Marriage - secular or religious

Remove all ads!

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but it seems to me that you're saying the law overrides the bible, in which case, if the law says that gay marriage is OK, that should be the end of it.

Then again, there's that "eating the apple" thingy...

 

You really need to start cross-referencing another bible, since your King James Version Only approach has once again led you astray. "Thou shalt not kill" plays well poetically, but is a terrible translation. Old testament or new, the bible doesn't forbid killing. It forbids murder. Capital punishment isn't murder. Lawfully stoning your child to death in the town square for being disrespectful isn't murder. Killing enemy soldiers in battle isn't murder. Murder is a very specific term.

No offense, but this hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement of non-violence from The Lord, our God.

 

The entire point of the New Testament, IMHO, was that the laws of observances (in some cases called the Law of Moses) were fulfilled in Christ. That does not mean that the baseline standards for how we conduct ourselves that were also enumerated in the Old Testament were also thrown out the window. No Christian, believing that the laws of animal sacrifice and circumcision were fulfilled, ever seriously argued that the laws about bearing false witness, murder, adultery, or idolatry were also fulfilled and thus null and void. I believe that it was pretty crystal clear to them back then which elements of the law God had fulfilled with the coming of Christ and which elements (including those regarding sexual purity) were still firmly in place. Though as time has gone on, of course, the influence of secularism on the religion has caused some serious muddying of the waters.

In any event, the question of whether marriage is secular or religious is what this thread ostensibly asked about, and I will re-iterate. Obviously modern marriage is secular, because when a couple comes over from India with a marriage certificate, we in the western world consider them married despite the fact that it was a Brahmin who performed the ceremony. Now some religious groups will say that in religious terms the marriage is not valid (as an aside, Mormons are NOT one of those religious groups) but no religious group would try to go to a secular court and argue that the couple was not married because of their religious disagreement with the Hindu wedding.

What I believe the subtext of the thread was, though, was about religious people being involved in something they find morally repugnant. A gay marriage is a civil / secular matter. Fine and dandy -- if the democratically elected government wishes to make that decision, more power to them. But call it what you will, a religious person should still be able to recuse himself from being involved in a secular activity that he disagrees with, as long as no ones life is threatened. Just because the activity is secular does not mean that once a religious person must "check his faith at the door". I've argued several times that recusing oneself from involvement in something does not trample on the rights of others. I can't remember if the status of conscientious objectors has ever been brought into this thread, but Western cultures have made allowances for them. I can't see why they wouldn't do the same for other deeply held religious convictions. A conscientious objector would never buy into the argument of "it's not a religious war, it's a secular one, so really, you haven't got a leg to stand on!"

 

Fair enough, dmc -- whether Christians of my ilk choose to not call it a marriage is irrelevant in a pluralistic society -- at least in terms of what is fait accompli. However, the right of said Christians to participate in public debate should not be curtailed merely because they are speaking from religious principle.

The fact is, though, that we need more than the Bible to make an effective argument against those who support gay marriage because many of those people do not buy into the Bible, as you so eloquently pointed out.

 

No, I made light of people that selected passages out of context in a childish attempt to mock the beliefs of Christianity. Okay maybe the crack about shellfish was a joke...

Just how much of an editting or political influence is up for debate.

Statement X would explicitly be divine in nature, like the Ten Commandments, the Law of Tithing, the commandments that Christ gave. Y and Z would be civil laws recorded in the history which is also contained in the Old testament. Y and Z would be civil laws that applied in ancient Israel, and thus superceded by civil laws of the day. Homosexuality falls under divine, while shellfish falls under the Y or Z.

The Record of Civil laws and histories were kept by Divine command, therefore they are sacred, but again, it is important to remember the difference between Divine and Civil laws recorded in the book. Careful study will make that clear. Those that don't hold the Bible as valid might not care enough to make that effort--as the letter that dmc quoted demonstrates perfectly.

That's where another problem enters the picture. Some Christian faiths, in an attempt to feel more socially relevent have reached faulty conclusions and accepted the unacceptable. While yes, they teach the atonement of Christ, they also fail to take the moral stand against the evil growing within society, and would thus be apostate to more mainstream Christian faiths.

That's their belief, but other faiths will still oppose this. Just because one religion or a hundred smaller faiths allow something doesn't mean the larger faiths will follow suit.

Not homogenious, but still solid as a rock, not as fragmented as Drew would have you believe...

That actually is a non-sequitor. It was Politicians who legalized Gay Marriage. We all know how politicians conform to their promises, the desires of those who they represent, or the religious beliefs they claim to hold...

But since the government has intervened in religious matters on marriage, and can't turn back, they must uphold the same definition in the face of this challenge as they did in the face of the last challenge. Further, I believe the Christians that oppose Gay marriage should be sufficient to coerce politicians that want to maintain a career in politics that they should do what these people want...

No, the Civil law in the country you live in overrides the Civil law of Ancient Israel. It has no bearing whatsoever on Divine laws. Since Marriage, and it's definition, are Divine laws, Civil law is secondary to this.

That's way off topic. It was a transgression, and to my faith, one that had to happen for the rest of humanity to be born into this life. If you really want to get into this, please start another thread...

Since the civil laws of Ancient Israel were very explicit, I believe the laws concerning Capital punishment would have also been very specific. Any deviation from those procedures would constitute Murder...

Once again, Civil law of Ancient Israel, no matter how good it sounds, does not trump the laws of the land where you are. Just as Homosexuality is not a criminal offence here in Canada, it is a capital offense in many other countries. When you are in their country, you are subject to their laws, not the laws of Canada. Divine Laws, however, should not be subject to civil scrutiny.

And as such, have co-opted the obligation to preserve it.

I never said I was the boss, I just quote the party line. It is the opposing side of the debate that alienates the Christians, who should be sympathetic to their plight. You can't mock our holy book, belittle our intellect, blasphemously deny us that which we consider sacred, claim we lose the right to have our beliefs and desires taken into account in the making of laws for our benefit, label us as bigots [insert anything else I've forgotten that has been done in other such discussions] and still expect us to care about your plight. You point the finger at us, three of your own point back at you. And since we're humans, at some point the backs of two middle fingers may also face your direction...

We also disagree on who the boss is. To me, the bosses are the Father, the Son and teh Holy Ghost. They've made their desires clear, only to have them challenged time and time again by others that didn't want to do as they were told, misrepresented by others that wanted to use their name to authorize their own vain desires. But through all those changes and revisions, How then does the vast Majority of the faithful still agree on the forbiddance of Homosexuality? Simple, it's God's will.

Not 100%, but wrong enough. Jesus did, on more than one occasion, clash with the Scribes and Pharisees (Civil Authorities) over the interpretation of the Law. While the Ten Commandments and other major points were still in effect, Christ taught Forgiveness and Mercy instead of draconian punishment. He taught that more was required of us than to just avoid sin. He pointed out that we are al imperfect, and died for our sins that we may be forgiven. In His sacrifice, the Law of Moses was fulfilled, and thus sacrifice by shedding of blood was no longer required.

I'm not discarding it, but putting it into perspective. It is recognizing the civil laws of Ancient Israel for what they were. It is understanding the Divine commandments and trying to learn from the Saviour himself.

Actually, you have it backwards. It is the Gays that want change, therefore the onus is on them to propose something that we can accept. As long as they insist on desecrating that which is sacred, they will not get the sympathy for their cause that they need and should receive. It was our politicians that failed us in Canada...

 

Politicians who have been reelected - twice - since legalizing gay marriage.

 

Kudos to you LKD. I actually tried to give you a rep bump for this, but it said I already gave you one, and had to "spread reputation around" before giving it to you again.

For someone who is typically on the religious side of these debates, you have hit the nail on the head here: To convince anyone who is not a devout Christian that gay marriage is bad, will require a source other than the Bible. Now perhaps Gnarff will also see the light.

Or maybe not... But since you brought it up, is there anything that they could propose that you would accept? I think not, which makes your statement disingenuous.

That is SUCH a dodge. It in no way answers the question presented. There's nothing in the versions of the bible that I have read (and studied at the Jesuit University I attended) that says, "These are civil laws" and "These are divine laws". You then have the gall to say that the reason why you can tell the difference is you have studied the Bible and we haven't. You haven't given any evidence for how you know which ones are civil and which divine other than a saying you've studied it. And THAT is what we've been arguing about since the thread started. Not everyone interprets the Bible the same way you do.

 

Gnarff, the two commandments Jesus said were the most important:

Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, might and soul.

Love thy neighbor as thyself.​

How does gay marriage go against either of these? How does denying gay marriage not violate the second?

 

It's not off topic at all. It was in response to your assertion that "homosexuality is a sexual sin and thus a greater abomination than simply a dietary abomination". Eating the forbidden fruit was a "dietary abomination", and yet my (very limited) understanding is that was was a pretty big sin. But no, I don't want to get involved in this, here or in another thread.

I'll do it.

Actually, I always thought the second one was meant as an endorsement of mutual masturbation.

 

Nice use of alliteration there Splunge! Uggh, hanging out with you guys is putting my mind in the gutter.

Now, as for you, T2, loving your neighbour does not necessarily imply condoning their behaviour if that behaviour is wrong. I'll cite another Biblical case to illustrate my version of the Christian perspective, since you brought up a Biblical passage. Then I'll cite one of the worst effing cliches in history that nevertheless applies in this case, I think. Here goes (I'll paraphrase here because I don't feel like cutting and pasting from a Bible website. I'm also awaiting for Drew to come at me with a different translation of the Bible ):

Several high ranking Jews (IIRC they were Pharisees, but they coulda been Sadducees) dragged a woman to Christ and told him they had caught her in the act of adultery. Bad news. They asked him if they should kill her. Christ said "sure thing, dudes! Kill this chick! But the first person to throw the stone has to be someone without sin. Who wants this rock?" And they slunk away with their tails between their legs, probably to hang ten.

This is where most people stop reading the story, but I find the next scene highly instructive. I will also quit using the Surfer Dude Bible and go back to the KJV that I love so much. Christ asks her "where are they who condemned thee?" and she says "there are none left who condemn me." Then Christ says "neither to I condemn thee. Go and sin no more."

You'll note he didn't say she was forgiven, and he didn't say that what she had done was not a sin -- he made it clear that some acts are sins and that they should be discontinued.

Now for the cliche. It pains me even to type it. Here goes: Hate the sin and love the sinner.

Gag.

But the principle there is sound. I firmly believe that God loves everyone. But he does not condone every action or behaviour. Many Christians, and sadly some of my own faith, have said some pretty horrible things about gays, and I feel bad about that, I do -- I'll admit to my share of remarks that I wish I could take back. But coming to an understanding of the fact that gays are just as much children of God as we are does not change the fact that in our opinion, their behaviour is blasphemous and sinful and any efforts to normalize or accept that behaviour as a society is something that I and similar minded people feel we do have a right to object to. Objecting to that behaviour or its societal sanction is far, FAR different than advocating assault, murder or other criminal actions against people who happen to suffer from a different temptation set than I do.

That's today's Bible story, boys and girls. I only posted it to show where my belief comes from, and as I stated before, I don't expect anyone who is not a believer to change their opinion based on evidence from a source they do not buy into.

I'm selling copies of that Surfer Dude Bible if anyone wants one.

 

LDK (and Gnarff as well), the passage you cite could also be used as an example of tolerance. Whether or not she sinned again was not even an issue -- Jesus gave advice (and given that a prostitute could be stoned, I'd say very good advice). One fundamental principle in many religions is that of free will or free agency -- meaning we are free to make our own choices. Sure, we have to pay for poor choices in one way or another, but the principle is still the same -- the prostitute still had free will, Jesus knew that and accepted it.

 

I am a firm believer in free will -- I just also think that there should be consequences for wrong actions, and that society should not embrace wrong actions in the name of "tolerance". But I get the gist of what you're saying and mostly agree with it.

 

I tend to agree with you as well LDK. I just believe what goes on between two consenting adults is their business. There is no reason for anyone to punish two consenting adults for committing a "sin" -- although divorce attorneys might disagree.

 

Well, the hypocrisy inherent in many religious folks (myself included, based on some of my teenage comments) when it comes to sexual sin is evident. Many if not most Christians believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. I know I do, though it shames me to admit that in the past I have slipped from the path on that score. Ahem. But no point in denying the truth. Anyhow, ...

Said religious folks don't agree with people who "live in sin" as it were but you don't hear them making a big fuss about it. My theology tells me that engaging in sex outside of marriage with ANYONE bars you from heaven unless you repent. So it shouldn't make a difference to me if Bob is humping Tina or Tony if said humping is occurring outside of marriage.

The simple explanation for this is many people of faith have accepted that society won't do much to change the present status quo that doesn't have societal condemnation follow "shacking up". BUT they do not consider societal acceptance of openly gay couples to be fait accompli, so they continue to fight its acceptance and normalization in society.

 

Some were, most weren't. This abomination was forced upon us in the LAST term where the Liberal party disgraced the PM's office. The next election, Steven Harper won a minority government. You don't know half what you claim too. My point, which you have ignored, is that it was politicians that passed the bill, not Chirsians who they supposedly represent.

But any studies proposed that show that homosexuality is bad are criticized from the beginning. The pro gay marriage side is just as entrenched in their beliefs, subject to Morton's demon if you will, as we are. But despite what Drew tries to tell you, our side is still bigger, and we make better cookies.

Sure, there are some gruops that would accept nothing short of criminalization of homosexuals, but other, more moderate Christian groups (which I think should actually be the majority) might be amenable to a way to grant the rights that gays really want without defiling the definition of Marriage or the family. If certain rights are granted to a common law partnership, would that matter what gender the partners are? That is still not changing the definition of marriage, but extending the majority of the 1000+ rights that people claim this debate is about. If that is not good enough for the other side of this debate, then I conclude that this is not about gay rights, but rather some religion hating jerks that use gays as pawns in their crusade to tear away at what we consider sacred.

Look at the context these things are presented in. I would think it would be obvious...

You are actually hitting into a very heavy piece of doctrine to the Mormon faith. The forbiddance of eating from the Three of Knowledge of Good and Evil was simply an edict from God. Homosexuality is an abomination. The first was simple disobedience, while an abomination is a sin so objectionable that it is offensive to God.

As a former Mormon, I trust that you remember that we are called to preach repentance, not out of intolerance, but out of love. Further, it is love that requires that we NOT sustain them in their sins. And thirdly, It is also said that if we love Christ, we will keep his commandments. By committing such abominations, they show apathy for the Saviour. It is apathy, not hatred that is a true opposite of love...

Sadly, that now falls under the heading of intolerance. The irony here is that the stance that calls me intolerant for refusing to compromise my beliefs fits that same defintion of intolerant. I'm not demanding that gays abaondon their lifestyle to fit my beliefs, but I can't tell them that their way of life is acceptable to God when I know full well that it is not.

It is precicely that realization that makes this so heated. I've admitted that it's not right that certain rights be denied to them, but the way they seek to gain these rights is something I can't support. It is precicely that realization which requires that I keep making pleas that some other alternative be reached rather than launch an obscenity laden tirade and abandoning Gays to their place as second class citizens of their own choosing.

Part of the doctrine of Free Will is the acknowledgement of Consequences as well. While you are free to choose your actions, you are not free to choose the consequences that result from them. I acknowledge that gays are free to pursue same sex relatins, but they mus accept the consequences of their action--including the denial of the right to marry those of the same gender. They must acknowledge that activists may not know best, thus slowing the rights they deserve. They must acknowledge that a large portion of the society around them will not approve of their choice, and some will be vocal about such objections--some even hurtful or violent!

But that is what is being demanded of us in this thread. By not supporting Gay Marriage, we are painted as intolerant of Gays.

I agree with that, but I don't want to be forced to approve of it.

Actually, by bringing Divorce into the equation, you assume there's a marriage. Whether you call it a contract or a covenent, what those consenting adults are doing is a breach of that contract or violation of that covenent. That's where Divorce lawyers make their money...

---------- Added 0 hours, 9 minutes and 15 seconds later... ----------

I can hold my tongue in the case of a heterosexual couple "living in Sin" in hopes that if the relationship is what they hope it is and they will make the covenents of marriage. And I've tried to make the point that fornication and adultery don't take the gender of the partner into account, but that seems to get lost in the shuffle...

 

And what you seem to be ignoring is that, 2 elections after gay marriage was legalized in Canada by the Legislature, the Politicians that passed it are still in power. If all of Canada's Christians were really that upset by the gay marriage's legalization, this would not be the case. Assuming Christians are as likely to vote as non-christians (hard to document but a reasonable assumption), (incorrectly) assuming that Christians universally consider the issue of gay marriage important enough to warrant ousting it's supporters from office, and (incorrectly) assuming that all non-christians are in favor of gay marriage, conservatives would currently hold 72% of the seats in parliament. The simple fact that they do not, and haven't even been able to put together a majority indicates that most of Canada's Christians, while not necessarily happy about gay marriage, don't consider it a big enough issue to warrant ousting their liberal or NDP representatives.

 

Did anyone ever teach you to read? I have repeatedly pointed out that there has been ONE Federal election in Canada since that abominable betrayal of the Christians in Canada. The Government that forced--yes FORCED--that bill on us LOST. We have a different prime minister from a different party. However, due to his government being another minority government, he could not re-open the debate on the definition of Marriage. When the Conservatives get their majority this time, we'll see what happens then. If you can't be bothered to get your facts straight, then you discredit the "pro-gay marriage" side of the debate. Your revisionist history is not going to fly here.

And if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd see that it wasn't as you said it was.

That's not the way it works.

First off, Gay Marriage wasn't the only issue in the election.

Secondly, NO party in Canada truly represents the goals of Christianity. Some Christians might like Liberal or NDP policies better than those of the Conservatives.

Thirdly, in each electoral district, the seat is given to the candidate with the most votes. Some areas would have a significantly lower portion of Christians, other areas would have a higher portion. Some areas had really popular candidates which would take an inordinate amount of the vote.

Fourthly, there are about 12 parties in Canada, averaging 6 to 8 different candidates on the ballot in each area. Even if only about 35% of the area likes candidate A, the other 65% would split between Candidates B through H, and if none of the other candidates amasses that 35% support in the area, then Candidate A wins with 35% of the vote. Even if the wrath is directed primarily at teh Liberals, in some areas, that wrath splits between the Conservative and NDP, thus keeping a Liberal representing the area.

In fact, it is theoretically possible for a party with only about 40% of the popular vote to get a narrow Majority of the seats in Parliament, and thus control the government.

I have serious issues with how that vote went down in Parliament anyway. Party leaders coerced would be dissenters into supporting the party line, and there was no record of each individual vote, denying any accountability for how they voted. You may like what they did, but you have to agree that it was a cowardly way in which it was done.

 

Gnarff, I admitted in my example that I was making an over-simplification. The point is that, for the argument that the will of the people was thwarted when the legislature to be unequivocally true, the party that voted for the legalization will have to lose a very significant number of seats. Any time a social reform like this is passed, the party that passed it is bound to lose some seats. The democrats went from holding a massive majority in the house, senate, and had a near unshakable grip on the White house before passing the civil rights act of 1964. Virtually overnight, they lost their, majority, the white house, and the South. They have yet to gain a considerable foothold in the South. If there is no such dramatic response, then the issue isn't important enough on its own to warrant ousting the party that passed the bill into law.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that a large number - perhaps even a majority - of Christians do not oppose gay marriage. What I am arguing is that a fair number of Christians are clearly ambivalent about it, and that a rather substantial number are actually in favor of it. The United Church of Christ (with over 1.2 million members) both blesses gay unions and supports abortion. The Episcopal church (with nearly 2.25 million members), while itself torn on whether or not to bless same sex unions, supports the legalization of gay marriage*. Then, there's the Presbyterian Church (2.3 million members), and the Alliance of Baptists, a left-leaning fellowship of Baptist churches and individuals espousing moderate-to-liberal theological and social stances.

* Just as it is torn on whether it will bless same sex unions, the Episcopal church - both members and clergy - is also torn on the issue of abortion. Food for thought.