Your Opinion on Marriage

[Jenny in Atl]

While walking tonight all I could think about was how many women have had to have corrective surgery do to the strain pregnancy and birth has on their bodies. Not too long ago death from childbirth was common as well as complications, like loss of bladder control. In many poor nations of the world this still occurs. So one could say "normal" hetero s*x can lead to body parts braking down too.

[Elaine]

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.

 

Lest I stick my foot in my mouth, I will just agree with my good buddy, Kate.:001_smile:

[Rosie_0801]

Originally Posted by Scarlett

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.

 

 

 

I guess one has to try and look at it personally. Do you really think you could have stayed celibate for your entire life? Perhaps, but not very comfortably! Without commenting on anyone's libido, we all wanted kids, didn't we? Is that the sort of life you'd want for your kids? You may prefer they partner up with someone of the opposite sex, but if that was not possible, what should they do? Make a 'straight' marriage? We've already heard of the problems that causes. Stay single forever? Would we like to commit anyone, especially our kids, to a life of loneliness like that?

I think it is easier to change our views about someone's sexual orientation than it is for them to change. The big "What If?" What if your son or daughter turned out to be gay. It would be a shock, certainly, but it would be much better for family relations to accept it than to disown them, eh? I've heard of many who were disowned. I've heard of many who decided their former opinions were wrong. How could THEIR child, who they have bought up, loved and been proud of suddenly be an immoral lowlife?

P.S I'm glad to see that no-one has accused gays of being pedophiles, as they are two very different things. Or if anyone has, I'm glad I missed it!

 

:)

Rosie- not accusing Scarlett of being a bad person at all. If she was here, I'm sure we could shake hands and have a cuppa. But we'd talk about something else ;)

[Elaine]

I just want to say-

 

 

 

 

 

 

I made it to the end!:lol: I read every response.

[Rosie_0801]

I understand what you are saying. Absolutely. The question I'm asking now is...

 

Say two elderly, non-homosexual woman live together. They have been the best of friends for years and years. They are closer to each other than any family they might (or might not) have. Shouldn't they have the same rights if they so choose? Is their relationship not valid either?

 

Can't that sort of thing be taken care of in a will? One can assign power of attorney to whoever one wants to. Or is that not true?

 

The other thing gays would gain from legally recognised marriage is social standing. I've been with my partner for 6 years and just found out I'm pregnant with #2. I still haven't achieved the rank of "married" socially. A bit silly really, and kind of annoying. I clean up after my hubby just as much as the rest of you do. To me that's what marriage is. If you are living together (or have some good reason why not, the military or something), having kids, arguing over the housework, pairing his socks, relying on him to pay the rent and take the spiders out, finding ice-cream in the freezer when he's had a bad day, crying to him that the printer won't print, telling him about the new shoes you bought even when you think he'll be cross because you can't help telling him, or some such combination, well, you're married. God and the State may not agree, but for all practical purposes, you're married. So, marriage can be a religious idea, a legal idea or a practical idea.

BTW, it was a relief when my aunt finally came out of the closet. She has much better taste in women than she EVER had in men!

:)

Rosie

[Rosie_0801]

God has created us in HIS image. We are all created "straight" as you put it. In the beginning, God created male & female. Not male & male or female & female. I wasn't always a Christian but I am now and I believe it with all my heart.

 

Let's just agree to disagree shall we? No hard feelings?

 

 

I think this is getting tricky! Now I could say, "but you are female." If God is a HE, then you aren't made in his image. Or you have been made in what God's image of a female ought to be. If there is only one god, then god isn't acting on any sexual orientation, so does that mean we shouldn't either? I don't think the Bible says that. Do as I say, not as I do, eh? Typical parent ;) It could be that gay people have been made in God's image of a what a gay person should be.

I think it's a bit tricky to use the Bible as a source of guidance on this topic. It doesn't say anywhere "Gay people are immoral," in an unambiguous way. It just has stories that can be interpreted that way. Even Christians could choose to interpret them another way, and some do. Don't forget the Bible has been through many language translations and editors. It has not come out the end of that as an easily and clearly interpreted text. If it had, there wouldn't be so many books on how to interpret it :)

 

No, I don't have any hard feelings, but you weren't talking to me ;)

 

:)

Rosie

[KidsHappen]

I just want to say-

 

 

I made it to the end!:lol: I read every response.

 

 

Me too! Do I get a cookie? :tongue_smilie:

[RebeccaC]

I have just spent a little time looking into this and can find no medical research to support your position that an*l s*x is intrinsically hazardous. [unprotected *nal s*x is clearly described as dangerous behavior and damage can certainly occur from forceful or inept performance of this act - but that doesn't make the act itself intrinsically dangerous.]

 

[There was a poorly done 1993 study which has since been discredited which makes somewhat similar claims about sphincter muscles, but it is not a reputable medical source.]

 

Please provide sources for this assertion.

 

Please also note that not all gay men engage in this specific activity and that it is not unique to male homosexual relations - it is a not-so-uncommon choice for heterosexual couples as well. [To roughly average the numbers I saw in a quick glance at relevant surveys: ~40% of heterosexuals (a little higher for men, a little lower for women) and 60% of homosexual males engage in this act.]

 

You have not made an argument against homosexuality or against same-sex marriage - you've made an argument against a specific s*x act, one practiced by both homosexual and heterosexual couples. Your position appears to support a prohibition against that specific act - and perhaps other, as yet unspecified, acts.

 

You've also made historical claims which imply that same-sex intimacy/relationships is a relatively modern phenomenon and that until recently it has been universally condemned. From my understanding, this is incorrect. ...but even if it were true, I do not believe that an argument based on historical prejudices is a valid basis for current US legislation.

 

Personally, I think any attempt to prove G-d's Laws by appealing to justifications not give in Scripture undercuts the authority of the Law... it makes the discussion about the human created justifications and, imho, almost always results in giving people more justification to discard the Law. [A classic example is the misguided attempt to explain kashrus laws as sanitary or safety laws rather than laws about kedusha (holiness) - which is how Scripture describes them.]

 

There is no Scriptural prohibition of heterosexual *nal interco*rse, only of male-male interco*rse - surely if it were forbidden to protect individuals from harm, it would not only be male-male intimacy which would be forbidden...

 

There are no studies that have been done as far as I know. The s*x act weakens the sphincter muscle doesn't matter if it is heterosexual or homosexual. The more a sphincter muscle opens the wrong way the weaker it gets. Do a search on acid reflux and read those studies becuase it is a similar principal. This is just basic human anatomy. Just because a percentage of folks do it does not make it right.

 

A place to start might be to compare the rate of colostomy between heterosexuals and homosexuals. I know at one time in the late 80s the homosexual rate was higher. However that would not tell one if it was due to *nal s*x because I really don't think anyone has had the chutzpah to word a study that way. Another place might be to compare the rate of *nal abscess between the two populations but again I doubt that the wording would include the s*x act. Think about why that is. It would be swimming up the politicaly correct stream and the very idea that study funding could be lost if a study looked even a little like it was homophobic would keep most folks for using such wording or even doing such a study.

 

Come on homosexuality is about the s*x act can the two be separated? I suppose one could say that they are homosexual but have never had homosexual s*x but I would wager they are few and far between. Homosexuality is about a man wanting to have s*x with a man. I would wager that the percent for *nal sex is probably higher than 60% in the gay culture but I have no proof just my opinion and observations on male nature.

 

I never at any point wrote that there should be laws against *nal s*x. What I wrote was that nature teachers that the s*x act is harmful. Genie brought up laws, the logic I used and made an assumption and I just pointed out that our law makers already follow the logic that I had used in other areas. Just to clear this up, I am not for laws being made about the s*x act. I am also not for laws being passed to celebrate the life style based in large part or extending in large part on the s*x act.

 

My point which I obviously did not make well is that we are being asked to celebrate an act that is harmful to the human body as if it were the same as an act that does not produce harm. Whether one is heterosexual or homosexual both are based on the desire for sex with a particular gender. I wager that there are very few heterosexuals who engage only in *nal s*x by its nature it is about vaginal s*x however the nature of gay s*x is quite different. Do some folks spice up their s*x life with things other than vaginal yep but at its core herterosexual s*x is vaginal.

 

As to kosher law I would think that *nal s*x would be unkosher between a man and a woman due to cleanliness issues. If a man and woman can not make love due to her being on her period I would think the possiblity of bleeding, which is high due to the tissue tearing easily in the rectum, not to mention fecal material would render the act unclean. I don't know I have never kept Kosher only my mil did. There is no scriptural backing for a lot of Kosher laws just extended logic from a scripture. Example would be waiting 6 hours after eating meat before eating dairy and waiting 3 hours after eating dairy to eat meat, ect... Think I have the hour times down but I might be off. That bit is taken from not cooking a kid in it's mother milk and is a huge imo extension of the law. Nothing about separate cooking dishes or wait periods between foods. So based on that extension of the law I would think that *nal s*x would be prohibited by extending out the not being contaminated by blood or...... I don't know I was not raise Jewish.... as to Christian beliefs I would think it falls under love your neighbor as you self or in Ohreds words try not to harm others. As I have stated the possiblity for harm to the rectum muscles and tissue is higher in *nal sex than it is in vaginal s*x. Although Paul does write a bit about sodomy and seems to me he was quite versed in the Jewish law of that time. Again I don't know what s*x acts are kosher.

 

What I do know is some about human A&P and I know what happens when a sphincter muscle is continually opening the wrong way. It weakens and stops functioning normally. It does not take a study to figure out what that means for the an*s. Is that gross yes..... How much opening the wrong way would cause the sphincter muscle to cease working is probably based on genetics of the individual.

 

Folks like Phred will never take the scripture as proof. They will tho take nature as proof. At some point in this thread it seemed that Phred wrote that he could find no natural reason why it would be wrong. I provided what I knew about what it does to the sphincter muscle over time which is harm, which in Phreds world is wrong but maybe only for him..... Just to be clear Phred tries not to harm others as a moral choice or at least that is how I understood Phred and I agree with him on that point.

 

What I am against is asking our society to rearrange its marriage laws for an act that when repeat long term causes harm. Rearranging our laws in a way that no society has ever done by making gay marriage legal. The three main religions of the world, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have made male on male s*x taboo for millenniums. It is true that some cultures have accepted or tolerated it but not to the point of including it in their marriage laws or customs. That is what is new the idea that gay relationship should be viewed/celebrated by society as the same as marriage between a man and a woman.

[KidsHappen]

but have you really asked God to reveal Himself to you?

 

I have so far stayed out of this discussion, but this really requires a response. You are asking someone who has clearly stated that he is an atheist if he (Phred) has asked God to reveal Himself to him (Phred). This would be the equivalent of someone asking you if you have asked the Mother Goddess to reveal herself to you. You probably have not but I seriously doubt that anyone would presume to ask you that in the first place. It is late, I am tired and probably not able to articulate well so I hope that this is not coming across snarky. It certainly is not meant to be. Insert wan smile here, maybe this: :001_smile:.

[genie]

 

Come on homosexuality is about the s*x act can the two be separated?

 

Homosexuality is about a man wanting to have s*x with a man.

 

 

What I am against is asking our society to rearrange its marriage laws for an act that when repeat long term causes harm.

 

Whoa! So you think homosexuality is only about the sex act? Would you define heterosexuality as only being about a man wanting to have sex with a woman? No love? No companionship? Simply the sex act?

 

No one that I know of is asking our society to rearrange its marriage laws for a sex act. I'm pretty sure that happens just fine without the law getting involved. What people are asking for is legal recognition of a loving, committed relationship.

[Kate CA]

I have so far stayed out of this discussion, but this really requires a response. You are asking someone who has clearly stated that he is an atheist if he (Phred) has asked God to reveal Himself to him (Phred). This would be the equivalent of someone asking you if you have asked the Mother Goddess to reveal herself to you. You probably have not but I seriously doubt that anyone would presume to ask you that in the first place. It is late, I am tired and probably not able to articulate well so I hope that this is not coming across snarky. It certainly is not meant to be. Insert wan smile here, maybe this: :001_smile:.

 

Well, I hope Phred knows it comes from a person who was honestly asking the question and not trying to offend. If someone asked me if I had asked the mother goddess to reveal herself to me I would just answer, "Nope!" :) I really wouldn't take it offensively in the least. I really don't see anything truly offensive in asking a question about someone's faith or lack thereof--I was in a dialog with Phred about faith.

 

People can ask me pretty much anything they want and I can choose whether or not I will take offense. People have asked a lot of really intense questions in this thread--some of them with the potential to inflame. I think we have managed the whole subject in a pretty calm manner, and I honestly don't feel I have offended. He can correct me if I am wrong. :)

[Parrothead]

I think that the word marriage means what it means - and civil union means something different.

:iagree:

 

I lean toward marriage being between one man and one woman. I think some type of protection for other life couples needs to be available though.

[Mrs Mungo]

Folks like Phred will never take the scripture as proof. They will tho take nature as proof. At some point in this thread it seemed that Phred wrote that he could find no natural reason why it would be wrong. I provided what I knew about what it does to the sphincter muscle over time which is harm, which in Phreds world is wrong but maybe only for him..... Just to be clear Phred tries not to harm others as a moral choice or at least that is how I understood Phred and I agree with him on that point.

 

Not all homosexual men enjoy or have anal sex. Many heterosexual couples do. This has nothing to do with *anything*.

 

What I am against is asking our society to rearrange its marriage laws for an act that when repeat long term causes harm.

 

Again, some hetero married couples have anal sex, many gay couples do not. Whether or not a couple participates in a particular sex act in no way defines them as a couple.

 

Rearranging our laws in a way that no society has ever done by making gay marriage legal. The three main religions of the world, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have made male on male s*x taboo for millenniums.

 

And yet it still exists. Even in Islamic extremist cultures (in a *serious* way, talk with one of the army wives privately about that if you must).

 

It is true that some cultures have accepted or tolerated it but not to the point of including it in their marriage laws or customs. That is what is new the idea that gay relationship should be viewed/celebrated by society as the same as marriage between a man and a woman.

 

Why is it becoming more accepted? Because as one poster pointed out with her terrible experience-it is harmful to society to make it a fringe behavior.

 

eta: Eliana-please correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying eating bacon, wearing a linen-cotton mix and m-m sex are pretty much on the same plane of moral wrongs according to your way of belief? Or am I misinterpreting?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Whoa! So you think homosexuality is only about the sex act? Would you define heterosexuality as only being about a man wanting to have sex with a woman? No love? No companionship? Simply the sex act?

 

No one that I know of is asking our society to rearrange its marriage laws for a sex act. I'm pretty sure that happens just fine without the law getting involved. What people are asking for is legal recognition of a loving, committed relationship.

 

And in my world, intercourse is not the only sex act. Not by a long shot.

[cricket1178]

I know this absolutely wonderful amazing couple that does foster care. They take in kids who have been abused and neglected and give them a wonderful, loving, stable home. They take in the kids in the foster care system that no one else wants, that everyone has given up on. Recently they even had a child whose sibling was killed by the mother's boyfriend. They seem to have absolutely endless love, kindness, and patience for children. And they happen to be gay. But the abusive and neglectful parents from which these children have been taken, on the other hand, are straight! I don't think sexual orientation has any bearing on ability to parent effectively.

 

I have friends who grew up with a mother and father who couldn't stand each other. I suspect, from the scars it left them with, that this is immeasurably more traumatizing than growing up with two moms or two dads who love each other.

 

I just wanted to say I agree that the best situation for a child is 2 loving parents, however, gay couples arn't exempt from dysfunction. Although this paticular couple seems to be doing a great job, that doesn't mean all gay couples would be able to handle parenting anymore than all heterosexual couples will handle parenting well.

[Scarlett]

I guess one has to try and look at it personally. Do you really think you could have stayed celibate for your entire life? Perhaps, but not very comfortably! Without commenting on anyone's libido, we all wanted kids, didn't we? Is that the sort of life you'd want for your kids? You may prefer they partner up with someone of the opposite sex, but if that was not possible, what should they do? Make a 'straight' marriage? We've already heard of the problems that causes. Stay single forever? Would we like to commit anyone, especially our kids, to a life of loneliness like that?

 

I would not have wanted to stay celibate my entire life. However, I would choose that over disobeying God. My comfort level does not affect right and wrong.

 

I think it is easier to change our views about someone's sexual orientation than it is for them to change. The big "What If?" What if your son or daughter turned out to be gay. It would be a shock, certainly, but it would be much better for family relations to accept it than to disown them, eh? I've heard of many who were disowned. I've heard of many who decided their former opinions were wrong. How could THEIR child, who they have bought up, loved and been proud of suddenly be an immoral lowlife?

 

I would call that giving in. I would call that a lack of integrity. I hate to sound like a broken record, but right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of my feelings toward that person. I would not condone the practice of homosexuality in anyone. Ever. Including my son--my ONLY child. I wouldn't disown him though. I would hope and pray that he would turn around and return to God. Our family would be broken for sure, but it would not be my refusal to 'accept' such a practice that caused the break. And this would apply to any number of wrongs that my son might choose to practice. It is not limited to the practice of homosexuality.

 

 

Rosie- not accusing Scarlett of being a bad person at all. If she was here, I'm sure we could shake hands and have a cuppa. But we'd talk about something else ;)[/i]

 

Yep. I can disagree agreeably. ;)

[kalanamak]

RMarriage is a stabilizing force even when it does not involve children.

 

Married people are less likely to end up on welfare. A partner is a safety net. Fiscal conservative that I am, I support such unions. Social libertarian that I am, I support such unions.

 

My son's best play chum has "two mommies", the boy and his sister are full sibs, as the mother chose sperm donation from the same donor at a bank. Kiddo asked once, and I just said "some people have two mommies" and I have no fear their relationship will give him "leanings". He has adored the female figure since he was 13 months old, the more callipygous the better, and at two turned his head to follow a buxom woman in a black dress with his eyes and called out "wiggle wiggle" after her. (She looked back at me and I pointed at kiddo in his stroller...precious!)

 

I have found the violent abhorrence of h*mos*exuals very depressing, and the idiotic trumpeting against them by "moral leaders" very funny (my favourite was the nationally known religious leader who said that male h*mos*xuality was so alluring, if it was tolerated men in droves would succumb to it. As my mother would say at such a statement "Speak for yourself!")

[Lisa4917]

I was married in a beautiful ceremony performed by a justice of the peace. I take offense at the notion that my marriage is less valid than someone's who was married in a church by a religious official.

 

There were no bibles present at my wedding. No holy water. Quite possibly no god present either; and if he was, I could not care less. What was there was the pure love and joy of our family and friends, and the man that I loved with all my heart. So is that a "civil union" or a "marriage ceremony"? I find the semantics ridiculous.

 

Marriage between two people who love one another, same sex or not, can be a glorious institution.

 

Even if one's husband happens to be Phred. Perhaps I should issue a blanket apology for ever telling him about this forum...:)

 

Lisa

[genie]

 

Even if one's husband happens to be Phred. Perhaps I should issue a blanket apology for ever telling him about this forum...:)

 

Lisa

 

Nah. But I will issue a blanket "thank you" from those of us on this forum who appreciate his contributions. :D

[Greta]

I just wanted to say I agree that the best situation for a child is 2 loving parents, however, gay couples arn't exempt from dysfunction. Although this paticular couple seems to be doing a great job, that doesn't mean all gay couples would be able to handle parenting anymore than all heterosexual couples will handle parenting well.

 

Absolutely! I wasn't attempting to argue that gay couples are exempt from dysfunction (that was nicely phrased, btw!), only that being gay in and of itself does not imply dysfunction. I suspect, overall, homosexual and heterosexual people have roughly equal parenting abilities.

[Phred]

Ok so then the argument that two men loving each other is moot.

 

You and I both know that nature teaches. Sphincter muscle are a one way door of sorts are they not? Heartburn happens when a sphincter muscle is not working properly. The rectum, an*s is in part a sphincter muscle. When it stopping working correctly then a colostomy is needed. Homos*xual s*x breaks down the ability of the an*l sphincter muscles to work and does over time irreversible damage. An*l s*x in heterosexuals does the same. As a society we ban, create laws that state all kinds of pleasurable yet harmful behavior is unlawful.

 

However the homos*xual community has set up the straw man that their behavior is OK in the name of love. That we as a society are only to look at their emotion which we can not measure and are to ignore what the physical consequences of their behavior is to their and their partners body which can be measured.

 

This is one reason why non-Christians societies have in the past made homos*xual behavior a taboo. It does bad things to the body. It is not healthy. Bible aside nature itself teaches that an*l s*x is harmful and therefore wrong.

 

Why as a society should we not only legalize this harmful behavior but also celebrate it by saying it is the same as s*x between a man and a woman. I have yet to meet the woman who had to have a colostomy due to vaginal s*x.

And I have yet to meet the man who had to have a colostomy due to an#NOWAY*l s*)x. Although I'm sure there's one or two out there who've had to have radical surgery due to the weird things people do. Please link to these for me, would you?

 

For instance... According to a 2004 report, "Some research suggests that one in four heterosexuals in the US has tried an@whoop*l sex and for one in 12, it is an occasional or episodic practice. Other surveys suggest that seven times as many women as gay men engage in an*OMG*l intercourse, a figure reflecting the greater overall heterosexual population."

 

That's a statistic.

 

Also, while you claim that we outlaw the practice just as many civilizations have not outlawed the practice. The Greeks and Romans among them.

 

Must I defend an*EEK!l sex too? Is this the best you've got? Two men can't be allowed to marry because of the way they have sex? Do you propose we enter the bedroom of every couple to ensure that no one is sneaking around back? Or that we don't allow infertile couples to marry? You know this is a useless argument and so do I... please stop with these appeals to emotion.

[Phred]

It makes a difference. The fact that you can't understand that doesn't surprise me though. Jesus spoke in parables to confound the "wise."

 

I'm not going to support anyone who takes Scripture out of context, be they priests, ministers, bishops, butchers, bakers or candlestick makers. But I don't throw the baby out with the bath water, what sense does that make? Fallible man takes the infallible word of God and perverts it to support their own motives. Pretty standard.

mmmm... so while it's fine to take random sentences that mention what you think is homosexuality and use that to condemn in or out of context I can only take an entire verse that says, "Yea Christians, keep slaves!" Comon... is not the instruction of how many times a slave is to be whipped not tacit acceptance of slavery? If you don't believe that children should be used for labor in mines are you going to tell someone about the best way to keep them from running away?

 

I ask you... this supposedly isn't a man we're talking about but God. Someone who would know that his every word would be analyzed and he chose to leave this in. Yet, you know better and so do I. So quit making excuses. It is what it is. A man in a time when slavery was the norm discussing what, for him, was normal.

[Joanne]

Wow. I was gone all weekend.

 

Here's my opinion and observation.

 

Legal, consenting adults should have equal access to legal protection and rights.

 

The hypocrisy I observe in some conservative cirlces is one reason I align more closely with Libertarian than Republican. I am a *fiscal* conservative but I do not believe that we can or should legislate morality.

 

I've noticed here and in other marriage/family related topics an elavation of and focus on a "paper marriage" vs. the quality of relationship. A 35 year miserable, dysfunctional, bitter "marriage" is not more valid than a homosexual union with respect, care, kindness and joy.

 

I think you cannot forget the children. I think children do best with both a mom and dad.

 

I think this is often a short sighted, simplistic, unkind judgement. Children "do better" with examples of great relationships around them. Children "do better" when they have loyal, engaged, committed and functional adults around them.

 

I think you can't find a country that has legalized homosexual marriage that hasn't eventually had a drastic decline in marriage period. Norway is great example. People just figure "why bother?", start co-habitation, and thecommitment everyone agrees is best loses traction. There are many studies to support this.

 

I'm not familiar with these numbers or statistics, so I can't begin to discuss or argue that with you. My personal experience has lead me, however, to place much less emphasis on a paper marriage.

 

Finally, I think "live and let live" is a great theory, but we all have to live with the results- as a society- and it's not as kind and open and loving when the families falls apart.

 

Families fall apart all the time, but are often still - legally - married.

[Phred]

It speaks against adultery, and always will.

It speaks against homosexuality and "unnatural" sexual practices and it always will.

It speaks against husbands beating their wives and wives being shrewish nags, and it always will :)

It speaks AGAINST treating other people like slaves, and always will.

It speaks of loving EVERYONE, even those we must physically judge.

 

What i *said* is that people will take what is the cultural norm and try to fit verses to support that: slavery was very integral to the society at the time. I'm sure all kinds of people find verses to fit what they want. The Inquisition, Crusades, and even the KKK all use snippets to support what they want to exert. That's not magic :)

 

Is your point that people are flawed? Then yes, i would agree with that.

 

Is your point that the Bible's context DOES allow for same sex marriage? I'd say that you can't prove that in a literary -or faith- sense.

That flawed people take snippets and try to use them doesn't change the CONTEXT of the Bible.

 

Your attempt to extract passages about homosexual behavior as something other than what the Biblical context demands wasn't very successful because it ignores the whole context of scripture.

 

Again --serious question here, no snark, i promise: what do *you* think is the Context of the Bible? I would expect someone as reasoned as you are to at least have a literary grasp of what the Bible is, whether you agree w/ it or not....

The Bible is a history of men and it supports the reason of the day in which it was written. As such it's a treasure. It has been run through filters (the councils of Nicea, Trent) and so has taken the form we see today. There are other Gospels, some more fanciful than others. But the overall context of these is man trying to understand the world around him using what he knew at the time. It was also a time of trying to enforce what little was known about hygiene and health. So, in order to make this happen it was necessary for the priests to say, "God said so!" Eating uncooked pork could kill you. All sorts of rules and regulations were started up here... not by a god but by men. There simply is no evidence of an all-knowing deity within these pages. And there is no evidence of magic in our world to corroborate the tales of miracles. (why don't amputees ever heal?) It's also trying to say, "My god is bigger and meaner than your god." If the enemy is afraid of you before you ever engage in battle... how brilliant.

 

Context is necessary to ignore the words. You can lift the moral to the story out but you miss the story itself. And that's my point. Did you read what you wrote? What it was for and against?

 

It speaks against adultery, and always will.

It speaks against homosexuality and "unnatural" sexual practices and it always will.

It speaks against husbands beating their wives and wives being shrewish nags, and it always will

It speaks AGAINST treating other people like slaves, and always will.

It speaks of loving EVERYONE, even those we must physically judge.

 

50 years ago it was AGAINST interracial marriages

100 years ago it would have been FOR husbands beating their wives.

150 years ago it would have been FOR slavery.

300 years ago it would have been FOR burning witches.

 

Don'tcha see, the context is dependent upon the reader and the time. Christians can't even agree today. Much less Christians and non-Christians. You say that the meaning never changes, that you just have it right today.

 

Are you sure?

 

What will people say tomorrow?

[Phred]

I was married in a beautiful ceremony performed by a justice of the peace. I take offense at the notion that my marriage is less valid than someone's who was married in a church by a religious official.

 

There were no bibles present at my wedding. No holy water. Quite possibly no god present either; and if he was, I could not care less. What was there was the pure love and joy of our family and friends, and the man that I loved with all my heart. So is that a "civil union" or a "marriage ceremony"? I find the semantics ridiculous.

 

Marriage between two people who love one another, same sex or not, can be a glorious institution.

Very well put.

 

Even if one's husband happens to be Phred. Perhaps I should issue a blanket apology for ever telling him about this forum...:)

 

Lisa

um... do I have to rep you now?

[SFP]

I think you can't find a country that has legalized homosexual marriage that hasn't eventually had a drastic decline in marriage period. Norway is great example. People just figure "why bother?", start co-habitation, and thecommitment everyone agrees is best loses traction. There are many studies to support this.

 

 

Not true. See link below.

 

Did gay marriage destroy marriage in Scandinavia?

[Peek a Boo]

Whether or not someone accepts the authority or the relevance in today's society of the text is entirely another matter, and I do not know by what process Xtians decide which Laws they feel are still binding and which are not - nor do I know how the prohibition of a specific act has come to mean G-d's unequivocable condemnation of homosexuality... my ignorance is monumental, I know! [Please, if you want to enlighten me, do so by email or PM, this poor thread is already so monstrously long!]

 

 

The issue is that there is no legal basis (imnsho) for using a religious definition of marriage to determine our governmental policies.

 

The statement immediately above is where i am also.

 

And Eliana, i know you asked for a PM, but since a lot of other people question it also, I think it certainly has a place in this thread, long or not :)

 

The Law was given to point to Christ. He takes the penalty for all those transgressions, since we are unable as fallen sinners to ever be able to keep the whole law --esp from a spiritual POV. Since God does not change, the Law is still in effect, but Christ *fulfills* the Law for us as our New Eternal High Priest. Christ clarifies that even our thinking about breaking a law is as bad as breaking it. And requires consequence. That, i believe, is where the "just thinking about being homosexual is wrong" comes from --God's design was for a man to leave and cleave to another woman. Jesus does mention that celibacy is good, but that doesn't change the fact that Plan A is to leave and cleave to a woman. But like any other sin, Christ covers it.

 

We don't stone our disobedient sons because Christ takes their penalty.

Every thing that the Law points to is in Christ. He offered the ultimate sacrifice that is never needed again.

 

There are some Christians who are given a personal conviction to apply portions of the law, and that is fine as long as they realize that their salvation is not dependent on that.

 

Having homosexual tendencies is no worse than any other sin. Like bigotry and being hypocritical. Some Christians can accept that, some don't. They are sinners too :)

 

anyway, there's certainly more to it, but that's it in a very tiny nutshell.

[nmoira]

 

You and I both know that nature teaches. Sphincter muscle are a one way door of sorts are they not? Heartburn happens when a sphincter muscle is not working properly. The rectum, an*s is in part a sphincter muscle. When it stopping working correctly then a colostomy is needed.

This is something I didn't pick up on yesterday. You're not suggesting that sphincter damage (this would be damage resulting from force or other trauma) necessarily results in a colostomy, are you? Colostomy is a last resort, and there are numerous therapeutic and some surgical techniques which are far more commonly used. Of course some gay men have colostomies (so do straight men, so do nuns). I'd still like to see any data you can produce showing the rate of colostomies in gays is higher than in the general population. Neither myself nor a knowledgeable friend could find any.

[Phred]

The issue is that there is no legal basis (imnsho) for using a religious definition of marriage to determine our governmental policies.

 

The statement immediately above is where i am also.

 

And Eliana, i know you asked for a PM, but since a lot of other people question it also, I think it certainly has a place in this thread, long or not :)

 

The Law was given to point to Christ. He takes the penalty for all those transgressions, since we are unable as fallen sinners to ever be able to keep the whole law --esp from a spiritual POV. Since God does not change, the Law is still in effect, but Christ *fulfills* the Law for us as our New Eternal High Priest. Christ clarifies that even our thinking about breaking a law is as bad as breaking it. And requires consequence. That, i believe, is where the "just thinking about being homosexual is wrong" comes from --God's design was for a man to leave and cleave to another woman. Jesus does mention that celibacy is good, but that doesn't change the fact that Plan A is to leave and cleave to a woman. But like any other sin, Christ covers it.

 

We don't stone our disobedient sons because Christ takes their penalty.

Every thing that the Law points to is in Christ. He offered the ultimate sacrifice that is never needed again.

 

There are some Christians who are given a personal conviction to apply portions of the law, and that is fine as long as they realize that their salvation is not dependent on that.

 

Having homosexual tendencies is no worse than any other sin. Like bigotry and being hypocritical. Some Christians can accept that, some don't. They are sinners too :)

 

anyway, there's certainly more to it, but that's it in a very tiny nutshell.

Now... I have a question. It's one that's been bothering me for a long time. How is this justice? If I steal a bicycle we don't send someone else to jail in my stead. What is the point of having someone else (Jesus) "do the time" for my sins?

 

I'm not trying to be snarky at all... this is a real question.

[Peek a Boo]

There simply is no evidence of an all-knowing deity within these pages. ....It's also trying to say, "My god is bigger and meaner than your god." If the enemy is afraid of you before you ever engage in battle... how brilliant.

 

Context is necessary to ignore the words. You can lift the moral to the story out but you miss the story itself. And that's my point. Did you read what you wrote? What it was for and against?

 

 

50 years ago it was AGAINST interracial marriages

100 years ago it would have been FOR husbands beating their wives.

150 years ago it would have been FOR slavery.

300 years ago it would have been FOR burning witches.

 

Don'tcha see, the context is dependent upon the reader and the time. Christians can't even agree today. Much less Christians and non-Christians. You say that the meaning never changes, that you just have it right today.

 

Are you sure?

 

What will people say tomorrow?

 

No.....

 

The context of the book [The context includes the setting, action, characters, and point of view.] doesn't change --people's attempts to rationalize and justify their own flawed actions do.

 

But the overall context of these is man trying to understand the world around him using what he knew at the time.

 

Since there are different forms of context, i will clarify that I am speaking of the stories win the Bible as being examined in the context of all of scripture as a unifying document --you can't use one passage and ignore others.

 

So you disagree that the context of the Bible is NOT to point to a God of Love that sent His only Son to die for us so that we may have everlasting life w/ Him? You missed that whole "There is no other God but Me" part? well, that certainly is a nice interpretation of what YOU think the Bible is about in its *historical* context, but nowhere in scripture does it state that its purpose is purely for historical reasons or "feel free to twist this to convince the masses". How one decides to see a book and what the book is actually trying to say are two different things. Maybe i should stick w/ something different like... what is the PLOT of the Bible.

 

I might want to decide that Harry Potter is an evil wizard plotting against God, but within the context of the story, according to the author's intended plot that would be false. Within the context of the story he is just a kid w/ a physical trait [that happens to make him a wizard], like hair color or eye color: it wasn't a choice he made.

 

You can decide to interpret the historical manner in which the Bible has been used, but as for what the Bible itself says, that's pretty clear. And yes, it speaks of war, a wrathful God, adultery, and homosexuality. But what you [and others] choose to ignore is that there is a lot more within scripture that clarifies other parts of scripture.

 

You are lifting stories and missing the moral :)

 

 

50 years ago flawed people chose to ignore the Context and lift verses to twist the Scripture to be against interracial marriages.

100 years ago flawed people chose to ignore "submit ye one to another" and instead focus on ways to make a woman submit to her husband.

150 years ago flawed people tried to take passages about slavery and ignore Christ's admonition to love each other as Christ loves the church and gave Himself up for Her.

300 years ago flawed people ignored that Christ WAS the ultimate sacrifcie and decided to kill more people.

 

I'm sure that many people will/do try to say that the Bible doesn't really speak of adultery, homosexuality, lying, or submitting to the gvt. That doesn't mean that those passages and contextual clarifications AREn't there. So if you want to continue to say that the bible is FOR slavery, you need to address the verses and context that speak against slavery. If i want to say the Bible is FOR lying, I need to address both the hebrew midwives lying to Pharoah as well as "though shalt not bear false witness."

 

There ARE many different ways to consider the Bible - I agree with you there. We are still engaging in heavy debate about war, communion, baptism, witnessing, and worship styles [to name just a few]. All those debates are taking into account other areas of scripture. But serious study of the Bible *w/in the context of all of scripture* does not lead to a meaner God and slavery. And it doesn't nullify homosexuality as being wrong in God's eyes.

 

MY point is that if you want to argue that the Bible really doesn't argue against homosexuality [or that it DOES condone -even tacitly- slavery], go ahead, but you'll need more textual analysis than what you have provided.

[Peek a Boo]

Now... I have a question. It's one that's been bothering me for a long time. How is this justice? If I steal a bicycle we don't send someone else to jail in my stead. What is the point of having someone else (Jesus) "do the time" for my sins?

 

I'm not trying to be snarky at all... this is a real question.

 

because God loves us more than our Legal System does.

 

It is His will that nobody be lost, but since He is a Just God, He requires perfect holiness. Only Christ can provide that for us.

 

ETA --and yeah, it's a tough concept even for devout Christians :)

 

edited yet again: I usually recommend that if you want to know more about a specific topic, read books addressed to the topic's recipients. If you want to learn more about Latter Day saints, read books by and for them. If you want to know more about Orthodox Jews, read material by and for them. Ditto w/ Christianity, plumbing, and breeding dogs :)

This topic would really require a longer separate thread, but feel free to start one or PM just about anyone else in this thread

[KidsHappen]

Well, I hope Phred knows it comes from a person who was honestly asking the question and not trying to offend. If someone asked me if I had asked the mother goddess to reveal herself to me I would just answer, "Nope!" :) I really wouldn't take it offensively in the least. I really don't see anything truly offensive in asking a question about someone's faith or lack thereof--I was in a dialog with Phred about faith.

 

 

Kate, I have no doubt that you were honestly asking the question and not trying to offend. But I am honestly perplexed about the question. I didn't interpret it as you asking ABOUT his faith, (as in what does he believe) but instead asking him if he had done something specific about a faith that he categorically denies having. Therefore, I don't understand what the purpose of the question was or why you asked it. I have seen many Christians ask this question and the implication seems to be that if a person has asked this question, then God would have revealed himself to them, and if they have not asked the question then that is why God has not revealed himself to them. I don't know that the questionee would neccesarily be offened but I think that it may come dangerously close to proselytizing. That may not be the intention of the question but I think that it may the way that it is frequently interpreted. It, therefore, seems as if it may be helpful for the questioner to understand that this is the way it may be perceived by the person on the receiving the end of the question.

 

For the record, I am not an atheist. I do believe in God. I have asked him to reveal himslef to me and I do believe that he is done so. So I don't think that I am taking this personally. I am just trying to bring out a train of thought that I have often heard expressed by others. I hope that I am doing it justice in the way I am expressing it. :)

[Phred]

MY point is that if you want to argue that the Bible really doesn't argue against homosexuality [or that it DOES condone -even tacitly- slavery], go ahead, but you'll need more textual analysis than what you have provided.

So you wish to say (let me get this straight) that the Bible doesn't condone slavery even though the people in the Bible held slaves and the God of the Bible ordered a person and his family sold into slavery and Jesus (who is God and the son of God) discusses slavery but never says slavery is bad... these things along with too numerous to list examples of slavery being an accepted and normal occurrence throughout the Bible yet somehow... the Bible is against slavery because I and all those flawed people are missing the context.

 

And no... quite clearly the Bible does state that it's against homosexuality. What I'm saying... how can you condemn homosexuality and still live in this century?

 

You can't condemn homosexuality based upon the O.T. Not if you eat bacon, not if you wear mixed fabrics or eat shrimp or any of the other things prohibited in Leviticus. Either we're out from under Mosaic law or we're not.

 

What this comes down to is what I've been saying and showing all along. It's your choice to interpret the Bible as you see fit. For every verse you can find to condemn homosexuality (Paul, Romans... that's really the only valid one left) how many tell you to love your fellow man? How many tell you to do no harm?

 

Just as those who one day saw the light and freed their slaves, so too should you see the light and free yourself of the dislike of homosexuals. All studies show us that it's a natural occurrence, free from lingering curtain of doubt that it's a choice. People are attracted to whom they're attracted to. (If I put you in a room and held a gun to your head I still couldn't make you be attracted to someone you're not attracted to) It's why analyzing words to death isn't going to change a thing. We don't burn witches anymore. Get used to the fact that tomorrow we're not going to "burn" homosexuals. And people are going to find ways to interpret the Bible to support it. God will look like he always meant to.

[RebeccaC]

Also, while you claim that we outlaw the practice just as many civilizations have not outlawed the practice. The Greeks and Romans among them.

 

 

Where did I claim this? Not once did I write this. I even underlined that I was not for laws being made about the s*x act. which I have just done again an placed in bold. I wrote that we should not change our laws to legalize marriage. Taboo and out law are two different things and you should know that if you want I will post a definition of taboo. I stated that some cultures accepted it and tolerated it and when I wrote that I was thinking of the Romans. Really Phred who is getting emotional your reading comprehension is down due to your anger on the issue.

 

Now you prove to me that misuse of the muscle over long periods of time does not weaken the muscle. Stats on folks s*x lives hold very little weight with me Phred, what do folks lie the most about especially men ........... Their s*x lives.

[Storm Bay]

Now you prove to me that misuse of the muscle over long periods of time does not weaken the muscle. Stats on folks s*x lives hold very little weight with me Phred, what do folks lie the most about especially men ........... Their s*x lives.

 

While I don't agree with Phred's overall opinion on this (see my long post!), I think that you cannot make this decision based on health risks. Sure, there are health risks for active g*y men, particularly with some practices, but not all g*y men do all those things, any more than all straight people all do all the same things. But that's not a logical argument in this particular instance for several reasons. First, legalizing marriage between men or between women isn't likely to change the amount of s*x they're having, so isn't going to change the health risks. Second, there are risks associated with pregnancy and childbearing, including muscle weakening. In fact, certain muscle weaking associated with childbearing is VERY common. And even greater risks every time you drive in your car/truck/van. How about the risks with prescription drugs, surgery, etc?

 

This argument is more of a moral/ethical/human rights one. But, personally, I prefer to discuss it rather than argue, because most of us who post here already have strong convictions one way or another and we're not likely to change anyone's mind. Phred enjoys lively debate, and while I don't always like his "tone" have come to realize that he just enjoys debating, but kind of like my uncle does, and I've learned to respect my uncle even though we don't agree on most important issues. However, my uncle and I do agree on some things, such as the value of family time, working for a living, etc. Perhaps because I come from a family in which most of them think it's high time gay and lesbian marriage was legalized, that are convinced evolution is a fact, etc., that I just don't take it personally when people strongly disagree with me--I'm over it. And people on both sides can and do get emotional, can read too quickly and jump the gun, etc. I just hope this thread doesn't end up being closed, because it's been interesting.

[Kate CA]

Thanks for your thoughts. I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree with you. I have seen proselytizing on this board and that just wasn't it. Each person's faith or lack on this board is going to come through their posts. I asked Phred a question about faith, about his pursuit (or lack) of God--because we were discussing how my faith looked from the outside. In context it was this:

 

"You asked, "Do you see how this looks from the outside?" Yes, I do. It must seem foolish to you and I accept that. God is a God of great mystery as scripture says and we are but "...His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." We cannot always know the "why" of God.

 

I am not sure what you are looking for in this discussion or if you are looking at all. I do see how it might appear to you, but have you really asked God to reveal Himself to you? Perhaps I am overstepping my bounds, and I don't mean to do so, but God is not a mythical god in the dark. He is real and vibrant and active in the lives of His children.

 

I simply wouldn't be offended if someone asked me similar questions. I mean we have discussions here about all sorts of things faith-related. This is a discussion board and we were discussing. I think I explained myself above in the previous post so I don't really know what more I can say.

 

ETA: Thanks for the discussion. FWIW, I do take very seriously the rules of this board and try very hard not to offend. I have no wish to do that. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

You can't condemn homosexuality based upon the O.T. Not if you eat bacon, not if you wear mixed fabrics or eat shrimp or any of the other things prohibited in Leviticus. Either we're out from under Mosaic law or we're not.

 

Actually, most Christians believe that the dietary laws were specifically lifted in the New Testament-Mark 7 and especially Acts 10 point to this. However, I would agree with you about other Levitical laws.

[Mrs Mungo]

Also, while you claim that we outlaw the practice just as many civilizations have not outlawed the practice. The Greeks and Romans among them.

 

Where did I claim this? Not once did I write this. I even underlined that I was not for laws being made about the s*x act. which I have just done again an placed in bold. I wrote that we should not change our laws to legalize marriage. Taboo and out law are two different things and you should know that if you want I will post a definition of taboo. I stated that some cultures accepted it and tolerated it and when I wrote that I was thinking of the Romans. Really Phred who is getting emotional your reading comprehension is down due to your anger on the issue.

 

Wow. If you think we shouldn't base laws on sex then what is your argument for not legalizing gay marriage? Without legislating the actual "harmful" practice you write aobut your argument falls apart. Please see my former post about this.

 

Now you prove to me that misuse of the muscle over long periods of time does not weaken the muscle. Stats on folks s*x lives hold very little weight with me Phred, what do folks lie the most about especially men ........... Their s*x lives.

 

Wow again. So...men are liars now?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

an#NOWAY*l s*)x.

 

Must I defend an*EEK!l sex too?

 

I'm literally spewing tea on my keyboard here! ROFLOL!

 

Ok, now you know why we * the word, right? It's so this board is hidden from search strings that might be looking for more, eh, "prurient" websites and not tame little hs message boards. Lord knows who might show up! :blink:

 

 

:smilielol5:

[RebeccaC]

The figure I quoted was at the higher end of the three studies I looked at. I think you have some profound misconceptions about male homosexuality. (Not that I have any expertise! ;))

 

I have no expertise either what I have anecdotal evidence which does not add up to much that is more than 20 years old.

 

Marriage is not about s*x. Marriage is about commitment. As our society dramatically demonstrates, couples engage in s*xual acts with or without marriage.

 

I do not believe that allowing couples to legally formalize their relationship, allowing them 'married' tax and insurance status, joint custody, inheritance rights, and ER access is celebrating any lifestyle.

 

The issue is that there is no legal basis (imnsho) for using a religious definition of marriage to determine our governmental policies. Distaste for a certain lifestyle or certain s*xual act (which, as I keep harping on about, is not an intrinsic part of a same-sex union) is not a legal justification. Misunderstandings about the potential harmfulness of specific acts is also not a legal justification for not allowing certain couples to marry.

 

So life style is not to be look at? We are only to see if they are committed to each other and turn over how society viewed marriage for centuries on what they may or may not feel for each other? For their emotion we are to change laws?

 

 

I don't think civil marriage is a celebration or sanctification of anything. It is a matter of legal status - a spiritual covenant (the only marriage I see as meaningful) is the jurisdiction of spiritual communities.

 

If I could never again engage in complete intimacy with my husband, we would not be any less married... nor any less heteros*xual. I do not think of my marriage as being about s*xual acts at all. When we celebrated our wedding, I don't think any of us were thinking of it as a celebration of s*x. We were celebrating our love, our commitment to each other, the fact that we were building a bayis ne'eman. ..it was about finding my basheret (my soul mate). S*xual acts can be *one* expression of that union, of that love, of that closeness, but they do not define it, they are not the essence of it.

 

 

 

The finding of your soul mate is grounded in who you are attracted to is it not. Would you have found a soul mate with another woman? Probably not. The finding of a soul mate begins with s*xual orientation. So it is not too big a jump to think of s*xual orientation as the foundation that marriage is built on.

 

Marriage in the long haul is not so much about the act but you can not divorce the act from marriage. The act is the glue that keeps alot of marriages together as the couple moves through different phases of their love relationship. Which in my opinion is why the oral law, Torah set boundaries on who you could not marry. Of course same s*x marriage was not address because no society had ever gone there before.

 

In some circles of Christianity the act in marriage is considered a sacrament just as communion is. It is holy and should therefore be reserved for marriage to engage outside of marriage is to profane a scared act. If I am reading what you have written here, there is not a similarly held view in Judaism. Which make sense due to the Torah laws about becoming unclean after emission. I could be wrong since I was not raise Jewish. I prefer the idea that the act it holy, glorious, to the idea that I become unclean but that is me. This probably one reason why the writer of the book of Herbrews wrote that the marriage bed was undefiled.

 

Our marriage laws are being challenged for not having a sound basis in our legal system. I do not see any valid non-religious argument against allowing civil marriages for couples regardless of their genders. I don't think correcting an unsound law is celebrating certain lifestyles or acts - it is a matter of upholding the integrity of our legal system, our courts, and our Constitution... even if it leads to results we might not prefer.

 

What is the difference between legitimate and illegitimate. When something is legalized it is condoned. What happens at a wedding, celebration right, a wedding is the celebration of the legalized relationship of two people. Marriage begins with a celebration, or at least that is what happens for most couples. So yes we are being asked to celebrate the condoning wedding/marriage of a relationship that until recently in human history was not condoned as being worthy of the legal status of marriage. Some Christians are being asked to celebrate, condone as a society the profaning of a sacrament. That is why this issue should not be compared to slavery, or to racial relations neither of which are view by Christians as a sacramental.

 

I understand the legal idea of the pursuit of happiness and up holding our constitution which is why I am in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

Just so you know I really respect your posts and point of view. What I post I do in a matter of fact way.

[Kimberleigh]

I think the solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business. Instead, they should only concern themselves with civil unions, and those should be available to all legal, consenting adults. Marriage could then become a purely religious construct, having no basis in law at all. That would also remove the stigma associated with civil unions being something less than marriage.

 

Kimber

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I think the solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business. Instead, they should only concern themselves with civil unions, and those should be available to all legal, consenting adults. Marriage could then become a purely religious construct, having no basis in law at all. That would also remove the stigma associated with civil unions being something less than marriage.

 

Kimber

 

I'm beginning to agree with you. Isn't it like this in Germany?

[Mrs Mungo]

I think the solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business. Instead, they should only concern themselves with civil unions, and those should be available to all legal, consenting adults. Marriage could then become a purely religious construct, having no basis in law at all. That would also remove the stigma associated with civil unions being something less than marriage.

 

Kimber

 

I would agree but the word marriage has become too secularized. If Britney Spears gets to use the word then why doesn't a gay couple who have been together for many years?

 

eta for Pam-Well, in Germany *everyone* has to go to the courthouse if they want to get married. Some people follow it up with a religious ceremony and some people don't. However, both groups call themselves married. Part of them don't call themselves civil unioned.

[RebeccaC]

Context is necessary to ignore the words. You can lift the moral to the story out but you miss the story itself. And that's my point. Did you read what you wrote? What it was for and against?

 

 

50 years ago it was AGAINST interracial marriages

100 years ago it would have been FOR husbands beating their wives.

150 years ago it would have been FOR slavery.

300 years ago it would have been FOR burning witches.

 

Don'tcha see, the context is dependent upon the reader and the time. Christians can't even agree today. Much less Christians and non-Christians. You say that the meaning never changes, that you just have it right today.

 

Are you sure?

 

What will people say tomorrow?

 

Phred where your premise is once again off is in assuming that slavery, food laws, witches, ect...... are held as equal to the act of marriage, interc*rse, is false. Many Christians believe interc*rse, is in marriage a Holy act, a sacrament. That the act out side of marriage is the profaning of something holy, a sacrament.

 

No Christian group holds or ever held that slavery was a sacrament, or that witch burning, which is not exclusive to Christianity, was a sacrament, or that the food laws were a sacrament. They were laws. Laws are not holy and there is a huge difference between a law and a sacrament. Slavery was argued to be allowed by the law but was never raised to the level of a sacrament or made holy. Witch burning was to be a consequence for breaking the law, and not held by every Christian sect and I think used out of context. Or that wife beating was a sacrament.... However since NT times the act in marriage has been viewed by many Christians as a sacrament and to some a sacrament equal to communion. It was holy, is viewed as being holy, which puts it in a class separate from all the examples of where Christian missed the mark, ect..... that you argue are equal to the belief Christian hold on marriage.

 

I really do not think that you understand well Christianity. Which is too bad.

[Kimberleigh]

Then maybe we need a new semantic for either the legal or religious form of "marriage." Even with such separation, I'm sure there would always be those who spread fear/distrust/prejudice, but at least there'd be more distinction between the legal and religious issues. Those who were against gay marriage could work within their church to ensure such ceremonies aren't performed there. But for religion to dictate to secular government is wrong, IMHO.

 

Kimber

[Phred]

Where did I claim this? Not once did I write this. I even underlined that I was not for laws being made about the s*x act. which I have just done again an placed in bold. I wrote that we should not change our laws to legalize marriage. Taboo and out law are two different things and you should know that if you want I will post a definition of taboo. I stated that some cultures accepted it and tolerated it and when I wrote that I was thinking of the Romans. Really Phred who is getting emotional your reading comprehension is down due to your anger on the issue.

 

Now you prove to me that misuse of the muscle over long periods of time does not weaken the muscle. Stats on folks s*x lives hold very little weight with me Phred, what do folks lie the most about especially men ........... Their s*x lives.

Now dear, calm down, nobody here is emotional but you. Deep cleansing breaths, in.... out.... in.... out....

 

Ok...

 

Point one. Unless you produce evidence for your claims they are null and void. I don't have to disprove them. As far as I'm concerned muscle tissue can take quite a beating. Your heart beats every second of every day of your life and it's made of muscle. You're welcome to do the research to back up your claims, but if you can't or won't then don't make them. Simply saying that you think so doesn't cut it. You might want to read this. Oh what an eye-opener. Warning... not for children under 40.

 

Point two. I don't much feel like going back over this thread to see what you did and didn't say. Suffice to say that you made mention that since sex between men caused damage that's why it was outlawed in the past. (sic) I simply said that for every place you could find that it was outlawed I would be happy to find a place that it was not.

 

In... out... I'm smiling, I hope you are.

[RebeccaC]

Phred

 

Now dear, calm down, nobody here is emotional but you. Deep cleansing breaths, in.... out.... in.... out....

 

Ok...

 

Point one. Unless you produce evidence for your claims they are null and void. ............

 

Point two. I don't much feel like going back over this thread to see what you did and didn't say. Suffice to say that you made mention that since sex between men caused damage that's why it was outlawed in the past. (sic) I simply said that for every place you could find that it was outlawed I would be happy to find a place that it was not.

 

In... out... I'm smiling, I hope you are.

 

Phred being null and void in your opinion is not the same as being emotional. In a not to nice nor smiling way you told me a woman to stop being emotional. Is that not rather s*xist? Would you have told that, wrote that, to a male colleague who make a weak argument? I would wager not.

 

When I post I post in a matter of fact way.

 

As to smiling yes, I am and Phred I do enjoy the challenge of conversing with you.

[Phred]

I'm literally spewing tea on my keyboard here! ROFLOL!

 

Ok, now you know why we * the word, right? It's so this board is hidden from search strings that might be looking for more, eh, "prurient" websites and not tame little hs message boards. Lord knows who might show up! :blink:

 

 

:smilielol5:

I do and thanks... just thought I'd have some fun. I'm sitting here setting up videos to render and it's sort of a workforamomentrealhard......then.....wait.....while.....the....computer.....works.

 

My mind just wanders off like that. Hope your keyboard recovers.

[Phred]

I think the solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business. Instead, they should only concern themselves with civil unions, and those should be available to all legal, consenting adults. Marriage could then become a purely religious construct, having no basis in law at all. That would also remove the stigma associated with civil unions being something less than marriage.

 

Kimber

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

There... a little protest group.

 

This is what I've been saying for a long time now. Only the other way around. Get religion out of the marriage business. The only marriages that matter are the government ones. Call them marriages, civil unions or ice capades. If you want the benefits and protections that go with being "married" you have to put in an appearance at the city hall. If you want your marriage to be blessed by God, supported by the Goddess, lingered over by a tree or just hummed over by hummingbirds you'll need to go to church, the park, temple, trees, whathaveyou for that and it carries no recognition from the government at all.

 

Kimber, you win! Saying it your way makes it much nicer than mine. Let's go with that.

[nancypants]

I think the solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business. Instead, they should only concern themselves with civil unions, and those should be available to all legal, consenting adults. Marriage could then become a purely religious construct, having no basis in law at all. That would also remove the stigma associated with civil unions being something less than marriage.

 

Kimber

 

Believe it or not but :iagree: Also!