I've heard all the rhetoric like you have. But a thought occurs to me. It's really a power struggle. The church has controlled marriage for 2000 years. It's losing that control that they're really afraid of.

I'm cherry-picking from this web page: http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

"Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by?"

Well, churches will say that the church should define it.

"Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage. Says who?"

Just another variation on the other one. The church wants to dictate the rules of marriage.

"Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage."

If by "the institution of marriage" you mean the church controlling marriage, then yes, it threatens that control.

So let's look at this honestly. Why should the church have control of marriage? Are the only people who get married members of the church? The church controlling the definition of marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state that is supposed to be "sacred" to Americans. It sounds like the start of bringing in the "christian" version of Sharia Law.

it's no reason really. they use the bible as a manual for life, and that's most of it.

I always think the best response to the "against the institution of marriage" argument is that divorce is the biggest threat to the institution, and yet there are thousands and thousands more divorces each year than gay marriage, and it's accepted almost world-wide.

For me it's their club, their rules, they write their manuals and guidelines so if you would like to have a marriage in one of their institutions then they expect you, even demand that you follow their doctrine so-to-speak.  There are plenty of other ways to get married.  I say to hell with them as that's what many churches think about us.  Your head will start to hurt banging it against brick walls.

Want to protect the sanctity or institution of marriage for the sake of Christian Family Values? Let's look at what their good book says...


Did Doma make Divorce Illegal? No, but Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." —Mark 1:1-12   
Divorce and remarriage, not part of DOMA.  Hmmmm......

Did DOMA make ADULTRY Illegal? No, but the bible clearly says that it is such a grievous offense and threat to marriage that the penalty should be DEATH.  7th. Commandment, Exodus 20:14 "Thou shalt not commit adultery".  Old Testament punishment - Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death".

So it really boils down to the fact that they think homosexuality is gross so they should punish the homosexuals. There is no rational reason for them to pick out an obscure reference from their book and make it such a devicive issues. Lets start by banning marriage for those that break the Big 10 and the 7 Deadly!

I think they are afraid that gay people might be really happy when they get married, and become a bad example for straight folk.

Well, there are people who agree with giving all the rights of marriage to homosexual couples but simply think the word "marriage" can't refer to a homosexual couple in meaning yet, and so they disagree with it being called marriage.

I myself think that until recently, the meaning of marriage does mean de facto that it's between a man and a woman, because that's how the vast majority of people perceived it to be for so many centuries. Meanings of words change over time though as people use words differently over time, and I think from the current trend, after a while it will acquire a changed widely-accepted meaning that includes homosexual couples.

Quote from: FullMoon19 on August 24, 2011, 04:11:07 PM
it's no reason really. they use the bible as a manual for life, and that's most of it.

Not everyone interprets the Bible the same way - ironically in the New Testament, the most frequently cited "anti-gay" verses are in a section about not judging or a section about why it isn't necessary that a penis look a certain way (circumcision).  How you can interpret a verse in a section about not judging to mean "We should judge" is beyond me, never mind the uncertainty about translation, the huge difference between now and Bible times, that homosexuality is not equal to transgender (not that I think it says anything against being gay either), and the grace expressed elsewhere in the Book.  So don't lump us all into the hateful groups just because some of us believe the Bible.

The reason that I believe they interpret it that way is to seek justification for their hate and to feel "better" about themselves (they can feel "better" about being soldiers who are fighting against the great evil hordes who include any LGBT person, educated person, etc - they truly think they are the minority fighting a war against the majority and that God is going to help them win; It feels good to be an underdog that knows they are right, apparently).  I also think a lot of churches and members just plain haven't questioned anything that comes from their own upbringing, particularly when reinforced from the pulpit.

That said, there are accepting churches.  I wouldn't tell you to come to a specific denomination, not even the one my church is part of, nor even "LGBT affirming" denominations, as individual churches are sometimes hateful even when they are part of a non-hateful denomination.  But you would certainly be welcome at the church I'm part of, in addition to many others.  Unfortunately acceptance isn't easy to find in most churches, though.

Quote from: apple pie on August 25, 2011, 11:17:32 AMI myself think that until recently, the meaning of marriage does mean de facto that it's between a man and a woman, because that's how the vast majority of people perceived it to be for so many centuries. Meanings of words change over time though as people use words differently over time, and I think from the current trend, after a while it will acquire a changed widely-accepted meaning that includes homosexual couples.

It's also culturally dependent.  Many cultures had no problem with gay marriage, transgendered individuals, etc.  Even in recent history, many haven't.  And marriage in the USA looks absolutely nothing like it did when Jesus walked around Israel, nor even what marriage looked like when the USA was founded (among other things, women can actually own possessions[1], can sign contracts, can file rape charges against a husband, can divorce for any reason, can inherit the husband's possessions, can marry regardless of their and their partner's race, can have citizenship independent of their husband's, can vote, can have "unnatural" sex with their husband[2], can't be entered into contracts at her husband's whim, receives her own paycheck[3], etc.)  Nevermind that many of the founding colonies did not even register marriages legally, while others didn't see any point to a religious ceremony/service and kept it a 100% civil court issue.  I don't know if there is another social institution that has undergone as much change as marriage.

[1] Well, at least outside of shared-property states.  In shared-property states, it's a bit different, but the husband doesn't own it all like he used to.

[2] Excepting the invalid, but still-on-the-books laws in places like Virginia which make oral/anal sex between a man and a wife a potential felony!  (sarcasm ahead) But at least they are showing those homosexuals that they are unwanted.

[3] In many places, if a wife did have a job outside of the home, it was the husband that was paid.

I often wonder why they say that same sex marriage will destroy their marriages, unless one of them wants to leave and be in a same sex marriage.

Jack M^CCoy, of Law and Order said it best.  When asked if he supported same sex marriage, he said ...

QuoteLet 'em marry. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?

Thankfully, there are many churches whom performed same sex marriages and with each passing year, more and more denominations realized how wrong they were in their original interpretations.

"If you don't believe in Gay Marriage, don't marry a Gay person!"

It will be yet another thing that the Catholic Church and and others, find themselves on the wrong side of history. You would think that "god's true religion" would have a history of draging society kicking and screaming, to do the right thing but it seems to be the other way around...  I don't get it. Well, actually I do 

Quote from: Steph on August 24, 2011, 07:30:31 PM
For me it's their club, their rules, they write their manuals and guidelines so if you would like to have a marriage in one of their institutions then they expect you, even demand that you follow their doctrine so-to-speak.  There are plenty of other ways to get married.  I say to hell with them as that's what many churches think about us.  Your head will start to hurt banging it against brick walls.

Yes, except they want to make theirs the only game in town.

Quote from: JessicaH on August 24, 2011, 08:17:57 PM
Did Doma make Divorce Illegal? No, but Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." —Mark 1:1-12   
Divorce and remarriage, not part of DOMA.  Hmmmm......

It's not so much the getting divorced part as the remarrying. When they make a rule about not allowing divorced people to get married, see the rebellion.

Quote from: Slanan on August 25, 2011, 06:35:39 PM
Not everyone interprets the Bible the same way - ironically in the New Testament, the most frequently cited "anti-gay" verses are in a section about not judging or a section about why it isn't necessary that a penis look a certain way (circumcision).  How you can interpret a verse in a section about not judging to mean "We should judge" is beyond me, never mind the uncertainty about translation, the huge difference between now and Bible times, that homosexuality is not equal to transgender (not that I think it says anything against being gay either), and the grace expressed elsewhere in the Book.  So don't lump us all into the hateful groups just because some of us believe the Bible.

Hmm...not sure I agree. I've noticed that often modern, moderate christians attempt to water down many of the bible's (including the new testament) more extreme passages, passing off fundamentalists as "not true christians" or "interpreting the bible incorrectly." It's largely the result of trying to modernise a religion that was created by people living 2000 years ago, when it was culturally "ok" in certain areas of the world kill someone for being effeminate, an "adulterer" etc. What I think modern christians need to realise is that their holy book cannot really be taken out of its temporal context and really be applied to the modern day. If it is, then one must certainly pick and choose which passages are applicable to modern society, and which are not. If modern law were based on biblical law, we'd be in a lot of trouble as far as human rights are concerned.

As far as interpretation, I'm wondering which ones you mean? Corinthians 6:9, Paul is not telling Christians to kill homosexuals, but he is telling Christians that homosexuals and effeminate men will not enter the "kingdom of god." It'd be grasping at straws to really interpret this as any other way than looking down upon homosexuals and effeminate men as sinners. And it isn't an isolated reference, either. And if we take the perspective of needing to be "compassionate toward the sinner," then we also need to examine how that also implies fault or defect, or something inherently wrong with homosexuality (whether one has compassion toward homosexuals or not).

Quote from: Lisbeth on August 24, 2011, 04:02:44 PM
"Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by?"

Well...the bible. The problem is that the US claims to be a secular nation with clear separation between church and state. Unfortunately it doesn't often practice that separation when it comes to many issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, transgender rights etc. etc.)

Quote"Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage. Says who?"

The bible...see above 

Quote"Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage."

If by "the institution of marriage" you mean the church controlling marriage, then yes, it threatens that control.

Yes, well, the church/importance of religion in modern western society. While many across the west are secularizing, you still have the good ol' fundies dragging their heels.

QuoteSo let's look at this honestly. Why should the church have control of marriage? Are the only people who get married members of the church? The church controlling the definition of marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state that is supposed to be "sacred" to Americans. It sounds like the start of bringing in the "christian" version of Sharia Law.

Well, that's what law was for hundreds of years, so I wouldn't say "the start." But generally, yes, we agree.

While it's certainly not acceptable to be personally bigoted, there is a difference between personal bigotry and advocating the state to oppress your hated group through violence or threat of violence, a distinction that eludes the Christian Right in the US. Though I'm not surprised. Leviticus, the foundation for homophobic tenants in the Judeo-Christian tradition, was primarily a holiness code for the priesthood of the tabernacle. As Israel was forming as a nation state, leadership sought control through religion. In this holiness code, among many strange symbolic prohibitions, is an attempt to establish a patriarchy, a facet of religion as power tool. Males and females were forbidden from wearing dress customary for the other sex. Eunuchs were cut off from the house of god. And in Deuteronomy and throughout the old testament, the state is granted power over marriage as a tool for reproduction (at the time, growing population meant growing state wealth and power), established men as owners of women, non-reproductive sex was forbidden, sex outside of state-sanctioned female ownership was forbidden, female sexuality was cast as disgraceful and dirty, and homosexual men were cut off from the patriarchy for being "woman-like."

In short, it's my opinion that the bible, especially the old testament, was a tool for state power at the time it was written. It's no wonder that a culturally informed interpretation of the text as promoted by many church institutions is wielded as a political tool to oppress anyone that threatens male privilege--all who subvert binary constraints of gender, sexually liberated women, and the queer community.

I will stop ranting now, I swear...

So, let me get this straight ... Charlie Sheen can make a 'porn family', Kelsey Grammer can end a 15-year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55-hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods (while married) were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really?

From one of my facebook feeds.

Quote from: Berserk on August 27, 2011, 04:49:35 PM
Hmm...not sure I agree. I've noticed that often modern, moderate christians attempt to water down many of the bible's (including the new testament) more extreme passages, passing off fundamentalists as "not true christians" or "interpreting the bible incorrectly." It's largely the result of trying to modernise a religion that was created by people living 2000 years ago, when it was culturally "ok" in certain areas of the world kill someone for being effeminate, an "adulterer" etc. What I think modern christians need to realise is that their holy book cannot really be taken out of its temporal context and really be applied to the modern day. If it is, then one must certainly pick and choose which passages are applicable to modern society, and which are not. If modern law were based on biblical law, we'd be in a lot of trouble as far as human rights are concerned.

As far as interpretation, I'm wondering which ones you mean? Corinthians 6:9, Paul is not telling Christians to kill homosexuals, but he is telling Christians that homosexuals and effeminate men will not enter the "kingdom of god." It'd be grasping at straws to really interpret this as any other way than looking down upon homosexuals and effeminate men as sinners. And it isn't an isolated reference, either. And if we take the perspective of needing to be "compassionate toward the sinner," then we also need to examine how that also implies fault or defect, or something inherently wrong with homosexuality (whether one has compassion toward homosexuals or not).

1 Cor 6:9 has a word that is translated "effeminate" or "homosexual" or "men lying with men" depending on your version (and probably other choices).  This translation is very uncertain.  The simple answer is *we don't know* what 1 Cor 6:9 says.  That says, with verse 11 (the main point of that section), there's substantial debate over whether one is saved through faith in Christ or is saved through doing the right actions having been made capable of that through being saved.

That said, if talking about Christianity, I don't see anything which makes it okay to kill an adulterer in the New Testament (Christ does NOT kill known adulterers, for instance, nor does he call for their execution - which might be one reason people were mad at him).  As for the effiminent, Christ's disciples found the place to have passover by looking for the "man carrying water" (not a masculine task) and being taken by that man to the man who owned the house (there are many possible reasons for this), and Acts claims that the gospel was carried to Ethiopia by a eunuch).

I'm not posting this to argue theology, other than to say that there is clearly debate and discussion on these verses today - not just because some people might be trying to modernize a religion, but also because we're not sure of the facts and what the words mean.  There's nobody alive that natively speaks the form of Greek used in the New Testament, so there will be questions over translation.  These aren't just questions to make people feel better and pretend that things don't matter, but real questions.

I'd agree that the time/place it was written is vitally important to understanding, interpreting, and, for those with the ability, translating.  It's also important that we maintain freedom of conscious (you can't force someone to be a Christian, according to most Christians, yet plenty of Christians bizarrely have tried).  That's why law shouldn't reflect religion, in addition to nobody would be able to agree on which interpretations and law (look at the Bible riots in Philadelphia during the 1800s - Catholics and protestants couldn't agree on who's Bible should be taught in school - it resulted in several churches getting burned to the ground and several people being murdered).  It's best to leave that to each man's conscience.  And I'll leave who the "real" Christians are to God, but I do reserve the right to tell some I think they are wrong (I don't believe it's intellectually honest to lie about what I believe - and clearly we can't all be right, even if God's concerns might not be the same as mine!).

Christ does NOT kill known adulterers, for instance

Matter of fact, doesn't he call their bluff on that exact sin.  Isn't that the one where he said that: Well you who have not sinned cast the first stone.  And everybody walked away.  Apparently people back then were sexing it up too.

Quote from: Mika on August 27, 2011, 05:32:42 PMIn short, it's my opinion that the bible, especially the old testament, was a tool for state power at the time it was written.

You are, quite literally, on the mark. It was during the reign of Josiah that the oral traditions were written down  to be used specifically to hold the country together. It's easy to see his influence as he is described as being a righteous king, for he booted out the other religions and destroyed their places of worship. That was supposedly 500 years after Moses.

Religion seems to follow science by two or three centuries in so many aspects. Galileo was given pardon by the Catholic church only a decade or so ago. Religion, once a means used to attempt explanation for the unknown, has become ritual. With power, religioin has also become corrupt.

I'm not blasting the faithful. I'm just reciting history and offering my opinion on that history. There are many wonderful believers who are top notch members of society. Not all of them are bigots.... just the ignorant ones who are led around as the sheep they are.

Cindi