Same-Sex Marriage

[Annah]

I really dislike the way religion takes away critical thinking from decent people and replaces it instead with child like views of the world.

Amen...I would even replace child like views to "selfish centric views"

[Del]

Annah,
I'm sorry I riled you so much but you are wrong in some areas.
First, your reference to David and Jonathan are a spiritual love that surpasses the love of women. Surpassing a carnal love.
Secondly, in reference to gays men of God in the Bible I already gave many examples. The word says in the multitude of counsellers there is safety.
If you look at the word you won't find any gay men of God. The example you gave not being gay but a spiritual love.
As for dragging Jesus into it I also gave the spiritual types and shadows of Jesus being the Husband of the church. They can be found all throughout the word of God.
I also thought that I answered the original poster's question in a rather loving manner. Of course I did not receive that same type answer in return.
I am sorry that you cannot see the spiritual aspects of the word of God. We must remember that seminary means little as the scribes and pharisees knew Hebrew and it's root forms better than any modern day gentile and not only didn't Jesus choose them as disciples but they didn't even see that he meant his body in the parable about the temple.
I know many with views opposing traditional churches have been hurt but they need not be so combative when someone posts to answer a question with no intention of hate towards them.
Part of that love that surpasses the love of women is that spiritual love that I have to share with transgender people that which they may need to see whether you like it or not.
And part of that same love is why I am not offended at your response since you got your feathers ruffled kiddo.

[Sandy]

...
I really couldn't care less about secular marriages. Sadly however many mock that which is sacred in Christianity pertaining to the covenant of marriage with the Lord as it is written he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Not non-believers alone but Christians as well.
...
Here in Illinois we have a civil union law that gives same sex couples full rights as heterosexual married couples. Makes me wonder why push for marriage. More so when a thousand march for the marriage right but only a hundred or so get married when it is passed.

Sorry, I have to take issue with that.

I am in a domestic partnership with my husband.  We were the fourth couple to get our license and were married the very next day.  A high point in my life, but I digress.

My "partnership" does NOT give us complete rights as opposite-sex couples.  Federal tax breaks that are given to O/S couples are denied us (about a thousand tax breaks).  Even within the state not all benefits are conferred.  My husband and I can now file joint state tax forms, but I cannot guarantee the survivor benefits will pass to us in the event of either of our deaths.  We have, supposedly, hospital visitation rights and funereal discretion, but even now SS couples are being denied these rights based on confusion and bias.

A marriage law, currently introduced here, would remove the ambiguity from all legal definitions of our arrangement and state emphatically, at least within the State of Illinois, that in ALL ways our MARRIAGE is IDENTICAL to any and all O/S marriage in every way shape and form.

Domestic partnership is touted as a "separate, but equal" equivalent.  But "separate" is never "equal"!

BTW: There were over 200 couples that got their domestic partnership on June 1 2011, just in Cook county.  I know, I was there.  And at least 200 or more in the rest of the state, just that day!   Since then there have been over a thousand couples married. 

I am a staunch supporter of a secular, legal, definition of marriage.  I should have equal rights under the law in all way, shapes, and forms as any O/S couple in all states and in all federal venues.

As far as a religious recognition of my marriage, I care not in the least.  If there is an afterlife, doubtful, and some omniscient/omnipotent superbeing wants to judge me because of an ambiguous document, transcribed from oral stories that even the wisest among us cannot agree on which interpretation is correct, and finds me wanting, then it can keep its pocket universe and do as it will.  I will not change.

I don't mock religion, I've studied many, and found them all wanting.  I just don't care.

-Sandy


chat spel

[Incarnadine]

There is nothing in the Bible...utterly NOTHING that states Marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Realizing that you've taken many courses in studying the Bible from a different perspective than I, I have to respectfully disagree.  In Gen. 2:23, Adam calls Eve by the same Hebrew word that is translated woman as what is used in the following verse to define marriage as being between "man" and "that which was made from man" - i.e., woman.  Male and female.

2 Samuel 1:26  "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." David weeping over the death of Jonathan.  Sounds pretty gay to me.

So David loved Jonathan means they were homosexual?  Does love always mean a sexual or romantice relationship?  Just because it sounds gay to Western ears doesn't mean David meant it to BE gay.  There is no evidence in Scripture of a romantic or sexual relationship between the two men.

The bullying argument is a straw man.  Preaching righteousness and holiness is not bullying.  Just because someone feels bad about what is being said or doesn't like what is being said does not make it bullying.  You'll always have some who will preach violence (true on both sides of many issues), but that's not the issue.  Promoting hatred and rejection of a person is bullying; preaching against an action or lifestyle is not.  When gluttony or gossip are preached against, the overweight and self-absorbed are not being bullied; it is their actions that are being addressed.

Many modern preachers forget that they are to preach the whole counsel of God, not just the parts they like.  Paul writes in II Tim. 4:3 that folks will flock to those who preach the things they want to hear preached, instead of those who preach sound doctrine.  John writes in I John that love is to be expresssed in word, in actions, and in truth.  Anything else is a false balance before the Lord.

Ya'll are right; preaching against sin is old-fashioned.  Perhaps in light of today's culture it is also outdated.  But it will always be applicable, even if people don't want to hear it. 

All are welcome to come to Jesus as they are; we are never commanded to fix ourselves before coming to Him.  But to think that God accepts our sin is prideful and arrogant.  Jesus' very first message was that of repentance.  And since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, His message doesn't change either.

[Sarah Louise]

We need to be careful when Religion enters a discussion, we (those of us who are religious) come from many differing backgrounds and take different views on the inerrantcy of Scripture.

It is easy to become agitated when someone has a different interpretation, we need to be sure not to take things personally and to calmly make our point without pointing fingers.

[Penny Gurl]

...
Here in Illinois we have a civil union law that gives same sex couples full rights as heterosexual married couples. Makes me wonder why push for marriage. More so when a thousand march for the marriage right but only a hundred or so get married when it is passed.
....

Ok, I do need to make a point of clarification, here in Illinois civil union partners do NOT have all the same rights as married spouses.  In fact that is exactly why the marriage equality act is being posed.  The fact is "partners" in a civil union can not make end of life or other medical decisions in the same way a spouse can in a marriage.  Also civil union partners can not receive the death benefits of each other nor can they be included on eachother's health care plans.  So to recap, Illinois civil union is not a "separate and equal" agreement in all the terms of a legal marriage.  For those reasons, not to mention tax reports and a few others I strongly feel that the Marrariage Equality Act should pass so that a same sex loving couple can be extended full marriage benefits.  Nothing to do with "god" or anyone's faith, however it has everything to do with social equality.

[Del]

Penny Gurl,
I'm sorry the civil union laws here do not support every aspect of a marriage in terms of rights and such. It was my understanding it did. But then again I am not effected by it.
In reference to the marriage issue I thought I said I didn't care about secular such as you speak of. If not I am sincerely sorry for the mix-up.

[Incarnadine]

While I can't speak for every conservative, there are many that I know who aren't preaching against SSM for the purpose of control.  They are truly concerned for their nation.

The common perspective on Leviticus is a negative one, especially on this board, but the literal, conservative perspective is that not only is homosexuality condemned, it is also the reason why God booted out the Canaanites (Lev. 20:23 "...for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them."). 

I only add this to point out one of the reasons why there is such strong opposition to SSM.  Some folks are genuinely concerned that God will judge America. 

Calling them childish, immature, archaic, selfish, bigoted, ignorant, or whatever doesn't mean they actually are those things.  We simply see things from a different perspective.  Folks are free to think what they want; but thinking a thought doesn't make it truth (unless you're Buddhist).   

And the great thing about America is that both sides have, or at least OUGHT to have, the same freedom to voice their opinions.  Folks on either side NEED to keep fighting for what they believe - so long as the guns stay holstered.   

[Annah]

Leviticus also commanded those who were physically and mentally disabled from worshiping in the Temple (Lev. 21:16-21)

Could you imagine if America did not allow those who were in wheelchairs from going to church because they are afraid God would judge America?

I always find it curious how there are some who would follow one law in Leviticus but dismiss another. When it comes to the homosexuality and crossdressing verses in Leviticus I believe, in my opinion, people uphold these certain laws because LGBT people make them uncomfortable.

Having pastored in a Conservative church for 10 years in three different churches I have never seen the ol philosophy of "Love the sinner, hate the sin" practiced out. I have seen first hand attacks against LGBT people, children being disowned by religious parents because the children are LGBT, etc. So I think it goes far beyond "this are the verses I believe...I love Gay people but I think they are sinners."  At least from my experiences.

[spacial]

Realizing that you've taken many courses in studying the Bible from a different perspective than I, I have to respectfully disagree.  In Gen. 2:23, Adam calls Eve by the same Hebrew word that is translated woman as what is used in the following verse to define marriage as being between "man" and "that which was made from man" - i.e., woman.  Male and female.

No, not relevant.

The statement in 2:23 refers to Adam's acceptance of Eve who has just been created.

Since these two are. according to the story, the only man and woman in existence, a marriage is not really what was intended. It's not like either of them had a choice!

[crazy at the coast]

I always find it curious how there are some who would follow one law in Leviticus but dismiss another.

Because its self serving? 

[Incarnadine]

Leviticus also commanded those who were physically and mentally disabled from worshiping in the Temple (Lev. 21:16-21)

Could you imagine if America did not allow those who were in wheelchairs from going to church because they are afraid God would judge America?

I always find it curious how there are some who would follow one law in Leviticus but dismiss another. When it comes to the homosexuality and crossdressing verses in Leviticus I believe, in my opinion, people uphold these certain laws because LGBT people make them uncomfortable.

Having pastored in a Conservative church for 10 years in three different churches I have never seen the ol philosophy of "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I have seen first hand attacks against LGBT people, children being disowned by religious parents because the children are LGBT, etc. So I think it goes far beyond "this are the verses I believe...I love Gay people but I think they are sinners."  At least from my experiences.

And it is true that our experiences often define our perspectives.  There always seems to be a difficulty in finding the balance between love and truth.  Do we love to the point of accepting all behavior, even if it is condemned in Scripture?  Do we focus so much on the truth that we forget to love, or to speak the truth in a loving way?  These are two extremes - neither is balanced.

If one understands that Levitical law applied directly to the nation of Israel, then there is no need to wonder about picking and choosing.  I mentioned in another thread that Paul (the hated NT writer himself!) clarifies that loving your neighbor as yourself is the fulfilling of the laws that applied to interpersonal relationships. 

The Law proved that man could not reach God himself; hence the strictness.  The Cross proved that God reached down to man; hence grace.  Therefore, wheelchairs are welcome in American churches. 

God never said He judged Canaan because they allowed the handicapped to worship Him; He said He judged Canaan because of idolatry, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, and child sacrifice - all of Leviticus 20.  Hence the concern for America.

[Incarnadine]

No, not relevant.

The statement in 2:23 refers to Adam's acceptance of Eve who has just been created.

Since these two are. according to the story, the only man and woman in existence, a marriage is not really what was intended. It's not like either of them had a choice!

Yes, 2:23 refer's to Adam's acceptance of Eve, but the following verse contains a preposition that connects the two.  The KJV translates it as "therefore."  One could also translate the concept as "because of this fact..."  Adam accepted the fact that Eve was made from him, and therefore male and female, having left their respective nuclear familes, uniting makes them one flesh - marriage, or the creation of a separate family.

Also to clarify, are you also saying that if there is no choice, then there is no marriage?  Few Americans still use such a custom as arrainged marriage, but families in other countries would disagree.  In fact, one could consider Adam and Eve to be the first arraigned marriage.

[Annah]

Grace does not only apply to those who are physically handicapped.

Grace is given freely to all ...even when we do not deserve it.

Grace does not ignore anyone regardless of class, social status, gender, and sexual orientation.

God judged Canaan yes, but God also judged and kill those who entered the holy of holies. Christ opened grace where we can now enter in. Judgements based around laws have been fulfilled. Grace abounds.

We should start loving one another as Jesus taught rather than judging one another or limiting the rights of one another.

[Incarnadine]

Grace does not only apply to those who are physically handicapped.

Grace is given freely to all ...even when we do not deserve it.

Grace does not ignore anyone regardless of class, social status, gender, and sexual orientation.

God judged Canaan yes, but God also judged and kill those who entered the holy of holies. Christ opened grace where we can now enter in. Judgements based around laws have been fulfilled. Grace abounds.

We should start loving one another as Jesus taught rather than judging one another or limiting the rights of one another.

I whole-heartedly agree with you up to that last point, and even most of that last one.  Jesus declares that He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.  He said that not one little bit of the law would pass, even if all creation were destroyed.  Jesus' death on the cross made it possible for God to forgive man's breaking of the law, not that man could now live however he wanted to.  Murder, theft, adultery, idolatry, covetousness, and are all still wrong; we just aren't judged for breaking them IF we've been forgiven.

Jesus Himself said that an individual must believe in Him.  As a Greek student, Annah, you're familiar with the Greek word "en" meaning more than just our idea of "believing in."  It carries with it the concept of "into." 

God offers eternal life to all who would believe "into" Jesus Christ, LGBTQQI (and however many other letters we add on) included!  It does not mean that the law goes away, only that forgiveness is available to all who break God's law. 

I don't have to judge someone; that ball is in God's court.  But all I have to do to know what God judges is to look at the Bible to see what He condemns.  Lots of Christians (many of my own stripe) are really good at pointing fingers at others without looking to see what behaviors exist in their own lives that God is not pleased with.

Grace through faith makes forgiveness possible.  It does not give us a "license" to live how we please.  It is not my place to condemn an individual; it is, however, my place to communicate God's displeasure with choices people make.

Many cannot separate behavior from identity.  I cannot choose who or what I am; I can, however, choose how I act.  And behavior is the focus of God's condemnation.

[spacial]

Yes, 2:23 refer's to Adam's acceptance of Eve, but the following verse contains a preposition that connects the two.  The KJV translates it as "therefore."  One could also translate the concept as "because of this fact..."  Adam accepted the fact that Eve was made from him, and therefore male and female, having left their respective nuclear familes, uniting makes them one flesh - marriage, or the creation of a separate family.

Also to clarify, are you also saying that if there is no choice, then there is no marriage?  Few Americans still use such a custom as arrainged marriage, but families in other countries would disagree.  In fact, one could consider Adam and Eve to be the first arraigned marriage.

They didn't leave their respective nuclear families. One came from the other. There were no families, just them.

And no, that's not what I'm saying. According to the story, both are unique, one of a kind, the only ones of their kind. If a man and a woman were unitied in one flesh it was because there was no-one else. If both had been gay, for example, there would still have been no-one else. Their choice would have been isolation or each other.

[spacial]

I whole-heartedly agree with you up to that last point, and even most of that last one.  Jesus declares that He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.  He said that not one little bit of the law would pass, even if all creation were destroyed.  Jesus' death on the cross made it possible for God to forgive man's breaking of the law, not that man could now live however he wanted to.  Murder, theft, adultery, idolatry, covetousness, and are all still wrong; we just aren't judged for breaking them IF we've been forgiven.

And yet Jesus himself said that some of the laws were not valid. We don't need to go to a church, or even stop completely on the Sabbath. We must never kill, steal, lie, judge others, contemplate sin, (it's the same as doing it). And God always comes first.

Seems to me, the laws which Jesus affirmed and clarified were the 10 commandments, while all of the others were thrown out.

[Incarnadine]

They didn't leave their respective nuclear families. One came from the other. There were no families, just them.

No, they didn't leave their families, that's not what the verse says.  The verse says that because Eve physically came from Adam, a male will leave his parents, join himself to a wife (female - that which was made out of a male), and that union will reflect that connection.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

And yet Jesus himself said that some of the laws were not valid. We don't need to go to a church, or even stop completely on the Sabbath. We must never kill, steal, lie, judge others, contemplate sin, (it's the same as doing it). And God always comes first.

Seems to me, the laws which Jesus affirmed and clarified were the 10 commandments, while all of the others were thrown out.

Jesus quotes several commandments, yes.  Jesus clarifies the spirit behind several commandments, yes.

Jesus saying that some of the laws are no longer valid?  Unless I've missed something, I don't see that. 

[Incarnadine]

Incarnadine, are you a transsexual?

Depending on how you define that term, yes.  I phrase my response that way only because of the multitude of definitions of that term.

Pursuing transition?  Oh so carefully and slowly - only so much as is needed to alleviate the dysphoria.  Matte-finish nail polish and smooth, silky legs are as far as I'm allowing myself to go right now.  Hope that's not too personal.

From what I've read of other ladies' testimonies, I don't have it as bad as some, but it's still there.  My first memory of this dysphoria is from an early age, and I've been able to cover/reject these feelings for a long time.  I've been seeing a psych since Sept. of 2012, and we're working to set up an appointment with an endo to pursue low-dose options.  She's all set to write my letter of recommendation.

I've prayed, fasted, confessed, etc., but it ain't going away.  My wife, PCP, and psychologist know, but that's it.  And so I learn from it, accept it (I'm a LOT less grumpy now!), and have a heart now that is so much more open and compassionate to folks who are struggling.

What hasn't changed is my perspective on Scripture and the application thereof.  I've examined passages that I thought I understood a little more carefully, but the conclusions I've come to are different then those you've come up with (no offense meant, Annah, just an observation).  I am still staunchly conservative, but with a lot more grace and a lot less pride than I had before.

It did shake my faith for a couple months.  I looked for holes in the system of theology I had come to accept so that I could reject it outright and pursue a 100% transition, but I could not find enough tangible proof to convince me (some of my earlier posts will attest to this).  To this day there is only one (maybe two, can't remember) supposed contradiction that I cannot come up with a plausible explanation for. 

I'm still learning, and I don't know how far I will have to go.  I enjoy our discussions, even if some of the points and positions irk me.  But I guess that's a two-way street, eh? 

[justmeinoz]

From a discussion of the situation of trans people in marriage equality, this thread has turned into a discussion of the meaning certain passages in the Scriptures of a particular branch of a religion which I no longer practice.   It really would do a lot of Americans, and it appears to be a singularly American point of view, to remember that not everyone is a Evangelical Protestant.

Karen.