOT possibly be handled by tort? We'd have to think through marriage contracts and consequences of divorce a little better than we do now, but would that be a bad thing?

 

3. How would spousal testimonial privilege work if plural marriages were recognized? I'm thinking everyone in the mafia or gang could just then marry each other and then assert it which probably is something most folks would want to avoid. In a plural marriage, how would the court divide community property? How does this work in countries which have legal polygamy? Do they have a standard way of handling it or is it determined through prenuptial agreements?

[Kelli in TN]

The option of "no official recognition for any sort of marriage" wasn't an option or I might have considered selecting it. Maybe we should just all shack up and if you raise a kid together then society views you as "married".

 

 

 

 

Have you heard of The Farm? It is a hippy commune here in Tennessee. Anyway their code is "If you are getting it on you are engaged and if you have a baby you are married". They made that code back in the sixties because they did not want "drifters preying on their women".

 

I personally prefer some legal documentation, but it is an interesting way to look relationships.

[Kate CA]

Paul is discussing a group of Romans who were Christians and left the faith for Paganism. They participated in an orgy. Something quite common in those days. He's condemning what they did.

 

That is not the context of those verses at all. The entire chapter is here: http://tinyurl.com/3v9lau

 

The intro has nothing to do with your quote above and in fact is discussing God's wrath against *all* ungodliness--including homosexuality. I don't really know how you can get around what it says here.

 

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

And then there is this:

 

Hebrews 13:4

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

 

As far as judging passage in Romans 2 goes, it is more understandable in context:

 

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

 

How does not agreeing that homosexual unions equals marriage then equal judgment? We are not judging the actions of others - God's word is setting the standard for what is moral and what is not. Those of us who believe the Bible is God's word and rule of law for our lives cannot ever embrace anything other than a man and a woman as the definition of marriage.

[Michelle in MO]

Oh yes, Romans 1. I'm sorry, I'm not sure how that escaped my attentions. Paul is discussing a group of Romans who were Christians and left the faith for Paganism. They participated in an orgy. Something quite common in those days. He's condemning what they did. All of 'em piled up there nekkid and all. Why is this suddenly more important than say, the passages regulating slavery, or those that require prostitutes to be burned alive? Those that advocate genocide and those that require the victim of rape to marry the rapist? Shall we execute non-virgin brides?

 

I don't have to spin the Bible. It's very clear... Paul saw the Greek temple and didn't like what he saw. The former Christians gave themselves over to a whiz-bang orgy with men and women all together at the same time. How is this a condemnation of the homosexual person himself?

 

All other opinions on this subject aside, this is truly not at all an accurate interpretation of this passage in Romans 1. There is absolutely no reference whatsoever of Romans who left the faith for paganism or who participated in an orgy.

[Danestress]

Let me see if I can understand what you are saying here.

 

Is this what you are saying?--> A Christian who believes that God instituted marriage between one man and one woman for the reasons explained in the Bible can have a rational discussion about same-sex marriage in America with someone else who believes that "marriage" has no inherent meaning.

 

 

 

Well, I don't think anyone has claimed marriage has no inherent meaning - just perhaps that is has a different meaning than mine, and of course I think my definition is the "right" one. But I can have a rational discussion with someone who disagrees with me, yes.

[j.griff]

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

Looks like possible pagan practice to me.

[Phred]

The intro has nothing to do with your quote above and in fact is discussing God's wrath against *all* ungodliness--including homosexuality. I don't really know how you can get around what it says here.

I read a speech by Bennett Sims, the former Episcopal bishop of Atlanta. I finally found it. Read it. Or not. I hope you have a wonderful weekend!

Hebrews 13:4

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

If homosexuality is natural then the marriage bed is kept pure. No problem.

As far as judging passage in Romans 2 goes, it is more understandable in context:

 

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

 

How does not agreeing that homosexual unions equals marriage then equal judgment? We are not judging the actions of others - God's word is setting the standard for what is moral and what is not. Those of us who believe the Bible is God's word and rule of law for our lives cannot ever embrace anything other than a man and a woman as the definition of marriage.

Then why do you not follow ALL of god's word and not just that which you find palatable? Why do you not keep slaves? How do you find ways around that which you cannot morally abide and yet find ways to support that which you cannot stand? Do you see how this looks from the outside?