Marriage Isn't The Problem - Straight Or Gay....

[gclayjr]

Gray,

 

I apologize. I didn't recognize that you were such a scholar of ancient scripture, languages and culture. I assumed that you dismissed Paul's Condemnation of homosexuality, for example in Romans 1, because you didn't like or agree with this apparently clearly written condemnation of the homosexual act. Although I try and study ancient history, and ancient churgh history, I am not a true scholar of such.

 

I would be honored if you could illuminate me by briefly explaining what that historical context is that would allow a reasonable reader of Romans 1 to not read it as a clear condemnation of homosexuality by God.

 

AtDhVaAnNkCsE

 

George Clay

Edited June 30, 2015 by gclayjr

[Mormonmaniac]

Another Mormon that wants to change the subject to gay marriage. What a surprise.

Divorce is never condoned or allowed in the New Testament. Christ himself specifically commanded against it

Just curious, are you going to marry your partner?

[Gray]

Gray,

 

I apologize. I didn't recognize that you were such a scholar of ancient scripture, languages and culture.

 

I don't think I ever represented that I was. At the same time, I find scholarship valuable in informing my approach to scripture. 

 

I assumed that you dismissed Paul's Condemnation of homosexuality, for example in Romans 1, because you didn't like or agree with this apparently clearly written condemnation of the homosexual act. Although I try and study ancient history, and ancient churgh history, I am not a true scholar of such.

 

Well, the church at large ignores many of Paul's sayings regarding marriage or election, presumably because we disagree with him when he advises heterosexuals to remain single or women to keep quiet in church. By my position goes beyond mere disagreement. Paul was not responding to monogamous, committed, lifelong married gay couples, because that wasn't what he would have encountered.  

 

I would be honored if you could illuminate me by briefly explaining what that historical context is that would allow a reasonable reader of Romans 1 to not read it as a clear condemnation of homosexuality by God.

 

Please see above. But I would go further that at best Paul's remarks can be seen as representative of Paul's deeply held convictions. Scripture is  written by human beings, not by God.  

 

AtDhVaAnNkCsE

 

George Clay

Edited June 30, 2015 by Gray

[danielwoods]

Scripture is written by human beings, not by God, so there's the same problem. But given the historical context of the scant references to homosexuality in the Bible, it's obviously not talking about committed, monogamous marital relationships, even if you were to presuppose that God was the author of those passages. 

 

At best you can say that the Bible advises against extra-marital homosexual affairs or prostitution. 

 

And since we find there is no such thing as a "homosexual" marriage in scripture, your exegesis has assumed something that doesn't exist anywhere in scripture. 

[Gray]

And since we find there is no such thing as a "homosexual" marriage in scripture, your exegesis has assumed something that doesn't exist anywhere in scripture. 

 

You also don't find airplanes in scripture, or the temple endowment, or home teaching, or the (fully fleshed out) concept of full personhood for women. 

 

I don't see the relevance. Surely our imagination is not limited to only what has been canonized. 

Edited June 30, 2015 by Gray

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And since we find there is no such thing as a "homosexual" marriage in scripture, your exegesis has assumed something that doesn't exist anywhere in scripture. 

There in lies the issue is with people inserting things that are not into the scriptures. Were in the bible is gay marriage condoned let alone mentioned.

 

Why is it not mentioned? Because there is not such thing as gay marriage. It is a modern construct.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You also don't find airplanes in scripture, or the temple endowment, or home teaching, or the (fully fleshed out) concept of full personhood for women. 

 

I don't see the relevance. Surely our imagination is not limited to only what has been canonized. 

That is your retort? Your interpretation, if we could even call it that, is on very shaky ground.

[Gray]

That is your retort? Your interpretation, if we could even call it that, is on very shaky ground.

 

What exactly is the scriptural support for opposition to gay marriage? 

Edited June 30, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

There in lies the issue is with people inserting things that are not into the scriptures. Were in the bible is gay marriage condoned let alone mentioned.

 

Why is it not mentioned? Because there is not such thing as gay marriage. It is a modern construct.

 

Marriage itself is a human construct that has been radically redefined many times over the centuries. 

[Bob Crockett]

Gray,

 

You would definitely fit into our corrupt Supreme Court. You can twist clear words in your mind to mean whatever you want them to mean. 

 

 

You have absolutely no proof of corruption unless you define corruption as simply not seeing things the way you do.

 

A big problem with the decision is that it engages in judicial legislation, and that the question should be left to the states, but that battle was fought andlost in the abortion fight. (Really now, good Christians ought to be outraged at things like abortion and capital punishment, and not whether gays can be denied a legal fiction.)  Conservatives and liberals alike urge "judicial legislation" when it suits them. 

 

But the problem of gay "marriage" began when civil governments co-opted a religious institution.  That was done for control, politics, money as well as to protect women and the paternity and support of children.   Marriage has become a civil right, not to be denied gays.  

 

The government has no need to follow the mandate of Jewish or Christian scripture.   Jewish scripture teaches that negligent homicide leads to the death penalty unless one can find refuge in a city of refuge, and nobody would agree with that today.  

Edited June 30, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Gray]

 

A big problem with the decision is that it engages in judicial legislation, and that the question should be left to the states, but that battle was fought andlost in the abortion fight. (Really now, good Christians ought to be outraged at things like abortion and capital punishment, and not whether gays can be denied a legal fiction.)  Conservatives and liberals alike urge "judicial legislation" when it suits them. 

 

 

What do you think about the issue where (prior to this ruling) some states granted marriage licenses to gay couples that would not be recognized in other states? Could this have ever reasonably remained an issue for states to decide?

[Stone holm]

"Judicial legislation" is an interesting term, used primarily to take shots at Court decisions that are not liked.  In addition to legislated marriage, a Church marriage, the English Courts had a common law marriage that was overruled by most if not all State legislatures in the 1970's because so many people were "shacking up" without really having the intent to create a marriage.  So its not a particularly new thing for the Courts to adopt rules for marriage outside of the legislative system.  To say that the civil governments co-opted a religious institution is a bit murky.  Sure we consider it a religious institution, but it has been a secular institution at least since Roman times as well.  And when it was a religious institution, we had religious governments -- many of the ancient governments were actually theocracies, so where religion left off and government started was a bit questionable.  Even after secular governments evolved many considered religion merely an arm of the State, it wasn't until awhile after the Enlightenment got underway that we started divorcing the two and the major bill of divorce of religion and the state for Americans was the Establishment Clause which was eventually made applicable to the States pursuant to the 14th Amendment.  It would have been cleaner, if the States had not had established Churches and had forbade Church officials to perform marriages, or if the States had merely recognized some type of social contract between two people and left the marriage business to the Churches, fraternities, covens, synagogues, etc.  But that is sort of like crying over spilled milk and we are having to deal with a remnant of State controlled religion because of the way we set up our government.  But to say that marriage is strictly a religious thing, simply ignores an awful lot of history.

[danielwoods]

You also don't find airplanes in scripture, or the temple endowment, or home teaching, or the (fully fleshed out) concept of full personhood for women. 

 

I don't see the relevance. Surely our imagination is not limited to only what has been canonized. 

 

Marriage is talked about, and it's always between a male and female. 

 

Deflecting to other things missing from the biblical text doesn't make your case that there is such a thing as a "gay marriage" in the eyes of God. 

 

What exactly is the scriptural support for opposition to gay marriage? 

 

The imperative statements to not practice those things that describe a homosexual. Need I list them?

 

Marriage itself is a human construct that has been radically redefined many times over the centuries. 

 

And yet throughout biblical history it's always seen as between a man and a woman. 

 

The reason for this is that it simply is the most unique and powerful of all human relationships, for out of it we produce the next generation. The same cannot be said of any other human relationship or supposed "marriage". 

[california boy]

Just curious, are you going to marry your partner?

I am pretty sure most people in this board know that I am passionate about the rights of all Americans to have equal protection under the law. That is what it has been about from the very beginning. I hope I would be just as passionate about protecting anyone's civil rights.

I saw a wrong and I wanted to do something about it. I wanted to help church members realize that they could be opposed to gay marriage from their religious convictions but still insure the civil rights of those who do not share those beliefs. It was never about me.

I love my boyfriend . I will not ever leave him. He is my life. Our life together is so amazing. I have never experienced such happiness.

In regards to marrying him, It seems to me that the church would prefer us to not marry. I will respect that position.

Thanks for asking

Edited June 30, 2015 by california boy

[gclayjr]

Gray,

 

Let me see if I can follow your logic. Since Gay marriage didn't exist in Pauli's time, therefor Paul's writings that God finds the practice of homosexuality is evil does not apply. That is like saying that because guns didn't exist in biblical times that murder with a gun is ok.

 

As far as the Church's disagreement with Pauls admonition that being single and abstinent is better than being married, the church references many scriptures that support their position, including Peters admonition to Paul. So it is not just a matter of making it up as you go.

 

There is a difference between correlating scriptures and trying to understand the different nuances, and perhaps biases of the writers, rather than just making it up as you go. Scripture does Not come from man. It comes from god. It may get a bit mangles by man, but it comes from God. If you think that scripture comes from man, why even bother to read it or understand it... its just one man's opinion among millions.? I'm sure you can do a better job of finding simpatico writings among the Enlightenment writers, or even out and out atheists.

 

Regards,

 

George Clay

[Mormonmaniac]

I obviously m

Curious to see in ten years how many divorces there are in the married gay population...

[california boy]

Curious to see in ten years how many divorces there are in the married gay population...

Sorry my iPhone posted that while I was still typing. That is why it made no sense. Please reread my post

[Gray]

Marriage is talked about, and it's always between a male and female. 

 

But marriage as we think of it today is not. 

 

Deflecting to other things missing from the biblical text doesn't make your case that there is such a thing as a "gay marriage" in the eyes of God. 

 

Is there such a thing as an airplane in the eyes of God?

 

The imperative statements to not practice those things that describe a homosexual. Need I list them?

 

Neither the anonymous author of Leviticus nor Paul were describing anything like committed, monogamous gay marriage relationships. 

 

And yet throughout biblical history it's always seen as between a man and a woman. 

 

Given that women were considered to be property at the time, it's understandable that a relationship between a man and his property (ie marriage) would not be in the same category as a relationship between a man and non-property (ie another man). 

 

 

 

The reason for this is that it simply is the most unique and powerful of all human relationships, for out of it we produce the next generation. The same cannot be said of any other human relationship or supposed "marriage". 

 

The exceptions to this among straight people should be obvious, and yet it doesn't seem to invalidate their marriages. 

Edited June 30, 2015 by Gray

[Ahab]

I am pretty sure most people in this board know that I am passionate about the rights of all Americans to have equal protection under the law. That is what it has been about from the very beginning. I hope I would be just as passionate about protecting anyone's civil rights.

I saw a wrong and I wanted to do something about it. I wanted to help church members realize that they could be opposed to gay marriage from their religious convictions but still insure the civil rights of those who do not share those beliefs. It was never about me.

I love my boyfriend . I will not ever leave him. He is my life. Our life together is so amazing. I have never experienced such happiness.

In regards to marrying him, It seems to me that the church would prefer us to not marry. I will respect that position.

Thanks for asking

The Church would also prefer that you not have sexual relations with your "boyfriend". Will you respect that position too?

That would totally fix the problem, because that's the whole problem of same sex "marriages". You can still love the man, forever and ever, and you can even live with him and share your life with him too.

So what do you say? Come on! A small price to pay for getting rid of that sin in your and his life, don't cha think?

[Gray]

Gray,

 

Let me see if I can follow your logic. Since Gay marriage didn't exist in Pauli's time, therefor Paul's writings that God finds the practice of homosexuality is evil does not apply. That is like saying that because guns didn't exist in biblical times that murder with a gun is ok.

 

What Paul would have seen doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage. You might as well argue that commandments against fornication are a condemnation of straight marriage, since the mechanics are the same 

 

As far as the Church's disagreement with Pauls admonition that being single and abstinent is better than being married, the church references many scriptures that support their position, including Peters admonition to Paul. So it is not just a matter of making it up as you go.

 

Did Peter ever say that Paul was wrong about marriage? 

 

There is a difference between correlating scriptures and trying to understand the different nuances, and perhaps biases of the writers, rather than just making it up as you go.

 

I'm not making up anything, any more than you are. I simply have a different model of the scriptures than you (I reject the anachronism of fundamentalism)

 

Scripture does Not come from man. It comes from god.

 

There is no evidence that God ever wrote anything. We have the names of a number of human authors for the Bible though. 

 

It may get a bit mangles by man, but it comes from God.

 

I don't think God writes scripture, directly or indirectly. 

 

If you think that scripture comes from man, why even bother to read it or understand it... its just one man's opinion among millions.?

 

Because I don't have antipathy toward human beings or their struggles with spirituality. On the contrary, I view the spiritual quest as being vitally important. 

 

I'm sure you can do a better job of finding simpatico writings among the Enlightenment writers, or even out and out atheists.

 

My approach is generally consistent with progressives among many faith traditions. 

 

Regards,

 

George Clay

Edited June 30, 2015 by Gray

[The Nehor]

The Church would also prefer that you not have sexual relations with your "boyfriend". Will you respect that position too?

That would totally fix the problem, because that's the whole problem of same sex "marriages". You can still love the man, forever and ever, and you can even live with him and share your life with him too.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that an ideal solution would be to live a platonic life together despite being former lovers and just live with the temptation for the rest of your life?

[Bob Crockett]

What do you think about the issue where (prior to this ruling) some states granted marriage licenses to gay couples that would not be recognized in other states? Could this have ever reasonably remained an issue for states to decide?

The full faith and credit clause is so full of holes it is hopeless for me to answer that question.  I can't practice law outside of California, I do know that.

 

Under a free society, government should grant civil rights to all, including gays.  If gays want to get married, there should be no impediment to do so.  But, in a free society, Christians have the right to band together to proclaim what is sinful and what is not, and to make their voices known in the public marketplace of ideas, including the notion that abortion is sinful, homosexual relations in or out of marriage is sinful, and capital punishment is wrong or right.  

 

What is wrong here is that the government took over the marriage rites and made it a government civil right.  That action (long ago) now put it in conflict with the rights of Bible believers to now say that gay marriage is an abomination.  I condemn Judge Walker (California) for saying that religion should be barred from the public marketplace of ideas, and that Christians and Muslims should not assert their views in the political spectrum.  I condemn Kennedy's apparent views that only those who hate gays are against gay marriage.  

 

But, government interference is common with civil liberties, and not just in the marriage question.  As believing Christians we ought to respect another's civil rights but be vocal in our views against abortion, homosexual behavior and fornication even though lots of that is lawful and even a civil right.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Ahab]

Are you seriously suggesting that an ideal solution would be to live a platonic life together despite being former lovers and just live with the temptation for the rest of your life?

Yeah. What? Do you see a problem with that?

It wouldn't necessarily need to remain a temptation, though. Once seen for the bad thing that it is there should be a time when that sin would start to be hated, or abhorred, if they did it. Even while they would be able to understand how it would be a good thing if each of them had sexual relations with their own woman, and wife, instead.

There's nothing wrong with men regarding other men as being sexually attractive. They're just not supposed to have sexual relations with each other. Men are for women and wonen are for men. They could even help to find a good woman for each other, as men who are good friends to each other.

[danielwoods]

 

Marriage is talked about, and it's always between a male and female. 

 

But marriage as we think of it today is not. 

 

Quite irrelevant to the topic at hand. Marriage still was always defined as man and woman.

 

 

Deflecting to other things missing from the biblical text doesn't make your case that there is such a thing as a "gay marriage" in the eyes of God. 

 

Is there such a thing as an airplane in the eyes of God?

 

Your deflection doesn't change the fact that every time any type of marriage is talked about in scripture, it's always male and female.

 

 

The imperative statements to not practice those things that describe a homosexual. Need I list them?

 

Neither the anonymous author of Leviticus nor Paul were describing anything like committed, monogamous gay marriage relationships. 

 

Right, because there is no such thing according to the scripture. It's never talked about. The very concept of marriage is between opposites. Male and female. What Paul and Leviticus do describe are the very basic practices of homosexuals. You disagree? 

 

 

And yet throughout biblical history it's always seen as between a man and a woman. 

 

Given that women were considered to be property at the time, it's understandable that a relationship between a man and his property (ie marriage) would not be in the same category as a relationship between a man and non-property (ie another man). 

 

The point is irrelevant to the point at hand. Still only male and female.

 

 

 

The reason for this is that it simply is the most unique and powerful of all human relationships, for out of it we produce the next generation. The same cannot be said of any other human relationship or supposed "marriage". 

 

The exceptions to this among straight people should be obvious, and yet it doesn't seem to invalidate their marriages. 

 

Which is interesting, because gays seek to validate something that doesn't produce anything by referencing straight couples who choose not to produce?