For The Bible Tells Me So

[MBlax327]

OK.....so this thread has been great at having rational debate about the origins of homosexuality in an individual and the theories and rationale behind the Christian and Right Wing view of the homosexual marriage debate. However, I am still excited to see how the different parties involved feel about a law actually passing for or agianst the so-named "protecting of the sanctity of marriage."

Everyone here has had very well thought out points and opinions to this point, and i would like to encourage more of the opinions to flow regarding the legislation that could possibly come to pass regarding this issue.

Any thoughts?

[Beta]

I am sure plenty of people don't want it to happen.

But I honestly doubt anyone here will come forth and say they don't think it should happen.

[LaxRef]

OK.....so this thread has been great at having rational debate about the origins of homosexuality in an individual and the theories and rationale behind the Christian and Right Wing view of the homosexual marriage debate. However, I am still excited to see how the different parties involved feel about a law actually passing for or agianst the so-named "protecting of the sanctity of marriage."

Everyone here has had very well thought out points and opinions to this point, and i would like to encourage more of the opinions to flow regarding the legislation that could possibly come to pass regarding this issue.

Any thoughts?

I think as soon as there are no more divorces and there's no more adultery, then we can start talking about the "sanctity of marriage."

I'm fine with any consenting adults getting married and given the protections and privileges of that institution.

In 50 years, we'll look back aghast at the way homosexuals are treated in this country the same way we look back at racial prejudice now (well, most of us).

[KnoxVegas]

Thank you, LaxRef!

[JW]

Christ was both going to be a spiritual redeemer and a physical redeemer.

At the time that He appeared on the earth, He was that spiritual redeemer. In the last days, during the tribulation, Christ will come again and redeem those who convert after the rapture. When the prophets spoke of a redeemer, they spoke about redemption of the soul as well as body.

Lax Ref, While I think you make a lot of good points, I believe that it is important to talk about the sanctity of marriage right now (whether you are for or against the subjext of gay marriage). That is because until this country takes back marriage as a symbol of commitment of two people, we will continue to head down hill as a country. Until the marriage bed is kept pure and kids are not having to spend the week at their parents different houses, then it is so important to talk about the sanctity of marriage.

Marriage is a commitment between man and woman (in my opinion). A commitment that is for life (not a trial period or test drive). A good marriage is happy. A commited marriage is happy and thrives. Once the word commitment is truly put in its proper place in marriage then this country is going to be able to thrive again. The culture of the United States has made the term commitment mean - i will commit to you as long as I am happy or you are happy, as long as you are making enough money to support me, as long as you are healthy, and as long as we are "in love". I will stay with you for that long, or until i find something better.

I am 25 years old. With the elections of this country coming in a few months, while I am hopeful for change (sounds like a Barak campaign add) I am afraid of where this great country is heading. We are too prideful. It is ok to take pride in something, but there is also a sense of humility that must be involved in that pride.

I fear the histories of Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece, and Rome coming back to repeat themselves with the United States.

I love that this country is willing to help governments going through genocide like Iraq, but what helping countries in which we have no political interest in.

Final thought: there is a lot of debate currently over polygamous marriages and whether they should be permitable under the law? I know the Biblical take on it, and know my view and probably a lot of other views on the topic, but how do you feel about that?

[MBlax327]

Final thought: there is a lot of debate currently over polygamous marriages and whether they should be permitable under the law? I know the Biblical take on it, and know my view and probably a lot of other views on the topic, but how do you feel about that?

As i have said regarding other issues on this thread, i do not have the research to back this up in any way. Here is my opinion:
Like the show Big Love, there are good polygamists and bad ones. some are consentual, and some are not. There must be a way to stop the ones that are not. Unfortunately, (and i am sure i have only heard and seen the worst parts of these "compounds" on TV) a lot of the people who get involved in these relationships are not aware of a choice that they have, almost to the point of brainwashing these young women into thinking that this is what they actually want.
Still, there are polygamous relationships that work very well, and i would not want to get in the way of someone living a lifestyle they prefer, so long as no one is getting hurt or coerced into it.
However, until the choice is guaranteed for all people involved, i don't think it should be legal, so that the people who wold get caught up in these relationships have as much protection as their cultures are unwilling to give them.
Or at least, let them have a polygamous relationship....through marriage, just do not let the polygamous family have any legal rights as a family, like through civil union. This would discourage "bad polygamists" to the best ability of the law. This way, if a young woman wanted out, there would be nothing the rest of the family could do to stop her (and her children as well, actually), and actually would allow legal action against the culprit causing one of these "bad polygamous relationships".

And that's my opinion, any thoughts

[Beta]

Marriage is a commitment between man and woman (in my opinion). A commitment that is for life (not a trial period or test drive). A good marriage is happy. A commited marriage is happy and thrives. Once the word commitment is truly put in its proper place in marriage then this country is going to be able to thrive again. The culture of the United States has made the term commitment mean - i will commit to you as long as I am happy or you are happy, as long as you are making enough money to support me, as long as you are healthy, and as long as we are "in love". I will stay with you for that long, or until i find something better.

Something to strive for yes, but you're asking for people to all be good/happy with each other and make logical decisions. Lots of people make stupid decisions daily, and for the rest of their lives. Some people get married thinking it's the right thing..and it turns out it isn't.

What does that have to do with 2 people of the same sex getting married that could spend the rest of their lives together? Just because man/woman don't have the best % of successful relationships doesn't mean that figure should keep marriage from happening (with any sexuality).

[MBlax327]

What does that have to do with 2 people of the same sex getting married that could spend the rest of their lives together? Just because man/woman don't have the best % of successful relationships doesn't mean that figure should keep marriage from happening (with any sexuality).

Thank you Beta. I as well, struggle to see the similarity between a high divorce rate and homosexual marriage. The two are completely unrelated, except by the point that a Christian considers both of them affronts to the sanctity of marriage. Still, having the same ends, even from a Christian perspective, does not make them related in the terms of this debate.

Fixing the divorce problem is a completely different discussion.

And by the way. that is the classiest im signature i've seen yet. Love it. Although I will always wish i had the nickname "Laser." Or Magnum PI. Whichever.

[StrykerFSU]

I don't think you can make this just about Christians. If only Christians opposed same-sex marriages then measures that define marriage as between a man and a woman would not pass when put to a vote but we in fact see just the opposite.

In 2006, such measures passed in 7 of 9 states where they were on the ballot. And this was the election cycle when all the Dems were supposedly flocking to the polls.
http://www.ncsl.org/statevote/samesex_06.htm

It's easy to point fingers at vocal groups of opposition but the facts say that a far larger segment of our society oppose the idea of same-sex marriage. More folks seem to support the idea of same-sex unions. For example:

John McCain
Supports definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Says individual states should decide the issue. Says a federal marriage ban might be appropriate if courts overturned state marriage laws. Supports legal benefits for same-sex partners.

Barack Obama
Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Supports civil unions.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html

[MBlax327]

Stryker:
You are very right, and i should not have slapped the Christian label on the people opposed to same sex marriage. My Bad. It is a presupposition i should not have made. I should say social conservatives....or at least socially conservative on this issue, i believe that fits the bid much better.

Sorry again, and thanks for calling it out.

However, i do think that if it was a solely christian stance, it would pass when we put measures to a vote. The christian population of this nation controls much of the trends in which it is popular to think, and closely following that is which way it is popular to vote.

[StrykerFSU]

Definitely not calling you out. You've done a great job of "moderating" this thread. All of us just need to be careful about the labels we use. When you said, "Christian" what I read was Evangelical Christian (or Bible thumper as someone else put it) and on these boards and in some social circles that label is not a complement, though I don't think you meant it negatively. Evangelicals are certainly a minority group which is outspoken in its opposition to same-sex marriage and JW has done a commendable job of articulating that viewpoint in a respectful and honest way. The problem with the label in this case is that clearly Evangelicals are not the only ones who oppose same-sex marriage and it is an intellectual cop-out for those that support same-sex marriage to only argue against the religious opposition. Even if it is only those that describe themselves as socially conservative voting against same-sex marriage I don't think that it explains the repeated defeats at the polls. It's simply too easy to blame the defeats on hateful Bible thumpers rather than examine why 47%-84% (from my previous link) of Americans oppose same-sex marriage.

That is the reason I had asked about the legal definition of marriage versus civil union. What is it about same-sex marriage that is so off putting to the American electorate but same-sex civil unions or equal legal rights for same-sex couples is more acceptable? That is essentially the stated position of both of the candidates for POTUS.

Should state judges be able to override the will of the people? In light of previous civil rights issues, the answer may very well be yes. A point made all the more interesting considering the African-American son of a mixed race couple is opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage. Should congress define what a marriage is? I don't think so. As I said before, I believe a marriage is a holy sacrament and it is therefore up to the respective churches to determine whom they will marry. I think a civil union should be applied to everyone, gay or straight, and I don't think Congress should be permitted to bar anyone from that union.

Is it ridiculous that those particular Congressmen are the ones championing the amendment? Absolutely but to let the debate sink to partisan shouts of "HYPOCRITE!!!" is a disservice to those the amendment would hurt. There are far more important issues at stake such as civil rights and State vs. Federal authority that are in play.

I'll let the Governator sum it up for me:

MR. BROKAW: You have a lot of propositions on the ballot again this fall. One of them would mean a constitutional ban on gay marriages. Do you support that?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I think the Supreme Court made a decision there. It was apparently unconstitutional to stop anyone from getting married. It's like 1948, the interracial marriage, when the Supreme Court of California has, you know, decided it was unconstitutional and then later on the Supreme Court of the United States followed, I think 10 or 12 years later. So I think it is, it's good that California lead--is leading in this way. I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But at the same time I think that my, you know, belief, I don't want to force on anyone else, so I think we should stay with the decision of the Supreme Court and move forward. There are so many other more important issues that we have to address in California. So I think to spend any time on this initiative I think is a waste of time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25439733/page/3/

[Dan Wishengrad]

The Jews were short-sighted, as always in their view of Christ in the first century.

JW, while I respect you and your faith, I am very uneasy about statements like this one of yours above. Jews have been widely persecuted for the past 2,000 years for failing to accept Jesus as the Messiah, and millions of us have died for this refusal. The Jewish people respect all other religions and wish only to be allowed to believe in ours and to worship in our own way. Your tolerance of those who don't share your belief in the New Testament would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[MBlax327]

What is it about same-sex marriage that is so off putting to the American electorate but same-sex civil unions or equal legal rights for same-sex couples is more acceptable? That is essentially the stated position of both of the candidates for POTUS.

This is what i don't understand as well. Marriage is technically a legal term, not a religious bond. It is the religious institutions that have snagged it up as their own word, and i do not understand why the naming convention has to be changed. It is actually a disservice to the parties interested to do so, as it only further normalizes heterosexuality and otherizes homosexuality (thank you to the poster who originally used these terms in this discussion). However, i do agree that if it will provide the rights that all members of consentual relationships deserve (in my opinion) than it is a happy medium. But as i stated earlier, a religious marriage should then give no rights, absolutely none, without the civil union of the state to accompany them.

There was mention of a linguistic professional earlier in this thread, although i don't remember who it was. I wonder if they could get called into the naming convention discussion here.

PS: For sure it was calling me out, intentionally or not......but it was deserved, and it is much appreciated.

[Steno]

Stryker -
My own comment on your question of whether or not the supreme court should "override" the will of the people is that the supreme court is there to make sure we follow the constitution. If a majority of the people of the United States support something that the courts deem unconstitutional, then yes, we should follow the courts.

If the constitution is deemed to be wrong on this issue, move for an amendment to it. That's what makes the constitution a living document.

As an aside, it is troubling that the majority of people in this nation believe that their own definition of marriage should be everyone's.

Also, to answer your other question, I think that because marriage has deeply routed spiritual undertones (even if they are misplaced) people need it to define something they see as "natural." No matter what the etymological roots of the word marriage, American society has placed its own definition on marriage as a union before God.

And Dan, thanks for sticking up for us Jews.

[MBlax327]

I think that because marriage has deeply routed spiritual undertones (even if they are misplaced) people need it to define something they see as "natural." No matter what the etymological roots of the word marriage, American society has placed its own definition on marriage as a union before God.

It is wierd that the discussion can even boil down this far-seriously, it's just a word, and arbitrary label. But, alas, people stick up for wierd things.

Should, by any means, one group of people be deprived of something they want, just because another group uses that term with a different defenition? I think not. I think that the marriage between two consenting adults sould be a marriage between two consenting adults, regardless of if one of those pairs belives the word has special spiritual connotation or not. Should athiests and agnostics not be allowed to get married when they don't believe in the spiritual sense of the act, but instead just as a lifelong commitment? Still, just my opinion, and i am happy to discuss further.