Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The politicization of homosexualityFollow

#202 Feb 25 2004 at 12:30 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
No, you miss the point.

No, you, and others here, continue to miss the point.

The point is that marriage is a religious covenant bastardized by the municipality to include things it was never intended to include. By then opening that up, you force religious followers to endure a grossly cheapened misappropriation of their ceremony. Providing a non-marriage legal union gets around the entire issue. See the point, genius?
#203 Feb 25 2004 at 12:36 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
you force religious followers to endure a grossly cheapened misappropriation of their ceremony.


i don't see how since church wedding are not effected if Gays's are allowed to marry.

At the end of the day it breaks down to this

Arguement A says: You cannot do this because i will not.

Arguement B says: I can do this but if you don't agree with it you don't have to do it.
#204 Feb 25 2004 at 12:42 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,372 posts
Quote:
No, you, and others here, continue to miss the point.

The point is that marriage is a religious covenant bastardized by the municipality to include things it was never intended to include. By then opening that up, you force religious followers to endure a grossly cheapened misappropriation of their ceremony. Providing a non-marriage legal union gets around the entire issue. See the point, genius?


Oh, NOW I see. You are recommending that all legal rights associated with being married should be revoked as this is a bastardization of what should really be a meaningless ceremony for a non-church goer. Okie dokie then! Lets close the stable door after the horse has bolted. That'll work...

...wait. You do miss the point.
#205 Feb 25 2004 at 12:45 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
The point is that marriage is a religious covenant bastardized by the municipality to include things it was never intended to include.
Like changes in the tax code, Social Security benefits, etc? Marriage is only as religious as you make it. Funerals are religious events as well, from the first caveman to be laid down with some totem weapons and bone chips. Can I start crying that those damn heathens want to be buried as well? We did it first!
Quote:
By then opening that up, you force religious followers to endure a grossly cheapened misappropriation of their ceremony
I wasn't aware gay wedding attendance was mandatory these days.

Hey, according to the tenets of the Catholic church, there's a proper way to conduct the sacrament of marriage. Those damn upstart Protestants are using a grossly cheapened misappropriation of the Catholic ceremony! Does the Pope know about this? Why isn't there a petition in Congress to stop defacing our ceremony?!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#206 Feb 25 2004 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Hey, according to the tenets of the Catholic church, there's a proper way to conduct the sacrament of marriage. Those damn upstart Protestants are using a grossly cheapened misappropriation of the Catholic ceremony! Does the Pope know about this? Why isn't there a petition in Congress to stop defacing our ceremony?!

Catholocism is a cult. Deprogrammers are being dispatched as we speak to save you.
#207 Feb 25 2004 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
Patrician wrote:
Oh, NOW I see. You are recommending that all legal rights associated with being married should be revoked as this is a bastardization of what should really be a meaningless ceremony for a non-church goer. Okie dokie then! Lets close the stable door after the horse has bolted. That'll work...
...wait. You do miss the point.

Jophiel wrote:
Like changes in the tax code, Social Security benefits, etc? Marriage is only as religious as you make it. Funerals are religious events as well, from the first caveman to be laid down with some totem weapons and bone chips. Can I start crying that those damn heathens want to be buried as well? We did it first!

Translation:
It's already f'ucked up, why make it right? Let's just **** it up for everyone.

But wait, you would still be missing the point.
#208 Feb 25 2004 at 1:23 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,372 posts
I think you are missing the point so much that you are now raving like a confused fool who knows he is being mocked but can't quite work out why. Just sayin'
#209 Feb 25 2004 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
I think you are missing the point so much that you are now raving like a confused fool who knows he is being mocked but can't quite work out why. Just sayin'

It's cool. You're British. I'll cut you some slack. :)
#210 Feb 25 2004 at 1:35 PM Rating: Decent
No, the argument that Moebius and I are making is that the state has as much right in legalizing marriage as it does for 1st Communion, Confirmation or Bar Mitzvah(sp). This is a perfect time to fix this error and bring domestic partnerships back in line with the Constitution. This would also also defuse the argument by the religious right that marriage is only between a man and a woman. It would also deflate the argument on the other side in terms of equal protection in that everyone would have the same rights. If you want to get married go to a church. If you want all the legal rights that today's marriages confer on a couple then enter into a domestic partnership. Problem solved.
#211 Feb 25 2004 at 1:36 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,372 posts
Were you trolling a stupid point of view ironically? If so, you are right, I missed the point.
#212 Feb 25 2004 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Catholocism is a cult
Mren? That you? Smiley: laugh

As for the rest of it, like it or not, "marriage" is common parlance for two people hitching up, any religious connotations aside. It's not the government's job to "reclaim" the word for you just 'cause you want it to have deep spiritual meanings. If government were to fashion "civil unions" between homosexuals, I assure you that people would still casually call Joe and Bob "married" and not "civilly joined" or whatever mouthful of government-speak you want to preserve your special word. You're really better off coming up with a new word for the religious ceremony if it's that important to you to keep it seperate.

Quote:
No, the argument that Moebius and I are making is that the state has as much right in legalizing marriage as it does for 1st Communion, Confirmation or Bar Mitzvah
The state has every right to legalize marriage because, again, "marriage" is currently a secular term with no more spiritual meaning to it than you want to give it on an individual basis. If that tears you up inside, I don't know what to tell you, but you're not likely to change the common vocabulary of the world to meet your religious needs.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#213 Feb 25 2004 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Were you trolling a stupid point of view ironically? If so, you are right, I missed the point.

That it is a stupid point of view to a Brit is not shocking. You folks thought it was a stupid point of view to expect not to be taxed inordinately for tea, too. But we kicked your asses then, and have been leading you around by the nose, saving your island from ze geermanz ever since. Good beer though.

What's that catchy phrase you guys use over there? Taking the ****? Yes. I am.
#214 Feb 25 2004 at 2:02 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,372 posts
Best get onto those pesky dictionary compilers, the word marriage needs some re-definition.

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

a) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b) The state of being married; wedlock.
c) A common-law marriage.
d) A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

And since you are so interested in biblical marriage, I did some research for you. Cos I am nice like that.

Biblical marriage: a bad source for debate
By Vaughn Roste
The son of two Lutheran pastors, Vaughn Roste has since worshipped and worked in Episcopalian and Presbyterian Churches, but his current employment is in a United Church. Holding degrees in theology and music from two different church institutions, he currently freelances as a writer and musician in Edmonton.

Quote:
We've heard a lot about "biblical marriage" lately, largely as a defensive reaction against same-sex marriage. I read one letter to the editor written by a Lutheran pastor that claimed that "the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man to one woman." How very applicable to the contemporary situation, I thought. If the Bible really teaches that (and in such modern language too!), then we all should be paying the Bible a lot more heed.

So I picked up my Bible and looked up all the passages that have anything to do with marriage (I had help: I used a concordance). I examined the scriptural use of all the words I could think of related to marriage: marriage, marriages, marry, marries, married, wedding, weddings, wed, husband, husbands, wife, and wives.

All told I looked up over 800 references. Exempting the references which are narrative (e.g. "Adam named his wife Eve" Gen 3:20) or metaphorical (Christ's marriage to the church, Rev 21:9), I was able to distil those 825 verse references into 12 general principles: 12 Biblical "rules" or guidelines regarding marriage which encompass the gamut of scripture. I hereby present the list, with the applicable references.

12 Biblical Principles of Marriage


1) Marriage consists of one man and one or more women

(Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

2) Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have
(Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

3) A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife

(Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.

4)If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned
(Deut 22:13-21).

5)A rapist must marry his victim
(Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).

6)If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow
(Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

7)Women marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).

8)Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).

9)The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work
(Gen 29:14-30).

10)Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).

11) Divorce is forbidden
(Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).

12)Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin
(Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

How many of these Biblical principles are followed by Christians today? Not a single one (with the possible exception of number 3 - some Christian women may still have no choice in their marital partner)!

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man and one woman;" in fact, it says explicitly to the contrary! The Bible lists at least 15 polygamists (not including Herod, who is known from the historical - but not Biblical - record to have had 9 wives), and in not a single place does polygamy carry with it any sense of opprobrium. Unfortunately, the pastor mentioned above would have been far more correct to say that "the Bible teaches that marriage is a covenantal union of one man to as many women as he might want and can afford."

So the next time your favourite politician or preacher claims to use the Bible in support of traditional marriage, ask him or her which of these 12 principles he or she is actually advocating. Probably none. Anyone who claims to use the Bible in support of a strictly monogamous union of one male and one female based on love, mutuality, and commitment will be hard pressed to find 2,000 year-old Bible verses in support of that very modern position. In fact, I daresay they cannot. The Biblical view of marriage is not monogamous: it is not necessarily based on love, nor on any amount of mutuality.

Most Christians would consider these Biblical principles of marriage to be misogynistic and repulsive - and judging by today's standards, they'd be right. Views have changed since Biblical times, as has our concept of marriage. Some would claim that this is the result of the Holy Spirit working in our world; most agree that just about all of the changes are a good thing. But if we concede that our concept of marriage has evolved, is it not potentially arrogant to summarily discount the possibility that marriage should continue evolving, or even that it might be God's will that it do so?

From the looks of the above list, it's a good thing our perspectives have changed from the Biblical model. Thus as we continue to dialog and prayerfully discern God's will in the area of same-sex marriages, we obviously cannot consider 2,000-year-old statements made in other cultures and contexts to be all that is important.

Please do not misinterpret that I am claiming that the Bible is not important - of course it is. It is central to my faith, as it should be for any Christian. But to rely on solely the Bible is to dangerously ignore two millennia of progress in the areas of science, technology, and human rights, a sin which we dare not let ourselves commit if the church is to remain relevant to contemporary society at all.

To rely solely on Scripture for church policy is to ignore the possibility that the Holy Spirit has been active at all in the sixteen centuries since the canon was closed in 405 CE. Indeed, we need to consider that the Holy Spirit may be actively encouraging us today to move beyond a literal reading of the Bible and to refuse to become modern Pharisees.

While of course the Bible is integral to who we are as Christians, we do ourselves, the church, and yes, God a disservice if we ignore even the possibility of a revelation more recent than 2,000 years old. While we cannot and would not want to ignore the Old and New Testaments, we also cannot ignore the Now Testament. Praise God that, consistent with the spirit of almost every Biblical narrative, God even today continuously and patiently calls us ever forward.

#215 Feb 25 2004 at 2:10 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,372 posts
Quote:
That it is a stupid point of view to a Brit is not shocking. You folks thought it was a stupid point of view to expect not to be taxed inordinately for tea, too. But we kicked your asses then, and have been leading you around by the nose, saving your island from ze geermanz ever since. Good beer though.

What's that catchy phrase you guys use over there? Taking the ****? Yes. I am.


Bwahaha. Thanks for making a fool of yourself there bud. If you ever feel up to getting an intellectual beating again, please don't hesitate to let me know.
#216 Feb 25 2004 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
If that tears you up inside, I don't know what to tell you, but you're not likely to change the common vocabulary of the world to meet your religious needs.


I have no religious needs. I am agnostic and belong to no religious organization. I am arguing this from a libertarian viewpoint. Marriage has always been defined by the church. It is one of the sacraments of the catholic church. There is no good reason that the legal contract that our government now refers to as "marriage" can't be renamed to something that would encompass everyone whether it is a church sanctioned marriage or not. Also understand that I am only talking about changing the legal term, not the common usage of the word "marriage". If we are goint to keep the term the way it is now then we need to allow any two consenting adults to be married. My only problem with this is then we are dictating to churches what marriage means when it should be the other way around.
#217 Feb 25 2004 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Marriage has always been defined by the church
Absolutely not. I can go to pretty much any industrialized nation on the planet and get a purely civil marriage. I can certainly do so in the United States. And, guess what? They call it a "marriage". Even if I go to the civil court wearing my best "Darwin Fish" shirt, it's still a marriage.

The "Sacrament of Catholicism" bit is irrelevant unless you mean to imply that before the global rise of the Roman Catholic Church, no one else on the planet got married. I'm pretty sure people in the Americas, Asia, northern Europe, southern Africa, the South Pacific, etc managed to commit in marriage to one another just dandy without Judeo-Christianity for thousands of years.

Quote:
There is no good reason that the legal contract that our government now refers to as "marriage" can't be renamed to something that would encompass everyone whether it is a church sanctioned marriage or not
There's honestly no good reason to do so except that some people wrongly feel they have special claim to the term. Which isn't a good reason.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#218 Feb 25 2004 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Bwahaha. Thanks for making a fool of yourself there bud. If you ever feel up to getting an intellectual beating again, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Excuse me? The last two posts I made may have been light hearted in response to your "stupid idea" trolling comment, but I still maintain the position I have taken, regardless of what some Lutheran Pastor's son decides. He quotes, as so many here incorrectly do, predominantly old testament passages regarding the rules set forth for marriage by God to Moses, which Christians are free from under the death of Christ. The point continues to be marriage, regardless of its bastardization by municipal authority, is a sacred sacriment and should be fixed to hold no legal standing.
#219 Feb 25 2004 at 3:33 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
I'm pretty sure people in the Americas, Asia, northern Europe, southern Africa, the South Pacific, etc managed to commit in marriage to one another just dandy without Judeo-Christianity for thousands of years.


But did they do so without any religious involvement? Did purely secular marriages exist prior to the 19th century?
#220 Feb 25 2004 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
The point continues to be marriage, regardless of its bastardization by municipal authority, is a sacred sacriment and should be fixed to hold no legal standing
Actually, the point continues to be that just because you hold marriage as a sacred sacrament doesn't mean anyone else has to. I'm pretty sure the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, etc did not give praise and thanks to Jehovah for their marriages. I'm willing to bet the Norsemen managed to pledge to one another completely oblivious of how sacred a sacrament it is to you. I'd wage that the men of Japan were able to take a bride without contemplating the rules of the Torah and the various Hebrew legends and stories.

Marriage is a "sacred sacrament" to you. Unless you mean to imply that the worship of Isis, Marduk, Thor, Astorah and Ame-No-Uzume holds equal weight as that of Jehovah.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#221 Feb 25 2004 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
But did they do so without any religious involvement? Did purely secular marriages exist prior to the 19th century?
Common Law marriage certainly existed prior. You can't get much more secular than to have the government decide for you that you're married because they think you should be, given the circumstances.

At any rate, my point was that I'm amused that people seem to put forth the idea of marriage being sacred to their God as if the Judeo-Christian YHWH has some monopoly on marriage or as if they were the first people in the world to do so.

If me and my wife-to-be decide to have our wedding done in a grand celebration to Astorah, a pagan fetility goddess who Jehovah shows an open hatred for in the Old Testament, will Mobius et al agree that what we're doing is sacred and holy and wonderful? If no, why not? Astorah worship predates that of recorded Judiasm. If they say it's okay, then why is letting two guys get married such an abomination and letting me perform ritualistic orgies to my pagan goddess not a mistreatment of the "sacrament"?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#222 Feb 25 2004 at 4:43 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
dyzalot wrote:
But did they do so without any religious involvement? Did purely secular marriages exist prior to the 19th century?


The chinesse and Japanesse have been marrying since the 3rd Centuary and i am almost certain that in Europe the majority of State marriages for a great many years where politically motivated and had nothing at all to do with the Church, love or any modern consepts that we take for granted, the Christian church have not got the monopoly on marriage.

Just stuck me now i am thinking about it that African tribes had marriage as part of thier culture before any western influence as did native American Indians, where they also christian? i think not.

#223 Feb 25 2004 at 5:19 PM Rating: Decent
Guys, I said nothing about Christian involvement, I said religious involvement. Yes that would include any pagan gods, religions or practices. It would also include all those prearranged, European state sponsored marriages as I'm sure they were presided over by a member of the clergy. In man's history marriage has always been about religion, not about a legal contract. That has changed over the last two hundred years and now we have segments of our population that can't enter into that same legal contract because of the religious definition of what a marriage is. We need to separate the legal contract from the religious intent of marriage.

Quote:
Unless you mean to imply that the worship of Isis, Marduk, Thor, Astorah and Ame-No-Uzume holds equal weight as that of Jehovah.


I do. As far as I'm concerned all religions are equal. I don't believe in any of them and the Constitution makes no distinction of any one religion as the correct one.
#224 Feb 25 2004 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I do
Groovy for you. I was talking to Mobieus though Smiley: wink
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#225 Feb 26 2004 at 6:03 AM Rating: Decent
****
5,372 posts
Quote:
I still maintain the position I have taken, regardless of what some Lutheran Pastor's son decides.


I know you still hold your position, it is still stupid

Quote:
He quotes, as so many here incorrectly do, predominantly old testament passages regarding the rules set forth for marriage by God to Moses, which Christians are free from under the death of Christ. The point continues to be marriage, regardless of its bastardization by municipal authority, is a sacred sacriment and should be fixed to hold no legal standing.


Well thats nice. In which case you can now quote New Testament verses that clarify the religious position on marriage as a sacred sacriment after Christ.
#226 Feb 26 2004 at 6:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Dyzalot wrote:

I do. As far as I'm concerned all religions are equal.


Please tell me you do not include l. Ron "I can't write sci fi worth **** so I'll start a cult" Hubbard's Scientologists in that broad sweeping statement. That would be quite insulting to every other religion on the planet.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 373 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (373)