Political Crossfire Forums

[slitedeviance]

Quick q..

Do the Christians on this thread have an issue with the rights of heterosexual married couples also being applied to homosexual partners in a civil union (provided it's not called marriage)?

[toddytodd]

Todd D. wrote: 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.
Quote: 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. I see nothing there that says 'joined together' equates to marriage. Going even further, I don't see where it clearly states marriage between a man and a woman only.
Quote: 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. Quite correct (unless, you are a politician I suppose). An issue with this is that some people are making that decision for everyone (socially and legally), based upon their own interpartation.
Quote: ...infer that your inability to see that is ignorance or dishonesty. You are free to infer anything you wish. Calling someone's point of view or understanding of something ignorant or dishonest, because it is different than yours, is not necessary. As I said, I could say the same thing towards yours, but it doesn't avail anything.
Quote: 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. I have asked this numerous times through out out this site, and have yet to see an answer that is clear and concise. When someone (or group of someone's) decide to make a definition of something (in this case marriage) and attempt to make this definition not only the religious definition, but also the legal definition, I don't see how one can't be lead into the "gov't and ;ega;" aspect of it. It is a natural transition.
Quote: 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. Exactly. So why the attempt to make this 'ideal of a man and woman only marriage' any legal authority?

Please note, I am not accusing you personally of anything, only pointing to your comments in a larger sense of the debate.

[mODULAR mAN]

[quote="toddytodd"] Todd D. wrote: 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.

NO! You were just talking about how joined together (making one flesh - a baby, or a metaphor) is what they are talking about . MARRIAGE isn;t mentioned!


It's like people who claim "Separation of Church & State" isn;t said.

Marriage isn't said. This is a union of a man and a woman and THEY shouldn't get divorced.


We can extrapolat and assume gay people can marry, but will not be adultorers if they split up because they didn;t make "one Flesh".

There is no reason on Allah's green Earth that two men, or two women, can't agrre to support each other for the rest of their lives.

If the State encourages stability in familial relationships, and is not religious (Seperations of C&S), then the State should IMMEDIATELY enact gay marriage laws.

or be considered bigotted.

[toddytodd]

[quote="mODULAR mAN"] toddytodd wrote: Todd D. wrote: 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.

NO! You were just talking about how joined together (making one flesh - a baby, or a metaphor) is what they are talking about . MARRIAGE isn;t mentioned!


It's like people who claim "Separation of Church & State" isn;t said.

Marriage isn't said. This is a union of a man and a woman and THEY shouldn't get divorced.


We can extrapolat and assume gay people can marry, but will not be adultorers if they split up because they didn;t make "one Flesh".

There is no reason on Allah's green Earth that two men, or two women, can't agrre to support each other for the rest of their lives.

If the State encourages stability in familial relationships, and is not religious (Seperations of C&S), then the State should IMMEDIATELY enact gay marriage laws.

or be considered bigotted.

Quote: If the State encourages stability in familial relationships, and is not religious (Seperations of C&S), then the State should IMMEDIATELY enact gay marriage laws. Exactly.
If family is 'so important' to them, why not allow gay people to have a family and make it legal? We all know the answer to this question, even though it is without merit nor proof.
The gov't adopted the term 'marriage' into law (let's remember, christianity doesn't own the term marriage), the gov't should be the ones making it legal to everyone, without any involvement from the religious community.

[Enoch]

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.
Todd, please read a post correctly before you respond to it.

I never said you were apart of a campaign against same sex marriage. What I asked, and if you read my post you can CLEARLY see that, is why there isn't a campaign to end divorce if Jesus spoke out against it? Never did I say you were a part of it.

[Todd D.]

Quote: I see nothing there that says 'joined together' equates to marriage. Going even further, I don't see where it clearly states marriage between a man and a woman only.
"Is a man permitted to divorce his wife?"
"No, what God joins together, man can not seperate"

Seriously, what intperpretation fits the parameters of both statements? Sex? That fails because, especially in Israel at the time, marriage and sex did not go hand in hand. There were numerous instances of "consecrated virginity" for centuries in the Jewish community before Christ, women that were married as a way to take care of themselves, but never had sex. I fail to see how anyone looking honestly at those two statements can say that Jesus is discouraging divorce, but that "joining together" does not mean marriage.

Quote: You are free to infer anything you wish. Calling someone's point of view or understanding of something ignorant or dishonest, because it is different than yours, is not necessary.
I'm not calling it ignorant or dishonest because it is different than mine, I'm calling it ignorant or dishonest because logically and linguistically the passaeg is clear. If I say "I have a dog, she eats at 5" and you say "It's a loose interpretation to say that your dog is eating at 5", then you are either intentionally ignoring evidence, or you are lying. It has nothing to do with what I think, it has to do with the fundamentals of the English language and basic pronoun placement.

Because I desire no government involvement in marriage I can not defend any interference on their part in the definition, so the rest of your questions I can not answer.

Quote: NO! You were just talking about how joined together (making one flesh - a baby, or a metaphor) is what they are talking about . MARRIAGE isn;t mentioned!


It's like people who claim "Separation of Church & State" isn;t said.

Marriage isn't said. This is a union of a man and a woman and THEY shouldn't get divorced.


We can extrapolat and assume gay people can marry, but will not be adultorers if they split up because they didn;t make "one Flesh".
Contextually that interpretation lacks consistency. Again, you have consecrated virgins that were married, barren men and women that were married, yet Jesus did no reference exceptions. He was asked directly if divorce was permitted, and He said "No." Suggesting that this only refers to married couples that became parents would assume that Jesus failed to make His point clear, which I think fails a Christian perspective of who Jesus was.

Quote: Todd, please read a post correctly before you respond to it.

I never said you were apart of a campaign against same sex marriage. What I asked, and if you read my post you can CLEARLY see that, is why there isn't a campaign to end divorce if Jesus spoke out against it? Never did I say you were a part of it.
I understood what you meant, but because your post was in response to mine, I felt that it needed to be pointed out where I stand. I honestly don't know why there isn't a motion to end divorces, I would assume it's because a majority of Protestants believe divorce is acceptable in the eyes of God, and they have the numbers.

[mODULAR mAN]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: I see nothing there that says 'joined together' equates to marriage. Going even further, I don't see where it clearly states marriage between a man and a woman only.
"Is a man permitted to divorce his wife?"
"No, what God joins together, man can not seperate"

Seriously, what intperpretation fits the parameters of both statements? Sex? That fails because, especially in Israel at the time, marriage and sex did not go hand in hand. There were numerous instances of "consecrated virginity" for centuries in the Jewish community before Christ, women that were married as a way to take care of themselves, but never had sex. I fail to see how anyone looking honestly at those two statements can say that Jesus is discouraging divorce, but that "joining together" does not mean marriage.

So, it is your interpretation that this is NOT about sex, but simply about loving relationships for a lifetime should be bewtween a man and a woman?

I'm trying to understand this. (I see the passage as a warning against divorce if you have a child).

Is it about a family? It doesn't mention sex (just "two flesh becoming one flesh..." :roll: ), but it doesn't mention family, or finances, or common friends, or the general acceptance of society of the "Union".

So, what IS marriage, then? Is it defined as simply a ceremony joining a man and woman?

For example, a "hectct bort" is what I will call the ceremony of joining two people of equal height.

A "ghretchey" is when two people with red hair get in front of their friends and family and say they will be tennis partners for 40 years.


Is it just a definition? Of what? What is the two flesh becoming one, etc.

I see that you are creating more problems for yourself than not, since you are interpreting this quite loosely, and I just don't think it's there.

That is, I don't think you are interpreting it through your own prism, and not simply reading it in context to the Mosian Law.


That is, Liberal Xians interpret the Bible differently from Conservative Xians. Liberal Xians allow gay marriage, Cons don't.

In order to convince me, you still have to do more than quote one paragraph and offer your interpretation. What about the close male friendships that are descrobed int he Bible (no, sex is not mentioned - not my point, especially since you have agreed to take the sex act out of the idea of marriage).

[Todd D.]

Quote: So, it is your interpretation that this is NOT about sex, but simply about loving relationships for a lifetime should be bewtween a man and a woman?
Contextually, marriage was more about support than "loving relationships". The Syrian and Greek Orthodox Churches believe that Mary was a consecrated virgin arranged to be married to Joseph, who was a widower. It was more to ensure Mary's support than "loving relationship" that they got married.

Quote: I'm trying to understand this. (I see the passage as a warning against divorce if you have a child).
I don't understad that, because they are two statements. "What God has joined together, let no man seperate" and "Two come together to form one flesh". The latter certainly can be interpreted as a child, but when asking for a blanket statement on divorce (which is, by definition, the seperation of a couple), I don't see how only referencing those with Children would effectively answer that question.

Quote: Is it about a family? It doesn't mention sex (just "two flesh becoming one flesh..." ), but it doesn't mention family, or finances, or common friends, or the general acceptance of society of the "Union".

So, what IS marriage, then? Is it defined as simply a ceremony joining a man and woman?

For example, a "hectct bort" is what I will call the ceremony of joining two people of equal height.

A "ghretchey" is when two people with red hair get in front of their friends and family and say they will be tennis partners for 40 years.


Is it just a definition? Of what? What is the two flesh becoming one, etc.
If that conversation took place in a vaccuum, you might have a point, but it didn't. We know an awful lot about Jewish culture and the context that they would be speaking in at the time. That text must be taken in consideration with the culture at the time.

Quote: That is, I don't think you are interpreting it through your own prism, and not simply reading it in context to the Mosian Law.
I assume you mean that I AM interpreting it through my own prism? I might be, but I don't think so. What I am saying remains consistent with the Jewish culture at the time as well as the words that Jesus spoke.

Quote: That is, Liberal Xians interpret the Bible differently from Conservative Xians. Liberal Xians allow gay marriage, Cons don't.
Yeah....and? Let's be very clear and point out tha the amount of Churches sanctioning homosexual marriages represent a gross minority of Christians not only in the United States, but worldwide as well.

Quote: In order to convince me, you still have to do more than quote one paragraph and offer your interpretation. What about the close male friendships that are descrobed int he Bible (no, sex is not mentioned - not my point, especially since you have agreed to take the sex act out of the idea of marriage).
Are you suggesting that those are akin to marriage?

[toddytodd]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: I see nothing there that says 'joined together' equates to marriage. Going even further, I don't see where it clearly states marriage between a man and a woman only.
"Is a man permitted to divorce his wife?"
"No, what God joins together, man can not seperate"

Seriously, what intperpretation fits the parameters of both statements? Sex? That fails because, especially in Israel at the time, marriage and sex did not go hand in hand. There were numerous instances of "consecrated virginity" for centuries in the Jewish community before Christ, women that were married as a way to take care of themselves, but never had sex. I fail to see how anyone looking honestly at those two statements can say that Jesus is discouraging divorce, but that "joining together" does not mean marriage.

Quote: You are free to infer anything you wish. Calling someone's point of view or understanding of something ignorant or dishonest, because it is different than yours, is not necessary.
I'm not calling it ignorant or dishonest because it is different than mine, I'm calling it ignorant or dishonest because logically and linguistically the passaeg is clear. If I say "I have a dog, she eats at 5" and you say "It's a loose interpretation to say that your dog is eating at 5", then you are either intentionally ignoring evidence, or you are lying. It has nothing to do with what I think, it has to do with the fundamentals of the English language and basic pronoun placement.

Because I desire no government involvement in marriage I can not defend any interference on their part in the definition, so the rest of your questions I can not answer.

Quote: NO! You were just talking about how joined together (making one flesh - a baby, or a metaphor) is what they are talking about . MARRIAGE isn;t mentioned!


It's like people who claim "Separation of Church & State" isn;t said.

Marriage isn't said. This is a union of a man and a woman and THEY shouldn't get divorced.


We can extrapolat and assume gay people can marry, but will not be adultorers if they split up because they didn;t make "one Flesh".
Contextually that interpretation lacks consistency. Again, you have consecrated virgins that were married, barren men and women that were married, yet Jesus did no reference exceptions. He was asked directly if divorce was permitted, and He said "No." Suggesting that this only refers to married couples that became parents would assume that Jesus failed to make His point clear, which I think fails a Christian perspective of who Jesus was.

Quote: Todd, please read a post correctly before you respond to it.

I never said you were apart of a campaign against same sex marriage. What I asked, and if you read my post you can CLEARLY see that, is why there isn't a campaign to end divorce if Jesus spoke out against it? Never did I say you were a part of it.
I understood what you meant, but because your post was in response to mine, I felt that it needed to be pointed out where I stand. I honestly don't know why there isn't a motion to end divorces, I would assume it's because a majority of Protestants believe divorce is acceptable in the eyes of God, and they have the numbers.

Quote: "Is a man permitted to divorce his wife?"
"No, what God joins together, man can not seperate" I read this and think:
1) How does God join them together? What type of ceremony (if any) needs to take place to be 'joined'?
2) What does "joined" mean? Sex? Having or being a family unit? Is there a ceremnot involved?
3) If "...man connot seperate..." what God joined together, how can a man join two people together in the first place? God can 'join' them, and man can't separate them... so how does anyone find it their duty to make it illegal to 'join' some, but not others? Sounds like what God joins (at his discretion, not ours), only he can separate.
Quote: ...because logically and linguistically the passaeg is clear It most certainly is not clear to everyone. Only to those who wish to see what they want to see in it (as is all of the bible - why should this be any different?). If it were clear, logical (Christianity and logic are almost antonyms) and concise, there would be no question.
What you have supplied (while I admit, is more than most), is not concise. If doesn't define what a marriage is, who can and can't have it, who preforms it, etc etc etc.
If people are fine with this, honestly, poor definition of marriage for themselves, that's beyond fine. However, it isn't fair, nor just nor honest, to promote that 'definition' onto everyone. No one can honestly say that it is.

What it comes down to is this: There is nothing showing in the bible that says same sex couple can't (nor can, for that matter) get married. It speaks only of joining and divorce of a man and a woman (when joining isn't defined). It doesn't specifically even speak to marriage of a man and woman (unless 'joining' can be determined to be marriage). Also, everyone who speaks English knows how fickle the language is to learn and speak, much less be translated to from ancient text of different and differing languages. Also, the ideal that exact conversations and meaning can carry on to English from different languages for over 2000 years is a grand assumption almost to the point of being absurd. You put all these doubts or concerns together and you have an excellent (solid) case not to use the bible to base a law to make same sex marriage illegal. Once this idea is eliminated, all other opposition crumbles immediate when compared to current decency standards, as well as common sense.
To see it other wise is to see it through biased eyes.

[mODULAR mAN]

Todd D. wrote: Quote: So, it is your interpretation that this is NOT about sex, but simply about loving relationships for a lifetime should be bewtween a man and a woman?
Contextually, marriage was more about support than "loving relationships". The Syrian and Greek Orthodox Churches believe that Mary was a consecrated virgin arranged to be married to Joseph, who was a widower. It was more to ensure Mary's support than "loving relationship" that they got married.

Quote: I'm trying to understand this. (I see the passage as a warning against divorce if you have a child).
I don't understad that, because they are two statements. "What God has joined together, let no man seperate" and "Two come together to form one flesh". The latter certainly can be interpreted as a child, but when asking for a blanket statement on divorce (which is, by definition, the seperation of a couple), I don't see how only referencing those with Children would effectively answer that question.

Quote: Is it about a family? It doesn't mention sex (just "two flesh becoming one flesh..." ), but it doesn't mention family, or finances, or common friends, or the general acceptance of society of the "Union".

So, what IS marriage, then? Is it defined as simply a ceremony joining a man and woman?

For example, a "hectct bort" is what I will call the ceremony of joining two people of equal height.

A "ghretchey" is when two people with red hair get in front of their friends and family and say they will be tennis partners for 40 years.


Is it just a definition? Of what? What is the two flesh becoming one, etc.
If that conversation took place in a vaccuum, you might have a point, but it didn't. We know an awful lot about Jewish culture and the context that they would be speaking in at the time. That text must be taken in consideration with the culture at the time.

Quote: That is, I don't think you are interpreting it through your own prism, and not simply reading it in context to the Mosian Law.
I assume you mean that I AM interpreting it through my own prism? I might be, but I don't think so. What I am saying remains consistent with the Jewish culture at the time as well as the words that Jesus spoke.

Quote: That is, Liberal Xians interpret the Bible differently from Conservative Xians. Liberal Xians allow gay marriage, Cons don't.
Yeah....and? Let's be very clear and point out tha the amount of Churches sanctioning homosexual marriages represent a gross minority of Christians not only in the United States, but worldwide as well.

Quote: In order to convince me, you still have to do more than quote one paragraph and offer your interpretation. What about the close male friendships that are descrobed int he Bible (no, sex is not mentioned - not my point, especially since you have agreed to take the sex act out of the idea of marriage).
Are you suggesting that those are akin to marriage?


I'm trying to understand why this specifically denies gay marriage. Sure, it says that a man and woman can get married, and once they do, two flesh becomes one flesh. But it doesn';t say that two guys can't commit to each other in a marriage ceremony.

But, you know what. I think it can easily be interpreted that way.

Hence, the Bible is wrong, if this is what it means - or, the definition of marriage needs to be changed to include gay marriage.




EDIT: So, i guess, if the Bible does suggest that gay marriage is bad, the Xianity DOES make you a bigot, according to modern humanist philosophy/deifintion.

[Gilbert1908]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: So, it is your interpretation that this is NOT about sex, but simply about loving relationships for a lifetime should be bewtween a man and a woman?
Contextually, marriage was more about support than "loving relationships". The Syrian and Greek Orthodox Churches believe that Mary was a consecrated virgin arranged to be married to Joseph, who was a widower. It was more to ensure Mary's support than "loving relationship" that they got married.

Quote: I'm trying to understand this. (I see the passage as a warning against divorce if you have a child).
I don't understad that, because they are two statements. "What God has joined together, let no man seperate" and "Two come together to form one flesh". The latter certainly can be interpreted as a child, but when asking for a blanket statement on divorce (which is, by definition, the seperation of a couple), I don't see how only referencing those with Children would effectively answer that question.

Quote: Is it about a family? It doesn't mention sex (just "two flesh becoming one flesh..." ), but it doesn't mention family, or finances, or common friends, or the general acceptance of society of the "Union".

So, what IS marriage, then? Is it defined as simply a ceremony joining a man and woman?

For example, a "hectct bort" is what I will call the ceremony of joining two people of equal height.

A "ghretchey" is when two people with red hair get in front of their friends and family and say they will be tennis partners for 40 years.


Is it just a definition? Of what? What is the two flesh becoming one, etc.
If that conversation took place in a vaccuum, you might have a point, but it didn't. We know an awful lot about Jewish culture and the context that they would be speaking in at the time. That text must be taken in consideration with the culture at the time.

Quote: That is, I don't think you are interpreting it through your own prism, and not simply reading it in context to the Mosian Law.
I assume you mean that I AM interpreting it through my own prism? I might be, but I don't think so. What I am saying remains consistent with the Jewish culture at the time as well as the words that Jesus spoke.

Quote: That is, Liberal Xians interpret the Bible differently from Conservative Xians. Liberal Xians allow gay marriage, Cons don't.
Yeah....and? Let's be very clear and point out tha the amount of Churches sanctioning homosexual marriages represent a gross minority of Christians not only in the United States, but worldwide as well.

Quote: In order to convince me, you still have to do more than quote one paragraph and offer your interpretation. What about the close male friendships that are descrobed int he Bible (no, sex is not mentioned - not my point, especially since you have agreed to take the sex act out of the idea of marriage).
Are you suggesting that those are akin to marriage?


I'm trying to understand why this specifically denies gay marriage. Sure, it says that a man and woman can get married, and once they do, two flesh becomes one flesh. But it doesn';t say that two guys can't commit to each other in a marriage ceremony.

But, you know what. I think it can easily be interpreted that way.

Hence, the Bible is wrong, if this is what it means - or, the definition of marriage needs to be changed to include gay marriage.




EDIT: So, i guess, if the Bible does suggest that gay marriage is bad, the Xianity DOES make you a bigot, according to modern humanist philosophy/deifintion.

One can not dissect sin one by one and come to this conclusion.

We are ALL sinners for a variety of reasons. The focus on homosexuality as a particular sin is NOT a focus of Christianity in general. In fact it is a relatively small segment considering the maximum number of homosexuals in the population. Hetersexuals, me included, represent a far larger portion of the SIN POOL.

The focus on homosexuals is almost always as a result of NON-Christians bringing it up as an example of intolerance when in fact it is in the same basic category as sex outside of marriage. But since it is singled out politically it is fun to pretend it is singled out theologically which it certainly is not.

No matter how often it is said it seems that it remains inconvenient to the argument of some to accept that from a Christian perspective SIN is SIN, Christians believe that ALL people are equal in Gods eyes since we ARE ALL SINNERS of one kind or ANOTHER. The proscription IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN is to do your best NOT to sin, ie do not do certain things.

If you are not a Christian do what ever the heck you like, just don't expect Christians to be silent on a subject, like marriage, which is so deeply embedded in religious meaning.

[mODULAR mAN]

So, if homosexulaity is a sin according to Christianity, even if it is just one of many, it is still Christian-centric.

IF there is any "bigotry" against homosexuality, or other sins unique to Christianity (as other religions would be bigoted against sins unique to those religions), it is stil bigotry, because it is taught as such, without explanation, and expected to be followed. (For example, the Bible doesn't say WHY homosexuality is bad).

I can think of no reason that gay marriage would not be allowed in a secular society, or a society that doesn't take one religon over another.

So, homosexuality is wrong - according to C'y, but as a society with a seperation of C&S, there is no reason to restrict it.

After all gluttony, greed, etc. are considered sins, but there are no laws against it. (to which you have alluded)

I guess, it hinges on the defintion of marriage.

Is the term "Marriage" a specifically C'n word? If we are to be anal ( :wink: ) about semantics, does it specifically mean "the union of a man & woman by religious ceremony, etc...")

Or, is it a term that has a broad definiton? (e.g., the "marriage" of Greek and Roman cultures).


I think, as the title of this thread goes, it seems that being a C'n does make you a "bigot", just as any religion, or philosophy can. However, I don't think a C'n (correct me if I'm wrong) would be bothered by this, since they would say that it is "according to God's Will, so you can call me what you want, according to your Secular terms, but I know the Truth."

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: So, it is your interpretation that this is NOT about sex, but simply about loving relationships for a lifetime should be bewtween a man and a woman?
Contextually, marriage was more about support than "loving relationships". The Syrian and Greek Orthodox Churches believe that Mary was a consecrated virgin arranged to be married to Joseph, who was a widower. It was more to ensure Mary's support than "loving relationship" that they got married.

Quote: I'm trying to understand this. (I see the passage as a warning against divorce if you have a child).
I don't understad that, because they are two statements. "What God has joined together, let no man seperate" and "Two come together to form one flesh". The latter certainly can be interpreted as a child, but when asking for a blanket statement on divorce (which is, by definition, the seperation of a couple), I don't see how only referencing those with Children would effectively answer that question.

Quote: Is it about a family? It doesn't mention sex (just "two flesh becoming one flesh..." ), but it doesn't mention family, or finances, or common friends, or the general acceptance of society of the "Union".

So, what IS marriage, then? Is it defined as simply a ceremony joining a man and woman?

For example, a "hectct bort" is what I will call the ceremony of joining two people of equal height.

A "ghretchey" is when two people with red hair get in front of their friends and family and say they will be tennis partners for 40 years.


Is it just a definition? Of what? What is the two flesh becoming one, etc.
If that conversation took place in a vaccuum, you might have a point, but it didn't. We know an awful lot about Jewish culture and the context that they would be speaking in at the time. That text must be taken in consideration with the culture at the time.

Quote: That is, I don't think you are interpreting it through your own prism, and not simply reading it in context to the Mosian Law.
I assume you mean that I AM interpreting it through my own prism? I might be, but I don't think so. What I am saying remains consistent with the Jewish culture at the time as well as the words that Jesus spoke.

Quote: That is, Liberal Xians interpret the Bible differently from Conservative Xians. Liberal Xians allow gay marriage, Cons don't.
Yeah....and? Let's be very clear and point out tha the amount of Churches sanctioning homosexual marriages represent a gross minority of Christians not only in the United States, but worldwide as well.

Quote: In order to convince me, you still have to do more than quote one paragraph and offer your interpretation. What about the close male friendships that are descrobed int he Bible (no, sex is not mentioned - not my point, especially since you have agreed to take the sex act out of the idea of marriage).
Are you suggesting that those are akin to marriage?


I'm trying to understand why this specifically denies gay marriage. Sure, it says that a man and woman can get married, and once they do, two flesh becomes one flesh. But it doesn';t say that two guys can't commit to each other in a marriage ceremony.

But, you know what. I think it can easily be interpreted that way.

Hence, the Bible is wrong, if this is what it means - or, the definition of marriage needs to be changed to include gay marriage.




EDIT: So, i guess, if the Bible does suggest that gay marriage is bad, the Xianity DOES make you a bigot, according to modern humanist philosophy/deifintion.

One can not dissect sin one by one and come to this conclusion.

We are ALL sinners for a variety of reasons. The focus on homosexuality as a particular sin is NOT a focus of Christianity in general. In fact it is a relatively small segment considering the maximum number of homosexuals in the population. Hetersexuals, me included, represent a far larger portion of the SIN POOL.

The focus on homosexuals is almost always as a result of NON-Christians bringing it up as an example of intolerance when in fact it is in the same basic category as sex outside of marriage. But since it is singled out politically it is fun to pretend it is singled out theologically which it certainly is not.

No matter how often it is said it seems that it remains inconvenient to the argument of some to accept that from a Christian perspective SIN is SIN, Christians believe that ALL people are equal in Gods eyes since we ARE ALL SINNERS of one kind or ANOTHER. The proscription IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN is to do your best NOT to sin, ie do not do certain things.

If you are not a Christian do what ever the heck you like, just don't expect Christians to be silent on a subject, like marriage, which is so deeply embedded in religious meaning.


Yes, everyone is a sinner and everyone sins. That isn't the point here.
Quote: If you are not a Christian do what ever the heck you like, just don't expect Christians to be silent on a subject, like marriage, which is so deeply embedded in religious meaning. I don't think, nor have I seen, anyone questioning any group's choice to have their own definition of marrige changed, in regards to their religion. If the church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage because it is against the bible, gross, whatever, that's is fine. As you said, if you aren't a Christian, do whatever the heck you want, just don't expect [christians] to be silent on the subject. Same can be said of non-christians: christians can do whatever the heck they want, just don't expect non-christians to be silent on the subject. While that is an option, it doesn't get us anywhere but back to where we started. So, in regards to the religious aspect of marriage, christians can keep marriage as holy as they wish within their belief system.
When it comes to trying to put their belief system into gov't law for everyone, that is where you should expect trouble. This is where the problem lies.

Why do christians insist on placing their belief of this issue into gov't law? What purpose would that serve?

[mODULAR mAN]

I'm not a sinner. There is no God, ergo, I don't sin. :wink:

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote:

Why do christians insist on placing their belief of this issue into gov't law? What purpose would that serve?

What beliefs should we feel free to express? The ones with which you agree?

How does one form principals? Is there any other way for an individual to form his principles than by what he/she holds as his/her MOST fundamental beliefs? We are looking to sell wine in grocery stores here in MA what if I am Muslim and don't believe alcohol should be SOLD ANY WHERE, should I NOT OBJECT on relgious reasons, when I have not other reason???

You act as if laws are not a reflection of type of social morality? As if law is somehow clean and precise, free from human influence and interpretation. Law IS nothing more that what a free society agrees are codified morals.

The origin of a law is meaningless, the Pope can write a law and suggest it in to Senator Kennedy or any other congress person here in the USA, as long as it is CONSTITUTIONAL it can be enacted and put into law.

This idea, that an individual or group of individuals (NOT THE STATE), needs to remove his religious convictions from his mind or dialog in order to engage in public discourse, is precisely the concern religious people(and all freedom loving people) have about the direction of "thought" in Europe and USA. The more governments attempt to socially manage religion the worse things become. The reason you have Muslim rooted riots in Paris and far greater unrest in Europe and virtual religious peace in the USA is because "congress shall make no law" is the single most important sentence in the history of religious freedom and the reason THAT amendment was first.

The reason some Christians "insist on placing their belief of this issue into gov't law" is because that is perfectly acceptable as long as it is constitutional and passed by both houses of Congress.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:

Why do christians insist on placing their belief of this issue into gov't law? What purpose would that serve?

What beliefs should we feel free to express? The ones with which you agree?

How does one form principals? Is there any other way for an individual to form his principles than by what he/she holds as his/her MOST fundamental beliefs? We are looking to sell wine in grocery stores here in MA what if I am Muslim and don't believe alcohol should be SOLD ANY WHERE, should I NOT OBJECT on relgious reasons, when I have not other reason???

You act as if laws are not a reflection of type of social morality? As if law is somehow clean and precise, free from human influence and interpretation. Law IS nothing more that what a free society agrees are codified morals.

The origin of a law is meaningless, the Pope can write a law and suggest it in to Senator Kennedy or any other congress person here in the USA, as long as it is CONSTITUTIONAL it can be enacted and put into law.

This idea, that an individual or group of individuals (NOT THE STATE), needs to remove his religious convictions from his mind or dialog in order to engage in public discourse, is precisely the concern religious people(and all freedom loving people) have about the direction of "thought" in Europe and USA. The more governments attempt to socially manage religion the worse things become. The reason you have Muslim rooted riots in Paris and far greater unrest in Europe and virtual religious peace in the USA is because "congress shall make no law" is the single most important sentence in the history of religious freedom and the reason THAT amendment was first.

The reason some Christians "insist on placing their belief of this issue into gov't law" is because that is perfectly acceptable as long as it is constitutional and passed by both houses of Congress.
The discussion has gone to gay marriage, so of course this is what I was referring to. Let's not muddy the water of the discussion with other ideals.
You should repress any belief (that is supported by nothing other than the bible) that you are trying to put into law for everyone in the country.
Quote: We are looking to sell wine in grocery stores here in MA what if I am Muslim and don't believe alcohol should be SOLD ANY WHERE, should I NOT OBJECT on relgious reasons, when I have not other reason??? Of course you have a right to complain. but expecting something such as this in a country of multiple faiths is foolish.
Quote: You act as if laws are not a reflection of type of social morality? While that is your (misdirected) impression, morality has nothing to do with this conversation. There is nothing immoral about being gay. There is nothing immoral about allowing two gay people to be married and be given the same rights as other married couples. (And let's not go to the "religion equals morality" place) as it doesn't exist. Morality can survive just fine without religion. But again, morality is not what the discussion has turned into. Let's not stray too far from the discussion.

Quote: The more governments attempt to socially manage religion the worse things become. This isn't about you, this isn't about the church. It is about the people whom the church dislikes trying to be forced to live a life that is pleasing to the church by trying to pass their (churches) beliefs of a 2000 year old book that has been translated (more than once) by (more than one) people over these 2000 years, which shows no proof at all of being correct.
Quote: The reason some Christians "insist on placing their belief of this issue into gov't law" is because that is perfectly acceptable as long as it is constitutional and passed by both houses of Congress. And you know as well as the rest of us that if the church get's its view of what's "right and wrong" shoe horned into the gov't, then it will be law, regardless of how fair and just it is. This is exactly the reason why this movement is taking place. People are trying to force their views (which they hid behind religious 'teaching') on others by making them into law instead of practicing these views within their own families. "Can't raise my kids and be happy, might as well scr*w up someone elses chance to be happy too!"


What harm does a same sex couple do to a straight couple by getting married (other than complaints about who owns the term marriage)?



Seems to me if marriage was so great and christians value family so much, and, as even you suggested, teenage sex is a problem, christians should be supporting stabilizing the America family with two people who can care for and provide for their kids or adopted kids. Not doing so only shows how far gay hatred really can go: "Let's not only scr*w the gays by not letting them get married, let's also scr*w the kids that gays could adopt - all to get back at gays."

I have seen both sides of the fence and I know what goes on in both camps. I have been to camp meetings, lectures, seminars and have seen the out right hate of all things gay. Jokes have even been made at the expense of gay people by these 'religious leaders'. I know what the underlying reason is for most christians why they want this. The hate what they fear, and fear what they don't understand. This has been the battle cry for the church for quite sometime. People are frowned upon when they as a "why" question. I am a firm believer based upon what I have seen personally (let's not forget, christianity loves a personal revelation) that the 'church' fears knowledge and individual thought. It is easy to control people when you 'dumb them down' that when they can think for themselves. Don't try to make it sound like it is a defense of something 'sacred' or of 'moral value'. That is a crock, and we all know it.

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: I'm not a sinner. There is no God, ergo, I don't sin. :wink:

I can't honestly claim I am not a sinner and do no wrong, but I refuse to accept this idea that because two people sinned, I was automatically born condemned unless I accept a guy who claimed to be the sacrifice to the world (even though not all of the world knows this, and those who documented these claims have differing accounts of such). I am beyond that type of control by the church and will worship in my own way with my own understanding.
I apologize for the rank - has been a long week.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote:


What harm does a same sex couple do to a straight couple by getting married (other than complaints about who owns the term marriage)?

Seems to me if marriage was so great and christians value family so much, and, as even you suggested, teenage sex is a problem, christians should be supporting stabilizing the America family with two people who can care for and provide for their kids or adopted kids. Not doing so only shows how far gay hatred really can go: "Let's not only scr*w the gays by not letting them get married, let's also scr*w the kids that gays could adopt - all to get back at gays."

I have explained the general position of most Christians (not the minority of haters you cite) that homosexual sex is NO different than ANY OTHER sins, MINE INCLUDED. Some one else actually included the Catholic Catechism pointing out that while the behavior is not acceptable the PERSON MUST be respected, loved AND treated JUSTLY.

Yet your response is to say that my position simply because it is not acceptable to you, PROVES I HATE homosexuals.

Bigotry-stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. Dictionary.com


toddytodd wrote: I have seen both sides of the fence and I know what goes on in both camps. I have been to camp meetings, lectures, seminars and have seen the out right hate of all things gay. Jokes have even been made at the expense of gay people by these 'religious leaders'. I know what the underlying reason is for most christians why they want this. The hate what they fear, and fear what they don't understand. This has been the battle cry for the church for quite sometime. People are frowned upon when they as a "why" question. I am a firm believer based upon what I have seen personally (let's not forget, christianity loves a personal revelation) that the 'church' fears knowledge and individual thought. It is easy to control people when you 'dumb them down' that when they can think for themselves. Don't try to make it sound like it is a defense of something 'sacred' or of 'moral value'. That is a crock, and we all know it.

You obviously don't KNOW anything about Catholicism if you think "people are frowned upon when they ask a why question". The history of internal questioning and debate has gone on since the time of Christ. All one need do is meet nearly ANY Jesuit priest (the teaching order, see Notre Dame University, Boston College, Georgetown University, University of San Francisco, St. Louis Universtiy, Marquette University to name a few)

"it is easy to control people when you dumb them down" this is my favority statement and the entire premise most anti-Christians ultimately assume. You are in this post accusing me personally AND anyone else who shares my view of being stupid, a hater and a liar.

Despite all of the responses by the Christians and Catholics in this thread to the contrary, you assert we are all liars, that it is our HATRED which drives us and not our faith.

You are mistaken and I would remind you AGAIN of the definition.

Bigotry-stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. Dictionary.com

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:

Why do christians insist on placing their belief of this issue into gov't law? What purpose would that serve?

What beliefs should we feel free to express? The ones with which you agree?

How does one form principals? Is there any other way for an individual to form his principles than by what he/she holds as his/her MOST fundamental beliefs? We are looking to sell wine in grocery stores here in MA what if I am Muslim and don't believe alcohol should be SOLD ANY WHERE, should I NOT OBJECT on relgious reasons, when I have not other reason???

It's kind of self-censorship. If you are a Mulim and want no alchohol sold, then expect of religions to impose restrictions, too.

The best thing is for religions to turn inward, render unto Ceaser the which is Ceasers" and stay out of Secular matters (gov't).

That doesn't mean you can't speak up about things that are morally right or wrong, but, for example, if you think ham or homosexuality is a sin, and the only source you have is "because God said so" then expect to prove there is a God, or that it is wrong for society based on other objective, measurable metrics.

[Gilbert1908]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:

Why do christians insist on placing their belief of this issue into gov't law? What purpose would that serve?

What beliefs should we feel free to express? The ones with which you agree?

How does one form principals? Is there any other way for an individual to form his principles than by what he/she holds as his/her MOST fundamental beliefs? We are looking to sell wine in grocery stores here in MA what if I am Muslim and don't believe alcohol should be SOLD ANY WHERE, should I NOT OBJECT on relgious reasons, when I have not other reason???

It's kind of self-censorship. If you are a Mulim and want no alchohol sold, then expect of religions to impose restrictions, too.

The best thing is for religions to turn inward, render unto Ceaser the which is Ceasers" and stay out of Secular matters (gov't).

That doesn't mean you can't speak up about things that are morally right or wrong, but, for example, if you think ham or homosexuality is a sin, and the only source you have is "because God said so" then expect to prove there is a God, or that it is wrong for society based on other objective, measurable metrics.

And what then are "objective" measureable metrics with which you "prove" homosexuality is moral, which permit the non religious the special ability to speak with NO source of moral authority?