Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

What Saber says probably carries a bit more widespread merit than expected. I was raised in a primarily Mormon family (with a lot of self interpretation ) and was always taught in church/seminary/whatever that Sodom was destroyed for inhospitality rather than crimes of a (homo-)sexual nature. However, it still seems to me that the bible does certainly indicate a level of unnaturalness related to homosexuality. My point for this is primarily being Paul's depiction of homosexuality. Arguments, will always be made about Jesus rebuking the old laws entirely (which is to say not just limited to the shellfish clauses and the like ). With these in mind, it is necessary to note that Paul forbid homosexuality as well. I know he is forbidding lustful actions with women as well, but that is the point. In his eyes all lust was abomination, but at least when it came to sexual activities with a woman there was the benefit of reproduction. With men, needless to say, there is no such redeeming quality.

That being said I am one to formulate my opinions for myself, rather than explicitly take those provided by others. I think that homosexuality is wrong only because as a straight man I find it yucky However, it certainly doesn't make people evil, and if they indeed don't have the choice I would hardly call it a sin (on that note I don't think they have a choice because I believe nobody would choose homosexuality. Unless of course they had other mental, which would mean homosexuality is a result of a mental disorder Now I'm just trying to make ironic fun) and as such they deserve the chance to have the same civil rights-- even if not religious. And in my eyes marriage is simply civil, unless otherwise noted by God, rather than the other way around.

 

Saber, the Lev. 20:13 quote proves your guy flat wrong. People were not put to death for being ritually unclean. They were put to death for committing abominable acts. Sodom I can believe, but Leviticus bans homosexuality as abominable, and experts everywhere have translated those words as an abominable act for hundreds of years. John Boswell's just wrong, sorry. In light of such a blatant mistake, I doubt everything else you've quoted of him.

??? What kind of crazy 'Christians' do you hang out with? Girls shouldn't enjoy sex? Women should stay in the kitchen? Men should never listen to them, but only command them? This sounds more like a Wako, Texas style cult than real Christianity.

 

A part of the point I was going to make to Joac was that when one considers that homosexuality was practiced throughout the Ancient World (Greece and Rome), which, btw, happens to fall into the historical and social context of Christ's, one would think that IF it was such a "colossal sin" (as Joac makes it out to be in his post) that He would have been preaching against its practice day and night. Yet, there is no record of Him doing so. I'm not saying that it is NOT a "transgression," but that it is one trangression on a list of many. And I am only suggesting that it is magnified because of the political and social context of our own times.

 

No, they make sense because they are right. I'm just telling you that I find it makes sense.

But by attacking anyone who claims to have the right to make rules, your vision heads there.

I guess my definition of rational is different from yours.

That's insulting. And further, any modern example you point to, someone will make similar claims against them. Which leads us back to nobody having the right to implement rules, and thus no rules at all...

Of course we do. Look at the mess we make when left to our own devices? And you would trust humans to make rules to fix this? 6000 years of history are against you there, bud.

Read your own rants against Religion. Then Faith in God won't seem so stupid. To me, having faith in humanity despite a proven track record of greed, wrath, lust, sloth, pride, gluttony and envy to set these things aside for the good of all is delusional. It's a recipe for more failed societies. You refuse to learn from history, I hope you enjoy repeating it...

 

Good post, btw, Saber. And I agree with you regarding the rights of women and some religious views (but then, I do live in Texas). It's the same with the abortion issue: that women are getting out-of-line by having choice and deciding for themselves.

 

Your arguement wins if we used the actual latin word. We're not using the original latin word, therefore you haven't proved squat.

By God, of course.

Wrong. By using the religious terminology, you accept the same sacred obligations as if it was a religious authority officiating the ordinance. You want God out, USE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.

And they will be held accountable at the last days. But now you want to use it to legitimize an abomination. That offends those of us that DO consider it sacred, and given the chance, 30 of 50 states have voted against allowing that. Don't paint me as a minority here. The majority believes I'm right.

But did it rival the Egyptian empire of the ancient world? I don't think so...

But that one constant has remained throughout the centuries. It has ALWYAS been man and a woman. That has not changed, and the faithful resist that change at every turn.

Because you can't use the word **** in the bible. Not only was this the desire to have sex with these angels (as opposed to Lot's daughters), the assumption was that they would gain carnal knowledge of them through violent means if need be.

How about the 10 commandments. Adultery covers any and all sexual practices outside the bonds of marriage. Homosexuality would fall under this heading. The passage in Leviticus just spells it out more clearly...

Is this religion or society in general forcing these stereotypes on both genders? The source document of Chirsitanity, the Bible, protrays both man and woman doing everything they can to survive, and that Man and Woman are both blessed according to what is required of them.

But this one is not good. While we don't feel it appropriate to incarcerate homosexuals, we do not beli9eve that they should receive the sacred ordinance of Marriage. Oh, and Goth chicks will age like warm beer...

I'm not talking about that much conformity. But on major things a certain degree of conformity is needed for social harmony.

I don't think Christ ever recalled the 10 Commandments. The Scribes and Pharisees went a little overboard and went beyond God's commands and into some stupid rules. Chirst just hit the reset button, and taught some higher principles.

Exactly the point I've wanted to make all along! Just because homosexuality is not right, it doesn't make the person who indulges automatically evil.

Marriage is a religious ordinance. The Government's interference in religious matters may also hold up getting these rights to gay people.

Right you are. Homosexuality is no worse than fornication or adultery. But because it is not natural, God will not see it legitimized. It's talked about so much these days because people are trying to change the traditional morality. It would die down quite a bit if a suitable compromise could be reached where marriage is protected, but gays still get their rights. I'm convinced that this is possible, but there is not enough will to see it done.

 

Here are a couple of other abominations from Leviticus:

[7.18]: And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.

So, if you sacrifice anything (which is kind of outdated anyways, but perhaps if you apply it spirituality - if you make a spiritual sacrifice to God), don't eat it or it is an abomination (similar to lying with a man as with woman).

[11.10]: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you

[11.11]: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination

[11.12]:Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

No more shellfish, either. Too bad, I kinda like shrimp.

(I am skipping over a couple about eating eagles and such being abominations...)

[11.42]: Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

Bear Grylls isn't going to like this one...

And all of Leviticus 20 is pretty important, as it recaps the whole shebang, putting homosexuality and shellfish (and centipedes) into the same passage.

The point is, homosexuality is only one of a few things that are considered abominations. The rest are practices that are either outdated (sacrifices) or widely practiced with no negative moral connotations (like having a nice lobster dinner with your significant other). Plus, as Mr. Boswell said, the whole passage is about cleanliness, not about condemning gays to hell.

I used the King James Bible (available online: http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvLevi.html ) if you want to check it out.

I left out a couple more references to abominations, but they were mostly repeats of homosexuality, shellfish, and four-legged chickens.

And thank you Chandos

I am talking about gender roles in general. Talk to a women's studies major. Anyone of them can give you a better idea of what they are, but media and religious portrayal still pigeonhole women into being subservient and lesser than men. The only domain they have control over is the house and the whole popping out babies thing. I wish I had my notes with me from my Sexuality class, I could give a much more in depth explanation.


EDIT (for Gnarff):

Says you. Boswell went through the bible and found only 10 (out of 943) uses of the word 'know' to mean 'have sexual relations with.' Plus, languages are (and were) quite diverse; I am sure they could have thought of a less ambiguous word than 'know' for 'bang.' And you are precisely correct on one thing: the sin was rape, regardless of whether it was men raping men or women.

 

In terms of terretories controlled and population they probably even exceeded ancient egypt. Saladin is also considered one the most prominent rulers of his time and shortly after him they even reconquered Israel.

 

Ok, so I was wrong on the meaning of 'abomination'. Thanks for pointing that out. Still, those others don't proscribe a punishment for people doing them. Instead, it just gives a general warning that they will make you 'unclean'. These are cleanliness laws meant to prevent the spread of disease, among other things. The homosexuality law, on the other hand, commands that those caught be killed. That's not a cleanliness law, that's a sin law, meaning homosexuality is a sin.

Oh, no I don't doubt that there are groups out there like that (KKK maybe), and I don't argue that the general perception of the positions of most women in media is poor (though they always portray the wife as the smart one and the husband/father as the incompetant buffoon, hmmm), but that's not religion. What religious groups do you know of that make claims like that?

Remember, we're talking a King James translation here. It's not going to be the most graphic.

Morgoroth:
Wasn't Saladin a Syrian Kurd? His empire wasn't an Egyptian empire. It may have included Egypt, but it was a Syrian empire.

 

I absolutely agree with that statement, and in fact, he added one, which he said was the most important. I find it odd that Christians speak of only 10, because there are really 11 for Christians.

But that's a fine Catch 22, Gnarff. You accuse gays of having sex outside of marriage, while not allowing them the marriage rites. Fine piece of work there.

 

I have to respond to this one.

The Roman Catholic Church for one, most if not all fundamentalist churches, Jehovah Witness polish it as they will. Equality between men and women in the Christian religion is a myth. If you believe that the Bible is the holy, untarnished truth of God, Yahweh Almighty then you believe that women are subservient to men.

Pre-christian Nordic (viking) women had a lot more rights than Christian women. Even the Torah grants more rights to women than Christianity, although the Muslim society has diluted those rights.

With that I will scram because I could really go into a rant about this one.

 

Fine Gnarff. Your turn -- prove divine origin of the word "marriage." Please provide a direct quote from the original language of the Bible or Book of Mormon. If you cannot, then obviously you have no valid claim of divinity for the term.

But, of course, we all know you cannot prove this -- instead you will use your traditional methods of arguing points by ignoring those points which conflict with your meager knowledge of your church and religion in general.

 

Saladin himself might have been a Kurd but then not all Roman Emperors were Roman either so it's not really exceptional. The cradle of his power and his capitol (Cairo) were in egypt however. Also his most prominent title was being the Sultan of Egypt. Therefore I think his empire can well be considered Egyptian.

 

Seriously, I think that may be the worst argument that I have ever seen you use here. The bible used a latin word that we derived the term marriage from... OK. But if the latin term already had multiple meanings, than there is no reason to separate the meanings in English now too... And you can add in any of the [large number] of languages in the world today that likely have more than one meaning for their word to describe marriage. As someone had already pointed out, I find it ridiculous that having the same word for all MARRIAGES, would make it difficult for God to figure out which ones he endorses... And that should be all that matters here.

 

Don't Mormons call it Celestial Marriage? Or have I mistaken as this for another ritual? My apologies, my knowledge on Mormon customs and beliefs is limited at best, so my sincere regret if I insult anybody here with ignorance.

What about the words Matrimony and Wedlock? Are they reserved for Christianity and derivitives as well or are the masses allowed to reserve these words for separate occassions and ban the use in a Christian context instead?

What about Kiddushin? That's the hewbrew term for it (I also believe it means contract as well, may be mistaken, shall have to ask Rallymama!)

So if we take from hebrew roots... marriage is a contract. A promise to fulfill towards one another and a holy or secular entity (As an instance)

Within a Celestial Marriage, this is between one man, one woman and the abrahamic god, yes? No arguments towards that?

With a Pagan Handfasting, this agreement is between two people and the Gods who meet within perfect love and perfect trust.

With a Civil Union, this is an agreement between an engaged couple and the legal requirements of the governmental body.

Marriage is a contract, the sacred vows taken within that union surely specify how sacred and special that union is to each individual couple. If the abrahamic God is present at a contract of marriage, why not other contracts within business or politics?

Why does Marriage have to be redefined as a Christian Contract? I could understand if the vows were taken from Christianity and then bastardised and negated specifically for a Marriage between homosexuals or disbelievers. But as it, in my opinion, the argument doesn't gel together well that all heterosexual unions are Christian and all others are an abomination.

Nobody argues the definition of prayer is purely Christian, or that english is an evolving language. If it was the same word - used exclusively within the holy texts and the same between language barriers - again, I would understand the argument entirely.

I understand that the notion of God performing the first marriage is gospel to many here, I am not disputing this. Can you honestly and forthrightly claim that it was in english and used the specific word 'marriage' as spelt and spoken on these boards, now in the present day in an evolved language.

Can you reject that the abrahamic God gave humankind free will to do as they wish in life in full knowledge that upon passing they will recieve just treatment in the afterlife? Following that with that free will there are those who choose to commit to each other and make legal, religious and soulful promises and a contract to one another, that while not blessed or accepted by your God, still deserve some form of protection.

Also, in point of an earlier argument that marriage is to continue bloodline - what of adoption and couples incapible of producing a child? Should I not marry if I can't have children? Would my marriage be an abomination in the eyes of god?

What word should be used instead of Marriage? Why don't Christians change the word used if it has become such an abomination where politics and secular mindsets have tainted the sacred intent?

 

Actually, the argument is quite valid.

A latin word has a certain meaning. A word is wanted that has a similar, but not exact, meaning to the latin one, so a new word is formed based on, but not equal to, the latin one, and is given a definition that similarly is not exactly the same as the latin one.

Of course, this does nothing to help Gnarff's misguided claim of the church's ownership of the word "marriage".

 

As has been stated before, it is basically a dead issue here in the US.
30 states have constitutional amendments that bars same-sex marriages & the federal protection of marriage act(passed in '96) strictly defines marriage as 1 man & 1 woman.

In total 43 states have statutes restricting marriage to opposite sex partners.
Also, as gnarff has posted many times, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is 1 man & 1 woman.

8People, why should the Billions of Christians, Jews & Islamics have to give up what they believe is a sacred word so a small minority can be pampered?
Hell if we are gonna do that, i want all members of (insert whatever group you belong to) to be addressed as "Most High Pubah" at all times & taxed at a special low rate as such.

 

Like yours, my username has no capitals.

I simply stated another option, another consideration. Jews do have a different word for marriage (information garnered from friends and relatives) and I am uncertain on the subject of Islam, I have heard there are several terms for marriage, but have not got enough first hand information on the subject.

Surely the vows are more sacred than the name of the ritual afterall? A name all Christians can use whatever country and creed can use without any argument over the purpose or meaning of the ritual or contract.

I wasn't making any demands that it should be that way or that Christians should give up anything sacred. I tried to address points without making too strong a bias to either side, Marriage is a big thing for anybody, Christian or not, if atheists can marry without mention of God, why can't another group?

I did not intend to insult in any part of what I wrote, and didn't really expect mockery simply from the last sentence in my post: However many of my group deserve it.

 

As a Christian, I can say that marriage is "sacred." In fact, like many Christians, Jewish people and Muslims, I've even done it more than once.