Your Opinion on Marriage

[Phred]

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.

Ok, let's change directions then... "marriage" is a holy sacrament. Equal to communion... which, in the Catholic church you may not partake of until you have confessed, if I'm not wrong. You must be as free of sin as a person may be before the body and blood of Christ enter yours. Marriage, a sacrament.

 

Yet, there is no restriction on marriage. Britney Spears married for 58 minutes. Then married again not long after... she had two children and divorced her husband. Adulterers marry all the time. I say adulterers because Jesus himself instructs us as to what an adulterer is:

 

Luke 16:18 (King James Version)

 

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

 

Yet nobody is trying to add remarriage to the "protection of marriage act" even though, surely, it is as damaging to the "sacrament" of marriage as letting two men engage in the act.

 

Or... you have murderers in prison marrying. They shouldn't be allowed the sacrament of marriage yet there are pastors in there actually marrying them. And not a word of complaint from Christians.

 

The "sacrament" of marriage is only being protected from one "enemy" isn't it? Homosexuals.

[RebeccaC]

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. this. Oh what an eye-opener. Warning... not for children under 40.

 

 

 

Phred have you ever taken an A&P course? The difference between muscle groups and what they can and can not take is vast. The heart was design to beat, will keep on beating even during unconsciousness, removal from the body, ect...... However a sphincter muscle is designed to hold close unless a systolic wave puts pressure on it, unconsciousness happens, death, or a conscience act is used by the individual that some times works and some times does not. Under a microscope muscle tissue from different muscle groups looks different. Heart tissue is different in look from skeletal tissue and both are different from sphincter tissue.

 

I assumed that you were a biologist and I guess I must have gotten that wrong. So what is your science back ground?

[nancypants]

Ok, let's change directions then... "marriage" is a holy sacrament. Equal to communion... which, in the Catholic church you may not partake of until you have confessed, if I'm not wrong. You must be as free of sin as a person may be before the body and blood of Christ enter yours. Marriage, a sacrament.

 

Yet, there is no restriction on marriage. Britney Spears married for 58 minutes. Then married again not long after... she had two children and divorced her husband. Adulterers marry all the time. I say adulterers because Jesus himself instructs us as to what an adulterer is:

 

 

Yet nobody is trying to add remarriage to the "protection of marriage act" even though, surely, it is as damaging to the "sacrament" of marriage as letting two men engage in the act.

 

Or... you have murderers in prison marrying. They shouldn't be allowed the sacrament of marriage yet there are pastors in there actually marrying them. And not a word of complaint from Christians.

 

The "sacrament" of marriage is only being protected from one "enemy" isn't it? Homosexuals.

 

 

Phred, I really couldn't agree more with you on your points here. All of these things are really just as much, or more (because, sadly, they are often done by people who say they are Christians) an affront to the sacredness of marriage as homosexual unions/marriages. While I am not "for" any of these things, you may be surprised (happy?) to know that I personally am not signing any petitions. The Jesus I know didn't overthrow his government to make real change... he loved people and sat with them and talked with them and people were changed... He didn't stage protests against the evil government (though by most standards today, even by those who don't believe in moral absolutes would probably balk at what was done by the Roman government) but rather, submitted to it unto death.

 

Do I pray for change? Yes... but change that happens because people meet the real Jesus and respond out of love for him and their neighbors... not just because I want a shiny happy 1950's world that looks pretty on the outside... and not change that happens because a gaggle of yelling angry Christians "stormed the castle" so to speak. That kind of change is rarely ever meaningful or lasting anyways. (Constantine anyone?) Real change is borne out of love. Tenacious love that loves people exactly where they are.

[astrid]

And Phred! You are both very wise, and I couldn't agree more with both of you!

 

Astrid

[RebeccaC]

Ok, let's change directions then... "marriage" is a holy sacrament. Equal to communion... which, in the Catholic church you may not partake of until you have confessed, if I'm not wrong. You must be as free of sin as a person may be before the body and blood of Christ enter yours. Marriage, a sacrament.

 

Yet, there is no restriction on marriage. Britney Spears married for 58 minutes. Then married again not long after... she had two children and divorced her husband. Adulterers marry all the time. I say adulterers because Jesus himself instructs us as to what an adulterer is:

 

 

Yet nobody is trying to add remarriage to the "protection of marriage act" even though, surely, it is as damaging to the "sacrament" of marriage as letting two men engage in the act.

 

Or... you have murderers in prison marrying. They shouldn't be allowed the sacrament of marriage yet there are pastors in there actually marrying them. And not a word of complaint from Christians.

 

The "sacrament" of marriage is only being protected from one "enemy" isn't it? Homosexuals.

 

 

Phred again you know a lot but understand little. I am not Catholic many Christian sects hold that the act of inter*rse as a sacrament but not all require confession.

 

For something to be Holy there must be some hing that will profane it otherwise there is no set apartness to it. Just because there are people like Brittany Spears is not a valid argument against the act being Holy. She profaned it. The act of sod*my profanes it whether done by hertros*xuals or homos*xuals. So it is sodomy in all its forms, which I will not list here, that is the enemy not people.

 

The argument that homos*xuals are the enemy is a straw man argument. The argument that some hertros*exuals profane it so therefore we should condone and legalize gay marriage is a straw man argument imo. It is a fact that there many many more people world over hold that it as sacred and try not to profane it than do those who on the extreme ends of society like Brittany and homos*xuals.

 

To your surprise I have and have had friends who are homos*xual. Just like any other kind of person some I click with and form friendships with and some are just people that I try not to harm (your view.) However whether I like some or feel sorry for them is not justification to profane the holy. Whether that person longs for society to condone his or her actions is not justification to profane the holy. What they feel, believe is not justification to profane the holy no matter how strongly they feel it or believe it. No matter how committed they are to their partner it still is not grounds to profane the holy.

[kokotg]

But don't we "condone" divorce and remarriage by keeping them legal? Should they be illegal, too? I've always wondered, actually, but never asked anyone I don't think. If you argue that gay marriage should be illegal because it's wrong from a Biblical standpoint, then why shouldn't divorce and/or remarriage also be illegal? The NT, Biblical argument against that seems to me much more open and shut than any against homos*xuality (for one thing, homos*xuality as an identity as opposed to just something one just did sometimes, didn't even exist in Biblical times). It's right there in red letters.

[nmoira]

 

Phred have you ever taken an A&P course?

I have. And given your background you should know that just because something is "designed" to do one thing doesn't mean it can't do something else. As someone who has spent time in the world of academia, you should know that to say x causes y you need objective research. Saying it or supposing it is not sufficient. You have made a number of claims (including the colostomy - an*l s*x link) that you have yet to back up with facts other than some anecdotal evidence supplied by a person I would consider to be biased on the topic at the outset (i.e. you).

[Lisa4917]

Frankly, saying that gay marriage should be illegal because it's wrong from a Biblical standpoint means absolutely nothing to me. As it should mean absolutely nothing in our legal system. Religion is not law. Religion is religion. As in, some people's beliefs. Not mine. Same with divorce and remarriage not being illegal even though they may go against the bible's decrees.

 

I try to be a good person. I don't partake in illegal (as defined by our government's laws; not the bible's) activities. I try to raise my kids to be good people. I try to be a good wife to my husband. Not because some book tells me to. Because I know it's right.

 

Frankly, I more respect the opinion of "gay marriage should be illegal cause the thought of the bedroom act grosses me out" than "gay marriage should be illegal because the bible says so". At least the first is firmly presented as an opinion, while the latter assumes it's a given that we all believe in the bible's words. We don't. The latter is still an opinion; not fact; not a given just because it's written in a very, very old book.

[kokotg]

Frankly, saying that gay marriage should be illegal because it's wrong from a Biblical standpoint means absolutely nothing to me. As it should mean absolutely nothing in our legal system. Religion is not law. Religion is religion. As in, some people's beliefs. Not mine. Same with divorce and remarriage not being illegal even though they may go against the bible's decrees.

 

 

 

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that gay marriage or divorce or anything else should be illegal because they're wrong from a Biblical standpoint. I have my own ideas about what is and isn't wrong from a Biblical standpoint (and I suspect they don't look the same as a lot of people's), but I'm not interested in making any laws based on them, only on governing my own behavior. But it's clear that quite a few people are arguing that way, and I'm genuinely curious what the rationale is behind legislating in accordance with the Bible when it comes to some aspects of love and marriage but not others (assuming, of course, that most people who are against gay marriage DON'T want to make divorce illegal. Maybe lots of them do). And I trust that everyone has checked their closets to make sure they don't own more than one coat?

[Scarlett]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that gay marriage or divorce or anything else should be illegal because they're wrong from a Biblical standpoint. I have my own ideas about what is and isn't wrong from a Biblical standpoint (and I suspect they don't look the same as a lot of people's), but I'm not interested in making any laws based on them, only on governing my own behavior. But it's clear that quite a few people are arguing that way, and I'm genuinely curious what the rationale is behind legislating in accordance with the Bible when it comes to some aspects of love and marriage but not others (assuming, of course, that most people who are against gay marriage DON'T want to make divorce illegal. Maybe lots of them do).

 

I don't think many people on this thread are arguing that. I think most people on this thread (according to the poll results) think marriage should be between one man and one woman. The thread spun off from that...people asking why they felt that way and the ensuing explanations and on and on with others explain why they felt it fair to give equal status to homosexuals.

 

I for one do not care what the laws say. The law will not dictate my sense of morality.

[kokotg]

Really? You think the majority of the arguments here against legalizing gay marriage have left morality based on Christian principles out of the equation? The only one I can think of that's done that is the one about marriage based tax incentives being designed to encourage reproduction.

[kokotg]

I for one do not care what the laws say. The law will not dictate my sense of morality.

 

I agree with this. But the question was what kind of marriage should be legally recognized.

[Scarlett]

I agree with this. But the question was what kind of marriage should be legally recognized.

 

Yes. I think I voted 'one man one woman', but really I wish I had just said "I don't care." And thus, maybe I should have just stayed totally out of this thread....my first post on the first page of this thread sums up my feelings on it.

[Phred]

Yes. I think I voted 'one man one woman', but really I wish I had just said "I don't care." And thus, maybe I should have just stayed totally out of this thread....my first post on the first page of this thread sums up my feelings on it.

I think most of us were all summed up in our first posts. The rest of this has been passing the basketball around.

 

Is anyone else worried about having visited too many an*yikes*l s6x sites? If Google is tracking me I'm gonna be getting a free case of Vaseline in the mail.

[nmoira]

 

Is anyone else worried about having visited too many an*yikes*l s6x sites? If Google is tracking me I'm gonna be getting a free case of Vaseline in the mail.

Well ha ha (I think), I've visited enough sites to know that you should go with a water or silicone based lube. Oh the things I've learned... oil based lubes stick around, so to speak, and can break down latex.

[Phred]

Well ha ha (I think), I've visited enough sites to know that you should go with a water or silicone based lube. Oh the things I've learned... oil based lubes stick around, so to speak, and can break down latex.

Pshplat!

[kokotg]

I think most of us were all summed up in our first posts. The rest of this has been passing the basketball around.

 

 

 

well, since I waited until page 19 to jump in, I feel like I'm just getting started :lol:

[Storm Bay]

yeah, we mentioned Philemon awhile back. It was being ignored again at the last post.

 

:)

 

Oops. I just discovered that when I come here and click last unread post, it's skipping some of the posts I haven't read yet. I just figured this out now, so that's why I missed it.:glare:

[Cindy in AR]

If you are a Christian and believe the Bible then you should see the issue clearly. The Bible says honor your father and mother ....not...honor your father and father or mother and mother. If you are not a Christian there are still reasons for not promoting same sex marriages but I don't remember all the arguements other than the population would drop and it would open the door to other situations possibly being legalized. But since this earth is not heaven, I don't know how we can force our Chrisitians beliefs on non-Chrisitans.

[Peek a Boo]

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.

 

 

YES :)

 

Jesus and God and various others explain WHY slavery is bad in numerous other verses and stories and parables and passages explaining how to Love another in Christ. That kind of love [as explained throughout the Bible] nullifies slavery. Philemon is one letter that explains that :) When you miss the context of Love and submitting to the authorities and parables that discuss living "in but not of" this world, yes, you will miss a lot of relevant, integral 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.

 

 

I have seen few people referencing the OT about the Biblical stance on homosexuality. I can condemn homosexuality [and lying, and adultery, and all those other sins] and still live in this century because regardless the era, God is Eternal and applicable yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

 

We ARE still under the Mosaic law --God never changes. But he gave us an Eternal High Priest who shed the perfect blood for us and kept the law FOR us-- we are no longer judged for keeping the law. Or more accurately, we're judged through the cover of Christ. What a guy :)

 

 

 

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?

 

 

And THAT's something I've already mentioned: we are called to judge the actions of another and speak out against all forms of evil [lying, adultery, theft, homosexuality, etc], but we are still called to love and minister to each other. We all sin. But just because we sin doesn't mean we stop teaching and preaching how God views that sin.

 

 

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.

 

 

i don't dislike them. I just can't say that their actions are any more acceptable to God than my own sins. And no less forgivable :)

 

As I mentioned [more completely in a previous post], *I* can't vote or support legislation that allows something so contrary to what God has said. If i had a chance to vote on allowing divorce, premarital sex, pornography, and a host of other things I'd vote no. And then submit to the authorities as long as I am not being *required* to break God's law. i can break enough of His laws all by myself, thankyouverymuch. Kinda like in the Lord's Prayer: "....and lead us not into temptation..." - we can find it ourselves!

 

 

All studies show us that it's a natural occurrence, free from lingering curtain of doubt that it's a choice.

 

 

I'm sure it IS "natural" --it's a fallen world we're living in, and will be for quite some time.

 

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.

 

Yes, the Bible discusses the need to love those even to whom we are not attracted. It also warns about guarding our heart -- it can lead us into a host of other problems in the name of "attraction" ;)

 

I'm already used to the fact that we shouldn't be burning ANYone, lol.

 

It does sound like YOU need to get used to the idea that many Christians [ok, PEOPLE regardless of faith/ no faith] can dislike what one person does but still like and LOVE them. It's been my experience that THAT concept isn't limited to Christianity, but neither is it excluded from Christianity as your posts seem to suggest.

 

===============

 

And actually, I'd encourage everyone to go back and start re-reading this thread. It sounds like we're coming full circle in the discussion.....

[Peek a Boo]

If you are a Christian and believe the Bible then you should see the issue clearly. The Bible says honor your father and mother ....not...honor your father and father or mother and mother.

 

but every child --even one being raised by a same-sex couple --still has a mother and a father :)

 

...and there are enough other places discussing honoring anyone in a position of authority.

[StaceyinLA]

WOW! Too many responses to read. I am sure someone, somewhere in this thread has posted a POV that resembles mine, but I just had to throw my 2 cents in.

 

I do not condone homosexuality. I believe it is wrong in the eyes of God, and, IMO, homosexual marriages undermine the entire purpose for marriage in the first place; to procreate.

 

I have no personal issues with what people do in their private lives, and I have met homosexuals who I have found very pleasant. I have 2 cousins with adult children that have confessed to be homosexual, though I will admit to not being close enough to those family members for it to have affected me personally. I certainly support severe punishments for those who torture people because of their sexual preferences. Hate crimes should NOT be tolerated by any stretch. I do not, however, believe that merely speaking against homosexuality is wrong. This country does tout its freedom of speech liberties on a daily basis does it not?

 

I believe that so many things have broken down our society already when it comes to marriage and family that I can't blame the homosexual movement for that. However, I will say that I cannot stand the current "trends," toward trying out the gay lifestyle that I see so many teens doing because of the media glorifying it. I also HATE it being shoved down my throat in every tv show, movie, and on every news show (probably why I never turn on my tv).

 

I'm no prude by any stretch and what people do in their private lives is really their own business, but I think this undermines the family just as so many other things have done in the past, and I really don't see how it helps our society at all.

 

Frankly I'm just tired of having to live in a state of tolerance of all things immoral when the government won't allow Christianity its place. This country was founded on so many principles that they try to throw out the window every day, but we have to allow every immorality and somehow just stand here and take it. Sorry folks - just not my thing.

[Cindy in AR]

If a same sex couple has a child by some unnatural means then that child can't honor his mother and father. It would be two fathers or two mothers.

[Peek a Boo]

If a same sex couple has a child by some unnatural means then that child can't honor his mother and father. It would be two fathers or two mothers.

 

 

I disagree.

 

Aside from the fact that i disagree they would be getting a child by "unnatural" means --it may be artifically assembled, but scientists only have natural stuff to work with. The old "get your own dirt" joke comes to mind :)

 

 

If a child loses both parents at birth and is raised by a single grandparent [or other person], can they still learn to honor their mother and father?

 

What do you consider "honor"? Do you believe there are specific, certain things that must be done at specific intervals/ times to meet the "honor your father and mother" criteria?

 

i do believe that manymanymany children are being raised in [even christian] homes that do not model or teach Biblical honor. But I don't agree that a child being raised by a same sex couple will by default ever be unable to honor their father and mother.

[Joanne]

If a same sex couple has a child by some unnatural means then that child can't honor his mother and father. It would be two fathers or two mothers.

 

Do you truly take that scripture so literally? If so, do you apply it to foster, adoptive, guardianship, and parents who conceive with technology parents?

 

Honor your mother and father, from my mainline Presbyterian background, means "respect and give honor to" the people who raised you.

[Jenny in Florida]

What does marriage mean to you? Do you think traditional marriage/family is threatened by gay or plural marriage? If so, how? How much do you think the government should be involved in regulating who should be allowed to marry? Do you see this as a federal, state and/or religious question matter?

 

Marriage to me means two people making a commmitment to be together and share their lives.

 

I have never, ever understood the idea that marriage equality is somehow a threat to heterosexuals.

 

I think the only role government has to play in this question is to make sure everyone is treated fairly and that individuals' rights are protected.

 

My personal opinion is that we probably need to move to a system more similar to the one used in some European countries, that separates the religious and legal implications of marriage. In my perfect world, a completely equal civil union would be open to any two consenting adults who applied and paid the fees. That would be the legal "marriage" and would give all such couples all of the rights and protections of the law. Then, those who wished to have their marriages recognized by their church would have a separate ceremony. And it would be up to individual denominations to determine which unions they would bless.

 

This is the only way I can think of to make things equitable.

[Jenny in Florida]

Oh, Michella, my heart breaks for you and your child. . . .

 

So... we, too, have a different perspective on how "they don't hurt anyone."

 

I am sorry for your pain. I remember Veryl sobbing. I can still see her, sitting on the beach, looking out over the ocean, wondering, "What happened to my life, my home, my marriage?" GAY IS NOT GOOD, PEOPLE. Wake up, and see the havoc.

 

Michella, I, too, am so sorry for what you've been through. I can only imagine the pain this has caused you and your child.

 

I just have to--gently, and with great compassion--suggest that these kinds of awful stories might not be quite so common if the world at large didn't force gay men and women to feel they must hide, that they must "blend." If people didn't have to pretend to be straight, they might not cause so much damage in the lives of other people.

 

To me, in both of the stories told here, it seems to me it wasn't the "gay-ness" that caused the pain and destruction, but the deception.

 

Again, though, I am terribly sorry that you had this experience.

[Jenny in Florida]

I may have missed something. If so, please direct me...but where did anyone say that "religion should be mandated by law"? The law should not mandate religion; it should mandate behavior. Extremist Islam nations mandate religion: non-Muslims risk major persecution (even at times, death) in those countries. An amendment to our Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and woman is not the same as the religious oppression of Islamic nations. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Well, I know this one wasn't directed toward me, but, no, I don't agree.

 

What a lot of folks here are arguing rather strenuously in favor of doing is having our government base laws on some people's interpretation of a specific religious text. Basically, the argument appears to be that, since the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, we need a law to institutionalize dsicrimination against people who practice it.

 

That, as far as I can tell, is oppression of a minority based on religion.

 

And, for what it's worth, I consider myself a religious person. I've belonged to churches of the same denomination in three different states over a period of more than 20 years. And, since discrimination is in direct opposition to one of our basic principles, I can genuinely say that this is a religious issue for me, too. The difference between my beliefs and the ones others have expressed here, though, is that I don't expect the goverment to make or enforce laws based on mine.

 

I do, of course, think the world would be a much better place if they did, but I also know enough about our Constitution to understand why it would not be appropriate.

 

Something I've learned over the last decade or so is that I value my personal freedoms and my right to live my life the way I feel is correct above just about anything else. I value the right to practice my religion and to nurture my family and to make fundamental decisions without the interference of either government or all those folks who think they could do a better job of it than I do. And, because I value those rights so highly, I recognize a moral and ethical responsibility to make sure that they are available to everyone. But the only way that works is if we all agree to stay out of each other's way as much as possible.

[Rosie_0801]

I

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.

 

Ok, this made me sad. I think it takes more integrity to allow your mind to change on such an important issue. One's perception of right and wrong should be able to change in light of new information. To resist that is a sign of weakness, in my opinion, not strength. Giving in is accepting a behaviour that your mind doesn't agree with. If your mind has changed, it's not giving in, it's changing your mind.

You know, Scarlett, I betcha we'll meet on another topic one day and AGREE!

;)

Rosie

[Scarlett]

To me, in both of the stories told here, it seems to me it wasn't the "gay-ness" that caused the pain and destruction, but the deception.

 

And to me it wasn't the 'deception'. Michella could have happily gone on her entire life with the deception that her husband found men more attractive than women. The pain and destruction was caused when he started having sex with men.

 

Humans have control of their actions. They do not have to act on every desire they have.

[Scarlett]

One's perception of right and wrong should be able to change in light of new information. To resist that is a sign of weakness, in my opinion, not strength. Giving in is accepting a behaviour that your mind doesn't agree with. If your mind has changed, it's not giving in, it's changing your mind.

 

I agree...depending on the new information. If I feel it is morally wrong to practice homosexuality, and then my son announces that he is indeed one....what is the new information? That a loved one is breaking God's law? That is not a compelling argument to 'change my mind.'

 

I do agree that it takes strength to admit one's former course was wrong.

[PariSarah]

I had not thought there was a blanket prohibition on backdoor-intimacy (where's a handy euphemism like booKs when we need one?) for married heterosexual couples... Could some other Xtians help me out here with a range of viewpoints? Peek? PariSarah? Aubrey? Pam? Mrs Mungo?

I'm getting used to be wrong about my assumptions about Xitan halachah - do you have a term for that? It's halacha for me and sha'aria for Kate.... - but this one really threw me.

 

I'm not sure how explicitly such acts are defined, but modes of sexuality which do not involve the deposit of semen into the biologically appropriate orifice go against the teaching of the Catholic Church. For observant Catholics, every act must be open to bearing children; "alternative" (specifically, non-fertile) intimacy would go against the spirit of their understanding of sexuality, particularly if it were practiced with the intention of limiting fertility. (Like, doing "other things" during your fertile time specifically because it was your fertile time, not because you just happened to be in that mood.) Again, though, I don't know how specific the Magisterium gets on this--I don't know if it is specifically named as prohibited.

 

I'm not aware of any other denominations for whom such intimacy is systematically prohibited, although positions (ahem) such as RebeccaC is advocating are common in more evangelical circles. Whenever I've heard them explained, the usual objection is to the (allegedly) patent unnaturalness of the act, sometimes elaborated with reference to the risk of damage to the orifice in question.

[SusanG]

Wow. 68% of posters here have voted that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I read some of the posts, but don't have the time to read through them all at the moment. The poll results were very sobering to me, though, and have underscored the need for those who support same sex marriage to step up to the plate and take a stand. I definitely see it as a call to action, and I'll be looking into what I can personally do to assist in the movement.

[Jenny in Florida]

And to me it wasn't the 'deception'. Michella could have happily gone on her entire life with the deception that her husband found men more attractive than women. The pain and destruction was caused when he started having sex with men.

 

Humans have control of their actions. They do not have to act on every desire they have.

 

The deception I referred to was his getting married to a woman when he knew (or suspected) he was gay.

[Scarlett]

The deception I referred to was his getting married to a woman when he knew (or suspected) he was gay.

 

Yes. I understood you. I am just disagreeing. Michella wasn't hurt by that deception. She was hurt by him having sex with other men.

[Storm Bay]

This too is not an argument against same-sex marriage - it is another argument against a specific act. You are saying that a specific act profanes marriage, no matter who performs it.

 

Is this a standard Xtian position?

 

I had not thought there was a blanket prohibition on backdoor-intimacy (where's a handy euphemism like booKs when we need one?) for married heterosexual couples... Could some other Xtians help me out here with a range of viewpoints? Peek? PariSarah? Aubrey? Pam? Mrs Mungo?

I'm getting used to be wrong about my assumptions about Xitan halachah - do you have a term for that? It's halacha for me and sha'aria for Kate.... - but this one really threw me.

 

 

 

:grouphug:

 

When I read, I thought there was. However, I was also taught that it's not unusual for people to have tried this and that doesn't make someone inherently evil or depraved! In the church we're partnered with, we teach that everyone is to be loved, but that this act is wrong. However, no more nor less wrong than telling a lie, stealing $10, etc.

 

What Paul addresses in I Corinthians is more than just that one specific act, and since that's been beaten to death here. We often forget that s*x was a part of many of the other religions in that part of the world at the time. Christianity is NOT the only religion that teaches this is wrong, btw, even if it's practiced by some in other religions which consider it taboo.

 

Still, if we're bringing up belief systems, one has to ask how men marrying men and women marrying women, if those that prefer to do this did only that and never married someone of the opposite s*x, would be favoured by natural selection if it weren't for modern sp*rm donations.

[Laura K (NC)]

I agree...depending on the new information. If I feel it is morally wrong to practice homosexuality, and then my son announces that he is indeed one....what is the new information? That a loved one is breaking God's law? That is not a compelling argument to 'change my mind.'

 

I do agree that it takes strength to admit one's former course was wrong.

 

This is the crux of the biscuit, as some would say. There is a whole difference of philosophy coming in to play. Some believe that there is a moral absolutism where there is a natural law, apprehended by the conscience of every man naturally and without aid of religion, that is universal and which precedes cultural norms. These kinds of laws would say that murder is wrong (in most circumstances... it gets tricky to prove), that incest is wrong, that monogamy is preferable, etc. The alternative is moral relativism, which says that there are no absolutes, there is no right and wrong, and all moral norms are inflicted (I chose that word carefully) upon society. Moral relativism says that killing is not wrong unless there are 10 Commandments or some other religious construct arranged to prohibit it, and moral laws come entirely from men, and not from some divine authority.

 

We are obviously in an age of moral relativism, and this clashes with traditional, conservative Christianity (indeed, any traditional religion like Islam or Judaism). Moral relativists with agendas will try to promote interesting moral rules, and one of them has been mentioned in this thread -- the "Golden Rule." A reduction of morality to this one phrase results in a wide variety of interpretations... many of them contradictory (like euthanasia). Morality can't be reduced to one phrase.

 

While men definitely impose moral rules upon others, I do hold that there are certain absolutes. Whether one believes these come from "nature" or from God, I don't see how they can honestly be refuted. If the natural law calls a behavior or action "wrong," then it is always wrong. Clinging to beliefs that stem from tradition or revelation is not a mental weakness, as it is commonly held today, but a strength of perseverance. Rules made by men, any student of history knows, will change with the regime who makes the rules. Rules made by God (or nature, if you don't believe in God/god), don't change. That unchanging quality validates those rules and those who hold them.

 

Is the claim against homosexuality one of those rules that is absolute? Well, that's what's being debated. I'd say yes, but obviously I haven't been able to develop a bulletproof argument yet. :)

[nmoira]

 

Yes. I understood you. I am just disagreeing. Michella wasn't hurt by that deception. She was hurt by him having sex with other men.

So if a gay man married to a woman doesn't have sex with other men but continues in a marriage that is at some level a deception, that's OK?

[Storm Bay]

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.

 

Actually, the Levitial laws that we're still under are covered in the Church epistles when it discusses works of the flesh that Christians are to avoid as well as in the 2 greatest laws Jesus quoted. The latter half of Ephesians is mostly practical application and covers this, too, as does Romans when it discusses whether or not we're to be a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. Dietary laws were also lifted in the epistles, which helps make it clear since otherwise one could argue that Acts 10 was merely figurative as that revelation applied to people.

[Storm Bay]

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

:D I had to laugh at this one, because, even though I understand your point and your argument is valid, it reminded me of the verse (and I can't think of the reference) that says that "All men are liars"--of course the "men" there refers to men and women. I can't rep you because I'm all out of rep for another 24 hours.

[Scarlett]

So if a gay man married to a woman doesn't have sex with other men but continues in a marriage that is at some level a deception, that's OK?

 

If he married her knowing full well he wasn't attracted to women and never would be and knew he would be cheating on her with men (or women for that matter) and eventually destroying their family (which included children) then no, I would not say that sort of deception was 'ok'. (although she has said he did a great job of 'fooling' her, so I am assuming he had a fair amount of desire for her--a woman. ) I am saying that he wasn't necessarily required to tell her his deepest darkest secret which was that he was sexually attracted to other men. He could have kept that to himself, resolved to be a faithful husband and then lived up to that resolve.

 

We don't have to act on every desire. For instance, I am fairly certain that my dh finds many many other women attractive. I am also fairly certain that he doesn't tell me every time he has an impure thought about another woman. Is that deceptive? Or kind? I am not hurt by him keeping that info to himself...I would only be hurt if he began to act on those thoughts and attractions for other women.

[Kate CA]

Eliana,

 

Thanks so much for responding. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on some points, but I have so enjoyed hearing your perspective and appreciate the time you spent sharing it.

 

You sound like a lovely woman. :)

[midwestbelle]

I enjoy discussing homeschool and parenting issues with all of you, but I have decided I agree with Anj and this isn't the place for political debates. Nothing you say can change my mind and nothing I say can change yours.

[nmoira]

I am saying that he wasn't necessarily required to tell her his deepest darkest secret which was that he was sexually attracted to other men. He could have kept that to himself, resolved to be a faithful husband and then lived up to that resolve.

To each their own; I want more out of marriage than that.

 

We don't have to act on every desire. For instance, I am fairly certain that my dh finds many many other women attractive. I am also fairly certain that he doesn't tell me every time he has an impure thought about another woman. Is that deceptive? Or kind? I am not hurt by him keeping that info to himself...I would only be hurt if he began to act on those thoughts and attractions for other women.

If one doesn't believe that people can have different sexual orientations, I suppose the analogy could fit. If my DH (after growing up in homophobic cowboy country) came to the conclusion that he was gay, I would hope he would tell me for his own sake as well as min and the children's. Would it be an emotional and wrenching experience? Sure. But I would rather and get past it that than have us live a lie.

[Scarlett]

To each their own; I want more out of marriage than that. .

 

Well, I hope you have it. I hope we all have it. One can never really know for sure though can they?

 

If If my DH (after growing up in homophobic cowboy country) came to the conclusion that he was gay, I would hope he would tell me for his own sake as well as min and the children's. Would it be an emotional and wrenching experience? Sure. But I would rather and get past it that than have us live a lie.

 

See, my contention is he wouldn't be gay until he started having sex with other men. Might he for some reason develop an attraction for men? Sure. I bet it happens. He doesn't have to act on it though. Surely, you have not acted on every desire you've ever had. I know I haven't.

[Phred]

Wow. 68% of posters here have voted that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I read some of the posts, but don't have the time to read through them all at the moment. The poll results were very sobering to me, though, and have underscored the need for those who support same sex marriage to step up to the plate and take a stand. I definitely see it as a call to action, and I'll be looking into what I can personally do to assist in the movement.

Why?

[Phred]

The gay marriage issue is the hot topic right now, but once it is legalized, what comes next? If it is an issue of "legislating morality," then can we say that a man can't marry his daughter because it isn't moral, isn't healthy? If she is consenting would it still be none of our business? What if he wants to have relations with or marry an animal? Wouldn't PETA be all over that? If you can justify gay marriage based on it's none of our business, then why should we care if a man marries 20 consenting women?

 

All laws legislate morality. It's just a matter of whose morality will be legislated. That's why we vote, so the laws will reflect the morality of the majority of the voters.

This is called a "slippery slope" fallacy. If you're going to use this sort of "logic" then why not go the other direction and say that marriage itself should be banned since, if we allow a man and woman to get married then soon interracial couples will want to get married, then Catholics will want to marry Jews. What's next, men marrying men? I say do away with marriage and we won't have this issue at all!

 

That's where this sort of "logic" gets you. No... that's not a valid argument.

[Mrs Mungo]

The gay marriage issue is the hot topic right now, but once it is legalized, what comes next? If it is an issue of "legislating morality," then can we say that a man can't marry his daughter because it isn't moral, isn't healthy? If she is consenting would it still be none of our business? What if he wants to have relations with or marry an animal? Wouldn't PETA be all over that? If you can justify gay marriage based on it's none of our business, then why should we care if a man marries 20 consenting women?

 

All laws legislate morality. It's just a matter of whose morality will be legislated. That's why we vote, so the laws will reflect the morality of the majority of the voters.

 

Once again-

 

we can only make laws that violate people's rights when the state has a good reason for doing so. Consanguinity is something the government has a good reason to prohibit-it causes problems with the gene pool. That's something society has a vested interest in. Someone can't marry an animal because the animal can't consent. I think it could be argued that the state has an interest in prohibiting plural marriage because it becomes the legal issues are vast and not similar to what has come before.

 

And again-please look up tyranny of the majority. The majority legislating based on their religion is exactly what the Constitution is designed to prevent.

 

Eliana-Thank you for your kind words, I have appreciated your posts in this thread, they have added a lot of food for thought. I'm not sure how to answer your post about sodomy (in all its forms as another poster said), there are tons of writings out there about it and they rabidly disagree with one another. That makes it pretty hard to sort out.

[Phred]

Again. To those of you Christians standing against gay marriage.

 

If you, as a Christian, wish to not have men marrying men... that's fine. I get it. You believe that your deity has told you this is bad. So don't marry them in your churches.

 

Long ago the Supreme Court determined that the right to marry was a fundamental human right and the government had no right to block or hinder this right. So the average serial killer on death row as more rights than a homosexual in our society. There are no rules as to why one should marry. There are no number of times one may marry on one's lifetime. So the arguments that marriage is for procreation are simply nonsense. We allow men to marry who are behind bars and who will never, ever, EVER be able to touch their wives much less father a child with them. It is their right according to the S.C.

 

You have every right to do whatever you wish within the walls of your churches. You may discuss this and argue this until the cows come home. But our secular government demands that we treat all individuals equally.

 

Amendment XIV

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Yet, here you are somehow thinking that you get to vote as to whether or not a certain minority gets to be treated differently. There are already homosexual couples. There are already homosexual parents. There are already homosexual families. You are denying them equal rights, equal protections. Separate is NOT equal. As was stated earlier in this thread, the battle is already over. That 101-year old man knows it. I know it. I wish you knew it. Because I'd much rather be talking in this thread about how to integrate gays into our society.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'd like to add to Phred's post that the 14th amendment was used to strike down laws forbidding interracial marriage. So, there is absolutely a precendent in place.