A silly simple question on sexual orientation (re gay marriage)

[seeker57]

Mark,

That was delightfully well put.

Thank you.

Mark

 

[edwest2]

Yes, but they suffer because of the limited views of the society that they live in, and that can change. As long as people insist on trying to throw scriptural passages around to say how something is wrong, it isn’t likely to change. Anyway, it’s human nature to try and elevate one’s self esteem by finding someone you see as lesser than yourself to denigrate People will always find someone to isolate and ridicule until they gain some level of enlightenment. I have seldom seen any level of enlightenment emerge from the ranks of people who quote scripture to say that their religion is right, the one way, infallible and so on. It seems to come from simple people, whose minds are uncluttered with useless points if biblical law. To me, there is one law. It came from Jesus when he said to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. If you read my posts, I quote that like a broken record. I do it because it means more than it says at first glance. It means that you, the person next to you, and all people are spiritual sparks, in quality one with the Lord. When you see Him in yourself and in everyone else, the laws just start to fall in place for you. You no longer want to steal or to lie or to do any of the things prohibited by God’s laws. You have to know God fist, and the other commandments become easy. That is why this was Jesus’ only commandment. For 2,000 year we have put the cart before the horse - trying to connect with God by obeying commandments and laws. You will go to your grave craving and obsessing over things you never overcame, and therefore will have accomplished nothing. It has to be the other way. You have to know God first, become enlightened, and then your bad proclivities will fall away of their own. It doesn’t work well the other way round. Sri Anandamayi Ma expressed it more simply and eloquently than I can.

“Why do you say to me Lord, Lord and do not the things I tell you?”

And why do you quote some self-styled mystic named Sri Anandamayi Ma?

And what did Jesus say after forgiving the woman who was going to be stoned for adultery? “Go and sin no more.”

There is right and there is wrong. It is evident in natural law and divine revelation. I never knew a priest or nun who needed their self esteem elevated. We can control our human failings. However, the moment we begin to worship the god Change, we begin to close our ears to God and listen only to men.

And why do you judge and say “simple people”? What? If I live in the country and then move to the big city, my I.Q. will automatically go up?

There is no “enlightenment.” This is another word for Change as presented by the vain imaginations of men who are without foundation. Who are bored and seek amusement. Who want the constant overturning of the bedrock of human living so they can live out a fantasy.

The Bible is the Word of God. All of it is profitable for instruction.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PJM]

=larkin31;6967858]There was nothing smart-alec about my statement. If you do not understand that the marital-status of Adam and Eve–indeed even their very existence–is a serious theological debate among believers, then all I can say is, “Read a bit more.”

And if your only reply is to quote the line about the psychological explanation for why we have sexual desire (by the way, the Hebrew word in the original does not necessarily mean “wife”), then there is not much more to say, eh?

But if you would like to actually discuss the REASONS you take Adam and Eve to be the first example of a “married” couple, then I would love to read it! Sincerely.

Excuse me friend; I was NOT sharing MY opinion; rather what the Bible says. [See 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and then reread Gen. 2: 23-25]

Anyone who in this current environment of open desent accepts any theologian as infallible
solely on there own opinion is seeking trouble.

But I do apologize for my assumption. I know better.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Stephen168]

The purpose of marriage is to unite a man and woman in their common goal of establishing a family.

We know there is one unique purpose for human sex and marriage; and there are other secondary purposes. The purpose of marriage and family are no longer clearly seen by many due to our affluent society with birth control, and a government sponsored social/economic safety net. Now it is easy to ignore the one unique purpose, and act as if secondary and tertiary purposes are unique.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi JMCRAE: If we are now saying that the the purpose of a marriage is to raise a family and main qualifier that distinguishes gay marriage from straight marriage is the biological ability to produce children, shouldn’t heterosexual couples take a fertility test before being given a marriage license? No point on them getting married if they can’t have children. Of course both straight and gay couples could adopt one of the many children in this world who need homes, don’t you think? They could, that is. if we grew as a society to the point where we didn’t ridicule people for what they are.I know lesbian couples who are raising children. Are there people who scoff at them and shun them? Yes, but whose problem is that?

In order to grow up with good mental health, a child needs a female mother and a male father. I know plenty of children raised by homosexual couples; most of them have spent time in jail, and have used illegal drugs, as a matter of fact, they behave just like children of divorced parents, so yes, it seems that there is a correlation with regard to the absence of one sex of parent in the home, to mental health and social stability.

As a society, do we want to spend most of our time cleaning up drug addicts and spend most of our money on police and law enforcement, or would we rather live in a society where children come out on their 18th birthday productive, able to take care of themselves, in good mental and physical health, and happy?

It is our choice, really - and if we want to populate the next generation with happy, productive young people, then we need to promote traditional marriage, and discourage both divorce and homosexuality.

 

[jmcrae]

It may not be possible for my partner and I to be united in holy matrimony. But that’s fine. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–I don’t want a rite performed over us which is just a watered down version of heterosexual marriage.

This is the first sane thing I’ve seen from your side of the argument in this thread.

I don’t think that respects our relationship, and I don’t think it respects heterosexual relationships–I don’t understand the impulse that says all loving relationships must look the same and be the same when not all loving relationships *are *the same, and admit significant differences. But that my partner and I can covenant with each other, like David and Jonathan, that our souls can be knit together (i.e. united by this covenant) by God’s grace like David’s and Jonathan’s were, is happily not dependent on the rite of marriage (as scripture demonstrates).

Right - and a covenant (perhaps a pinky promise?) to be best friends forever is not at all the same thing as a marriage, and doesn’t have to involve sex at all.

 

[mflorence]

Did they marry?

Good question!

 

[mflorence]

Grace & Peace!

Jmcrae, I don’t mean to get too off topic here, but you must realize that this an understanding of what marriage has become, not what marriage* always has been*. Evidence suggests that marriage was a private matter for much of the first millennium and was largely understood along the lines of Roman civil law. Marriage was largely a social obligation and often not so much about the people getting married as the uniting of the families to which those people belonged–the civil/social/political/economic dimensions of marriage are paramount. There was no standard liturgy, and while many wrote of procreation as a part of marriage, there does not seem to have been any general trend toward a mysticisation of the marriage rite, the message being that marriage is about this world, not the next (which accords with the gospels). Lateran 2 sums it up when clerical marriage is condmned: a priest should not “indulge in marriage and impurities.” The “and” there is telling. Marriage and impurity (which, in this context, must refer to sex), in the eyes of the medieval church, went hand in hand. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves by a couple centuries, because marriage does not properly become the business of the church until the turn of the second millennium, at which point Church blessing of a marriage becomes obligatory, it assumes the nature of a sacrament and the beginnings of a standardized marriage rite enter the liturgical books in earnest. But even then, the practices of clandestine marriage (a holdover from the time when marriage was private and civil) and concubinage were not dealt with until Trent, and were only dealt the final death blow at Vatican I, I believe.

The shift seems to have been occassioned by a movement from civil authority to place questions of inheritance, property rights, wills, etc. in the hands of the church. Given that marriage was, for the most part, about property and inheritance (creating and maintaining legacies, as well as expanding or cementing business and political ties) marriage also came under the purview of the church.

It isn’t until much much later (the 18th century has been suggested by some) that the idea of marrying someone you love gains any sort of wide purchase in the public imagination. At which point, the civil/social/economic/political purposes of marriage begin to take a back seat to individual desire and romance. Which, in many ways, is the logical consequence of the much earlier repeal of Roman civil penalties for childless couples or single people–because the church valued asceticism and celibacy.

All of which is why the idea of traditional marriage as it is currently articulated simply doesn’t make sense. It’s not traditional in the least–it’s a child of 20th century fantasizing. Marriage as it is now is the result of a process of change and growth that has been going on for millennia. It is, moreover, not the end of the process. We do ourselves and history an injustice when we believe ourselves, our times, our culture to be the inevitable sum of history. That is not an argument for gay marriage–you’ll see in these posts that I make no such argument. It is just an appeal for historical perspective and the dismantling of fantasy juggernauts.

I suspect that you consider a married couple a family only when they have children and not when they get married.

It may not be possible for my partner and I to be united in holy matrimony. But that’s fine. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–I don’t want a rite performed over us which is just a watered down version of heterosexual marriage. I don’t think that respects our relationship, and I don’t think it respects heterosexual relationships–I don’t understand the impulse that says all loving relationships must look the same and be the same when not all loving relationships *are *the same, and admit significant differences. But that my partner and I can covenant with each other, like David and Jonathan, that our souls can be knit together (i.e. united by this covenant) by God’s grace like David’s and Jonathan’s were, is happily not dependent on the rite of marriage (as scripture demonstrates).

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Nicely said!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Right - and a covenant (perhaps a pinky promise?) to be best friends forever is not at all the same thing as a marriage, and doesn’t have to involve sex at all.

Jmcrae, I appreciate your good humor, but our covenant is more than a pinky promise, and our relationship more than being BFFs. We may be camp on occassion, but neither of us are ever twee. A la David and Jonathan,I think that a covenant that knits souls together is of a bit more import than a pinky promise…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[jmcrae]

Grace & Peace!

Jmcrae, I appreciate your good humor, but our covenant is more than a pinky promise, and our relationship more than being BFFs. We may be camp on occassion, but neither of us are ever twee. A la David and Jonathan,I think that a covenant that knits souls together is of a bit more import than a pinky promise…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Never tell a teenage girl that her pinky promises are “twee” or “camp” - you’ll get an earful!

And by the way, I have kept all my pinky promises quite faithfully, so don’t diss them too much!

 

[Anselm1970]

The way I see it a lot of Christian denominations are trying to change the word of God on homosexuals to fit the modern life style, the bible is not a living breathing document that can be changed on a whim.

1. Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
2. Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them”

3.1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

1. Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

There are more examples in the bible, I chose to paste just a few.

To me it is not much clearer than this homosexuality is wrong, there is no need to try and add human interpretations or theories to what god is saying.

Also on the separation of church and state this is often misunderstood by atheists.

 

[larkin31]

Good question!

I was chastised for it! Go figure.

 

[larkin31]

This is the first sane thing I’ve seen from your side of the argument in this thread.

The legal battle in these states is not over the right to be in “holy matrimony,” but rather in “legal civil matrimony.” Churches can do as they please with their sacraments. As before.

 

[jmcrae]

The legal battle in these states is not over the right to be in “holy matrimony,” but rather in “legal civil matrimony.” Churches can do as they please with their sacraments. As before.

Matrimony of any kind is physically impossible between people of the same sex (hence the term, “same sex”), and no amount of legalese is going to change that fact.

It astounds me, the lengths people will go to defy both God and nature.

 

[larkin31]

Matrimony of any kind is physically impossible between people of the same sex (hence the term, “same sex”), and no amount of legalese is going to change that fact.

It astounds me, the lengths people will go to defy both God and nature.

That is a statement of faith, not of legal fact around the world. You are simply denying what IS the case already in many places.

 

[jmcrae]

That is a statement of faith, not of legal fact around the world. You are simply denying what IS the case already in many places.

It is legally permitted for homosexuals to attempt marriage.

It remains physically impossible, however.

 

[mflorence]

I was chastised for it! Go figure.

It happens to me all the time. Keep it in perspective. There are a lot of frightened people in this world. To assuage their fears, they look for absolute certainty and get very angry when you say anything that might threaten what they have found comfort in. The raft of absolute truths and infallibility that we have approached in this discussion has taken on a good deal of water of late, so making waves can elicit some panic.

 

[larkin31]

It is legally permitted for homosexuals to attempt marriage.

It remains physically impossible, however.

This is irrelevant in law. The state has made no physical act requirements for granting married status to applicants.

 

[jmcrae]

This is irrelevant in law. The state has made no physical act requirements for granting married status to applicants.

Right. Which makes it a sham law, since there is nothing in real life to which it relates.

 

[larkin31]

Right. Which makes it a sham law, since there is nothing in real life to which it relates.

What does that clause even mean? It reads like simply a vague dismissal.