Political Crossfire Forums

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:

What knowledge has Christianity "thumbed its nose at"?

Christians DO NOT object to stem cell research, the object to embryonic stem cell research as matter of the principal of the sanctity of human life not keeping people ignorant.

I am not against every person being treated equally under the law. I have no objection with ANY TWO people who decide to share a home and posessions to seek and recieve the protections all people should share.

That is NOT a marriage as defined within the context of my Catholic faith, marriage for me, is a religious sacrament NOT a civil contract. A civil contract should NOT be impacted by relgious marriage or vis versa.

You still have not answered the question:
What is a marriage? Where in the bible does it show use what constitutes a marriage, how it is performed, etc?

I have answered the question several times. Both Paul and Jesus are fairly specific about marriage and 2000 years of history should also make it fairly clear.

I do not feel the need to respond in any greater detail.

I have made both my personal opinion on the sacrament of marriage clear and my opinion on the secular civil unions. If they are unclear to you then I can only suggest you re read the thread since I can not offer no more definition than I already have.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:

What knowledge has Christianity "thumbed its nose at"?

Christians DO NOT object to stem cell research, the object to embryonic stem cell research as matter of the principal of the sanctity of human life not keeping people ignorant.

I am not against every person being treated equally under the law. I have no objection with ANY TWO people who decide to share a home and posessions to seek and recieve the protections all people should share.

That is NOT a marriage as defined within the context of my Catholic faith, marriage for me, is a religious sacrament NOT a civil contract. A civil contract should NOT be impacted by relgious marriage or vis versa.

You still have not answered the question:
What is a marriage? Where in the bible does it show use what constitutes a marriage, how it is performed, etc?

I have answered the question several times. Both Paul and Jesus are fairly specific about marriage and 2000 years of history should also make it fairly clear.

I do not feel the need to respond in any greater detail.

I have made both my personal opinion on the sacrament of marriage clear and my opinion on the secular civil unions. If they are unclear to you then I can only suggest you re read the thread since I can not offer no more definition than I already have.


Your personal opinion was noted as such. However, I wasn't asking about your opinion. I am looking for where in the bible it specifically says what a marriage is - specifically what Jesus says it is. If that description isn't there, then marriage (in the religious aspect) is fluid and as individualized as morality. Thus, there is no way to say who can and who can't get married.

[mODULAR mAN]

After all, the Bible may say it is a sin, but it doesn't say sinners can't get married, does it?

If it did, only Jesus and Mary could get married - to each other.

[Todd D.]

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:

What knowledge has Christianity "thumbed its nose at"?

Christians DO NOT object to stem cell research, the object to embryonic stem cell research as matter of the principal of the sanctity of human life not keeping people ignorant.

I am not against every person being treated equally under the law. I have no objection with ANY TWO people who decide to share a home and posessions to seek and recieve the protections all people should share.

That is NOT a marriage as defined within the context of my Catholic faith, marriage for me, is a religious sacrament NOT a civil contract. A civil contract should NOT be impacted by relgious marriage or vis versa.

You still have not answered the question:
What is a marriage? Where in the bible does it show use what constitutes a marriage, how it is performed, etc?

I have answered the question several times. Both Paul and Jesus are fairly specific about marriage and 2000 years of history should also make it fairly clear.

I do not feel the need to respond in any greater detail.

I have made both my personal opinion on the sacrament of marriage clear and my opinion on the secular civil unions. If they are unclear to you then I can only suggest you re read the thread since I can not offer no more definition than I already have.


Your personal opinion was noted as such. However, I wasn't asking about your opinion. I am looking for where in the bible it specifically says what a marriage is - specifically what Jesus says it is. If that description isn't there, then marriage (in the religious aspect) is fluid and as individualized as morality. Thus, there is no way to say who can and who can't get married.
Unfortunately for your point, the description IS there:
Quote: 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Religiously, at least from a Christian standpoint, the Bible is very clear that God made two genders: Male and Female, and that those two genders were to come together to form one flesh.

[mODULAR mAN]

Todd D. wrote:
Religiously, at least from a Christian standpoint, the Bible is very clear that God made two genders: Male and Female, and that those two genders were to come together to form one flesh.

I think this just explains that when a man and a woman "kocka da boots" they make a baby. It's a stretch to say this applies to marriage.
Especially since it was Paul who developed a concept, allegedly, of marriage 100's of years later.




BTW, everyone should notice that we are STILL only talking about marriage from the Xian perspective. So far I have seen NO justification for disallowing gay marriage based on any other framework.

Can anyone even think of a reason gays shouldn't allowed to be married, except from a religious P.O.V., no matter how crazy?

Like "because it's icky?"

Or, "hey, my gay grampa couldn't, so neither can we"

Or, "Gays already make more money as a couple, why do they need hospital visitation rights?"

Or, "Because you always need one group of people to discriminate against to keep social order"


etc...

[Todd D.]

Quote: I think this just explains that when a man and a woman "kocka da boots" they make a baby. It's a stretch to say this applies to marriage.
Especially since it was Paul who developed a concept, allegedly, of marriage 100's of years later.
If you read the context of the passage, the people were asking Jesus if divorce was justified, and He explaining why it was not. The passage is quite clearly referring to marraige, not procreation.

[Enoch]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Todd D. wrote:
Religiously, at least from a Christian standpoint, the Bible is very clear that God made two genders: Male and Female, and that those two genders were to come together to form one flesh.

I think this just explains that when a man and a woman "kocka da boots" they make a baby. It's a stretch to say this applies to marriage.
Especially since it was Paul who developed a concept, allegedly, of marriage 100's of years later.




BTW, everyone should notice that we are STILL only talking about marriage from the Xian perspective. So far I have seen NO justification for disallowing gay marriage based on any other framework.

Can anyone even think of a reason gays shouldn't allowed to be married, except from a religious P.O.V., no matter how crazy?

Like "because it's icky?"

Or, "hey, my gay grampa couldn't, so neither can we"

Or, "Gays already make more money as a couple, why do they need hospital visitation rights?"

Or, "Because you always need one group of people to discriminate against to keep social order"


etc... mOD mAN...

No one has ever, despite my numerous requests, been able to show one, single, demonstratable harm that would result because of gay marriage. Everyone offers either the same tired religious rhetoric, or stupid "slippery slope" arguments that have no basis in reality.

[Enoch]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: I think this just explains that when a man and a woman "kocka da boots" they make a baby. It's a stretch to say this applies to marriage.
Especially since it was Paul who developed a concept, allegedly, of marriage 100's of years later.
If you read the context of the passage, the people were asking Jesus if divorce was justified, and He explaining why it was not. The passage is quite clearly referring to marraige, not procreation. Then why isn't there a huge campaign to end divorce?

[toddytodd]

Todd D. wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:

What knowledge has Christianity "thumbed its nose at"?

Christians DO NOT object to stem cell research, the object to embryonic stem cell research as matter of the principal of the sanctity of human life not keeping people ignorant.

I am not against every person being treated equally under the law. I have no objection with ANY TWO people who decide to share a home and posessions to seek and recieve the protections all people should share.

That is NOT a marriage as defined within the context of my Catholic faith, marriage for me, is a religious sacrament NOT a civil contract. A civil contract should NOT be impacted by relgious marriage or vis versa.

You still have not answered the question:
What is a marriage? Where in the bible does it show use what constitutes a marriage, how it is performed, etc?

I have answered the question several times. Both Paul and Jesus are fairly specific about marriage and 2000 years of history should also make it fairly clear.

I do not feel the need to respond in any greater detail.

I have made both my personal opinion on the sacrament of marriage clear and my opinion on the secular civil unions. If they are unclear to you then I can only suggest you re read the thread since I can not offer no more definition than I already have.


Your personal opinion was noted as such. However, I wasn't asking about your opinion. I am looking for where in the bible it specifically says what a marriage is - specifically what Jesus says it is. If that description isn't there, then marriage (in the religious aspect) is fluid and as individualized as morality. Thus, there is no way to say who can and who can't get married.
Unfortunately for your point, the description IS there:
Quote: 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Religiously, at least from a Christian standpoint, the Bible is very clear that God made two genders: Male and Female, and that those two genders were to come together to form one flesh.
Quote: But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. This say absolutely nothing about marriage. The concept of marriage was inferred from this, but it was a rather loose interpretation. This only speaks of a man leaving his family to start his own with a woman. It says nothing about a marriage, much less of a marriage being sanctioned by God or not.
Quote: Religiously, at least from a Christian standpoint, the Bible is very clear that God made two genders: Male and Female, and that those two genders were to come together to form one flesh. Again - this says nothing about marriage, but about becoming one flesh. It can be interpreted as "one flesh" being sex, or it could be interpreted as anything else that involves two people joining. Nothing about being married, or what a marriage is, unless through interpretation, you think it does.

[toddytodd]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: I think this just explains that when a man and a woman "kocka da boots" they make a baby. It's a stretch to say this applies to marriage.
Especially since it was Paul who developed a concept, allegedly, of marriage 100's of years later.
If you read the context of the passage, the people were asking Jesus if divorce was justified, and He explaining why it was not. The passage is quite clearly referring to marraige, not procreation.

If one was to believe this interpretation in full, why not make divorce illegal? Clearly it isn't something that the bible shows is correct (unless for adultery...?) to keep marriage as religiously sanctioned as it should be.
Over and beyond this, this says nothing about the legal aspect of a marriage - it only speaks of the religious aspect of it. Most don't really care rather or not the 'church' blesses a marriage or not. They issue is the legal rights of what the gov't has given a religious institution.

[toddytodd]

Enoch wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Todd D. wrote:
Religiously, at least from a Christian standpoint, the Bible is very clear that God made two genders: Male and Female, and that those two genders were to come together to form one flesh.

I think this just explains that when a man and a woman "kocka da boots" they make a baby. It's a stretch to say this applies to marriage.
Especially since it was Paul who developed a concept, allegedly, of marriage 100's of years later.




BTW, everyone should notice that we are STILL only talking about marriage from the Xian perspective. So far I have seen NO justification for disallowing gay marriage based on any other framework.

Can anyone even think of a reason gays shouldn't allowed to be married, except from a religious P.O.V., no matter how crazy?

Like "because it's icky?"

Or, "hey, my gay grampa couldn't, so neither can we"

Or, "Gays already make more money as a couple, why do they need hospital visitation rights?"

Or, "Because you always need one group of people to discriminate against to keep social order"


etc... mOD mAN...

No one has ever, despite my numerous requests, been able to show one, single, demonstratable harm that would result because of gay marriage. Everyone offers either the same tired religious rhetoric, or stupid "slippery slope" arguments that have no basis in reality.
That's because, other than the religious arguments out there (which not every religious person can agree on, by the way), there is nothing showing how it would be detrimental to anyone or anything.
It comes down to hateful people hiding behind their religious cause - nothing else.

[mODULAR mAN]

I'm afraid it appears that way.

We are supposed to have Seperation of Church and State, but that doesn't stop people from rendering unto Caesar that which is Their Own Unique Religious Proclivities....

And, worse, it is based on judgement based in this life (Something TRUE Xians aren't supposed to do...) and on subtle interpretation.

After all, even if gay sex is a sin, that doesn't mean mean marriage is a sin. They may not have sex during marriage. :wink:

[Todd D.]

Quote: Then why isn't there a huge campaign to end divorce?
Why do you even think that I am part of a huge campaign to end same sex unions? I'm not. I've said numerous times in this thread alone that I believe that unions as recognized by the state should be exactly the same whether they are heterosexual or homosexual partners. I was simply responding to a request to provide Scriptural support for Jesus qualifying Marraige.

Quote: This say absolutely nothing about marriage. The concept of marriage was inferred from this, but it was a rather loose interpretation. This only speaks of a man leaving his family to start his own with a woman. It says nothing about a marriage, much less of a marriage being sanctioned by God or not.
Either you are being willfully ignorant or completely dishonest. I can not tell which.

Here is the full text in question, it comes from Mark, Chapter 10: "2 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 10 In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11 And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.""

If you really think it is a "loose interpretation" to say that passage is talking about marriage, then you clearly will not accept any logical proof.

Quote: If one was to believe this interpretation in full, why not make divorce illegal? Clearly it isn't something that the bible shows is correct (unless for adultery...?) to keep marriage as religiously sanctioned as it should be.
For a majority of Christian history, divorce WAS illegal. Catholicism TO THIS DAY still does not recognize divorce, that's precisely why the entire Church of England started to begin with! I don't see what your point is. From a Catholic standpoint, divorce and homosexuality have both been contrary to God's will from the beginning.

Quote: Over and beyond this, this says nothing about the legal aspect of a marriage - it only speaks of the religious aspect of it. Most don't really care rather or not the 'church' blesses a marriage or not. They issue is the legal rights of what the gov't has given a religious institution.
Way to change the subject again. From a legal standpoint, I of course believe both should be legal, but that's not what you asked. You asked, very specifically, for a text where Jesus qualified marriage. That text lays it out to anyone willing to honestly look at it.

[toddytodd]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Then why isn't there a huge campaign to end divorce?
Why do you even think that I am part of a huge campaign to end same sex unions? I'm not. I've said numerous times in this thread alone that I believe that unions as recognized by the state should be exactly the same whether they are heterosexual or homosexual partners. I was simply responding to a request to provide Scriptural support for Jesus qualifying Marraige.

Quote: This say absolutely nothing about marriage. The concept of marriage was inferred from this, but it was a rather loose interpretation. This only speaks of a man leaving his family to start his own with a woman. It says nothing about a marriage, much less of a marriage being sanctioned by God or not.
Either you are being willfully ignorant or completely dishonest. I can not tell which.

Here is the full text in question, it comes from Mark, Chapter 10: "2 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 10 In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11 And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.""

If you really think it is a "loose interpretation" to say that passage is talking about marriage, then you clearly will not accept any logical proof.

Quote: If one was to believe this interpretation in full, why not make divorce illegal? Clearly it isn't something that the bible shows is correct (unless for adultery...?) to keep marriage as religiously sanctioned as it should be.
For a majority of Christian history, divorce WAS illegal. Catholicism TO THIS DAY still does not recognize divorce, that's precisely why the entire Church of England started to begin with! I don't see what your point is. From a Catholic standpoint, divorce and homosexuality have both been contrary to God's will from the beginning.

Quote: Over and beyond this, this says nothing about the legal aspect of a marriage - it only speaks of the religious aspect of it. Most don't really care rather or not the 'church' blesses a marriage or not. They issue is the legal rights of what the gov't has given a religious institution.
Way to change the subject again. From a legal standpoint, I of course believe both should be legal, but that's not what you asked. You asked, very specifically, for a text where Jesus qualified marriage. That text lays it out to anyone willing to honestly look at it.

Answer these questions - let's not get side tracked:
1) Are you saying "joined together" is the same this as being (or getting) married?
2) What constitutes a marriage?

[toddytodd]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Then why isn't there a huge campaign to end divorce?
Why do you even think that I am part of a huge campaign to end same sex unions? I'm not. I've said numerous times in this thread alone that I believe that unions as recognized by the state should be exactly the same whether they are heterosexual or homosexual partners. I was simply responding to a request to provide Scriptural support for Jesus qualifying Marraige.

Quote: This say absolutely nothing about marriage. The concept of marriage was inferred from this, but it was a rather loose interpretation. This only speaks of a man leaving his family to start his own with a woman. It says nothing about a marriage, much less of a marriage being sanctioned by God or not.
Either you are being willfully ignorant or completely dishonest. I can not tell which.

Here is the full text in question, it comes from Mark, Chapter 10: "2 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 10 In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11 And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.""

If you really think it is a "loose interpretation" to say that passage is talking about marriage, then you clearly will not accept any logical proof.

Quote: If one was to believe this interpretation in full, why not make divorce illegal? Clearly it isn't something that the bible shows is correct (unless for adultery...?) to keep marriage as religiously sanctioned as it should be.
For a majority of Christian history, divorce WAS illegal. Catholicism TO THIS DAY still does not recognize divorce, that's precisely why the entire Church of England started to begin with! I don't see what your point is. From a Catholic standpoint, divorce and homosexuality have both been contrary to God's will from the beginning.

Quote: Over and beyond this, this says nothing about the legal aspect of a marriage - it only speaks of the religious aspect of it. Most don't really care rather or not the 'church' blesses a marriage or not. They issue is the legal rights of what the gov't has given a religious institution.
Way to change the subject again. From a legal standpoint, I of course believe both should be legal, but that's not what you asked. You asked, very specifically, for a text where Jesus qualified marriage. That text lays it out to anyone willing to honestly look at it.

You inferred I have an ignorant view of this, or even dishonest assuming your view is the 'correct' one. I can say the same about you. That doesn't get us anywhere, now does it? So let's move past this childish name calling, shall we?
Now, I could see how you may see this conversation you quoted (which brings up a whole other debate about how correct the bible is in regards to actually, verbatim quoting of a conversation, etc etc etc), although it doesn't totally say what a marriage is nor how it is performed, much less if it is to be legally recognized by any gov't body.
Quote: For a majority of Christian history, divorce WAS illegal. Catholicism TO THIS DAY still does not recognize divorce, that's precisely why the entire Church of England started to begin with! I don't see what your point is. From a Catholic standpoint, divorce and homosexuality have both been contrary to God's will from the beginning.
A majority of Christian history mean that not the whole christian history, does it not? So it would seem that something change throughout christian history, does it not? Did this change come about when God changed his mind, or did christians decide to make a change?
The point is, if marriage is such a grand religious sentiment as claimed, where is the group campaigning to make not only gay marriage illegal, but divorce as well? Is one greater than another?
Again, if the church wants to take this religious view point of marriage, I don't know of anyone who would oppose it. The problem is when certain people or groups take this religious interpretation and try to make it law for everyone. The church has the right to bless whatever they want (even though, again, some christian churches, do perform and bless same sex marriages), but they have no right to have any legal say on a self proclaimed religious act on people who don't follow their religion. Marriage isn't a christian institution, it is a human institution. Many tribes throughout history have had (and still have) various forms of marriage and some don't included the Christian God (or a god) at all. Are those marriage people any less worthy to receive legal protection if they move to the US than anyone else, simply because they don't believe in your god?
That would be an arrogant, hollier-than-thou (dare I say sad) approach for those who would say yes.

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: I'm afraid it appears that way.

We are supposed to have Seperation of Church and State, but that doesn't stop people from rendering unto Caesar that which is Their Own Unique Religious Proclivities....

And, worse, it is based on judgement based in this life (Something TRUE Xians aren't supposed to do...) and on subtle interpretation.

After all, even if gay sex is a sin, that doesn't mean mean marriage is a sin. They may not have sex during marriage. :wink:

I have found this to be an example of the types of conversations I have had with many religious people:

C - "I believe in 'XYZ'!"
NC - "Really? Why?"
C - "Because the bible says so."
NC - "Well, what do you personally think about it?"
C - "Whatever the bible says."
NC - "So you have no personal opinion or any reason why you think what the bible says is right?"
"Well, that's what the bible says!"

If this is how someone wants to live their life (believing the bible 100% in everything), that's great. Personally, if it didn't effect me, I would be more than happy to have them live their lives that way. However, no everyone agrees with the bible, so why should everyone be forced to follow what it teaches? Is it control? Is it the 'I have to be the leader' mentality? What does it matter to one person, what another person does, especially when there is no interaction between the two?

I just don't get it...I'm not sure most religious people get it either.... :cry:

[Todd D.]

Quote: Answer these questions - let's not get side tracked:
1) Are you saying "joined together" is the same this as being (or getting) married?
I'm saying that in the context of the quote provided, that being a discussion by Jesus on whether Divorce was acceptable in the eyes of God, "joined together" clearly refers to the actions that precede divorce, which is by definition marriage.

Quote: 2) What constitutes a marriage?
Not my job to decide. From the New Testament passage, Jesus indicates that marriage is limited to a man and a woman. How that relates to secular authority is irrelevent, you asked for a Christian viewpoint.

Quote: You inferred I have an ignorant view of this, or even dishonest assuming your view is the 'correct' one. I can say the same about you. That doesn't get us anywhere, now does it? So let's move past this childish name calling, shall we?
I'm sorry if you felt that it was childish, but when a passage essentially says "Is divorce legal?" followed by "No, what God joins none can seperate", it is not a "loose interpretation" to say that the joining is marriage. I know that you do not lack reading comprehension skills, so I can only infer that your inability to see that is ignorance or dishonesty.

Quote: Now, I could see how you may see this conversation you quoted (which brings up a whole other debate about how correct the bible is in regards to actually, verbatim quoting of a conversation, etc etc etc), although it doesn't totally say what a marriage is nor how it is performed, much less if it is to be legally recognized by any gov't body.
Ah, but you never mentioned a "gov't body", all you asked was "I am looking for where in the bible it specifically says what a marriage is - specifically what Jesus says it is." Nothing about "How it is performed" or "How the government recognizes it". All you asked for was a passage where Jesus defined what marriage is (and, I assume, that you were guessing there was none). Unfortunately, He does. He says marriage is where one woman and one man are joined.

Quote: A majority of Christian history mean that not the whole christian history, does it not? So it would seem that something change throughout christian history, does it not? Did this change come about when God changed his mind, or did christians decide to make a change?
As a Catholic, I would say that Christians decided to make a change in contrast to God's will. THAT is an interpretation, however, and is in no way binding to legal authority.

Quote: The point is, if marriage is such a grand religious sentiment as claimed, where is the group campaigning to make not only gay marriage illegal, but divorce as well? Is one greater than another?
You're right, and I do view that as hypocritical. However, seeing that I seek to make neither homosexual unions nor divorce illegal, I don't think I can answer your question.

Quote: Again, if the church wants to take this religious view point of marriage, I don't know of anyone who would oppose it. The problem is when certain people or groups take this religious interpretation and try to make it law for everyone. The church has the right to bless whatever they want (even though, again, some christian churches, do perform and bless same sex marriages), but they have no right to have any legal say on a self proclaimed religious act on people who don't follow their religion. Marriage isn't a christian institution, it is a human institution. Many tribes throughout history have had (and still have) various forms of marriage and some don't included the Christian God (or a god) at all. Are those marriage people any less worthy to receive legal protection if they move to the US than anyone else, simply because they don't believe in your god?
That would be an arrogant, hollier-than-thou (dare I say sad) approach for those who would say yes
As I have said numerous times, the government has no business recognizes or legitimizing what is essentially a spiritual and individual action, including marriage. Public policy and logistics suggest that encouraging monogamy is beneficial, and to that end I have no problem with civil unions for any monogomous couple, but the marriage thing? No, that's not their business.

[mODULAR mAN]

Todd D. wrote: Here is the full text in question, it comes from Mark, Chapter 10: "2 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 10 In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11 And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."


Well, just because Jesus says so, doesn't make it true. Who is he to argue with Moses? Moses would f*** up that peace-lovin' hippy. :lol:

[Todd D.]

Whether you accept Jesus as an authority on the subject is, again, irrelevent. As a Christian, I believe Jesus is God, therefore yes, His words do trump Moses's (if there was disparity, which as Jesus Himself explains, there is not). Clearly "Jesus said so" would not be evidence to, say, a Jew, who would obviously follow Moses before Jesus. However, remember that I was responding to a direct question. When answering the question "Where in the bible it specifically says what a marriage is - specifically what Jesus says it is?", Jesus's words are obviously important.

[mODULAR mAN]

Todd D. wrote: Whether you accept Jesus as an authority on the subject is, again, irrelevent. As a Christian, I believe Jesus is God, therefore yes, His words do trump Moses's (if there was disparity, which as Jesus Himself explains, there is not). Clearly "Jesus said so" would not be evidence to, say, a Jew, who would obviously follow Moses before Jesus. However, remember that I was responding to a direct question. When answering the question "Where in the bible it specifically says what a marriage is - specifically what Jesus says it is?", Jesus's words are obviously important.

I was being light hearted about it (though, seriously, Moses would b****-slap Jesus, if he knew Jesus was going against his word. Moses is like that, yo.)

And, actually, it sounds as if it is in direct contradiction, hard heart on no.
PLus, it doesn't really address gay marriage, specifically.


However, it is enough for me to see why Xians are against gay marriage, if they want to interpret it like that.

But, as you have said, it is not the realm of the State to decide these things. If two guys want to go to Hell, let them. (It's not like it really exists, anyhow.)