Same-sex marriage

Posted by: lastdan

Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 15:25

needless to say, there are some people that think this is a bad idea. I have no idea why they feel this way, so maybe someone here will offer an opinion.

what I really don't understand is why anyone would think that allowing 'Same-sex marriage' will in any way change non-Same-sex marriage.

I would guess that people with strong religious beliefs may feel that it's wrong because they were taught it was wrong, but do the same people feel that they need 'protection'? do they feel they're being attacked?

what happened to the no church / state thing?

bush says:
"I have consistently stated that I'll support (a) law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. And, obviously, these events are influencing my decision,"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=3&u=/nm/20040218/pl_nm/bush_gays_dc
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 15:29

One thing I'm unclear on is there seems to be a difference between ``civil union'' and ``marriage'', and I don't know what it is. Someone help me out.

I can't help you with your quest for knowledge, though. I have no idea why people are opposed to it.
Posted by: msaeger

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 15:32

I'm not opposed to it but I don't understand the point.
Posted by: brendanhoar

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 15:44

The point? I'll categorize them into two types, rational and irrational:

rational
--------
All the same reasons that civil-unions are wanted: the legal benefits and/or responsibilities.

irrational
----------
Love and social/public recognition of the formal committment.

Ok, perhaps I should have used rational/less-rational.

-brendan
Posted by: loren

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 15:44

Marriage is an actual contract (sort of ... depends on the state apparently), where as a civil union is just a recognition of certain criteria. I could be completely wrong here, but that is my understanding.

The REALLY interesting [censored] has yet to hit the fan... What Newsom is doing is pretty blatently illegal... but when it comes down to State's rights versus what Bush wants to do... that's when it's gonna get good.

Gavin Newsom is simply trying to start something. He's being a catalyst, but blatently going against a state prop. law.
Posted by: Laura

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 15:45

The point is that they want the same rights and benefits that any married couple would have. If two people are lucky enough to be in love and want to be married it shouldn't matter what their sex is, more power to them.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 15:46

lastdan:
what I really don't understand is why anyone would think that allowing 'Same-sex marriage' will in any way change non-Same-sex marriage.
If “marriage” is defined as “an exclusive union forged between one man and one woman” then “same sex marriage” becomes non-sensical. This is the reason most people opposed to same sex marriage object to it: the concept necessarily changes the definition of the word “marriage”. The same issue would be raised if marriages with multiple partners were in question.
what happened to the no church / state thing?
Well marriage is already a church/state thing. It’s clearly a religious institution (at least in many cases), but it’s also a union recognized by the state for legal purposes. With the same sex legislation, religious intuitions are feeling like the state is stepping on the church’s toes by redefining a religious term into a secular one.

Bitt:
One thing I'm unclear on is there seems to be a difference between ``civil union'' and ``marriage'', and I don't know what it is.
The difference would be that a “civil union” has no pretext of being religious in anyway; it is merely a legal union useful for determining what rights coupled individuals have together.
Posted by: msaeger

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 15:57

What rights and benefits do married people have ? All I ever hear about is complaining about "marriage penalty" for taxes. There may be some insurance benefits extended to spouses at some companies but we don't need another law for that companies can give benefits to whoever they want.
Posted by: brendanhoar

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 16:06

> What rights and benefits do married people have ?

Custody rights over biological/adopted children.
Visitation rights in hospitals as well as the right to make medical decisions on an incapacitated spouse's behalf.
Access to employer sponsored health plans.
Inheritance and common property and rights and responsibilities.
etc.
Posted by: genixia

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 16:11

What rights and benefits do married people have

That's a good question. Here's a few;
1) In most states under most circumstances, prenups not withstanding, in the event of a divorce assets would be split 2 ways.
2) Spousal visitation rights in hospitals and prisons.
3) Next of Kin rights with regard to insurance, being told sensitive information by police/doctors etc.
4) Right to apply for certain documents. (It's going to be interesting when someone applys for a K1 "Marriage" Visa.)

The get biggest marriage 'penalty' is actually for widows/widowers. Widows/widowers get to keep the married tax allowances and not revert to the single allowances. So if a widower and widow marry, between them they lose half of their allowances.

Posted by: belezeebub

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 16:25

(My two Cents) (Coming from someone calling himself Belezeebub maybe you should take it with a spoon full of sugar)

LQQK ----------- ADULT CONTAINT -----------------

YOU HAVE BEEN WANRED


I personally don’t care more then three drops of piss for or against same sex marriage. Its none of my business what you do in your own home and with your own body.

I don’t think the government should be wasting tax dollars and time thinking about laws for or against this issue.

For all I care you could marry your Empeg player, I’ll wish you years of happy downloads and may none of your children grow up to be an IPOD.

That being said my personal opinion is 1 man 1 women per marriage (kind of like legos men and women interlock.

But if you want to marry someone or something the same as you go for it be happy, life is too short to worry about what other people think.

As long as I don’t come out of my apartment and see you making out on the hood of my car I am ok with it.



Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 16:28

Athiests get married all the time.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 16:31

The problem with that argument:
I don’t think the government should be wasting tax dollars and time thinking about laws for or against this issue.
is that the government already supports straight marriage. If it didn't have anything to do with that, no one would care, I think.
Posted by: genixia

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 16:33

Athiests get married all the time.

Isn't that just proof that the courts have already diluted marriage by interfering?

<ducks>
Posted by: russmeister

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 16:43

I’ll wish you years of happy downloads and may none of your children grow up to be an IPOD.

That's just classic.
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 16:53

To frame it in civil rights terms (IMHO):

Civil Union = Separate but Equal
Marriage = Equal Rights

That's my take. As much as Separate but Equal was wrong, denying the GLBT portion of the popluation marriage rights is wrong. It's a fairness issue. I don't see where history or religion should have any bearing. I know there's a lot of people who don't agree. Racists don't think blacks and whites should marry either. It doesn't make them any more right by saying that 'historically blacks and whites haven't married'.

I'm not ducking.

-Zeke
Posted by: peter

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 17:27

Well marriage is already a church/state thing. It’s clearly a religious institution (at least in many cases), but it’s also a union recognized by the state for legal purposes. With the same sex legislation, religious intuitions are feeling like the state is stepping on the church’s toes by redefining a religious term into a secular one.
I think this is the nub of the problem. It's a situation familiar to anyone in software engineering: the same routine has been doing two, not actually very similar, jobs, for years on end and separating the two becomes very difficult, as the whole thing means different things to different clients.

In this case, there's marriage as a religious rite, which is clearly the sole concern of the religions in question, just as other rites (for instance, the rites making someone a deacon/elder/whatever one's denomination calls it) affect nobody outside that religion. And then there's marriage as a mechanism of state: a recent study in the US found 1,500, that's fifteen hundred, places in state and federal law where married couples are treated differently from any other pairs of people.

Personally I see the unavailability of mechanisms of state to gay people in the same light I'd see unavailability of mechanisms of state to black people, or to women: that is, unacceptable in a modern society. And fixing the inequality would seem to require either barring that mechanism of state to straights, or opening it up to gays. That is to say, doing one of three things, depending on where the church/state boundary gets drawn: drawn on the state side, entirely ecclesiasticising marriage by striking out those 1,500 statutes, or drawn down the centre by calling the state-side thing "civil union" and then rewriting 1,500 statutes to use that as the term defining these couples, or drawn on the church side by entirely secularising marriage and offering it, as a democratic state must, equally to all. The third of those sounds like much the least paperwork and any religions that were bothered by that could always talk about "Christian Marriage" or even, if they wanted, "True Marriage", so long as those phrases occurred in no statute book and barred entry to no mechanism of state.

So where did this icky entanglement of religious and state goals come from? I was at an Anglican wedding recently, where the guy giving the address, who was clearly a very pious, thoughtful, and caring person, said the usual things to the congregation about Christian marriage being all about commitment, affection, and support, but then rather gave the lie to that by saying that it was also about "a man and a woman, as God intended". Oh right, gays aren't capable of commitment, affection, or supportiveness then, vic, is that what you're saying? If they are, and if those things are what Christian marriage is about, then why debar them from it?

Some years ago I was at a Southern Baptist wedding, and the celebrant was also clearly very religious, in a different way. He was also much more overt about what he thought Christian marriage was about. "Christian marriage is all about children -- about Christian families. Children are the arrows we shoot into the future(*), and I hope this young couple shoot many fine arrows in their married life." Here at last is something gays are less good at: reproducing. (Yes, there are gay foster parents, and there are lesbian couples with children fathered by someone not a life-partner of either woman. But still a much greater proportion of straight couples than gay couples have children, if only because gay couples never find themselves in that situation by accident.)

Christian marriage is a population thing, just like opposition to birth control is a population thing. It's all about increasing the ranks of the Army of God as compared to armies of other gods, or of godlessness. And anyone who thinks such base considerations, such slavishness to the evolutionary imperative, dropped off human religious radar millennia ago, should go and look at what happens in Northern Ireland when predictors of population trends produce studies showing the Catholic/Protestant ratio moving closer to 50/50: uproar breaks out.

So it's no wonder that, through most of history, states have liked marriage too -- they're just as keen on increasing the ranks of their armies as any religion. If there had ever been a state that didn't, demographics would have seen them off in the course of a few generations as their neighbours outpopulated and outfought them, or even as natural disasters or predation wiped them out more thoroughly than more populous states nearby.

On an arguably overpopulated, but certainly fairly sufficiently-populated, world, such considerations needn't any longer be informing state policy. And the effectiveness of those measures towards the goal of population growth is itself based on a rather strange premise: that of the "floating voter", the person whose sexual inclination is affected by mechanisms of state incentivising him or her one way or the other. Even if such people exist, the goal of enhancing population growth by resolving them onto the straight side of the fence hardly seems worth the cost in marginalisation of large numbers of committed, affectionate, stable -- married in all but name -- gay couples.

Peter

(*) A line by the rather pagan Kahlil Gibran, of course, and IMO unusually sexually suggestive for such a time and place, but I guess if it sounds Biblical that's good enough.
Posted by: matthew_k

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 17:31

Anyone know if they can they make the other half of your civil union testify against you in court?

Matthew
Posted by: DWallach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 18:04

I think this is the nub of the problem. It's a situation familiar to anyone in software engineering: the same routine has been doing two, not actually very similar, jobs, for years on end and separating the two becomes very difficult, as the whole thing means different things to different clients.

For what it's worth, it's not this way in other countries. I know that in Mexico, your church / religious wedding has no legal meaning whatsoever. You then show up in court and have a J.P. do a legally binding ceremony for you. I have no idea whether a Mexican J.P. will wed two men or two women, or what the exact terminology is for "wedding" vs. "civil union" in Mexican law. But, certainly, the U.S. system isn't the only way of doing it.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 20:34

Its none of my business what you do in your own home and with your own body.


That statement illustrates a mindset that causes the whole gay marriage thing to be controversial.

Say "Gay Marriage" and the first thing people think of is Sex. "Ewwww-- sodomy, nasty same-sex unnatural unbiblical behavior. Ban it before it destroys us all."

But sex is only a part of marriage. From my perspective, not even the most important part of marriage. (Perhaps when I was 40 years younger than I am now my opinion might have been different, but with the wisdom of age and experience...)

Gay marriage is about civil rights and responsibilities. Health insurance, community property, inheritance, the list goes on and on.

Yes, "what you do in your own home and with your own body" is nobody's business but your own, but it should not be the focus of the debate.

tanstaafl.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 21:33

Excellent post, Peter. I agree with a lot of your assesment of the situation (especially the part where you were agreeing with mine!)

I do wonder, what really should constitute a secular definition of marriage if the state is going to stay involved. By that I mean, why should the Mormans (or anyone else for that matter) be limited to only one wife?

In the end, I wish "church" marriage and "state" marriage were not the same thing. We live in a secular society, so it really is the government's responsibility to address people's needs in a fair and equitable way. If two people are raising a child and one decides to stay home and take care of said child instead of working, it really isn't fair to deny that person health benefits. It really isn't a spiritual or belief issue at that point. I think it's good for society to allow parents to stay home and spend personal time with their children as they develop, and while I personally feel uncomfortable with same sex partners raising a child as a family unit, I'm even more uncomfortable with the idea that one of the pair might have to be denied medicle benefits in order to give a child his or her full attention.

At this point I see no easy solution, because both church and state are involved and it's pretty ingrained in both. However I see this, though, in the end same-sex marriage is coming whether people like it or not. I think Bush is really only giving lip service to the issue at this point to please his conservative base; he knows there isn't going to be any amendment to the constitution.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 22:01

Athiests get married all the time.
Curse you, Bitt. I was going to chime in with the whole state/church thing, then you posted this and I realized I was in a glass house.
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 18/02/2004 23:55

I'm afraid this will be rather long, bear with me.

To kick things off I'd like to offer a quote from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity from the chapter entitled "Christian Marriage". It was mainly written concerning divorce and athiests who get married (listen up Bitt!) but he says a few things which could apply here:
Now everyone who has been married in a church has made a public, solemn promise to stick to his (or her) partner till death. The duty of keeping that promise has no special connection with sexual morality: it is in the same position as any other promise. If, as modern people are always telling us, the sexual impulse is just like all our other impulses; and as their indulgence is controlled by our promises, so should its be. If, as I think, it is not like all out other impulses, but is morbidly inflamed, then we should be specially careful not to let it lead us into dishonesty.

To this someone may reply that he regarded the promise made in church as a mere formality and never intended to keep it. Whom, then, was he trying to deceive when he made it? God? That was really very unwise. Himself? That was not very much wiser. The bride, or bridegroom, or the 'in-laws'? That was treacherous. More often, I think, the couple (or one of them) hoped to deceive the public. They wanted the respectability that is attached to marriage without intending to pay the price: that is, they were impostors, they cheated.

It is that last sentance, I assert, that also applies to homosexual couples.

Before I get ahead of myself, let me clarify something:

there seems to be a difference between ``civil union'' and ``marriage''

Christians define marriage as an institution ordained by God, between a man and a woman. Other religions have similer definitions. WE DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO INTRUDE ON OUR DEFINITIONS. If two people want to form some kind of government-regulated contractual bond between them (civil-union), whatever their gender, that is fine. But it is NOT a marriage. I think now you will see how that quote relates to all this. Homosexual couples "want the respectability that is attached to marriage without intending to pay the price" same as the athiest couples. The price, in this case being, finding a partner of the opposit sex and having the discipline to learn to get along with them dispite your differences, as well as, of course, beliving in the God you are making these vows to.

Now, if homosexual couples want to go to some secular huminist church and get married, fine. But neither I nor The Methodist Church (or Baptists, or Cathloic, or whatever, I simply said Methodist because that is the church I happen to belong to) is required to acknowledge it.
what happened to the no church / state thing?

Athiests get married all the time.

Isn't that just proof that the courts have already diluted marriage by interfering?

Yes.

So the best course of action is:
calling the state-side thing "civil union" and then rewriting 1,500 statutes to use that as the term defining these couples

because we, as Christians, are not interested in compromising our beliefes just so a few overpaid/underworked government employees can do a bit less "paperwork". I would also propose that, since all those laws were written with heterosexual couples in mind, they all be re-worked and re-debated over, since the public (this being a democracy and all) might feel differently about them knowing they might apply to any gender combination.
Christian marriage is a population thing, just like opposition to birth control is a population thing.

I'm afraid you are wrong on both accounts. As I said before, this is about God, and what He has chosen marriage to be. Marriage is a religious term. Allowing the government to say just anybody is married is on the level with the government saying that whenever anybody eats bread and drinks wine they are having Holy Communion. They arn't, they are simply eating bread and drinking wine.

I won't get into the opposition to birth control thing because I don't understand it compleatly and don't agree with it. I do understand it enough to know it's not about population.
Posted by: mcomb

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 00:43

Ughh, I might get flamed for this, but what does religion have to do with this discussion? Almost every post in this thread discusses religion when this is in fact a legal matter. At least, assuming we are talking about the US, we are supposed to have a separation of church and state. Laws define who can get married (married according to a legal definition not a religious one) and religion should not have a part in that. The only reason we even have a legal definition of marriage is because married couples have certain legal rights/responsibilities that single people do not have. I don't understand why it seems to be so hard for people to separate the concepts of religious vs. legal marriage. A legal marriage is on recognized by the government and a religious marriage is recognized by some specific religious group. There is no reason why these two definitions need to perfectly overlap. I wouldn't vote for a law that told the church who they where allowed to marry so why should religious beliefs have any impact in who can get married in a courtroom?

-Mike

p.s. Then again I am also against most legal benefits for married couples, so why do I care in the first place?
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 00:44

Rather than pick and choose who this is in reply to, I'm just gonna reply to the original post....

First of all, who in the hell does ANYONE think they are to assume they have the right to tell others who they can or cannot pledge themselves to? I don't care what sexual preference, religion, color, etc. someone is; they all deserve the same rights.

Secondly, to the Christians on the board who have made comments alluding to the idea that only Christians have marriage, you may want to open your theocentric minds and take a look at reality. Christians are not the only people who have a right to get married, nor does Christianity have a coner on the marriage market.

Reagrdless of what any of you may think, there ARE other religions in the world. And they even have marriage.

The problem here is not that gay and lesbian couples are dying to have a Christian wedding. It's that they want the same rights as anyone else. Taxes, etc. Oh, yeah, and the ability to marry the person you love.

If it were simply a matter of the Christian church not allowing it, most likely the majority of gay and lesbian couples would just give them the finger and go have a Buddhist (or other) ceremony.

Yeah, Buddhists can get married, too. And Shinto, Muslims, etc. etc. etc.

But the problem is, the secular government won't accept their marriage. And everyone here knows that. And arguing the semantics of the difference between "marriage" and "civil ceremony" is a load of crap. And again, everyone here knows it.

If you ask me, having a problem with people being in love and wanting to show it is about the least Christian concept I can think of. Just because hate is hidden behind "faith" doesn't mean it isn't hate.
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 00:49

I might get flamed for this

No by me. It's an honest question and it shows why alot of people miss the point in this. Marriage was originaly a strictly religious institution that has been adopted by the government. As long as the government ran it by the church's rules most people were happy to leave well enough alone (a bad idea). But it has become clear (first through ease of divorce and now through this matter) that the government is not interested in playing by the chruch's rules any more, all we are saying is "If you don't want to play by our rules anymore, fine. But give us back our name."
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 00:58

I don't know how much of that was directed at me, but here is my responce for what it is worth. I'll be quoting myself in yellow:
to the Christians on the board who have made comments alluding to the idea that only Christians have marriage, you may want to open your theocentric minds and take a look at reality. Christians are not the only people who have a right to get married, nor does Christianity have a coner on the marriage market.

Christians define marriage as an institution ordained by God, between a man and a woman. Other religions have similer definitions.

Now, if homosexual couples want to go to some secular huminist church and get married, fine. But neither I nor The Methodist Church (or Baptists, or Cathloic, or whatever, I simply said Methodist because that is the church I happen to belong to) is required to acknowledge it.

The problem here is not that gay and lesbian couples are dying to have a Christian wedding. It's that they want the same rights as anyone else.

Fine, give them those rights. But don't pretend it is the same thing as marriage.
If you ask me, having a problem with people being in love and wanting to show it is about the least Christian concept I can think of.

I have no problem whatsoever with people loving one another. Neither does the Bible. The second highest commandment is to love one another. But the Bible expressly forbids sex with a person of the same sex. It also makes clear that marriage is intended between two people of the opposit sex. You may love all you want. It has nothing to do with homosexual marriage or sex.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:05

Fine, give them those rights. But don't pretend it is the same thing as marriage.

Fine. If the term "marriage" is so important to Christians, then you can have the term all to yourselves for all I care.

Now convince the rest of the members of your religion to get their noses out of the government and let gays and lesbians have the same rights / benefits as "married" Christians. In the civil sense, I mean.
Posted by: mcomb

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:12

Marriage was originaly a strictly religious institution that has been adopted by the government.

But why is it that as a religious person you (or anyone else who cares to reply) can't separate these concepts? For a lot of people (myself obviously included) marriage has little if anything to do with religious beliefs and I think that is why many people get offended when they are told what to do by a church. FWIW, I have no personal interest in this matter (being both straight and painfully single), but I don't understand why people feel that their religious beliefs should affect other peoples lives.

-Mike
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:15

Now convince the rest of the members of your religion to get their noses out of the government and let gays and lesbians have the same rights / benefits as "married" Christians. In the civil sense, I mean.

Well given my disclaimer that I think that now that we are talking "civil-unions" (between any combonation of genders) and not "marriages" (people of the opposit sex) the laws giving us those rights should be back up for debate (by our standard democratic process I mean). The U.S. populance might not want to grant same-sex couples the same rights they agreed to grant to opposit sex couples when the laws were made, and in so changing the laws would deny rights to opposit sex coupples that same sex coupples might not have them either (which is perfectly fair).

Given that, put it on a balot and I will vote for it. As far as convincing anybody......I'd love to convince my religion to get their noses out of the government. It would make it easier for me to tell the government where to stick it when they want to go and redefine marriage.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:18

I don't understand why people feel that their religious beliefs should affect other peoples lives.

Because if people are allowed to think freely, make their own decisions, love and wed someone of the same sex, or point out that it seems like the sun (not to mention the other planets) actually rotate around the Sun, they're certainly a heretic. Gotta keep the sheep-ple in line....
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:19

But why is it that as a religious person you (or anyone else who cares to reply) can't separate these concepts?

I have, just not in a way that many people like. "Marriage" occures in a church. "Civil-Union" occures in a courthouse.

Did you read the quote from C.S. Lewis? I though he summed it up well. I need to get a better picture of what you are missunderstanding before I can better explain things.
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:21

<Ahem>
point out that it seems like the sun (not to mention the other planets) actually rotate around the Sun

Just calling a low blow. Let's not sling insults here. Especialy not inaccurate ones.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:24

The Chruch persecuted Galileo for his belief in the Earth rotates around the Sun, among other discoveries.

True? Or not?

If true, why is it a low blow? Because it shows the Church is fallable?

My point is, the Church has been horribly wrong before. Again and again.

And why should we believe they've suddenly become more enlightened?
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:29

True, it is a low blow because it happend 400 years ago.
My point is, the Church has been horribly wrong before. Again and again.

Yes, the church has. And when it has been wrong it has always had a hard time backing itself up with scripture.
And why should we believe they've suddenly become more enlightened?

The "world" does not have to listen to the church if it doesn't want to. We arn't "imposing" anything here. I thought I made that clear. We just want to be very clear about the termenology that is being thrown around.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:35

True, it is a low blow because it happend 400 years ago.

Yes it did. And the Church only took 383 years to figure out that they made a mistake....

Sorry, I didn't type my full thought. Copernicus. Took the Church 383 years to forgive him.
Posted by: mcomb

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:36

I have, just not in a way that many people like. "Marriage" occures in a church. "Civil-Union" occures in a courthouse.

Fair enough, but keep in mind that some churches definition of marriage won't match yours, so you are really saying that marriage is a Protestant (or your religion of choice) union so you need to refine your viewpoint to take into account that somewhere there is bound to be an institution calling itself a church which happens to approve of same sex marriages. At this point you are defining marriage in a fairly narrow manner and it seems simpler to define by context. A couple can be married by law and entitled to all benefits their-in without having a marriage that is necessarily approved by a specific church.

Did you read the quote from C.S. Lewis? I though he summed it up well. I need to get a better picture of what you are missunderstanding before I can better explain things.

I'll admit to being one drink past clearly deciphering that quote so maybe I am not reading it the same way you are. From my viewpoint it is saying that the most important thing about marriage is being committed and faithful to ones partner and that the religious/cultural implications are secondary. I would agree with that, but I don't see how it makes your point.

-Mike
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:38

BTW:
Because it shows the Church is fallable?

The church (distinct from God Himslef) is fallable.

I'm fallable. Make up your own mind about what I say.
And why should we believe they've suddenly become more enlightened?

Don't. Get a Bible, read it, and then live the Christian life as it was lived almost 2000 years ago, before there was a "church".
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:44

Fair enough, but keep in mind that some churches definition of marriage won't match yours

Your spot-on with what I mean here, and yes,I have kept that in mind. I imagin that if what I concive were to take place (ha!) then some denominations would acknowledge marriages performed by some others, and some not etc.
I'll admit to being one drink past clearly deciphering that quote

Maybe I'm making too big of a leap in applying it to what we are talking about. My main point is that homosexual couples want the "respectability" that comes with a traditional marriage, as well as the rights. By all means, let them have the rights, but they can't have the respectibility (at least not in the church's eyes) because they are not following the main requirments for getting married.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:48

About homosexuality

Leviticus 20:30

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."


About slavery

Colossians 3:22

"slaves in all things submit to those who are your earthly masters."

1 Peter 2:18

"Slaves submit to your masters, not only those who are good and gentle, but also the perverse [ones]."

I've read the bible. It's one of the most violent, hateful, vindictive books I've ever read. Sorry if you feel like that's an attack. It's not. It's my opinion.
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:56

About slavery

Colossians 3:22

"slaves in all things submit to those who are your earthly masters."

1 Peter 2:18

"Slaves submit to your masters, not only those who are good and gentle, but also the perverse [ones]."

That was written to a people in a socioty in which slavery was an every day part of life. Neither Paul nor Peter is condoning slavery. They are saying that if you are a slave, then God does not condone you revolting against your masters.

Why? Because we should at all times strive to live at peace with one another. Because love (even.....especialy.......when the person does not love you back) is the first and second commandment. Because slavery, although abhorrent, to a saved soul that will spend eternity in heaven is not the worst thing in the world (I am by no means condoning it or saying it would be enjoyable.)
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 01:59

Oh, and Leviticus is a book of Jewish laws. It also includes details about how a man should wear his facial hair. What kind of clothes to wear, etc. I don't know about you, but I'm not Jewish. For more info, see Romans Ch. 5-8 (since you have your Bible so handy )
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:00

Odd. There seems to be a distinct lack of a response regarding the part where your holy book calls for the death of homosexuals. Care to respond?

I am by no means condoning it or saying it would be enjoyable.

No, you aren't. Your diety is.
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:02

No, you aren't. Your diety is.

No, He isn't. And I just clearly addressed that.
Posted by: mcomb

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:02

My main point is that homosexual couples want the "respectability" that comes with a traditional marriage

You know, I think we just came full circle We are back to arguing the definition of traditional marriage which to you is synonymous with religious marriage and to me just means a union of two people. And that is the crux of the point I was trying to make. There are plenty of words in the english language that mean different things based on context and personal viewpoint. To me it is clear that marriage in the context of any discussion of law should mean a union of two people as it pertains to legal issues. I don't understand why people need to drag in the religious baggage.

-Mike
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:05

No, He isn't. And I just clearly addressed that.

Fair enough. He just doesn't want slaves doing anything to change their lot in life.
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:05

To me it is clear that marriage in the context of any discussion of law should mean a union of two people as it pertains to legal issues. I don't understand why people need to drag in the religious baggage.

Exactly, and since marriage comes with religious baggage attached and
There are plenty of words in the english language that mean different things based on context and personal viewpoint.

then there should be no problem finding a new one, right?

I think "civil-union" has an excelent ring to it, don't you?
Posted by: mcomb

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:15

I've read the bible. It's one of the most violent, hateful, vindictive books I've ever read. Sorry if you feel like that's an attack. It's not. It's my opinion.

This is of course somewhat dependent on which version of the bible and which book of that version you are reading. All of the contents of the bible (and any religious text really) are tainted by the people who actually wrote the document. I wouldn't say that it is fair to hold a religious person to the word of the documents their religion is based on. The individuals actions and personal beliefs are much more important, you wouldn't want that person to judge you solely based on your lack of religious beliefs.

-Mike
Posted by: mcomb

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:19

then there should be no problem finding a new one, right?


Primarily to continue an amusing argument... You still didn't explain why it matters so much to you. I think I have done a passable job of explaining exactly why a singular definition of the word marriage is not important to many people. Surely you have something better than "we had it first" to explain why it is important to you

-Mike
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:20

The individuals actions and personal beliefs are much more important, you wouldn't want that person to judge you solely based on your lack of religious beliefs.

Excelent.

I don't know if that is a compliment in regards to me, but I definatly agree with it.

And Dave, in regards to that, I want you to know that I don't. I know things can get a little heated in here sometimes, but this is just debate. I harbor no ill feelings twards you what so ever.
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:23

Surely you have something better than "we had it first" to explain why it is important to you

You mean that isn't good enough?

I understand what you mean, but it is really all the connotations that go along with the name, all the years of history and books written about it, all the implied meanings that I (we) are after.

EDIT:
Or let me put it this way: the way I see it, we just want to contenue using the meaning the word has had for thousands of years and you (not you explicitly, I'm not blaming) want to give it a new definition altogether.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:26

This is of course somewhat dependent on which version of the bible and which book of that version you are reading. All of the contents of the bible (and any religious text really) are tainted by the people who actually wrote the document

This doesn't work. The book is what it is. Rewriting it to make it a "kindler gentler" bible doesn't really do much for it's validity. And if it's tainted by the people who wrote the document, how can anyone's interpretation be any less tainted?

I wouldn't say that it is fair to hold a religious person to the word of the documents their religion is based on.

Uhhh... so....a person's religion....err....doesn't have to believe or follow the ....

...the DOCUMENTS IT'S BASED ON?

The individuals actions and personal beliefs are much more important

Agreed. 100%

you wouldn't want that person to judge you solely based on your lack of religious beliefs.

Hrmm... Am I to assume I'm not allowed to have religious beliefs because I...

(a) Don't follow a belief system that is (in my opinion) rife with conflict, contradiction and prejudice, and
(b) Don't constantly point out what my belief system is, how it works, and why people should accept it / understand it?

Forgive me, but I DO have beliefs. But they're my beliefs. And to assume that I have none because I don't follow Christianity is quite wrong.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:28

I harbor no ill feelings twards you what so ever.

Marcus, if I were to harbor ill will towards you, I would already be lost.

If we were at the bar I'd be buying the beer.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:30

contenue using the meaning the word has had for thousands of years

Hey! I got flagged for referencing somthing from only 400 years ago!

What gives!!

Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:38

Hey! I got flagged for referencing somthing from only 400 years ago!

The difference is a single point in time vs. a contenuation (all the points over the past several thousand years.....including last year.....10 years ago....etc.).

Now, make mine a Guinness and the next rounds on me.
Posted by: mcomb

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:38

This is of course somewhat dependent on which version of the bible and which book of that version you are reading. All of the contents of the bible (and any religious text really) are tainted by the people who actually wrote the document

This doesn't work. The book is what it is. Rewriting it to make it a "kindler gentler" bible doesn't really do much for it's validity. And if it's tainted by the people who wrote the document, how can anyone's interpretation be any less tainted?

Oh come on, I know you don't believe that. See your comment above regarding actions speaking louder than words. That applies to written word as well. I am not saying I agree with the bible, but there are good bits in there. "Do unto others..." is a great belief wether it comes from the bible or is just realized as an obvious good thing. The point I was getting at is the bible is arbitrary and contradictory (at least to an impartial observer like me) and I have no problems with someone being religious and following that parts of the bible that seem reasonable to me as long as they are sensible enough to realize that some parts of it are wrong (for whatever reason).

I wouldn't say that it is fair to hold a religious person to the word of the documents their religion is based on.

Uhhh... so....a person's religion....err....doesn't have to believe or follow the ....

...the DOCUMENTS IT'S BASED ON?

What I was trying to get at is that a person isn't the sum of their religious beliefs. Same argument as above.

you wouldn't want that person to judge you solely based on your lack of religious beliefs.

Hrmm... Am I to assume I'm not allowed to have religious beliefs because I...

(a) Don't follow a belief system that is (in my opinion) rife with conflict, contradiction and prejudice, and
(b) Don't constantly point out what my belief system is, how it works, and why people should accept it / understand it?

Forgive me, but I DO have beliefs. But they're my beliefs. And to assume that I have none because I don't follow Christianity is quite wrong.

Nope, I was oversimplifying for clarity and I apologize. I should have said something along the lines of 'because your beliefs aren't the same as theirs'.


-Mike
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:40

I think this is the nub of the problem. It's a situation familiar to anyone in software engineering: the same routine has been doing two, not actually very similar, jobs, for years on end and separating the two becomes very difficult, as the whole thing means different things to different clients.
For what it's worth, it's not this way in other countries. I know that in Mexico, your church / religious wedding has no legal meaning whatsoever. You then show up in court and have a J.P. do a legally binding ceremony for you.
Same sort of deal in both the US and Canada. The church/religious wedding means absolutely zip. Nada. Zilch. Aside from the religious context, that is. Your marriage will not be recognized by the state at all, unless it is performed by someone legally capable of performing marriages. That person can be a Justice of the Peace, or it can be the minister of some church who has a legal licence to marry people (my father is one of these latter -- he was actually given a wallet card by the province, designating him as legally able to perform weddings). No matter which of these two actually marries you, there is even a particular phrase that must be stated during the ceremony for that marriage to be legally recognized ("by the power vested in me by the province of Ontario").

That said...

I can't actually find a place in the bible where it says that marriage is specifically between a man and a woman. Maybe I'm looking up the wrong terms in the concordance. Anyone care to point out the relevant verse?
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:47

I can't actually find a place in the bible where it says that marriage is specifically between a man and a woman.

Well it always talks about marriage as being between a male and female, and it forbids homosexual intercourse. And since the Bible makes it clear that marriage is intended for the creating a sutible enviroment for the begating and raising of childeren (since you can love someone without being married to them or having sex with them) then I think from that alone we can safely infer that homosexual marriages would be frowned uppon. But no, I don't know of a specific verse. I'll ask my betters when I get a chance.

Same sort of deal in both the US and Canada.......

Right, and now that the rules are changing, we would like for people to stop calling them the same thing as well. That's all.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:48

I have no problems with someone being religious and following that parts of the bible that seem reasonable to me as long as they are sensible enough to realize that some parts of it are wrong

I would absolutly weep with joy to head a Christian say this. My point was more that if you base a religion on the concept that your scripture is a historical, factual document, you cannot change it without admitting that it's not totally factual / historical.

What I was trying to get at is that a person isn't the sum of their religious beliefs.

I would agree. I would also say this isn't really the same concept as the statement I was responding to. I believe if you join a group, you are bound by the groups beliefs. Or, you leave the group. If you join a Christian church, you should behave in the manner dictated by that particular belief system. If you feel you are a Christian, yet feel that no organized church is a good fit, you can always practice on your own.

I should have said something along the lines of 'because your beliefs aren't the same as theirs'

Thank you, and apology is (of course) accepted.
Posted by: mcomb

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:50

you (not you explicitly, I'm not blaming) want to give it a new definition altogether.


Hmm, it seems to me that people where living together in some sort of loving union before any Christian religion defined the term marriage. You (not you, blah, blah ) may have invented the word, but my sentiment predates yours.

-Mike
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 02:57

I would absolutly weep with joy to hear a Christian say this.

The closest you will get out of me is this (since I don't agree with that statement by Mike):

Many parts of the Bible are easily misunderstood. If you are going to base a belief off of something in the Bible (especialy the old testement) be very sure you understand it's meaning within the full context of the Bible and the historical/sociological setting which it was written "to". This is not to say we should not belive something because "that's what they would have said then" but rather we should not take something ment for a specific person or group as being ment for everyone.

EDIT:
Got mixed up on who was being quoted.......It's late, I'm tired.
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 03:03

Hmm, it seems to me that people where living together in some sort of loving union before any Christian religion defined the term marriage.

Yes, and when it was a union recognised by the local state/religion, it was almost always (with a few exceptions) male-female. Furthermore while yes, loving unions existed, Judiasim (which Christianity branched off from) set aside a specific kind of loving union and called in marriage. Thus it belongs to the Jews and to us by inhearitance. I suppose the Jews could say we can't use it, but they haven't, mainly, I think, because we use about the same definition for it that they do.
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 03:27

Well it always talks about marriage as being between a male and female,
True, but the absence of discussion about something is not the same as forbidding it. From what I recall, the bible is actually pretty explicit when it forbids things.

and it forbids homosexual intercourse.
Well, I honestly can't find the verse that says this, either. I mean, the clearest verse I can find regarding that is the one in Leviticus, and... well... as you said just above, that's Jewish law, not Christian, and if Judaism doesn't recognize Christ as being Christ, then I'm not quite sure how/why Christianity is required to suddenly believe this part of the Jewish religion, either.

And since the Bible makes it clear that marriage is intended for the creating a suitable enviroment for the begating and raising of childeren
Which, again, I submit is not strictly the domain of straight people. I've seen some environments made up of gay couples that were far more suitable for raising children than a number of environments produced by the holy matrimony of straight people. And what about straight, but infertile couples? Should they not allowed to be married, since they can't have children? Or couples that decide they don't want to have children? Should they be barred from marriage?

(since you can love someone without being married to them or having sex with them)
You can also not love someone, and be married to, and have sex with them. I'm with Doug on this one -- sex isn't the important thing in a marriage (mind you, I have neither his years of experience, nor a wife, so take that with a grain of salt).

then I think from that alone we can safely infer that homosexual marriages would be frowned upon.
I wouldn't exactly call that a safe inference, given that I can see a few significant holes in the argument.

But no, I don't know of a specific verse. I'll ask my betters when I get a chance.
I await your reply...

we would like for people to stop calling them the same thing as well. That's all.
But for those who hold the belief that marriage is a commitment between two people, marriage is a civil union, and a civil union is a marriage. The terms are synonymous.
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 03:39

I can see a few significant holes in the argument.

Well I'll have to patch those tomorrow if I have time. It's way past my bedtime and my brain is about fried. I do have answers for some of them though.

Goodnight all, it's been fun.
Posted by: peter

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 04:21

Furthermore while yes, loving unions existed, Judiasim (which Christianity branched off from) set aside a specific kind of loving union and called in marriage.
While marriage does seem to be a construct (there's no sign of it in the earliest societies), it certainly wasn't the Israelites who invented it. The oldest references to it are in the Code of Hammurabi, an artefact of the Babylonian civilisation from about 1760BC -- before the Torah was written -- and those aren't references to its invention, they're references as though it was already a well-established concept. (Of course, that's in archaeologists' dates, not young-earthers' dates; I guess if you believe that when the earth was created it already had two married Jews on, then that gives them a certain primacy.)

Peter
Posted by: peter

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 05:11

Homosexual couples "want the respectability that is attached to marriage without intending to pay the price" same as the athiest couples. The price, in this case being, finding a partner of the opposit sex and having the discipline to learn to get along with them dispite your differences, as well as, of course, beliving in the God you are making these vows to.
That's an attitude -- that the love and commitment and discipline shown by gays (and atheists, and Hindus, and so on) is somehow of a lesser quality or importance than the same things shown by straight Christians -- that I'm afraid I find distasteful.

And while I don't know what CS Lewis's thoughts on gay marriage were, I do wonder whether it would alarm him to see that sentence of his which you quote above -- written, as your fuller quote makes clear, against infidelity in loving relationships -- used by you to demean perfectly committed loving relationships.

Incidentally, I completely agree with you that atheists who want church marriages do a disservice to both religion and atheism, and I even agree with you that if they're clearly not taking the theistic parts of the ceremony seriously, it makes you question whether they're taking the human-scale parts of it seriously either.

Peter
Posted by: peter

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 05:22

Christian marriage is a population thing, just like opposition to birth control is a population thing.
I'm afraid you are wrong on both accounts. As I said before, this is about God, and what He has chosen marriage to be.
Ah, I wasn't being very clear. I don't doubt for a minute that straight marriage is one of the tenets of your religion. I was just trying to offer an explanation of why so many religions have that as one of their tenets: because if there ever had been religions that didn't promote widespread childbearing, demographics would cause the religions that did to swamp them. (Families have always been religions' best training schools: even today, when migration and evangelism mean that in most Western cities finding a new religion is no harder than finding a new brand of toothpaste, the overwhelming majority of religious people have the same religion as their parents did.)

Peter
Posted by: peter

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 05:31

I don't doubt for a minute that straight marriage is one of the tenets of your religion.
Nor, in case that bit wasn't clear, do I doubt that there are plenty of gay people who are good Christians and for whom it would be completely appropriate to have full-scale church weddings. But it's not the state's problem or mine if there are Christian groups who don't want gay weddings in their churches, any more than it's the state's problem or mine if you put a sign saying "No Blacks" on the loo door in your own home.

Peter
Posted by: andy

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 06:35

This is not to say we should not belive something because "that's what they would have said then" but rather we should not take something ment for a specific person or group as being ment for everyone.

By that reasoning you can take most of Paul's writings and ignore them as they were letters aimed at very specific groups of people.

Also, didn't Christ specifically say that he didn't come to replace the Jewish law, implying that you should still be paying attention to the Old Testament ?

P.S. does anyone know of a verse in the Bible that forbids sex before marriage ? I always hear Christians (usually taking to teenagers) saying that the bible outlaws sex before marriage, but I have yet to find one that provided any evidence that this is true. I spent a long time looking for such a verse when I was a 17 year old Christian... (I'm not a Christian anymore)
Posted by: Jerz

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 06:48

Wow... pretty hot topic. No, I didn't read many of the posts but I'll keep it simple.

First off... I'm not a Christian.

Second... Marriage, in my opinion, was created as a partnership to create a family. If two people of the same sex do not have the ability to naturally create life of a child on their own.... well then they can't be married. Civil union maybe I'll go along with for the benefits of inheritance and so forth that were pointed out somewhere in this thread.

Three:: If it's that big of an issue then put it to a vote and let the people decide.

And finally: You can't be a fireman if you don't have any arms and legs. Deal with what you have and don't try to make society accomodate you just because you're not happy with the hand you're dealt.



Posted by: andy

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 06:53

Second... Marriage, in my opinion, was created as a partnership to create a family. If two people of the same sex do not have the ability to naturally create life of a child on their own.... well then they can't be married. Civil union maybe I'll go along with for the benefits of inheritance and so forth that were pointed out somewhere in this thread.

So if a hetrosexual couple are known to be sterile for some reason they should not be allowed to be married ?
Posted by: Jerz

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 06:55

So if a hetrosexual couple are known to be sterile for some reason they should not be allowed to be married ?


That would be discrimination.

The laws of nature do not allow two people of the same sex to have offspring; however, the laws of nature do allow a male and a female to have offspring. Whether one is sterile is a totally different issue.
Posted by: Chimaera

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 08:06

The laws of nature do not allow two people of the same sex to have offspring; however, the laws of nature do allow a male and a female to have offspring. Whether one is sterile is a totally different issue.


So does that mean that lesbian weddings should be allowed, as they would both be capable of producing offspring? Infact I think it would double their chances of giving birth to the next son of god, as no man would be required.
Posted by: Jerz

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 08:13

So does that mean that lesbian weddings should be allowed,

LMAO! The spin is unbelievable. Let's not even talk about humans... If you put to female rats in a cage and it is a given that they are both fertile what is the probability that one of them will get pregnant with no interference from the outside world?

Posted by: Chimaera

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 08:21

I admint that the probability of that happening is very very low, but 'history' clearly states it has already happened with a human around 2000 years ago, so I would never say it was impossible

And yes I am just playing devils advocate, but I have some gay friends who have been in relationships longer than some of my straight friends, why should they not be allowed to be married after they have proved they are in a commited lasting relationship but my straight friends can have a nice Christian church wedding after only knowing each other a couple of weeks just because they are able to reproduce with each other?????
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 08:53

Well, I honestly can't find the verse that says this, either. I mean, the clearest verse I can find regarding that is the one in Leviticus...


Also note Leviticus. 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:26-28.
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 08:57

At least, assuming we are talking about the US, we are supposed to have a separation of church and state.


Would someone please point out to me the words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 09:22

First part of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Posted by: brendanhoar

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 09:42

The thread has probably gone way beyond this topic, but I figured this is salient point to respond to:

> Marriage is a religious term.

Marriage, or the social equivalent, has been around way longer than christianity, islam, or judaism.

[In my view, marriage has been co-opted by religious authorities over the ages for many reasons, but at it's core it is a social tradition that predates today's religions.]

-brendan
Posted by: brendanhoar

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 10:04

> Second... Marriage, in my opinion, was created as a partnership to create a family.

I have a slightly off skew take on that. My guess is that marriage, as a social tradition, was originally created as a way to formalize a few things in a tribal situation. The most important was this: we now have *two people responsible* for keeping those annoying tiny people out of our stuff.

> Three:: If it's that big of an issue then put it to a vote and let the people decide.

Ah yes, the tyranny of the majority.

-brendan
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 10:08

The US has recognized marriages officiated by Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, Buddhists, Atheists, etc., ad nauseum, yet calls them all marriage, and has done so for quite some time. I didn't hear anyone from the Christian camp complaining about those before now, so stop claiming that you don't want the word coopted by the government or whomever; it's been that way for ages. Any posturing about it now is just to hide disapproval of homosexuality. If you believe that homosexuals or homosexuality is immoral or evil or whatever, stop hiding behind absurd semantics that never mattered under similar situations (by your argument) and admit that you don't want them to get married. Stop lying to us and to yourself.
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 10:10

Exactly. The words "separation of church and state" don't exist.

And by establisment, which of the following does it refer to?

- The act of forming something
- An organization founded and united for a specific purpose

Based on the religious backbone that our country was founded upon and flight from the strict government-imposed religion of England at the time of the Constitution's writing, I would have to lean towards the former.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 10:18

Uh, yeah. So, to restate in less Constitutional language: The government will not be allowed to make a law that promotes or restricts religion.

How is that not separating church and state? Just because it's easier to say one way than how it's actually worded in the document doesn't make it less true.

I suppose, technically, that means that the Executive or Judicial branch could have policies that support or restrict religion, but I think that's probably outside the spirit of what the amenders were trying to say.
Posted by: peter

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 10:20

And by "establishment", which of the following does it refer to?
"Establishment" is a technical term in religious circles, with the precise meaning of a state-supported church. Outlawing such state support would be a very popular policy among those constitutioneers who had seen the consequences of England's established church at that time, not to say the terrible conflicts that used to ensue every time someone disestablished one church and established a new one in its place.

Peter
Posted by: Daria

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 10:38

You're not reading the Bible as written; You're reading someone's translation. Even if everything could literally translate, you could still have problems because a person wrote down the translation and could easily have made a mistake in doing so.

And for some reason all I can think of is "Our Lady of Transliteration"
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 10:52

"Establishment" is a technical term in religious circles, with the precise meaning of a state-supported church.
Thank you! You'd be amazed at the number of people in the United States that think that this equates to "separation of church and state" in the sense that the government should be entirely secular.
Posted by: peter

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 10:57

Thank you! You'd be amazed at the number of people in the United States that think that this equates to "separation of church and state" in the sense that the government should be entirely secular.
*Shrug*. You'd be amazed at the number of people outside the United States who think that not every really good idea about how to run a fair and just society can necessarily be found in the US Constitution...

But even in the technical reading it does appear to say that the government shouldn't single out any one religion for special support.

Peter
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:03

But it also says that it should not restrict any religion, too. Supporting one or any group, unless all-inclusive, would inherently mean restricting the rest. And I won't get into my argument that functionally, it's impossible to support all religions equally, considering the huge influence of the Christian church. At best, it's frought with fractiousness, and is best avoided altogether.
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:08

You'd be amazed at the number of people outside the United States who think that not every really good idea about how to run a fair and just society can necessarily be found in the US Constitution...
Admittedly. I'm sure most people here would agree that government should be entirely secular (though I do not). I was just trying to point out that if they are interpreting the Constitution as saying that, they are making it say what they passionately believe it should say rather than what the original intent was. Its fine to believe that the government should be secular, just don't try to back it up with the Constitution. Of course the precedent has now been set in case law, so the point is moot anyway.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:11

You're not reading the Bible as written; You're reading someone's translation. Even if everything could literally translate, you could still have problems because a person wrote down the translation and could easily have made a mistake in doing so.


I agree 100%. And since I don't speak early aramaic, greek or hebrew, I'll have to live with the translation.

Problem is, since I'm assuming nobody else here has read an original first-edition of the bible, I really don't see your point. I think it would be obvious that we have to go with a translation. And the point is, the TRANSLATION is the version christians are using for their views. So it only makes sense to use that translation in any rebuttal.
Posted by: image

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:11

as they would both be capable of producing offspring
the point is, the enviornment for raising children is abolished. Both sexes plays different roles in upbringing, and any psychology book would tell you that a lack of either will mess the kid up pretty bad. look at all of the disfunctional homes resulting from divorce.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:12

You'd be amazed at the number of people outside the United States who think that not every really good idea about how to run a fair and just society can necessarily be found in the US Constitution...

You'd be amazed at the number of people inside the United States who think that not every really good idea about how to run a fair and just society can necessarily be found in the US Constitution...
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:14

Yet Christians also always argue, ``Well, the orginal text said ...''. See any of the agruments on this board about ``Thou shalt not kill.''
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:17

That would be discrimination.

Even if that was supposed to be humor, it was one of the most ignorant comments I have ever heard.

Since it's obvious you don't understand the word you used, let's show you a definition:

dis·crim·i·na·tion (n).

1 - The act of discriminating.
2 - The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3 - Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: (ex. racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners. )


You may want to note number three as especially meaningful here. Whether or not you like it, it's still discrimination even if the person isn't like you. And yes, even if they're gay.
Posted by: Laura

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:21

look at all of the disfunctional homes resulting from divorce


But does the result of the dysfunction come from being in an environment where the parents ofttimes hate each other and use the kids as weapons or from divorce itself. I would think that children brought up in a loving home, no matter the sexes of the parents, would have a better chance than a lot of kids out there.
Posted by: image

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:28

Even if everything could literally translate, you could still have problems because a person wrote down the translation and could easily have made a mistake in doing so.
take one of the oldest translated books. homer's illiad. you think that it should be discounted as a classic and thrown out because it has gone thru someone's translation and 3000 years of errant copying? no, we would expect that all the meanings would be well preserved, even today. now, granted that the illiad isn't the basis of anyone's beliefs, do you think scribes copying and others translating what they consider a holy book would take the utmost care to do it correctly? or even better, to take it up to something we all can relate to on this BBS... even IF there is an error, or there is a truth distorted intentionally, do you think that the peer review of other believers who read subsequently will not catch it? look at the open source movement.

bottom line, anyone who believes that the bible is the infallable Word of God would have faith that He would preserve it throughout the years.
Posted by: Chimaera

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:33

the enviornment for raising children is abolished

I don't see how.

Both sexes plays different roles in upbringing, and any psychology book would tell you that a lack of either will mess the kid up pretty bad


I think it is more likely to say that the lack of a balanced upbringing will result in a messed up kid, there will be nothing to say that one of the women taking on the gender role of a male and providing exactly the same upbring that a man would, would screw a kid up any more or less than actually having a man as a father. (and no I am not talking about trying to look like a man, I mean providing the same emotianal and disiplinary input a man would).

look at all of the disfunctional homes resulting from divorce.

Which is generally then a single parent family, resulting in half of the time and support a child would get from two parents regardless of gender.
Plus there is the emotional distress that a divorce places on children, which would not exist with two commited partners of any sex, so I think the divorce argument is a red herring and proves nothing either way.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:34

do you think scribes copying and others translating what they consider a holy book would take the utmost care to do it correctly?
No. I believe that they would insert their own political views, just as the original authors of the Bible did.
even IF there is an error, or there is a truth distorted intentionally, do you think that the peer review of other believers who read subsequently will not catch it
What peer review? There were a tiny number of people that could read those languages, and they were all employed by the church.
Posted by: ithoughti

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:35

Second... Marriage, in my opinion, was created as a partnership to create a family. If two people of the same sex do not have the ability to naturally create life of a child on their own.... well then they can't be married



Ugh. Jerz, this is not a personal attack I promise.

But this is the kind of backward, ignorant bullshit that I can't fucking stand.

Can't be married??? By who's law? Who the hell is a person to even have an opinion if a couple can get married or not? How does it effect YOUR LIFE IN ANY WAY? Give me one good reason that does not have a religious background.

So are you saying that if I marry a woman and don't have children (by choice or not) then the two of us don't have a family?

Please wake up to the 21st century and the last 2000 years of human evolution and realize that life is a process, we are not the same as 2000 years ago, and in order to survive humans must change. Opinions must change. We must redefine ourselves all the time, and understand that if we continue to hold on tight to what was relevant 200 or 2000 years ago, the only thing we do is hold ourselves back.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:36

Not to mention the gay men and women that enter loveless herero marriages in order to conform.
Posted by: image

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:39

``Well, the orginal text said ...''
common misconception is that very statement... truth is, we don't have the original text anymore. it was lost during the churh's persecution by Rome between 100-300 AD. so the oldest (but not necessarily the most preserved) is dated about 400. but we do have the writings of early church fathers, and they quoted a lot. it is said that from the quotes alone, you can reconstruct all of the new testament except for 17 lines. and the discovery of the dead sea scrolls also bolsters the claim that the texts are well preserved. direct comparison from the 2000 year old scrolls with today's tranlations show almost NO distortion in the old testament. [edit]took out the link, because i just realized that it pointed to a KJVonly site. stupid infighting within the church, along with creation vs theistic evolution.[/edit]
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:44

That's irrelevant to my argument. Now the Christians are arguing that the current translation is valid, when, in other circumstances, they claim it's not.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:49

Now the Christians are arguing that the current translation is valid, when, in other circumstances, they claim it's not.

They have to have this contradiction. It allows them to say that gay people don't deserve rights, and at the same time ignore the fact that the bible shows that their god disagrees with any disobedience to your "master" if you're a slave.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:52

Pick and choose, my friend, pick and choose.

Of course, in order to believe in any of the Bible you have to pick and choose, seeing as how it contradicts itself much of the time.
Posted by: belezeebub

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 11:55


Belezeebub comes out from behind the wood shed wearing a grass skirt and having finished teaseing the lawn mower.

I disagree between my mother and father I have been through 8 devorces and I came out just fine. no issues at all, completly normal.

Posted by: image

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 12:02

any disobedience to your "master" if you're a slave.
you forget the fact that God also intended that all slaves go free in seven years. over here, He defines slaves as someone selling himself to a master. is that what all of us working folk do today?

1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to
e done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow
Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother,
because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You
may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your
brother owes you. 4 However, there should be no poor among you, for in the
land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will
richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful
to follow all these commands I am giving you today. 6 For the LORD your
God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations
but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will
rule over you.

11 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land
that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted
toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him
whatever he needs. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: "The
seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near," so that you do not show
ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then
appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give
generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this
the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you
put your hand to. 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore
I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor
and needy in your land.

12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you
six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you
release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally
from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the
LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt
and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command
today (Deuteronomy 15:1-15).
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 12:08

Maybe you misunderstood... I wasn't talking about the Israelites and the Egyptians. I was talking about God and Christians.

Sure seems like a master / servant relationship to me.
Posted by: Jerz

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 12:20

Ugh. Jerz, this is not a personal attack I promise.


Can't be married??? By who's law?
In my opinion... the laws of nature.

Who the hell is a person to even have an opinion if a couple can get married or not?
Hey, don't get mad at me beacuse two male elephants can't produce offspring . I have no problems with civil unions; just believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

So are you saying that if I marry a woman and don't have children (by choice or not) then the two of us don't have a family?
No, not at all. Whether you have children or not is totally your choice.

in order to survive humans must change.
No, in order for the human race to survive it would need to reproduce. Reproducing takes a man and a woman.

<<<puts on flame suit and runs>>>
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 12:24

Of course, in order to believe in any of the Bible you have to pick and choose, seeing as how it contradicts itself much of the time.
Did anyone watching the "Firefly" episodes like the scene where River started "fixing" the Shepherd's bible? I cracked up. Even his response was cool in its own way.
Posted by: ithoughti

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 12:26

in order for the human race to survive it would need to reproduce


I guess I meant more like "survive intellectually" Personally I think that there are already to many of us.
Posted by: image

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 12:26

and the obligatory apolgetics link
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 13:00

Wow, amazing all the fun I’ve been missing! So many points to address, so here goes.

religion has no baring on this discussion
While marriage may not be religious in nature to everyone, there is no doubt that it is VERY religious to a lot of people. Therefore religion is necessarily part of the discussion.

Marriage does not belong to the church/Atheists get married all the time/etc.
True, but you can’t fault the church for being upset when a sacred tradition of the church gets redefined as something else. It necessarily means that one group is going to lose its concept of the word. Imagine if the government started giving benefits for those who have been baptized (never mind that this is a ridiculous example, the point is that baptism is a religious “rite” on par with marriage). Then the state decides to redefine baptism to include all those who’ve ever jumped in a swimming pool. Of course the church would object, saying the government has no right to redefine the term. This is the way the church feels about marriage. The church would claim the concept goes back to Adam and Even, the very beginnings of mankind, and that it was a religious institution then. Of course, the non-Church will disagree and there’s the rub. The bottom line is that it IS going to happen, and the Church IS going to feel betrayed by it. “State” marriage and “Church” marriage should have been separate concepts long ago, but they’re not, and that’s just the way it is.

The Old Testament Commanded the Killing of Homosexuals
It did, to the Jews at least. But there are three distinct parts of the OT Law. Some laws were ceremonial, relating to the worship practices to show honor to God. Some were governmental, relating to how peace was to be kept and what was lawful or unlawful for “God’s Chosen People”. The last type of law was moral law, which directly relates to the character God expected his people to have. The first two types of law do not directly correlate to today’s world because we are no longer in the Jewish religious or political systems. We are still, however, to obey the moral aspects, which dictate our character. In addition, while the first two parts of the law are not directly applicable, there are still things they tell us about the character of God, and those “moral” aspects must still be followed.

The penalty of death levied against many different sins (not just homosexuality) was a function of the governmental law of the Jewish people so it does not translate into today’s world under a secular (or at the very least, non-Jewish) rule. However, we can still understand that God views homosexual acts as sinful.

Separation of Church and State
The first amendment was put into place to protect the rights of churches and religious organization from persecution by the state. The state was not to enforce what people should/should not believe; it was up to the individual. Many Christians today feel that the first amendment has been twisted to mean that the state should be protected from the church; the reversal of what was intended. I think the amenders had every intention of religion affecting the governing of the United States.
In either case (denying or supporting same-sex marriage) the state is not interfering with the church. Church’s have been marrying same-sex couples for quite a while, and no ruling of the state is going to change that. Likewise the state will never tell a church that it must recognize a same-sex marriage if the church doesn’t want to.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 13:08

baring
bearing. You need to go back to Word.
marriage may not be religious in nature to everyone
Right. And for those people, religion should have no impact on it. If those gay people that want to get married religiously have issues with their churches about it, then they should take it up with their churches.
you can’t fault the church for being upset when a sacred tradition of the church gets redefined as something else
Perhaps not, but it happened over two hundred years ago, and has evolved away from the church ever since, largely without a peep. Too late now. Not to mention that marriage existed long before it was a Christian sacrament.
The Old Testament Commanded the Killing of Homosexuals
Irrelevant tangent, really. No one is proposing that we kill all the gay folks.
Separation of Church and State
Also a fairly irrelevant tangent. Howver, it does say, or at least strongly imply, that no church should surmount another. What if there was a church that promoted gay life as a positive? Would your Church overrule that? If so, why?
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 13:23

No. I believe that they would insert their own political views, just as the original authors of the Bible did.


Personal speculation, I presume?
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 13:29

You need to go back to Word.
Drat!
Irrelevant tangent, really.
True, just had to address the question.
Separation of Church and State
Also a fairly irrelevant tangent.
Yeah, which was actually my point.
What if there was a church that promoted gay life as a positive?
Well, in fact there are
Would your Church overrule that?
No, a church is free to do whatever it wants, including promoting homosexuality. And the state should stay out of it entirely. I'll bet we agree on that, even.

I've been mostly trying to give a "this is how this all feels from within the church" kind of persepctive. I haven't really commented on my position as much as my feelings. Honestly, I don't want same-sex marriages because I think it's going to be bad for our country in the end. However, if it's what the people of the U.S. want, we live in a free country where the people decide, not the law of God. The only control the church has over this is by guiding the morals of the people through influence, not by telling them what they legellay can and can't do. Many Christians argue for Legislative Morality, but I'm not one of them. Compliance with God's law is a heart issue, not one of law. Half of Paul's writing in the New Testament was to argue this very concept. Or at least that's my take.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 13:40

Now we're back on track. I mean, I think it's fair for religion to influence people who influence our government, I suppose. There's obviously some sort of limit at what level that can occur. You can certainly vote for things based on your religious beliefs, but a President creating a Doctrine based on religious beliefs would be wrong, I think. I'm not sure where that line lies, but it's there somewhere. Regardless, that's all tangential.

How would it be ``bad for our country''? Do you think that the legal recognition of gay marriage will create more gay people? If so, how does more gay people equate to badness? If so, why do you think more gay people will be created? Will they be turned by the lure of legitimate homosexuality? If they would, wouldn't they be gay anyway, just repressing? And wouldn't it be preferable to avoid making those people's lives miserable? Wouldn't it be better to allow them to be as happy as possible rather than confining them?
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 13:57

<thunderous applause for Bitt>
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 13:58

Disclaimer: It goes without saying (yet I’ll say it anyway) that these are my personal beliefs here, and I don’t expect others to agree or hold them just because I do.
How would it be ``bad for our country''?
I think that God blesses and punishes countries based on how they follow the moral code that He has outlined. So by publicly promoting something against His precepts, we (the US) are turning away from Him with our actions.
wouldn't they be gay anyway, just repressing?
I think that not all behavior that we are inclined toward is healthy. Case in point: I was very inclined toward sexual activity during my teenage and college years, yet I abstained until I was married. I feel that this was a very healthy denial of my urges and has yielded great benefits. Now granted this is not the same situation because I was denying my impulses for a time where a homosexual would be denying impulses for their entire lives, but the principal of denying what “feels right” is there. I do have struggles with sin that I fight every day that will likely continue until the day I die. God rewards me for my resistance to sin, and is forgiving when I fall. What I must not do is commit blatant sin and expect it to be overlooked or condoned.
And wouldn't it be preferable to avoid making those people's lives miserable? Wouldn't it be better to allow them to be as happy as possible rather than confining them?
Happiness is nice, but it is not the end goal for which humans should aspire, at least in my mind. I’ve seen way too many people pursue happiness and fall deeper and deeper into depression. The happiest people I’ve ever met are those who deny themselves all of their desires and instead pursue the things of God. I know that doesn’t track with your worldview, but it’s been a consistent theme through people I’ve observed and my own experiences.
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 13:59

(sorry to pull back to a tangent)

I'd posit that the separation of church and state was as much, if not more, for the protection of the state _from_ the church(es).

-Zeke
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 14:20

I think that God blesses and punishes countries ...
Okay, so, magic. I have a hard time arguing against that.
Posted by: DLF

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 14:36

... any psychology book would tell you that a lack of either will mess the kid up pretty bad.
As the only child of an only child, both raised solely by my grandmother, I'm either a stunning example or exception to this rule, depending on how you feel about me, I guess.
Posted by: DLF

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 15:00

Happiness is nice, but it is not the end goal for which humans should aspire, at least in my mind. I’ve seen way too many people pursue happiness and fall deeper and deeper into depression. The happiest people I’ve ever met are those who deny themselves all of their desires and instead pursue the things of God.
Your last point is exactly why I agree with your first point; I don't want to be one of those "shiny, happy people."
Posted by: DLF

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 15:26

Now, make mine a Guinness and the next rounds on me.
What about the Biblical prohibitions on the grog?
Posted by: m6400

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 15:40

What about the Biblical prohibitions on the grog?

Jesus drank, that's good enough for me. We are cautioned very strongly not to become drunk (mainly because it can lead to other acts which we should not do) and I have never been drunk.
Posted by: bbowman

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 16:15

As far as I'm concerned, if the state/country allows same sex marriages, it has nothing to do with the religions. It's not like the government is requiring the churches to marry gay people. The religions should just mind their own business - the souls of their practitioners

All Christian/Judaic/islamic mythology aside, I believe that gay people should not be banned from marriage - just like mixed race marriages shouldn't be. I believe that those who oppose gay marraige are just like the bigots who opposed interacial marriage. They are just behind and lack social progress.

I don't believe that Children are a requirement for marraige - they are a requirement for parenthood which is another challenge altogether. Plenty of people have children out of "Wedlock" but they are still children and "legitimate" human beings.

If Gay people want to adopt, that is fine too. I know many gay people who would make great parents. Being a child of gay parents doesn't make the children gay (as if that were a bad thing). Most gay people were born of hetero parents and they did not turn out hetero

It is important to take a step back to see the real issues at play here and not let mythology influence how we treat others.

my 2 cents.
ex-mormon, ex-minister, atheist
Posted by: brendanhoar

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 16:44

> and the discovery of the dead sea scrolls also bolsters the
> claim that the texts are well preserved. direct comparison
> from the 2000 year old scrolls with today's tranlations
> show almost NO distortion in the old testament.

Wait. I've read that the dead sea scrolls showed that books/chapters had been removed from the bible proper. Doesn't that prove that editing out of "politically problematic" text happened?

-brendan
Posted by: brendanhoar

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 16:51

>> The Old Testament Commanded the Killing of Homosexuals
> Irrelevant tangent, really. No one is proposing that we kill all the gay folks.

Actually quite relevant. When political systems relegate certain disliked people to second class status, that can be the beginning. Sometimes it's only a matter of time...

There's a rather ugly example of that in Europe in the mid 20th century. Yellow stars, pink triangles, etc.

-brendan
Posted by: brendanhoar

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 16:54

> I think that God blesses and punishes countries based on how they follow the moral code that He has outlined.

Ok, this is over the top. A pious person living in an evil country would be punished for living there? God punishes people who have evil neighbors?

-brendan
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 17:00

I'd posit that the separation of church and state was as much, if not more, for the protection of the state _from_ the church(es).
If this were the case, the limitation would be on the church, not the government.
Posted by: ninti

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 17:49

> If this were the case, the limitation would be on the church, not the government.

Care to elaborate, because I am not following your argument. The fact is that many of the founding fathers were extremely critical of organized religion, from Jefferson to Adams to Franklin and many more. The separation of Church and State (a phrase which Jefferson coined) was meant to stop goverment from sanctioning a particular religion. I am sure they meant at the time any Christian demonination, but it is nice how it neatly applies to all religions in general. Having the goverment say marriage means what the Christians want it to mean goes against everything this country was founded on like tolerance and freedom, and is wrong. Simple as that.
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 19:03

The fact is that many of the founding fathers were extremely critical of organized religion, from Jefferson to Adams to Franklin and many more.


To be precise, they were critical of state-run organized religion, and not organized religion in and of itself. If this had been the case, these founding fathers would have had nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 19:14

Care to elaborate, because I am not following your argument.
The purpose of the first amendment was to restrict what government could do to religion. Government did not have the power to tell one religion is was wrong and another it was right. This protects the church from government control. If the state were to enforce one relgion, it would not be the church controlling the state, but the state controlling the religion.
Having the goverment say marriage means what the Christians want it to mean goes against everything this country was founded on like tolerance and freedom
I haven't said that I think the government should say marriage means what Christians say it means. I've merely said that it is frustrating when the concept is defined differently by the government than what the church has defined it as. But in this country, the people rule (not the church), ans so marraige means what the people of the country say it means, not the church. As Bitt said and I tried to point out, separation of church and state is tangental to the issue of same-sex marriage. I think religion is involved in the discussion because it is an aspect of the church that Christians hold very stronly to, but that doesn't mean I think Christians should always get their way about things.
Posted by: ninti

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 20:17

Cybjorg said:
> To be precise, they were critical of state-run organized religion, and not organized religion in and of itself.

Some were of that opinion and stopped there, such as Paine and Madison. Others, such as Jefferson and Franklin, held a much more absolute opinion on the subject and were critical or dismissive of all organized religions in any way. They were theists, believing in a Christian God, but were very anti-church:

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
- Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119

Others, like Washington, apparently were not religious at all and very ambivalent in a belief in God.

FerretBoy said:
If the state were to enforce one relgion, it would not be the church controlling the state, but the state controlling the religion.

If the state were to enforce the one religion, it would be the church controlling the state as well. Look at the places in the world where this is the case. The admonishment for government to stay out of religious affairs protects both the goverment and religion. I wish religious people would realize this, but a lot seem to think it is perfectly ok for the state to endorse religion, as long as it is their religion.

As Bitt said and I tried to point out, separation of church and state is tangental to the issue of same-sex marriage. I think religion is involved in the discussion because it is an aspect of the church that Christians hold very stronly to[...]

Well, I have to disgaree that this is a tangent. I believe it goes to the very heart of the matter, as it does in the case of abortion as well. For the most part, the only people opposed to these issues are religious (i.e. Christians), and only because their bible tells them these are bad things. This issue is purely about Christians trying to force the law to make something that they don't approve of, for religious reasons, illegal for anyone regardless of their personal faith. Marriage does not belong to the Christian church and I am sick of people making believe it does. Marriage is a rite in ALL religions, and existed well before anyone ever heard of Jehovah or Jesus.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 21:17

They were theists
I believe the word you're looking for there is ``deist''.

The religious basis for their beliefs is tangential because it makes no difference why people believe that homosexuals should be second class citizens. As long their bigotry is pointed out and accepted, it makes no difference to the government why they are that way. If most of the populous is bigoted in the same way, then that's the way the cookie crumbles.

It might be important to note that Jefferson was also a meritocratist.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 21:40

This issue is purely about Christians trying to force the law to make something that they don't approve of, for religious reasons, illegal for anyone regardless of their personal faith.
You're right that Christians are trying to produce a system of laws that align with their values. This is not wrong. That's all anyone is trying to do. However we come to our system of values, all anyone is trying to do is have those values reflected in the laws that govern the land. This has nothing to do with a separation of church and state. If the people of the U.S. decide that same-sex marriage should not be legal, then that is what the government should support, regardless of the rationale behind the sentament. Likwise, if the people decide that same-sex marriage should be legal, then again that is the choice of the government, regardless of the church.

Religion is involved because it drives many of the beliefs that produce laws, but that is hardly the same as saying the church is trying to control the government. The United States is supposed to be a nation where the people choose, and that means we get to choose with any rational that we want, be it faith or any other reason. Sure, the government could decide to throw out the will of the people in favor of "tolerence", "enlightment", "righteousness" or any other concept, but that wouldn't be the consistent with values this nation was founded on. It is the people who are "tolerant", "enlightened," "righteouss," etc. not the government.
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 21:52

FerretBoy said:

If the state were to enforce one relgion, it would not be the church controlling the state, but the state controlling the religion.


Ninti's reply:

If the state were to enforce the one religion, it would be the church controlling the state as well. Look at the places in the world where this is the case. The admonishment for government to stay out of religious affairs protects both the goverment and religion. I wish religious people would realize this, but a lot seem to think it is perfectly ok for the state to endorse religion, as long as it is their religion.


Ninti - well said indeed.

-Zeke
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 21:55

I think that God blesses and punishes countries based on how they follow the moral code that He has outlined. So by publicly promoting something against His precepts, we (the US) are turning away from Him with our actions.

But doesn't this beg the question: If homosexuality is so much "against His precepts", then why did He choose to make some people homosexual?

Before you try and tell me that a person's sexual orientation is a matter of choice, and those people who "decide" to become homosexuals are acting against His wishes... I want you to tell me just when it was that YOU made the decision to be heterosexual.

tanstaafl.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 22:02

Even if everything could literally translate, you could still have problems because a person wrote down the translation and could easily have made a mistake in doing so.

I can't help thinking of the joke... the Monk is down in the cellar, verifying by candlelight that the newly finished transcription is a perfect copy of the original. Tears are streaming from his eyes, he's beating his fists on the table, saying: "Celebrate. The word was CELEBRATE!"

tanstaafl.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 22:11

But doesn't this beg the question: If homosexuality is so much "against His precepts", then why did He choose to make some people homosexual?
First, great question, especially since it'd have been so easy to blast me on the obviously charged point of my post.

My answer (again, firmly from my worldview- my arguments don't make a great deal of sense outside of a biblical perspective): We live in a fallen world where things aren't as they should be. In a perfect world there would be no homosexualty, no drukenness, no lust, no temptation, no violence, no war, no slavery, etc. This is the product of the apple incident in the garden and Adam's choice of self over God. That's the theology behind my worldview.

Why did God alow sin in the first place? Many speculate, but I think (as do many others) that it is to give humans freewill. We have to choose between sin or God in order to make a choice in God a real choice.

You see, being a homosexual is not a sin. Committing homosexual acts is. Desiring sex is not wrong. Having sex with someone who is not your spouse is. We all have struggles because we're imperfect humans in an imperfect world. It is this struggle of choosing between sin and God that we all must endure for the sake of freewill. And guess what? I sin all the time. Yet I don't blame God for making me capable of it, I blame myself for choosing the world over God. Yet He is forgiving of my mistakes, as equally as he is of someone who engages in homosexual activity, steals, lies, or commits any other sin. It is the human condition that we sin; the question is how we deal with it. Do we look the other way or do we turn to God for forgiveness?

Note: This post created directly in the BBS for your viewing pleasure.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 22:12

I can't help thinking of the joke... the Monk is down in the cellar, verifying by candlelight that the newly finished transcription is a perfect copy of the original. Tears are streaming from his eyes, he's beating his fists on the table, saying: "Celebrate. The word was CELEBRATE!"
LOL
Posted by: brendanhoar

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 23:19

Speaking of CELEBRATE, sometimes pictures can say more than a thousand words:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/queso/310987.html

I actually got all choked up while I was reading that posting.

-brendan
Posted by: webroach

Re: Same-sex marriage - 19/02/2004 23:29

I think you just ended the argument.
Posted by: lectric

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 00:41

How could this end the argument? Even after having read that, I still believe homosexual acts to be a sin. Don't get me wrong, it isn't an unpardonable one. What I define a sin as is anything that causes a person to stray from God's will. For the record, no one sin is greater than another. A lie is the same as murder to God. The logic being that God is a perfect being. ANYTHING that is imperfect is not up to God's standards. There are no degrees of perfection. Either you are or you aren't. The only thing that saves us is God's grace and the fact that Jesus Christ paid the blood debt for our sins on the cross. A perfect man took the blame for all of my sins. Past, present, and future. He took the blame for all of your sins as well. The trick is that you have to accept the forgiveness and grace.

I am the first to tell you that though I believe homosexuality to be wrong, I am no better than anyone else out there. Seeing a large number of people sinning does not diminish the fact that I believe it is a sin.

I also believe that homosexuals can be saved just as easily as I was. The main difference is that striving to not lie, cheat, or steal is a bit easier than trying to deny sexual urges. Compound that with the fact that being gay affects many parts of your lifestyle as a whole. It is very difficult to be able to control something this pervasive, even if one had the desire to. Deciding to try and not lie is a lot easier than deciding to try not having homosexual sex. The former affects only the person making the decision. The latter affects those around the person. Especially if we are talking about the partner of said person.

Now, to tackle the idea that God punishes one for his neighbors actions, look into the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I wager we can all guess the nature of sin Sodom was punished for.

Again, I want to make it perfectly clear that these are simply my beliefs, and I understand that my beliefs more than likely don't match up with yours and that's fine. But understand, you are as likely to change my mind about this as I am of changing yours. It is never going to happen. And you know what? That's OK.
Posted by: brendanhoar

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 02:00

> I wager we can all guess the nature of sin
> Sodom was punished for.

My understanding was that they were punished for worshipping a god other than yaweh (granted, part of the worshop was via a whole bunch of sexual rites, including homosexuality among others). Over time, the nature of the translations have changed to target homosexuality in specific, but that just shows bigotry by rewriters of the christian bibles.

-brendan
Posted by: andy

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 05:54

Having sex with someone who is not your spouse is.

Can you point me to the verse(s) that say sex outside of marriage is a sin ? I know there are verses that say adultery is a sin, but I'd like to see ones that say sex outside of marriage is sinful.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 06:59

Can you point me to the verse(s) that say sex outside of marriage is a sin ?
There aren't any, near as I can tell. I was referring to adultery in my post.

As for sex before marriage, there wouldn't be reference to it in the bible because in Jewish culture of the time there wasn't a question that sex before marriage was a bad thing. So I think the only way you'd see reference to it would be if the norm needed to be challenged. However, arguments from silence are bad and so I won't try to make one. I will say that based on what I perceive the marriage covenant to be (from scripture), I think extreme emotional and physical intimacy should be reserved for that relationship alone. However, I must admit that there is a fair degree of my interpretation going into this, and I can understand how someone might come to a different conclusion.
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 07:02

Others, like Washington, apparently were not religious at all and very ambivalent in a belief in God.


History tells us that on frequent occasions, Washington paid homage publicly to the God of all nations and earnestly exhorted his soldiers and his fellow countrymen to "express our grateful acknowledgements to God, for the manifold blessings he has granted to us."

For further reference, see his general thanks to God fo December 18, 1777. Also note his personal note to Rev. Israel Evans, Chaplain to Poor's New Hampshire Brigade in 1778, in which he states in writing the first wish of his heart is "to inculcate a due sense of the dependence we ought to place in that All wise and powerful Being on whom alone our Success depends."

I have yet to read a historian who stated that Washington was not a man of faith and prayer.

Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.
Posted by: andy

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 07:11

As for sex before marriage, there wouldn't be reference to it in the bible because in Jewish culture of the time there wasn't a question that sex before marriage was a bad thing.

Are you saying that no one had sex before marriage in Biblical times? Or are you saying that sex before marriage was already frowned throughout the whole Eastern Mediterranean so that Jesus, Paul et al didn't need to mention it ?

I'd don't buy it that on such a key area of human sexuality there would be no mention of it if it were outlawed by God.
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 07:24

My understanding was that they were punished for worshipping a god other than yaweh (granted, part of the worshop was via a whole bunch of sexual rites, including homosexuality among others).


The Bible states that the men of Sodom were "exceedingly wicked and sinful against the LORD" (Gen. 13:13), and that there were not even ten who were considered righteous in the entire city (Gen. 18:16-33). You are correct in saying that the city of Sodom was not destroyed specifically because of homosexuality. However, homosexuality did abound, so much so that it is mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 19:5). I am not aware of any translation that states that Sodom was specifically destroyed because of the abundance of homosexuality.
Posted by: julf

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 07:49

I haven't said that I think the government should say marriage means what Christians say it means. I've merely said that it is frustrating when the concept is defined differently by the government than what the church has defined it as. But in this country, the people rule (not the church), ans so marraige means what the people of the country say it means, not the church.


Just as a point of reference, here in Holland the state doesn't even recognize the church part of marriage. To get married, you *have* to do a civil marriage (typically at the town hall), and then, if you want to, you can also have a religious ceremony of whatever form - but only the civil part counts in the eye of the law.

On the other hand, if you explicitly don't want to or can get married, not even civil, you have the option of making a "living together agreement", agreeing the rights to common property etc - this can even be an arrangement between siblings who happen to be living together.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 07:58

Are you saying that no one had sex before marriage in Biblical times? Or are you saying that sex before marriage was already frowned throughout the whole Eastern Mediterranean so that Jesus, Paul et al didn't need to mention it?
The latter, with respect to the Jewish culture they were speaking to at any rate.
I'd don't buy it that on such a key area of human sexuality there would be no mention of it if it were outlawed by God.
Well now you're making an argument from silence. I'm certain there are plenty of sins that are not covered explicitly in the Bible; it isn’t a laundry list of what and what not to do. Rather it gives us principles to follow, and one of those principles is that a marriage between a man and a woman is to be exclusive and special, deeper and more intimate that any other relationship we can have as human beings. In fact, marriage is used as an illustration for our relationship with God several times throughout the scripture. But it is something of a matter of interpretation whether sex before marriage is a violation of this special intimacy.
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 08:18

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society.


...if you have your way.

Sorry, I couldn't give a rat's *** about anyone's religious arguments in support of their bigotry, historical, scriptural or otherwise. These people aren't harming you any more than a Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Daoist, Pagan, or Mormon couple's marriage harms you. Their marriages rites, rituals, beliefs differ from yours, but you say that it's only the Homosexual's marriage that you must forbid, or at least forbid the title if not the benefits.

I don't mean that to be a flame or a rant, but I'm not sure I can put it any other way.

-Zeke
Posted by: andy

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 08:20

The latter, with respect to the Jewish culture they were speaking to at any rate.

Much of the New Testament was not aimed at people with a Jewish background though. It was aimed at Greeks, Romans etc Did the Greeks and Romans also frown on sex before marriage ?

Well now you're making an argument from silence.

No, I'm just pointing out that those Christians that lecture teenagers on the fact that sex before marriage is evil have no evidence to base their "rules" on. Yes the Bible says lots about how precious and special about marriage, but it doesn't say that this special and preciousness is specfically to do with sex. There is a lot more to marriage than sex after all.

There is plenty of evidence in the Bible to allow you to preach that adultery is wrong, but I see no justification for Christians that rile againt pre-marriage sex and claim that there is Biblical backup to their claims.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 08:35

What I define a sin as is anything that causes a person to stray from God's will. For the record, no one sin is greater than another.


I tried to keep my mouth shut, but this line got me. I think what bothers me most, is how can anyone pretend to know what the will of "God" is? Much less judge others and tell them they are wrong, simply because some book written thousands of years ago re-written a million times says so. Has anyone ever heard their "god" say homosexuality is wrong? I very seriously doubt it. Is it the same belief system that says when priests mollest children it's pardonable because they ask "god" for forgiveness?

So gay marriage is wrong because "god" says so, I'm sorry thats the same excuse some serial killers use. That mentallity is the same mentallity that causes people to strap bombs to themselves and kill innocents. This is my whole beef with organized religion. This is why my religious friends still refer to me as atheist when I repeatedly tell them that I believe in a creator just not you Christian god.

You want to be Christian and celebrate your religion go for it. But don't push it on those who don't follow, and don't pretend Christianity has a lockhold on the definition of marriage, marriage has been around a hell of a lot longer then Christianity it's not like your religion has a patent on it. If two people love one another and feel deeply enough to make a lifelong commitment, I think thats great.
Posted by: bbowman

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 08:39

As for sex before marriage, there wouldn't be reference to it in the bible because in Jewish culture of the time there wasn't a question that sex before marriage was a bad thing.


Do you mean to say that there was a question whether adultery was a bad thing or not. I find it difficult to believe that your typical jewish guy thought it was OK to screw around on his wife, but not to screw around when single.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 08:42

Do you mean to say that there was a question whether adultery was a bad thing or not.
No, that's not what I was meaning to say. Adultery is clearly spelled out as wrong; the ambiguity is whether sex outside of marriage is a violation of the marriage covenant.
Posted by: peter

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 09:07

I'm certain there are plenty of sins that are not covered explicitly in the Bible; it isn’t a laundry list of what and what not to do.
The New Testament isn't, but surely the Torah was?

And if nobody in Christ's society had sex outside marriage, then it's no surprise that the prostitutes he was always trying to rehabilitate had problems -- they can't have been making any money.

Peter
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 09:17

The New Testament isn't, but surely the Torah was?
Parts of, yes. There ARE lists, I'll grant you that, but even the Torah must be viewed within the context in which it was given.
And if nobody in Christ's society had sex outside marriage
Ok, I give up on this point! All I was trying to say was that I can easily see the reason for not including explicit instruction about sex outside of marriage. My conviction on this point does not come from direct biblical instruction but rather my interpretation of the principles of marriage.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 09:21

Much less judge others and tell them they are wrong, simply because some book written thousands of years ago re-written a million times says so.
It’s as valid a reason as any other. We all decide what we think is “good” and what we think is “bad”. My view of good and bad comes from the bible and yours doesn’t. Clearly you believe your source of ethics to be superior to mine; I can accept that. I don’t agree, but I can respect that your opinion is different than mine.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 09:35

Well, let's take it to another level. Why aren't you lobbying the government to make it illegal to say "God damn it" or to disrespect one's parents or to have a religion other than Judaism or Christianity (or Islam) or any of the other things that the Bible says are sins that are not illegal? Why have you chosen this one point to harp on?
Posted by: lopan

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 09:41

Clearly you believe your source of ethics to be superior to mine

No not superior, you've often shown to be very level headed when speaking of this kind of stuff. I didn't intend that to be an attack on Christianity or your beliefs in general. It probably seemed that way, but that particular post hit a nerve, so I appologize. I realize you probably feel it's wrong according to your belief system, which is OK. I just feel it's wrong that such a large group of people (Christian) would have a bearing on the legality of something that doesn't really have an impact on them.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 09:54

I guess my biggest question to Christians is, why should this be illegal? Religion aside, give me reasons other then what god says (which is a church/state thing). If it's simply due to your religious beliefs I say your arguments are pretty much pointless because this is a country built on freedom of religion, is it not? And my other question would be, why does it bother Christians so much? If your a Christian and want to remain a Christian you wouldn't think about coming out of the closet or expect to go to a regular church with your life partner (or whatever same sex partners are called).
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 10:08

Why aren't you lobbying the government to make it illegal to say "God damn it" or to disrespect one's parents or to have a religion other than Judaism or Christianity (or Islam) or any of the other things that the Bible says are sins that are not illegal?
Honestly, I’d love to live in a place that was manufactured to my belief system. And I do think that when people of our nation sin it is bad for the nation as a whole. However, I don’t buy into Legislative Morality, where people act moral because the law tells them to. While I want and strive for a government that reflects my values, I also understand that those values are ultimately only realized when individuals share them, not when they are forced to obey them.
Why have you chosen this one point to harp on?
In fact I don’t feel that I am harping on this one point. I have tried to explain why Christians feel that the term marriage is getting redefined out from under them, why I wish that homosexuals weren’t getting married, and how I think this is going to adversely affect our nation in the long run. But all of this has been in response to questions raised by people on the BBS (including yourself) who seemed interested in another perspective. If I have “lobbied” at all against homosexual marriage, it has been to try and turn people’s hearts toward the God of the bible so that they may love and honor Him and find salvation. Yes I’d vote against allowing homosexual marriage because that is my chance to voice what I think would be good for this country, but I hold the law as only a reflection of values that begin within the hearts of people, so it is hearts that I strive to change. And even at that, I don’t go around telling people not to be homosexuals; instead I tell them about my faith in Jesus Christ.
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 10:10

Can you point me to the verse(s) that say sex outside of marriage is a sin ? I know there are verses that say adultery is a sin, but I'd like to see ones that say sex outside of marriage is sinful.
1 Corinthians 6:18, Galatians 5:19, 1 Thessalonians 4:3 and others depending on how you translate the greek "porneia". Historically it has been translated to mean various kinds of sexual immorality, including, but not limited to adultery, homosexual sex, bestiality, incest, prostitution, idolatry and generally sex with anyone other than your marriage partner. An honest treatment of the Bible's teachings on marriage and fidelity as well as a look of the culture of the time of Christ constrains me to believe that this would include premarital sex.
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 10:14

Well said, FerretBoy
Posted by: image

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 10:33

Why aren't you lobbying the government to make it illegal to say "God damn it"
i just wanted to comment how using God's name to curse someone or something has more weight than any other diety in the US, believer or not. Don't really hear anyone say "Buddah damn it" or Allah damn it" much. Its funny because everytime i hear someone doing so, i just want to go up to them and say "You're a believer? No? But you just called upon God right now! Didn't you just comfirm that God exists?" Nothing really constructive to the matter at hand, so don't mind me :-)
Posted by: image

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 11:03

plus you can make an inference from the Sermon on the Mount.
27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not commit adultery.'
28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Now, you can't have sex without lust, so having sex with anyone that isn't your spouse is basically adultery, inside or outside of marriage.
Posted by: lectric

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 11:38

OK, yes, I believe that mollestation is just as pardonable as homosexuality which is just as pardonable as greed. That is precisely what I believe. There should be some comfort in the knowledge that we all sin. No matter how big or little. The fact is, nobody's perfect. Again it all goes back to forgiveness. I am not going to sit here and tell you that I think all homosexuals are going to hell. I don't believe that. We are all just as capable of asking for forgiveness as the next guy. Please don't take what I'm saying to mean trhat I think I'm better than anyone else. Precisely the opposite. I am trying to relay that we ALL sin, and the nature of the sin matters little to God.

That being said, the consequences for different sins are NOT all the same. Some sins are far more destructive than others and it is the consequences rather than necessarily punishment. The whole point of "God's plan for your life" is that its purpose it to make you happy. By helping you avoid behavior that brings bad consequences, you lead a simpler, happier life.
Posted by: andy

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 11:57

1 Corinthians 6:18

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body. but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."

Galatians 5:19

"The acts of sinful nature are obvious: sexually immorality, impurity and debauchery..." etc, etc,

1 Thessalonians 4:3

"It is Gods will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality"

(the notes in my NIV study bible say of 1 Thes 4:3 "In the first century moral standards were generally very low, and chasity was regarded as an unreasonable restriction."

So it all comes down to guessing what Paul meant by sexual immorality then?

Given that the churches he was writing to had a climate where pre-martial sex was probably the lowest rung of the sexual immorality ladder (apparently the Greek verb "to Corinthianise" came to mean "to practice sexual immorality"), I find it odd that people think they can guess what Paul meant by that single word and therefore outlaw any form of sex outside of marriage.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 12:05

I understand what your saying, I just don't get "why" it's considered an offense, what about transgendered people? If two people love one another and cleary don't like the opposite sex why is it bad for them to choose to be happy?

Heres an example, a guy I went to school with in a small town, well his parents faught all the time, she was clearly depressed and over the years gained so much weight she was very, very unhealthy. Every Sunday the couple is in church (my church), very religious people. He too (the father)was depressed, the son always had issues, for years this family is suffering. So basically the minute the guy graduates and is off to college, the parents seperate, the father comes out of the closet, appears to be happier then he's ever been. She looses practically all her weight meets a different guy whom she's actually compatible with and every party envolved was visibly changed for the better, except for the kid who got raised in a totally sterile environment void of love.

The church asks the guy to please not come back til your straight again, and he pretty much tells them to get bent.

So basically you've got a couple that are miserable, and one individual that fights his sexuality to conform to the will of the church and so his kid doesn't get made fun of at school. These people were miserable for well over 20 years simply because the guy is gay.

So I have to ask, is it a sin to make everyone in your family miserable because you clearly prefer men? I'd have to say, just from a logical standpoint, that it's more of a sin to stay in a situation that damages everyone in your family.
Posted by: julf

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 12:16

I just wanted to comment how using God's name to curse someone or something has more weight than any other diety in the US

Yes, because in the mix that produced the current American culture, Cristians of some form or another were the majority, or rather, the most powerful group. But that's just cultural heritage - how many people are actally aware of their religious significance of what they utter when they curse?
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Same-sex marriage - 20/02/2004 21:07

You see, being a homosexual is not a sin. Committing homosexual acts is. Desiring sex is not wrong. Having sex with someone who is not your spouse is.

So... let's allow the gay people to be spouses, and then everyone will be happy.

A flip answer, I know, and really not deserving of the thought and effort you have put into this thread.

However, I am not comfortable with what I perceive as hair splitting on your part. "Being a homosexual is not a sin" OK, we're in (rare) agreement there. "Committing homosexual acts is [a sin]." But committing homosexual acts, particularly in your fundamentalist (and I do not use that word with any disparaging intent!) world view, is the very definition of homosexuality. Do you see the contradiction there?

Are you suggesting that God wants homosexuals to lead lives of misery and deprivation, denying in themselves the very strong desires for love and companionship common to all mankind, indeed, imbued within mankind by God Himself?

Are you saying that at some time in our lives we all chose our sexual preferences, and that homosexuals just made the wrong choice?

Nobody chooses their sexual orientation. Well, perhaps from your point of view that is incorrect: a person's sexual orientation is chosen by God. It does not seem reasonable that the "proper" (that is, less sinful) course of action is to defy that sexuality that was determined by God Himself.

tanstaafl.
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Same-sex marriage - 21/02/2004 01:47

Well, I honestly can't find the verse that says this, either. I mean, the clearest verse I can find regarding that is the one in Leviticus...
Also note Leviticus. 20:13,
For all intents and purposes, that's the same person, saying the same thing, which, as someone pointed out earlier, was Judaic law, as opposed to Christian law. Supposing that is part of Christian law though, how come Christians aren't out killing bunches of people, which is what God said was required? How many Christians also keep kosher, which is also described in Leviticus? How many Christians also sacrifice animals, another of requirement of God in Leviticus? Leviticus also appears to suggest that giving birth is a sin, since it requires the women to give a "sin offering" after a certain length of time has passed from the birth. Ever shave? Get a tattoo (or even just draw on yourself with a pen)? Those are also against the Law according to Leviticus. That book is chock full of things that the majority of Christians now ignore. How is it that Christians find it okay to pick and choose which of God's laws they keep?

In addition to that, I've read other accounts that suggest that the original Hebrew words used, and the later Greek translations, meant a ritual impurity, rather than a violation of law or sin.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Which says nothing specific about homosexuality, and applies equally between homosexuality, andheterosexuality.

Romans 1:26-28
The original words used by Paul in this section were also used to describe himself, due to following Christ, as well as using the words to describe God. From what I understand, he was talking about society as a whole, but, that through Christ, such "societal repugnance" didn't matter.

So basically, it all comes down to whose interpretation of the Bible is "correct", and, since no-one currently has an indisputably direct connection to the red phone sitting on God's desk, no-one can speak with authority as to which is the correct interpretation. One viable interpretation can be no more valid than any other viable interpretation.
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Same-sex marriage - 21/02/2004 02:08

Can't be married??? By who's law?
In my opinion... the laws of nature.
Then you have no basis, at all, in disallowing gays to be married, since homosexuality is well documented amongst animals (including a case of non-consensual homosexual necrophilia between two mallards). It's far from rare in animals, and it's far from rare in humans. I assure you, not a single gay person I know has chosen to be gay, given the ridicule and etc. that they have to deal with. (Not being gay, I can't speak in the first person, but I do ask gay friends that question, because I want to know.) Ergo, your "law" is not a "law" in the least bit.


Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Same-sex marriage - 21/02/2004 02:29

If the people of the U.S. decide that same-sex marriage should not be legal, then that is what the government should support, regardless of the rationale behind the sentament. Likwise, if the people decide that same-sex marriage should be legal, then again that is the choice of the government, regardless of the church.
But long time ago, the people of the US decided that all are created equal, and that discrimination should not be tolerated. That trumps all else. Or should we still allow slavery, and deny women the right to vote?
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Same-sex marriage - 21/02/2004 02:33

You see, being a homosexual is not a sin. Committing homosexual acts is. Desiring sex is not wrong. Having sex with someone who is not your spouse is.
If you say that, and you also believe that gays should not be allowed to be married, it sounds like what you're saying is that you want to deny people the opportunity to not sin (or, at the very least, to decrease the amount of sinning that they do). That doesn't seem to be a very Christian attitude.
Posted by: image

Re: Same-sex marriage - 22/02/2004 19:31

Which says nothing specific about homosexuality, and applies equally between homosexuality, andheterosexuality.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
-1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"
-1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)
These three references indicate that homosexual passions and acts are unnatural, shameful, contrary to sound doctrine and deny entrance to the Kingdom of God. This being so they cannot be the basis of a Christian marriage sanctioned by God's Church. The Church exists to save people, not to bless the means of their damnation. No marriage can be sanctioned by the Church if the very basis of the marriage involves acts that put the couple outside of eternal salvation. No matter what our society may legislate, the law of God is clear - that a marriage is not a godly marriage if it is a same sex union.
-pulled from a Christian website.

unless there's another meaning for sodomites, then i think that it's very clear.
Posted by: brendanhoar

Re: Same-sex marriage - 22/02/2004 20:23

> unless there's another meaning for sodomites, then i think that it's very clear.

Ah, yes, the NEW King James Version.

Heh. Notably, the reference was to homosexuals as *separate* from sodomites.

And also: are you (or rather, is the xtian site) saying that theives cannot be married? Nor liars? If the conclusion is that those things make you ungodly, and ungodliness makes you unfit to be married, then I suppose noone is fit to be married.

(and again: "sodomites" is derivative of the earlier question about why God destroyed Sodom. Again, there are multiple opinions on the cause or causes of God's ire towards them. My understanding was that they were worshiping Baal instead of God. Others believe it was because they weren't pleasant to guests. And others believe that it was because of homosexuality.)

-brendan
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 22/02/2004 21:22

Well, we're getting further and further removed from the original subject and the original language of the Bible, but assuming that the English word ``sodomy'' means the same thing that it did in the original language, then it has a meaning greater than homosexuality, even though all homosexual sex is sodomitic. To put it clinically, so as to avoid offending as many as possible, any sex act that doesn't involve putting a penis in a vagina is sodomy. That leaves two obvious sodomitic acts that can be performed with a man and a woman as well as with two men.
Posted by: lectric

Re: Same-sex marriage - 22/02/2004 21:42

Understand that even as a christian, I find this line offensive.
The Church exists to save people, not to bless the means of their damnation.
Not all sinners are damned. No matter what the sin is. To imply that all those that commit these particular sins is going to hell really bothers me as it's contrary to the central message of the gospel. Not to mention that the "Church" doesn't save anybody. Only forgiveness through the blood of Christ can do that.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Same-sex marriage - 23/02/2004 03:25

not a single gay person I know has chosen to be gay, given the ridicule and etc. that they have to deal with.

If you come across someone who doesn't believe that... ask him the following two questions:

1) "At what point in your life did you make the choice to be heterosexual?"

and

2) "If I were King of the World and could provide every conceivable inducement, what could I offer you that would make you sexually attracted to someone of the same gender?"

Of course, it won't change his opinion that homosexuals are just weak-willed individuals with no sense of morality. After all, it would take someone with his great strength of character to resist all the delightful advantages of a gay lifestyle.

tanstaafl.
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 02:57

-pulled from a Christian website.
The NKJV showed up on the scene in 1979, as a re-interpretation of the KJV by a group of people comprised predominantly of Baptists, and a few conservative Presbyterians. Comparing the NKJV with other versions shows that they've changed and added words which significantly change the meaning of passages, so that they don't quite agree with any other version of the Bible out there. There's no evidence to show (even from a religious standpoint) to suggest that this committee of men was any more divinely inspired by God than any other group of translators that came before them, and, given their religious affiliations, I'd suggest it likely that they produced a version in line with their collective interpretation. Once again, whose translation is correct? I'd be willing to bet that I could pick nearly any other version at random, and it wouldn't be nearly so explicit.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 11:34

What the hell did I see on television this morning?

There was this slimy biomechanical robot speaking at a podium with the presidential seal on it, using words like "constitutional amendment" and "between a man and a woman" in the same sentence.

It was so horrifying that I couldn't watch enough to figure out what was really going on. Can anyone clarify it for me? (Gently... I'm feeling weirded-out today after that disturbing image...)
Posted by: brendanhoar

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 12:30

Sorry, I'm in the same boat.

-brendan
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 12:39

I just read the report about it at CNN. The man is either truly evil, or truly stupid. Most likely both. In either case, we should start getting used to saying "President Kerry" now.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 12:41

I wouldn't count my chickens yet, but I sure hope you're right.
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 12:59

I read in a news article that Kerry opposes gay marriage, as well.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 13:00

Why? I'd say that we're a pretty enlightened bunch here and some of us are against gay marriage. Why do you think the "silent majority" is going to be for it.

Of course, if he "sponsored" an amendment and the vote failed before the election, that'd be pretty damning, but I doubt it could happen that quickly. ERA took ten years to fail.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 13:01

He's one of those that doesn't oppose civil unions but does oppose marriage. What the functional difference is, I don't know. I imagine it's to avoid pissing off either side too much, while pissing them both off slightly.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 13:04

I read in a news article that Kerry opposes gay marriage, as well.
Fine. But I can't imagine that a democrat would be evil and/or stupid enough to try to put that into the constitution.
Posted by: brendanhoar

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 13:04

> I read in a news article that Kerry opposes gay marriage, as well.

On the other hand, he opposes a constitutional amendment preventing gay marriage as well. He's treading a fine line, and, considering the alternative, I'm going to allow that to be OK with me for now.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 13:06

and, considering the alternative
Which is really the problem with politics in general. "Hold your nose and vote..."
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 13:17

we should start getting used to saying "President Kerry" now.
Nah, all this does is widen the chasm between liberals and conservatives. People who espouse Bush's position will rally around this maneuver, people who do not will be strengthened in their position as well. Regardless, there is no, I repeat, no chance this could possibly get 38 out of 50 state votes and end up as an amendment, and Bush and his handlers have to know this.
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 13:18

According to this article, "Bush...[has] left the door open for civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriages.
Posted by: Cybjorg

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 13:19

Fine. But I can't imagine that a democrat would be evil and/or stupid enough to try to put that into the constitution.


Some might argue that Democrats just ignore the document, instead.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 13:19

and Bush and his handlers have to know this.
They do, I'm certain. I don't think this is about same-sex marriage as much as finding a way to strengthen his religious base without having to actually accomplish anything. Pure politics.
Posted by: genixia

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 13:28

Why? I'd say that we're a pretty enlightened bunch here and some of us are against gay marriage.

That may be, but changes to the Constitution should not be made lightly. It is the foundation of the US' entire system of government, and changing it as an election campaign gimmick or to enforce one's own beliefs before the consensus of the nation has been obtained is an extremely poor idea. You have to wonder what is next... an amendment to permanently ban trade with Cuba?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 13:35

Yeah, and has been pointed out, it's unlikely to be amended anyway. It's just a power play. One can only hope that the anti-gay contingent sees that it is solely a political move, feel outrage at the absurd idea of amending the constitution (a document that doesn't even mention marriage), and create a backlash.
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 13:39

I'd imagine if it can have two amendments concerning the sale of alcoholic beverages, it's conceivable there could be one about marriage. That said, anyone can see it doesn't have a prayer of passing congress, let alone the state votes.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Same-sex marriage - 24/02/2004 13:50

Well, I was going to point out that the US had tried amending the Constitution to restrict something once before and it failed so miserably that they had to reamend it.