Susan's Place Logo

News:

Please be sure to review The Site terms of service, and rules to live by

Main Menu

Same-Sex Marriage

Started by Rena-san, January 07, 2013, 06:25:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sarah Louise

The topic is in the "Christianity" section, so the discussion is reasonable, but maybe another topic dealing with Same Sex marriage could be started in the General discussion area if people feel it is necessary.
Nameless here for evermore!;  Merely this, and nothing more;
Tis the wind and nothing more!;  Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore!!"
  •  

justmeinoz

I was hoping that there might be a comment from someone from another branch of the Church. Orthodox perhaps?
"Don't ask me, it was on fire when I lay down on it"
  •  

Incarnadine

Annah's question as to whether or not I was a transexual has disappeared.  Maybe I just can't see it for some reason?

Either way, I think it was a perfectly valid question.  Peky had commented in another thread about "moles"; my responses to several posts on the Christian sub-forum (and I try to keep my religious responses focused there to avoid offense) may seem to create questions about why I'm posting what I'm posting.

I think this is especially true when it's about such deep-felt and heart-wrenching subjects such as SSM.  The things I'm saying have been bashed over people's heads in hurtful manners.  I don't want to bash; I want simply to communicate what I believe the Bible says, but to do it in love and compassion.  THIS is the balance I believe Jesus taught - speaking the truth of Scripture in love and compassion, leaving out neither the truth nor the compassion. 

If the question was on Annah's heart, then the question is most likely on someone else's heart.  I hope I've communicated clearly.

Sorry for de-railing... 
  •  

spacial

Quote from: Incarnadine on January 11, 2013, 03:23:37 PM
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)

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Jesus saying that some of the laws are no longer valid?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.

It was you that claimed they would leave their families, Please don't treat me like an idiot.

I'm not going to go through the Gospels with you as I make a point of never quoting from them.

But I do suggest you read them again since you don't appear to know what they actually sau. I do strongly suggest you read them as a narrative and not a list.

Other than that, there seems little point in pursuing this ducussion further. Certainly not until I am discussing something with someone who actually knows their subject.
  •  

Sarah Louise

Quote from: Sarah Louise on January 11, 2013, 10:57:35 AM
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.

I will reiterate what I said earlier:

Calmly make our point without pointing fingers.  Lets keep this civil.
Nameless here for evermore!;  Merely this, and nothing more;
Tis the wind and nothing more!;  Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore!!"
  •  

Incarnadine

Quote from: spacial on January 11, 2013, 04:11:22 PM
It was you that claimed they would leave their families, Please don't treat me like an idiot.

I'm not going to go through the Gospels with you as I make a point of never quoting from them.

But I do suggest you read them again since you don't appear to know what they actually sau. I do strongly suggest you read them as a narrative and not a list.

Other than that, there seems little point in pursuing this ducussion further. Certainly not until I am discussing something with someone who actually knows their subject.

I'm sorry.  Treating you like an idiot was not my intention. 

I never claimed that Adam and Eve would leave their families - I claimed that the "male and female" from Gen. 2:24 would leave their respective families.

And there is always a limit to the knowledge that someone has regarding any subject.  Anyone who stops learning becomes a fool. 

"I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!"
  •  

Annah

Quote from: justmeinoz on January 11, 2013, 04:00:29 PM
I was hoping that there might be a comment from someone from another branch of the Church. Orthodox perhaps?

Eastern Orthodox have become much more pro LGBT in their belief structure.

Here is a statement from the Orthodox Church discussing how all forms of sexuality is good and created for good:

http://www.antiochian.org/node/17905

Here is a quote concerning the Orthodox belief in same sex marriage:

In our day effort is being made to create a moral parity between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Sanctioning homosexual marriage would go a long way in removing the moral prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Gay marriage advocate borrow the moral teachings and assert they apply equally to homosexual. In other words, just as heterosexual activity is to be relegated to heterosexual marriage, so too should homosexual activity be relegated to homosexual marriage.

They stated Paul was against Homosexuality but as a marriage it is sanctified and it isn't the person that is creating the "sin" rather any type of conduct that stems from it...like Alcohol isn't a sin...but over usage is. Sex isn't a sin...but committing adultery is.

Fewer and fewer Organized religions are saying LGBT is wrong. Right now, you have some splinter temples here and there in various Jewish traditions, Conservative Islam, Roman Catholic and Evangelical Protestants who are still against the idea...but it's getting smaller and smaller.

I compare it interracial marriage...that used to be an abomination too to many religious people..now it is not as prevalent (although some evangelical southern churches still preaches against it)

Hope that helps!
  •  

spacial

Quote from: Sarah Louise on January 11, 2013, 04:15:52 PM
I will reiterate what I said earlier:

Calmly make our point without pointing fingers.  Lets keep this civil.

I apologise of I may have appeared uncivil. It was not my intention.

But I thank you for bringing the point back to the fore, where it should always be.
  •  

spacial

Quote from: Incarnadine on January 11, 2013, 04:59:27 PM
I'm sorry.  Treating you like an idiot was not my intention. 

I never claimed that Adam and Eve would leave their families - I claimed that the "male and female" from Gen. 2:24 would leave their respective families.

And there is always a limit to the knowledge that someone has regarding any subject.  Anyone who stops learning becomes a fool. 

"I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!"

I understand.

In #46 you suggested that the meeting of Adam and Eve is an example of marriage. I am suggesting that this is nonsense.

Adam and Eve would have been the only man and woman. Their union was therefore inevitable. Not a template for marriage. They didn't leave anyone. Later they left Eden, but that was apparently over some dispute of the ownership of some fruit.

I will also point out that Abraham had more than one wife. This does indicate that polygamy was apparently acceptable in his time.

Polygamy is, by defianation, not between one man and one woman.

If you wish to find a Biblical reference to Marriage being between a man and a woman, only, then I think you will need to do better than that.
  •  

Annah

Russia's political prejudices of LGBT goes beyond the Orthodox church. Sadly, the Orthodox church in Russia in merely a political "puppet" for Vladimir Putin. If there was no church, it would be another organization being used to suppress the rights of others.

The Orthodox churches in some places in Greece, United States, and Australia are pro LGBT. As i said, there are splinters throughout the movement.
  •  

spacial

QuoteI am not certain how this debate will eventually play out. However, many experts suggest that it is only a matter of time before same-sex relationships – in some form – will be sanctioned. What I am certain about is that we must become more involved in public discourses such as this one.

http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/marriage/interfaith/orthodox-perspective-on-marriage/samesexmarriage

  •  

michelle

Its your membership in a state  recognized organized Faiths with doctrine and religious clergy or other individuals delegated to authenticate a marriage determine which determine if that faith will perform your marriage rites which may or may not include mention of the Divinely Inspired individual who founded the Faith.      If religious faith you are a member of performs same sex marriages and allows mention of Jesus, Moses,  Buddha, Baha'u'llah, Muhammad, and others then they will be a part of your marriage ceremony.    If the Faith that you are a member of allows you to write your own vows then They will be mentioned.  If you are married by an individual who is authorized by the state to sign their state marriage licences and you write your own vows They will be a part of your marriage ceremony.    If you get married by the justice of the peace in a civil marriage and write your own vows then They will be a part of your ceremony.     

For example, if you are a follower of Jesus and found an individual recognized by  your state to officiate your marriage and sign the legal state marriage licence who is responsible and files the licence with the state and allows you to write your own vows you will be able to include Jesus in the ceremony and nothing can stop you and your partner from including Jesus in your married lives.    You do not need need the OK from any religious organization to carry out your religious beliefs in your daily life.



You have a lot of decisions to make if the religious faith you belong to will not officiate same sex marriages.    If you have a legal marriage outside of the religious faith you are an official member of,  will your religious institutions recognize your marriage or will they consider that you are living in sin outside of marriage and if so what will they do about it.  You need to consider how you will feel if you have a civilly recognized marriage which is not recognized by your Faith.
Be true to yourself.  The future will reveal itself in its own due time.    Find the calm at the heart of the storm.    I own my womanhood.

I am a 69-year-old transsexual school teacher grandma & lady.   Ethnically I am half Irish  and half Scandinavian.   I can be a real bitch or quite loving and caring.  I have never taken any hormones or had surgery, I am out 24/7/365.
  •  

Anatta

Kia Ora,

::) Some food for thought : Well I find this quite interesting.....

Marriage+Adultry+Divoice

Same-Sex Marriage+Adultry+Divoice

Quote
"The discussion about same-sex marriage in the UK has brought these issues into particularly sharp relief. Since 2004, same-sex couples have been able to register civil partnerships which, many argue, convey all the rights and privileges of marriage. Civil partners are treated exactly the same as spouses for the purposes of, for example, inheritance law, tax, benefits and welfare, and civil partnerships can be dissolved in a very similar process to married couples who divorce. There is one essential difference: whilst a member of a heterosexual married couple can file for divorce on the basis of adultery, the same cannot be used as a category for the dissolution of a civil partnership, since adultery, by legal definition, can only be between a man and a woman. Sexual fidelity is therefore built in to the definition of marriage – or perhaps the definition of divorce – in a way that it is not built into the concept of a civil partnership, or dissolution of that partnership (although being sexually unfaithful can form part of a petition for unreasonable behaviour)!"

Quote :

"In the traditional English common law, adultery was a felony. Although the legal definition of "adultery" differs in nearly every legal system, the common theme is sexual relations outside of marriage, in one form or another.

Adultery involving a married woman and a man other than her husband was considered a very serious crime; in 1707, English Lord Chief Justice John Holt stated that a man having sexual relations with another man's wife was "the highest invasion of property" and claimed, in regard to the aggrieved husband, that "a man cannot receive a higher provocation".[9]

Legal definitions of adultery vary. For example, New York defines an adulterer as a person who "engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse."[10] North Carolina defines adultery as occurring when any man and woman "lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed, and cohabit together."[11] Minnesota law provides: "when a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery."[12] As recently as 2001, Virginia prosecuted an attorney, John R. Bushey of Luray, for adultery, a case that ended in a guilty plea and a $125 fine.[13][14] Adultery is against the governing law of the U.S. military.[15]

In common-law countries, adultery was also known as "criminal conversation". This became the name of the civil tort arising from adultery, being based upon compensation for the other spouse's injury.[16] Criminal conversation was usually referred to by lawyers as "crim. con.", and was abolished in England in 1857, and the Republic of Ireland in 1976. Another tort, alienation of affection, arises when one spouse deserts the other for a third person.[17] This act was also known as desertion, which was often a crime as well.[18] A small number of jurisdictions still allow suits for criminal conversation and/or alienation of affection.[19] Because of its abuse, at least one jurisdiction (Nevada) has abolished the tort of alienation of affection and has made it a misdemeanor crime to file such a lawsuit.

A marriage in which both spouses agree ahead of time to accept sexual relations by either partner with others is sometimes referred to as an open marriage or the swinging lifestyle. Both are a form of non-monogamy, and the spouses would not view the sexual relations as adultery, although it could still be considered a crime in some legal jurisdictions.

In Canada, though the written definition in the Divorce Act refers to extramarital relations with someone of the opposite sex, a British Columbia judge used the Civil Marriage Act in a 2005 case to grant a woman a divorce from her husband who had cheated on her with another man, which the judge felt was equal reasoning to dissolve the union!"


Metta Zenda :)
"The most essential method which includes all other methods is beholding the mind. The mind is the root from which all things grow. If you can understand the mind, everything else is included !"   :icon_yes:
  •  

Kevin Peña

Well, I don't see it as fair to make an asterisk over same-sex marriage. I see it as just being marriage.

Two people that love each other should have the right to get married if they so choose to do so.
  •  

spacial



Quote from: DianaP on January 12, 2013, 08:00:48 AM
Well, I don't see it as fair to make an asterisk over same-sex marriage. I see it as just being marriage.

Two people that love each other should have the right to get married if they so choose to do so.

So far, the only arguments I've heard against marriage equality are tradition and some reference to a verse in the Bible.

The Bible verse is weak to say the least, not to mention, questionable for a number of reasons. It's context is clearly flawed and the only justification for accepting the source will be a literal acceptance of the entire text, including Deuteronomy 22:23-24.

Tradition is not sufficient, since many other things were imposed by traditon, including the issue fo some unpaid taxes and a we're still waiting for the delivery of tea!

I'm sorry, but unless those opposed have some arguement then they have no case.
  •  

Zumbagirl

Quote from: justmeinoz on January 11, 2013, 03:55:20 PM
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.

And this is why I love Aussies! :) It's on my bucket list, I will make it there some day :)
  •  

seebs

There are two very different questions here.

The first is the question within the teachings of the religion. My personal take on it: I don't think the Bible condemns gay sex (really; I think the passages people understand that way condemned pederasty, and were never meant to generalize to all same-sex relations). I think the Bible's human writers and the people they knew lived in a culture in which men and women had wildly disparate status, and they could not conceive of a "marriage" in which there was not one partner who basically owned the other, and obviously it would be horribly abusive to expect a man to submit to such a thing.

Keep in mind, this was a different world. Jesus shocked people by applying the concept of "adultery" as a thing that you could commit against your wife. Prior to this, adultery was the crime of sleeping with another man's wife. It was absolutely not possible for a sexual act involving an unmarried woman to be "adultery".

The world has changed, and the question we have to ask is what the intended purpose of marriage is, and how it relates to us. And I think that Jesus's answer in Matthew 19 speaks to this; the teaching of marriage as they understood it was for the people it was for, but it was not for everyone. Some people are born different from that.

But!

That's not really the question you're faced with. Because you're not faced with the question "should my church recognize gay marriages". The question is what our government should do. And the answer is: The government should not be obliged to respect our religion's boundaries. Christianity is widely believed to prohibit divorce, but by and large, we recognize that not everyone agrees, so the government allows divorce even though a specific church might not.

To argue against legal gay marriage, I need to argue, not that my religion prohibits it, but that I can make a compelling case against it without any reference at all to my religion. And I simply can't.

My duty to other people is to love them and seek what is best for them. And what is best for them is legal recognition of their basic civil rights, and that means being able to get married. I don't necessarily think every marriage people enter into is "valid" from the standpoint of my religious beliefs, but that's not the question I'm being asked when it's time to vote. The question I'm being asked is what legal rights they should have.

Imagine that two people have lived together for thirty years, and one of them is in the hospital. Should their partner be considered "family" and allowed to see them?

If the answer is "yes", then the only sane path is to say "yes, same-sex couples should be allowed to get married too."

Trivia about historical Christianity: The Church didn't start performing weddings until around the 11th Century. Early Christians viewed "marriage" as a thing that applied to rich Romans who had property to deal with, for the most part, and while they certainly got married, it wasn't viewed as a church thing, but as a state thing.

I should point out: I tend to identify with Quakers, although I'm not an official member of a meeting. Before I moved to my current home, I attended a Quaker meeting that started recognizing marriages without regard to sex or gender something like twenty years ago, and they recently confirmed that it had been a very good thing and had enriched the community. Last I heard they had decided to lay aside the signing of marriage documents until they could do them for all couples, not just some. They will still perform the ceremonies, but if you want legal paperwork, you go to a justice of the peace.
  •  

Cindy

Quote from: Zumbagirl on January 12, 2013, 10:33:23 AM
And this is why I love Aussies! :) It's on my bucket list, I will make it there some day :)

Oh no, time to change the locks again :laugh:
  •  

justmeinoz

Looks like my dastardly plot to make the whole world Aussies is revealed! :laugh: Curses >:(
"Don't ask me, it was on fire when I lay down on it"
  •  

Shawn Sunshine

Shawn Sunshine Strickland The Strickalator

#SupergirlsForJustice
  •