I'm in a state that is currently debating whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. Can I actually be against same-sex marriage, cause I kinda think I am? I mean I feel bad about that fact, but I believe that marriage, as a religious part of my faith, is only between a man and a woman. (I myself am a lesbian and do dream of getting married to another girl with both of us in beautiful white dresses, but I understand it wouldn't be a real marriage, and I'm ok with that.) Just wanted to see what other people on here think. Please don't hate, but feel free to expand my perception!
I understand though that the keyword in that above paragraph I wrote is "part of my faith." Not everybody is of the same faith and therefore it would be wrong for the government to limit marriage to specific criteria. However, the current argument against same-sex marriage that I sorta believe in is that if the law in my state is passed redefining marriage, those who hold onto the traditional idea of marriage will be seen as bigots and haters--as I pry am being seen right now!
Well I'm guessing you're in Illinois as am I, and our state senate is with in a few weeks going to "hopefully" pass a right to marry bill. Now, I am all for same sex marriage, I believe that two people who are willing to dedicate their lives to each other should not be unjustly denied the same rights as a mixed gender couple. That being said I have no reservations about churches and others religious groups not willing to marry a same sex couple. That is part of their freedom of religion, but i do believe that the state and federal government should recognize same sex marriages due to the people's right to have a separation between the church and state.
Just to throw this out there, but a marriage is a contractual agreement between two people. It really has nothing to do with religion. You get a license from the state and then go before a duly appointed representative for the state to formally have the license approved.
Now if your representative happens to be your rabbi, minister or priest, then the license approval is part of a religious ceremony. But a marriage is not a religious right only. My ex and I were married in Reno, NV in one of those marriage chapels. It was not sanctioned by any church, only by the state of Nevada.
I am for same-sex marriage. How can a marriage formed out of love be wrong?
Quote from: Ms. OBrien on January 07, 2013, 06:48:25 PM
Just to throw this out there, but a marriage is a contractual agreement between two people. It really has nothing to do with religion. You get a license from the state and then go before a duly appointed representative for the state to formally have the license approved.
Now if your representative happens to be your rabbi, minister or priest, then the license approval is part of a religious ceremony. But a marriage is not a religious right only. My ex and I were married in Reno, NV in one of those marriage chapels. It was not sanctioned by any church, only by the state of Nevada.
I am for same-sex marriage. How can a marriage formed out of love be wrong?
Mrs. OBrien beat me to it.
You can get married in a court of law with no religious backing or influence (athiests, anyone?) [you get your actual marriage license from the government]. Once you obtain that license, then you can get married in the eyes of a religion if you want, but it isn't a requirement to be legally married.
I am personally for marriage equality. You can keep your religion, but let me have my legal-based marriage [not like my religion discriminates; you can marry a same sex partner in it].
Quote from: Hippolover25 on January 07, 2013, 06:25:51 PM
I sorta believe in is that if the law in my state is passed redefining marriage, those who hold onto the traditional idea of marriage will be seen as bigots and haters--as I pry am being seen right now!
Well, what would be the appropriate name for someone who says "I'm going to get married to my lover but I ain't gonna let you get married to your lover because my majority is more powerful than your minority and we can make a law against it"?
I'm all for same sex marriages, or any marriage between two people that love each other.
The state is the agency that allows marriage.
A Deity may indicate approval or not, but that would be a matter between the couple and Him/Her/It, whenever they chance to meet each other. The Deity's approval may be concerned with the genders of the couple, or whether a turtledove was sacrificed, or if an offering was left in the plate...but if He/She/It has a problem, then let the Deity take care of it.
It's not your responsibility to make people abide by your G-ds' laws. (not saying this in a snarky manner, just making an observation).
I can understand that some people don't like some things, but I don't quite understand why they feel they can impose their views onto others.
After all, it's not as having marriage equality won't change marriage between men and women, one iota.
My pastor is a lesbian and they have a blessed civil union, and also adopted a son. Remember the bible was written by a culture with a patriarchal system, it always referred to the male 1st and that is the way it was written. But I don't think that God would make someone a certain way to be naturally attracted to someone, and then tell them they can't do it.
I found this website here to be very helpful (ran by the mcc church)
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/romans_1_21.html (http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/romans_1_21.html)
I actually go to a UCC Church and they have a ministry there
http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/ (http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/)
You should take some time to allow yourself to feel ok about yourself. Trust me it is not easy though, i was pretty much a fundamental Conservative Christian just 9 months ago now. I have many more links that might help you work it all out. Send me a PM and i will help you.
Also here is some more food for thought, who is an intersex person supposed to date according to the church? If they feel male inside or female inside but have a mixed body? Some churches would say they should pick a gender and then pick the opposite sex.
Nobody asked to be born straight,gay,bisexual,trans or intersex, but we are what we are and you should not feel guilty. Marriage is just a more formal and legal version of a civil union, that comes with more blessings and benefits. So why should you feel bad?
Quote from: Hippolover25 on January 07, 2013, 06:25:51 PM
(I myself am a lesbian and do dream of getting married to another girl with both of us in beautiful white dresses, but I understand it wouldn't be a real marriage, and I'm ok with that.)
Mind blown. I don't even know what to say to this.
Quote from: Hippolover25 on January 07, 2013, 06:25:51 PM
I'm in a state that is currently debating whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. Can I actually be against same-sex marriage, cause I kinda think I am? I mean I feel bad about that fact, but I believe that marriage, as a religious part of my faith, is only between a man and a woman.
I think this is one of the main areas of common confusion that turns this into a political wedge issue, unnecessarily.
Freedom-of-religion/First Amendment principles almost certainly guarantee, as long as the Constitution stands (speaking of the US here specifically) that religions will not be compelled, and cannot be compelled to perform same-sex marriages.
However, different religions have very different notions about religion, and the existence of civil marriages that, by the same principle, cannot be based on a specific "establishment of religion" -- plus some of the other constitutional issues surrounding this also practically guarantee that same-sex marriages (which you're welcome to consider "unions" or just not marriages according to your own religion) are almost inevitable as well, mainly because of the interstate commerce clause.
I can understand the fear that the state might dictate your religion's practices, but essentially, to do so would represent a huge constitutional problem, so it's barely worth worrying about. You'd basically need a new constitution for that to happen.
Quote from: Ms. OBrien on January 07, 2013, 06:48:25 PM
Just to throw this out there, but a marriage is a contractual agreement between two people. It really has nothing to do with religion. You get a license from the state and then go before a duly appointed representative for the state to formally have the license approved.
Now if your representative happens to be your rabbi, minister or priest, then the license approval is part of a religious ceremony. But a marriage is not a religious right only. My ex and I were married in Reno, NV in one of those marriage chapels. It was not sanctioned by any church, only by the state of Nevada.
I am for same-sex marriage. How can a marriage formed out of love be wrong?
Agreed. I'm a Pastor and I am all for same sex marriage. There is no where in the Bible that states marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Also, same sex marriages occured in Christianity, led by Christian priests for Christian people since Christianity became the state religion of Rome until Charlemagne's successor in the Holy Roman Empire 500 years later.
And something to think about: the same book in the Bible that you are getting the idea that same sex is wrong also stated wearing clothing of the opposite gender is also wrong.
However,
That same book also forbids physically handicapped people from entering into churches and eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination
This is the main reason why I stayed a pastor even after I came out. My ministry is to show people that Christianity does not HAVE to be narrow minded, prejudiced, and racist and that it is NOT a sin to love someone.
I am all for same-sex marriage. A lot of the people here have made interesting points. If two people love each other, then they have every right to get married. In a "traditional marriage" a long time ago in certain places, it was considered wrong for people of different races to be married together. Traditional does not always mean the best.
One thing I would like to add though is the economical plus of allowing same-sex marriages. This could increase jobs for caterers, wedding planners, cooks, preachers, divorce lawyers etc. and put more of thm to work.
Quote from: Hippolover25 on January 07, 2013, 06:25:51 PM
I understand though that the keyword in that above paragraph I wrote is "part of my faith."
I think we belabored the point of civil unions not being religious marriages.
Quote from: Hippolover25 on January 07, 2013, 06:25:51 PM
but I understand it wouldn't be a real marriage, and I'm ok with that.)
Definitions can change. Here are some that did.
-African Americans used to be considered 3/5 of a person. Now the USA has a black president, who was re-elected no less.
-Non-whites used to be viewed as people to colonize and as inferior. Now, Japan, India, and China are among global powerhouses.
-In WWII, Japanese-American citizens were put in internment camps since they were viewed as a liability. They were later released. That's some pretty fast change: potential traitors to welcome citizens.
-In WWI//WWII, Germans were ostracized by people in the US. Now, Americans don't have a huge problem with Germans.
-Ecuadorians used to hate Spain. Now, people don't care one way or the other.
I think I made my point.
Quote from: Hippolover25 on January 07, 2013, 06:25:51 PM
(I myself am a lesbian and do dream of getting married to another girl with both of us in beautiful white dresses, but I understand it wouldn't be a real marriage, and I'm ok with that.)
Just... what the fudgeberries??? ???
Civil marriage is legally recognized by the state and federal government. Personally I believe that any two consenting adults have the right to a civil marriage. This is not based upon my religious belief. This is just a matter of each individual legal civil right. I believe that each individual within the context of their religious Faith has to decide if they could marry someone of their own gender or not. I will not get into my own moral struggle with this issue because I feel that is a private struggle between me and God. How I personally deal with it has nothing to do with other people's struggle and what is legal according to civil law. Those individuals who wish to get married can and those who have problems marrying someone of their own gender don't have to.
As a transgender female I am not even sure legally who would be a member of my same sex or gender. At 66 years old I am not sure that I see the point of marriage and how I would work it out within my religious Faith, which may not even be possible, but that is my problem and not anyone else's and that is for me to work out for myself. I have a lot of other moral struggles which my Faith guides me through. I am personally responsible for all of the misadventures in my life. As is everyone else for their lives.
I have said this before in other threads. The ridiculous part of banning same sex marriage is typified by my situation. In Australia same sex marriage is illegal, at the moment. I've been married for 30 years. When I get SRS I am recognized as female sex. To be so recognized I have to divorce my wife, since same sex marriage is illegal.
What has changed in my 30 odd years of marriage? Nothing.
When someone can provide a definition of 'man' and 'woman' that anyone here can't shoot full of holes, then the whole idea will have some relevance to what passes for reality.
Quote from: justmeinoz on January 08, 2013, 05:31:31 AM
When someone can provide a definition of 'man' and 'woman' that anyone here can't shoot full of holes, then the whole idea will have some relevance to what passes for reality.
Exactly!!!!
Whether I am heterosexual, or homosexual has absolutely no meaning to a trans person because the definition is based on *someone else's* pre-conceived notion of gender!
Am I a woman or man? Who gets to say?
No one in the anti-ssm group can answer that question without their heads exploding. Fun to watch, but a mess to clean up... :D
-Sandy
Quote from: Sandy on January 08, 2013, 05:55:08 AM
No one in the anti-ssm group can answer that question without their heads exploding. Fun to watch, but a mess to clean up... :D
Indeed! I'm not bringing my cleaning supplies.
Quote from: natastic on January 07, 2013, 08:08:42 PM
Mind blown. I don't even know what to say to this.
Couldn't of said it better myself. Look only people who follow outdated religious rules made in a time of male dominance and complete oppression would try to still oppress and force others to follow their opinions.
Why claim equality yet still oppress people for trying to be happy?
Quote from: Hippolover25 on January 07, 2013, 06:25:51 PM
I'm in a state that is currently debating whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. Can I actually be against same-sex marriage, cause I kinda think I am?
I believe that same sex marriage is just as relevant for trans people as it is for gays and lesbians. The are states in the US that do not allow trans people to change their birth certificate, even after SRS. So a fully transitioned trans guy in Ohio for instance can only marry another man, even if it results in a gay marriage! Same for a trans woman. There have been some very negative rulings against trans people and their marriages, where they are often treated as deceivers or cheating families, etc.
There will be a day that comes and you are transitioned and you won't want to feel alone, and then it will matter to you personally.
My thoughts are either legalize all marriage, and let same gendered people get married or outlaw the institution of marriage altogether. It's not just the marriage, it's inheritance, terminally ill and wanting a partner by my side, tax benefits, etc. it's not like the people who get married for the purposes of procreating are doing a great job. There are more single parent families now, and generally mothers, than in the history of the world. There are whole tv shows and private detectives who specialize I catching cheating spouses, and the current divorce rate amongst heterosexual is around 50%.
How can it be that 2 straight people who get married and never have any children pay less in taxes because of the marriage, but 2 gay men will pay more? That is simply not equitable.
If you ask me, the shape of the family is changing and evolving and marriage is becoming less and less relevant anyways, except in the issue of taxation, retirement and end of life decision making. Women today have children from multiple partners and there is no family, only a long trail of child support. Nobody seems to care about marriage except for those who really want to be together and a handful of religious zealots.
I live in Massachusetts and we have had gay marriage longer than any other state and the sky never fell, no one has ever asked to marry their dog, and nobody seems to even care anymore? So why worry?
Quote from: Hippolover25 on January 07, 2013, 06:25:51 PM
I'm in a state that is currently debating whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. Can I actually be against same-sex marriage, cause I kinda think I am? I mean I feel bad about that fact, but I believe that marriage, as a religious part of my faith, is only between a man and a woman. (I myself am a lesbian and do dream of getting married to another girl with both of us in beautiful white dresses, but I understand it wouldn't be a real marriage, and I'm ok with that.) Just wanted to see what other people on here think. Please don't hate, but feel free to expand my perception!
I understand though that the keyword in that above paragraph I wrote is "part of my faith." Not everybody is of the same faith and therefore it would be wrong for the government to limit marriage to specific criteria. However, the current argument against same-sex marriage that I sorta believe in is that if the law in my state is passed redefining marriage, those who hold onto the traditional idea of marriage will be seen as bigots and haters--as I pry am being seen right now!
Why do you feel your religious beliefs are so correct that they are better than anyone else's?
Why do you feel you can impose your religious beliefs onto others in this way?
We all have the right to our own individual feelings on this issue. And everyones opinion is of equal value.
We also have the right to our own interpretation of Scripture, some Churches are against same sex marriage because of how they interpret Scripture, others have no problem with same sex marriage.
Quote from: spacial on January 08, 2013, 10:30:09 AM
Why do you feel your religious beliefs are so correct that they are better than anyone else's?
I think it makes sense to think our own beliefs are more correct than the beliefs of others who differ. Otherwise it wouldn't be your belief, right? :) That doesn't mean our beliefs won't change over time with new evidence or arguments, of course.
Quote
Why do you feel you can impose your religious beliefs onto others in this way?
THAT is where I have the beef. I feel we're all entitled to our beliefs no matter how "whacky" but we aren't entitled to impose them on others.
Quote from: dalebert on January 08, 2013, 10:52:48 AM
I think it makes sense to think our own beliefs are more correct than the beliefs of others who differ. Otherwise it wouldn't be your belief, right? :) That doesn't mean our beliefs won't change over time with new evidence or arguments, of course.
THAT is where I have the beef. I feel we're all entitled to our beliefs no matter how "whacky" but we aren't entitled to impose them on others.
Back at my old Catholic High school the head priest said it was his right to make people know and follow the truth because why should we just let people go a stray.
This line was obviously his opinion but pretty much tells you why such impostion of beliefs has occured even in the 20th century.
We have couples being married by Elvis impersonators.
Personally I have no objection to people being married by Elvis, some guy who thinks he can forgive sin, Muslims, anyone.
By what right does anyone, impose their religious views onto those seeking marriage equality.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on January 08, 2013, 10:39:13 AM
We all have the right to our own individual feelings on this issue. And everyones opinion is of equal value.
We also have the right to our own interpretation of Scripture, some Churches are against same sex marriage because of how they interpret Scripture, others have no problem with same sex marriage.
Deepest apologise, I an seeking to pursue a point of religious freedom, which we all seek to enjoy. Not and never suggesting anyone shoulc not hold a differing view point.
But thank you for highlighting the possible ambiguity. I am most grateful and will attempt to be more careful in my wording.
Originally, this post ended up in the wrong thread, so I'm returning it to the thread I meant to put it in:
I just want to thank everyone for all the answers. You've truly helped me a lot here! Sorry if I've blown anyones mind lol. I know I have a rather strange thinking process sometimes! I feel that this was a good topic to start, and a good discussion.
Lol. Sorry!
I believe that my answer may be a little different from most and my offend some and hopefully edify others. Not meant to offend though.
All throughout the word of God the Lord Jesus is shown through allegories, similtudes, parables and types and shadows as the Husband and Head of his bride, the church. The second Adam that is a King and will not commit the sin of harkening unto the voice of his wife. he has all say and not the church. That is why he sent back his Spirit, the Holy Ghost to lead and guide her.
These same types and shadows can be seen in revelation. Paul wrote of them in Ephesians making the marriage very clear.
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.
Most straight cisgender men cannot get beyond their ego to say they are the betrothed virgin (in Christ) and bride of Jesus awaiting his return, deliverance, rescue and rapture. But in a spiritual sense that is what both male and female Christians are. His betrothed and one day bride adorned in his righteousness, or white linen. Personally I am his berothed and therefore that is why I do believe in a male and female marriage. That is also why I feel I may know how women feel to a certain extent.
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.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me but if a couple can get full rights with a civil union why not just leave Jesus out of it?
After all, when you look at all of the men of God that were types and shadows of Jesus none were gay.
Adam, Noah, Noah's sons, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Samson, Joshua, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Paul, Peter, Aquila and Priscilla, and countless others who were men and women of God were all straight.
Sadly many haggle over what it takes to be damned in the days of Noah and the days of Lot. Few stop to think that when each of these men the Lord referred to were saved they were examples of straight marriages.
I may enrage some but that's just what I believe to answer the original question. I don't want to offend any but by the same token don't want to deny the Lord or the word of God. It's not in my place to judge anyone or hate anyone. I would to God that all who call themselves Christians were saved. Even non-believers as well. But sadly many today stand behind pulpits and couldn't care less about the souls of those listening. Some just want to be seen and some just want to get rich. Few really care.
If any are offended I am sorry. But that is my answer to the original poster's question.
May God bless.
Quote from: Del on January 11, 2013, 07:07:05 AM
I believe that my answer may be a little different from most and my offend some and hopefully edify others. Not meant to offend though.
All throughout the word of God the Lord Jesus is shown through allegories, similtudes, parables and types and shadows as the Husband and Head of his bride, the church. The second Adam that is a King and will not commit the sin of harkening unto the voice of his wife. he has all say and not the church. That is why he sent back his Spirit, the Holy Ghost to lead and guide her.
These same types and shadows can be seen in revelation. Paul wrote of them in Ephesians making the marriage very clear.
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.
Most straight cisgender men cannot get beyond their ego to say they are the betrothed virgin (in Christ) and bride of Jesus awaiting his return, deliverance, rescue and rapture. But in a spiritual sense that is what both male and female Christians are. His betrothed and one day bride adorned in his righteousness, or white linen. Personally I am his berothed and therefore that is why I do believe in a male and female marriage. That is also why I feel I may know how women feel to a certain extent.
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.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me but if a couple can get full rights with a civil union why not just leave Jesus out of it?
After all, when you look at all of the men of God that were types and shadows of Jesus none were gay.
Adam, Noah, Noah's sons, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Samson, Joshua, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Paul, Peter, Aquila and Priscilla, and countless others who were men and women of God were all straight.
Sadly many haggle over what it takes to be damned in the days of Noah and the days of Lot. Few stop to think that when each of these men the Lord referred to were saved they were examples of straight marriages.
I may enrage some but that's just what I believe to answer the original question. I don't want to offend any but by the same token don't want to deny the Lord or the word of God. It's not in my place to judge anyone or hate anyone. I would to God that all who call themselves Christians were saved. Even non-believers as well. But sadly many today stand behind pulpits and couldn't care less about the souls of those listening. Some just want to be seen and some just want to get rich. Few really care.
If any are offended I am sorry. But that is my answer to the original poster's question.
May God bless.
Del you don't offend me at all. But you have not addressed my situation?
I have said this before in other threads. The ridiculous part of banning same sex marriage is typified by my situation. In Australia same sex marriage is illegal, at the moment. I've been married for 30 years. When I get SRS I am recognized as female sex. To be so recognized I have to divorce my wife, since same sex marriage is illegal.
What has changed in my 30 odd years of marriage? Nothing.A you know I walk my own path, but my question remains. I will never know a gods mind but I reckon it is scratching its head of this example.
I love my wife, I care for her, she is totally dependent upon her carers and I, as she it totally disabled. I have been and never will be unfaithful to her. I have broken no vows.
Cindy,
Quite frankly I would have to say that in your case that law is rather foolish under your circumstances.
Have a good day kiddo.
I have to admit, I do personally and privately find trans people who oppose same-sex marriage to be a bit silly. Because a) it's surprisingly difficult to nail down a law against it that encompasses the possibility of legally changing sex (ie, the person who has a passport and driver's license with one gender marker and Social Security says something different - can they marry *either* gender, are they not allowed to marry anybody, or what?) and b) in the United States, the ONLY federally valid same-sex marriages that I am aware of include a transitioned partner.
Like Cindy, I found myself in a same-sex marriage when we had previously been recorded as a heterosexual couple. Unlike Cindy, my country's government recognizes that marriage as fully valid, despite the fact that it's now a SSM, which of course throws a monkey wrench into the idea that it cannot *ever* happen in the US under the current laws.
I was also going to say what Zumbagirl did, but now I'll just quote her. :) "I [work] in Massachusetts and we have had gay marriage longer than any other state and the sky never fell, no one has ever asked to marry their dog, and nobody seems to even care anymore? So why worry?" I actually live in CT, though, but that state also legalized SSM before my wife transitioned. What that means is that neither state is pressuring her to prove she's "really" one gender or the other; the state doesn't care. Same-sex marriage in both states removes a remarkable amount of stress. Both for us in a pre-transition marriage, and for her if hypothetically she ever wanted to marry again. She does not have to fight over whether she can marry anybody, or what defines her gender for those purposes, or whether the state can intervene at any point and declare that (no matter which gender marker she/they chose!) she's a liar and a fake and invalidate her marriage and take away her kids/inheritance/other rights.
Quote from: blueconstancy on January 11, 2013, 08:32:13 AM
Like Cindy, I found myself in a same-sex marriage when we had previously been recorded as a heterosexual couple. Unlike Cindy, my country's government recognizes that marriage as fully valid, despite the fact that it's now a SSM, which of course throws a monkey wrench into the idea that it cannot *ever* happen in the US under the current laws.
There's also this story (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/06/1176850/-Marriage-trouble-in-Arizona), coming out of Arizona. Short version, a judge being unwilling to grant a divorce to a couple who married as different-sex but are now same-sex. Judge claiming since he can't recognize the marriage as valid under his state's statutes, he doesn't have the basis to grant a divorce, in effect locking a same-sex couple into marriage. I'm waiting for the judge's head to explode, but that's not how judges and lawyers seem to operate.
Elspeth : I've seen that one (whatever people think of Beattie in general, that sucks royally) and it makes *my* head want to explode. How on Earth can anyone say "you're not married enough to divorce, but too married to be allowed to re-marry" with a straight face?! It's like a logic black hole.
(Divorce gets awkward for cis same-sex couples as well, if they've moved away from the precise state where they contracted their marriage... but that's a whole new level of ridiculous.)
Quote from: Del on January 11, 2013, 07:07:05 AM
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.
Maybe there are 100 people who want to get married and 900 people that are so mad at your comic book view of the world that they will take to the streets to help those 100 people.
Conversely what about white people who marched with blacks for equality. They sure didn't stand to gain anything.
What about people who protect animals? They are not gaining anything personal.
I really dislike the way religion takes away critical thinking from decent people and replaces it instead with child like views of the world.
Quote from: Del on January 11, 2013, 07:07:05 AM
I don't expect everyone to agree with me but if a couple can get full rights with a civil union why not just leave Jesus out of it?
I was married in a Jewish ceremony (which is technically a purely civil ceremony, even though some prayers were said). Jesus was nowhere in it. In the eyes of the law, it was still a marriage. The State has no say in putting Jesus into
any civil marriage. No one advocating same-sex marriages is asking for this, nor could it be done even if they wanted it to be done... that would be up to religious authorities, some of whom apparently don't read the Bible the way you do, while others do. Laws of the State have no say in that.
We do still have a separation of church and state according to the Constitution, much as some people have tried to undercut that principle.
My marriage is a civil marriage and I'm Australian there is no link between religion and law in Australia. They are totally separate.
I have no problems at all in leaving religion out of everything.
Just a quick add on. I know that we can get upset and stirred by this topic but let us keep it a mature debate. Del is a deeply religious man. I respect that, even though I have no concept of why he is; it is as alien to me as being a tree. But he is willing to debate his views in a civil way and we need to respect that view and to debate in the same manner.
I have absolutely no problem if someone wants their marriage sanctified by their god. Even as a pagan, we have a "jumping the broom" as part of the ceremony.
But if I wish to get married to another woman, how would that change another's marriage. In America, civil partnerships and domestic partnerships do not get the same benefits that a "Traditional" marriage does.
And that is the heart of the same-sex marriage debate is about.
The primary objection to a same-sex civil union* in the US instead is that those would not be automatically recognized at the federal level, which strips away a lot of the legal rights of marriage. It's moot at the moment, since neither is SSM recognized - but eventually if federal law changes it might be, leaving civil-unioned couples in the cold. Basically, the catch is that it might be perniciously difficult to make sure that all the laws which apply to "marriage" also cover same-sex civil unions, at which point it's not really an argument about semantics anymore.
My guess as an amateur studier of linguistics is that eventually people in general would start referring to same-sex civil unions as "marriage," but personally I'm fine with not actually legislating that term. Similarly, I have no issues whatsoever with religious organizations and/or religious people defining "marriage" for themselves, and would be delighted to allow them the same leeway I wish to be granted.
*to differentiate between "civil union granted instead of marriage to a same-sex couple" as opposed to "marriage contracted only civilly, without religion" (which I also had).
I respect Del's rights to his beliefs.
I was merely pointing out that the legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the US do not and constitutionally are prohibited from having any say in, influence upon or relationship to particular religious beliefs or practices.
There are already religions in the US that endorse same-sex marriages, and there are people who would be offended to be thought less serious about their religion (like the two lesbian women who have been rabbis for my ex's present congregation) because they endorse the efforts to prove the bias and unconstitutionality of interfering with same-sex couple's rights to civil marriages on equal terms to marriage as defined under civil law not as it may be defined by anyone's personal religious beliefs or the positions that religious leaders may espouse.
The current legal conflict is one about civil marriages. It has no relevance to what any particular sect or religious institution claims as their interpretation of whatever scriptures they consider to be relevant when it comes to a religious covenant, or the different notions various religions have about marriage, which are far from a monolith, and which are mutually incompatible if you take a look at those beliefs. Mormons, for instance, though they try not to draw attention to it, still believe that marriages are not until death do us part, but are for eternity, and most will admit, when pressed, that they technically still believe in polygamy, they just assume it will be taken care of in the afterlife, as long as civil authorities do not recognize that practice.
It would be unconstitutional for any state in the US or for the US government to, for instance, insist that any religion perform or endorse same-sex marriages, just as it is a violation of the separation clause to allow any religion to insist that federal or state civil marriage laws should reflect their particular beliefs.
Quote from: Del on January 11, 2013, 07:07:05 AM
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.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me but if a couple can get full rights with a civil union why not just leave Jesus out of it?
Because some LGBT people are Christians or spiritual. Myself included. If I would like to be married why do I need to kick Jesus out of it? What gives straight people the moral authority to "invite Jesus" to a wedding but LGBT people cannot? There is nothing in the Bible...utterly NOTHING that states Marriage is only between a man and a woman.
QuoteAfter all, when you look at all of the men of God that were types and shadows of Jesus none were gay.
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.
Also, how do you know no one was gay or bisexual at all in the entire Bible? Many notable Biblical Scholars in the both the Jewish and Christian camps would def disagree with you.
QuoteI may enrage some but that's just what I believe to answer the original question. I don't want to offend any but by the same token don't want to deny the Lord or the word of God. It's not in my place to judge anyone or hate anyone. I would to God that all who call themselves Christians were saved. Even non-believers as well. But sadly many today stand behind pulpits and couldn't care less about the souls of those listening. Some just want to be seen and some just want to get rich. Few really care.
I care...but I don't use my pulpit to bully homosexuals or tell lgbt people they are doing something wrong. That's bullying and it's judging people.
I preach the love of God and grace none of us have earned but given to us freely as a gift. I preached equality...I show examples how Jesus could care less about one's position in life when he healed or forgave...he cared about their heart and their faith.
I preach God's love. I don't preach that God is upset with LGBT people or hurt or believe we are off the track. To me, that is horrible theology and it's a type of bigotry and this bigotry is more dangerous because Preachers push a brand of religion to make their prejudices and bigotry more legit.
It's horrible...and I thank God every day more and more pastors are preaching TRUE acceptance no matter one's sexual or gender orientation. Hopefully, there will be a day with judging people based on their sexuality will be a very small minority.
Jesus does not discriminate. He says to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus never withheld his healing power based on any type of gender, social class, or any form of sexual orientation.
Christians who say LGBT is sinful or LGBT cannot have marriage equality, in my religious opinion is bigoted and shallow. And people in the Church wonders why their churches are growing small and closing their doors? It's because of some of their theological practices of intolerance.
Quote from: Zumbagirl on January 11, 2013, 09:00:10 AM
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"
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.
Quote from: Del on January 11, 2013, 07:07:05 AM
...
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
Quote from: Annah on January 11, 2013, 09:48:04 AM
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.
Quote from: Annah on January 11, 2013, 09:48:04 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Del on January 11, 2013, 07:07:05 AM
...
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.
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.
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). :P
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. :P
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.
Quote from: Incarnadine on January 11, 2013, 10:48:00 AM
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!
Quote from: Annah on January 11, 2013, 01:15:47 PM
I always find it curious how there are some who would follow one law in Leviticus but dismiss another.
Because its self serving?
Quote from: Annah on January 11, 2013, 01:15:47 PM
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.
Quote from: spacial on January 11, 2013, 01:18:16 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Annah on January 11, 2013, 01:39:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Incarnadine on January 11, 2013, 01:38:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Incarnadine on January 11, 2013, 02:04:31 PM
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.
Quote from: spacial on January 11, 2013, 03:00:03 PM
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)
Quote from: spacial on January 11, 2013, 03:05:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Annah on January 11, 2013, 03:25:03 PM
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? :P
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.
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.
I was hoping that there might be a comment from someone from another branch of the Church. Orthodox perhaps?
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...
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.
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.
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!"
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 (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!
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.
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.
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.
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 (http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/marriage/interfaith/orthodox-perspective-on-marriage/samesexmarriage)
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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:
Looks like my dastardly plot to make the whole world Aussies is revealed! :laugh: Curses >:(
I blame Crocodile Dundee!
First off let me say, I don't believe in state sanctioned marriage or civil unions of anykind. You get a license and pay money to the state. Some places you have to have a blood test and pay money to the doctor. Then you have to find someone to "legally" wed you, you have to pay more money. Not to mention paying for the wedding itself. It really is a money making bussiness. And don't forget nearly half of those "wed" by the state ends in divorce and now you have lawyers getting paid by you in the mix.
Who should care or decide who someone loves and wanting to dedicate their lives to. The Government? The church? Or the two people dedicating themselves to one another. Did God say, "In order for your love of one another to exist in my eyes and the two halves become whole, thou shall be married by the government."? I'm sure someone did but bet it wasn't God. If you want a contractual agreement, just go to a lawer and have them write up a contract that allows you to share everything, a will, a power of attorny and a living will that give the significant other the power to have the say of whether to pull the plug according to your wishes and have control of the funeral. Invite family and friends, wear the dresses or tuxedoes, vow to each other your love and then celebrate. If because of Spiritual beliefs, there are enough open minded ministers and such that will wed you ceremoniuosly even though it's not state sanctioned.
Love whoever you want to love and dedicate yourself to that one person, that is the real spirit of marriage. Not a cerificate from a governmental entity that says they allow you to do the same.
This is just my opinion because I am little antiestablishment, antigovernment and beginning to think antisocial.