Changing the definition of marriage devalues my marriage!

[Dawnia]

What I think cheapens marriage is the prevalence of divorce. Interestingly, the state with the lowest rates of divorce, Massachusetts, was the first to legally recognize same-sex unions. The trend continues as the states with lowest rates of divorce continue to legalize same-sex marriage.

Even more interesting, those states that have made constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman have not only the highest divorce rates, but the highest percentages of people who self-identify as Christian.

The statistics you are referring to are the number of divorces based on population. The reason Mass has a lower per capita divorce rate is because they have a much lower per capita marriage rate. Hard to get divorced if you never get married. Their marriage rate has been nose diving over the past few years. (lowest Mass has 1.8 per 1000 - highest Nevada has 6.6 per 1000)

The other states have much higher marriage rates per capita and would therefore also have higher divorce rates. Yet, over 50% of marriages last more than 25 years and end when the husband or wife dies.

Your implications that Christians are hippocrits because civil divorce rates are higher in self-identified Christian areas is misguided. Just because someone claims to be Christian does not mean they follow or believe the Christian faith. (example: Nancy Pelosi)

 

[Personanongrata]

Kim Kardashian

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Notice masters are not to mistreat their slaves. This is not slavery as we have known slavery in our recent history.

Exactly right Odell. This is certainly not what we consider when we think of “modern” slavery. This is a perfect example of how people can twist the words of the bible to meet thier own agenda. And, a perfect example of why we need Tradition and Mother Church as much as we need the Bible.

So slavery is only wrong when the masters are unkind?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

That’s not slavery, no matter how much you may wish to imply it by selectively skipping from 5:24 straight to 6:5 and ignoring what lies between.

What lies between are some irrelevant instructions for children to honor their father and mother.

The point is, why do we accept Ephesians instructions for marriage, but not for slavery?

Besides, the biblical concept of slavery was not exactly pretty:
Exodus 21:20-21

20He that striketh his bondman or bondwoman with a rod, and they die under his hands, shall be guilty of the crime.
21But if the party remain alive a day or two, he shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money.

 

[Brendan]

What lies between are some irrelevant instructions for children to honor their father and mother.

The point is, why do we accept Ephesians instructions for marriage, but not for slavery?1

Because we still practice biblical slavery today.

When convicts make license plates, that was slavery under the biblical definiton, When traffic offenders are sentanced to community service, that is slavery under the biblcial definition,

Yet we don’t find any fault in our society for doing such things, do we? Biblical slavery was the ownership of human labor.

What biblical slavery did NOT include was a denial that the slave was a human person. That is where chattle slavery differed from biblical slavery.

 

[CMB3884]

True, Nate. Nor do I “accept” the lifestyle. (i.e., state untruthfully that I approve of it). But let’s be realistic: How often is it necessary to “take a stand”? Thankfully, I find that most gays are not “in your face” with regard to demanding to know how a particular individual assesses that lifestyle. Nor, i.m.o., is it good manners for them to demand such acquiescence. It’s not even fair (i.m.o.) to demand that a parent “accept” such a lifestyle of one’s son or daughter, even though it’s totally natural that virtually all gays would want not just parental acceptance but parental approval.

I’ll only share the way I personally have dealt with the necessary encounters with it that come with modern living: I don’t discuss it, because 99.9% of the time no one ever asks me to. I would think it bad manners if gays asked me about my sexual history , so “do unto others,” right? Treating these couples with the same civility with which I treat heterosexual couples should not be a moral crisis – again, unless some kind of confrontation is initiated on their part regarding my opinion of their lifestyle, or a controversial public topic, such as gay “marriage.” By treating (yes, even the couple) respectfully is something I don’t translate as approving of their lifestyle as couples. I think of them as two individuals. Treating them rudely or with rejection will not accomplish (I would think) a moral reflection on their part, about their lifestyle.

That is not to say that I do not relate to the sense of personal discomfort, with regard to the aspect of lifestyle – particularly if that lifestyle overlaps somehow into my own, or my personal space. But I have to say that I am also quite uncomfortable with heterosexual cohabitation, regardless of how apparently prevalent it is today. I cannot affirmatively “approve” of that, either.

Hope that makes some sense.

Very respectfully and eloquently stated, Elizabeth!

 

[Alindawyl]

What lies between are some irrelevant instructions for children to honor their father and mother.

The point is, why do we accept Ephesians instructions for marriage, but not for slavery?

Besides, the biblical concept of slavery was not exactly pretty:
Exodus 21:20-21

Trying to insinuate that the “submit” in Ephesians 5:22-24 means the same thing as chattel slavery is to ignore the fact that the husband is not a “master”. The husband and wife submit TO EACH OTHER, which is clearly stated at the beginning of that section in 5:21. Ephesians 5:22-24 wasn’t written in a vacuum. In addition to that bit before it about mutual submission, there’s 5:25-32 right after it. When you jump from 5:24 straight to 6:5, you don’t just miss some “irrelevant” instructions for children to honor their father and mother. You also miss instructions for husbands in how they are to be submissive to their wives. Mutual submission, remember? The husband is to love his wife in the same way Christ loved the Church. Christ showed how much he loved the Church by permitting himself to suffer a humiliating and painful death for her sake. Husbands are expected to do the same for their wives.

A wife is not a doormat. A wife is not property. A husband is not her master and a wife is not his slave. A wife is not any of the negative images Americans in the modern world associate with the chattel slavery which used to be legal in this country, no matter how much you may wish to wrongly imply that the Church says she should be. She is a person who deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. And not just any person, but a person who deserves so much respect from her husband that he must be willing to suffer and die in humiliation and agony for her sake.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Trying to insinuate that the “submit” in Ephesians 5:22-24 means the same thing as chattel slavery is to ignore the fact that the husband is not a “master”. The husband and wife submit TO EACH OTHER, which is clearly stated at the beginning of that section in 5:21. Ephesians 5:22-24 wasn’t written in a vacuum. In addition to that bit before it about mutual submission, there’s 5:25-32 right after it. When you jump from 5:24 straight to 6:5, you don’t just miss some “irrelevant” instructions for children to honor their father and mother. You also miss instructions for husbands in how they are to be submissive to their wives. Mutual submission, remember? The husband is to love his wife in the same way Christ loved the Church. Christ showed how much he loved the Church by permitting himself to suffer a humiliating and painful death for her sake. Husbands are expected to do the same for their wives.

A wife is not a doormat. A wife is not property. A husband is not her master and a wife is not his slave. A wife is not any of the negative images Americans in the modern world associate with the chattel slavery which used to be legal in this country, no matter how much you may wish to wrongly imply that the Church says she should be. She is a person who deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. And not just any person, but a person who deserves so much respect from her husband that he must be willing to suffer and die in humiliation and agony for her sake.

I was asking why the Ephesian teaching on marriage is still valid when we seem to ignore its teaching on slavery. I was not saying that Ephesians says a woman is a man’s slave.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Because we still practice biblical slavery today.

When convicts make license plates, that was slavery under the biblical definiton, When traffic offenders are sentanced to community service, that is slavery under the biblcial definition,

Yet we don’t find any fault in our society for doing such things, do we? Biblical slavery was the ownership of human labor.

What biblical slavery did NOT include was a denial that the slave was a human person. That is where chattle slavery differed from biblical slavery.

Hardly, modern prisoners are compensated for their work. The bible explicitly states that slaves are their master’s property.

See
Exodus 21:2-6
Leviticus 25:44-47

Say, then, that you owned slaves in the biblical sense. Would you say that “changing the definition of slavery devalues my ownership of slaves?”

 

[Alindawyl]

I was asking why the Ephesian teaching on marriage is still valid when we seem to ignore its teaching on slavery. I was not saying that Ephesians says a woman is a man’s slave.

In what way do we ignore Ephesians 6:5-9?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

In what way do we ignore Ephesians 6:5-9?

We’ve made slavery illegal. Most Christians would say that owning another person is inherently wrong. The bible, however, says that such arrangements are fine with some regulation.

 

[Alindawyl]

We’ve made slavery illegal. Most Christians would say that owning another person is inherently wrong. The bible, however, says that such arrangements are fine with some regulation.

I don’t see anything which says slavery must be legal. In the absence of such a command, how is making slavery illegal ignoring Ephesians 6:5-9?

 

[Mudgely]

There has always been opposition to social progress and the expansion of individual rights. This is no different. It is a repeated theme throughout history. It has usually been the case that those who oppose human rights have been viewed through the lens of history as having been wrong. Using religion to deny human rights is a grave sin, to put it in terms used around here.

The sky is not falling. Expanding marriage rights take nothing away from other marriages. If you don’t want to marry someone of the same gender, then don’t do it. Simple as that.

Spain (94% Catholic) and Brazil (the largest Catholic population) have legislated same sex marriage. Belgium (74% Catholic) has elected an openly gay prime minister.

Opposing progress will not stop it. Rationalizing bigotry, whether on religious grounds or other grounds, still remains what it is, and it most likely will be seen for what it is by future generations.

 

[wisdomseeker]

There has always been opposition to social progress and the expansion of individual rights. This is no different. It is a repeated theme throughout history. It has usually been the case that those who oppose human rights have been viewed through the lens of history as having been wrong. Using religion to deny human rights is a grave sin, to put it in terms used around here.

The sky is not falling. Expanding marriage rights take nothing away from other marriages. If you don’t want to marry someone of the same gender, then don’t do it. Simple as that.

Spain (94% Catholic) and Brazil (the largest Catholic population) have legislated same sex marriage. Belgium (74% Catholic) has elected an openly gay prime minister.

Opposing progress will not stop it. Rationalizing bigotry, whether on religious grounds or other grounds, still remains what it is, and it most likely will be seen for what it is by future generations.

Brasil has not legalized gay marriage, they can have civil union. This will be the down fall of the country. make no mistake about it. God exists. God is the one Who tells what is wrong and what is right and not human beings. You progress towards sin add nothing to our lives but towards more sins. As we have today, due to the sins of contraception, abortion, divorce, violence, gay marriage is just a result of sins committed by us. that will come a day when the people of God will have to cry out to Him and beg for forgiveness and to take all this abomination away from us.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

There has always been opposition to social progress and the expansion of individual rights. This is no different. It is a repeated theme throughout history. It has usually been the case that those who oppose human rights have been viewed through the lens of history as having been wrong. Using religion to deny human rights is a grave sin, to put it in terms used around here.

The sky is not falling. Expanding marriage rights take nothing away from other marriages. If you don’t want to marry someone of the same gender, then don’t do it. Simple as that.

Spain (94% Catholic) and Brazil (the largest Catholic population) have legislated same sex marriage. Belgium (74% Catholic) has elected an openly gay prime minister.

Opposing progress will not stop it. Rationalizing bigotry, whether on religious grounds or other grounds, still remains what it is, and it most likely will be seen for what it is by future generations.

Social progress is not just measured by expansion of individual rights although they are corollaries. People who oppose same sex marriage reasonably foresee the enshrinement of SSM in law as a further kick down to societal mess, not up towards social progress. It is error to acquiesce to this demand by homosexual practitioners and promoters of homosexuality. It is an oversimplification to say that all those for traditional marriage could simply not partake in same sex marriage.

The community is like a living organism – if one part is unhealthy, it affects the rest of the organism. But there have been enough threads in this forum with a title along this line, how does MY same sex marriage affect YOUR straight marriage?, this thread yet another variation. It’s not just a culture war; it’s a conscience war, Mudgely. Basing on this, I hope you can understand a bit why opposition to SSM, which you put up there with ‘progress’, is not rationalizing bigotry. If you have time, please investigate natural law using more than a cursory reading. It is not meritless, as you suggested in a post elsewhere, dismissing it by simply taking the base meaning of the words ‘nature’ and ‘law.’ You might understand why faith and reason do converge in Catholic teaching; on this particular subject, the teaching is that no participation or acquiescence should be given towards legalization of SSM for it does not lead to the common good. It has no social purpose other than making a segment of the population feel good about indulgence in unnatural and sinful behavior.

Oh, about countries like Spain and Brazil with deep Catholic roots and a long history in the faith where SSM has been legislated? It does not mean they took the right path. It only proves that the whole world is the devil’s playground and he must be delighted. Excuse me and like minded members in this forum for not sharing in this delight. You see For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.

Your faith profile is blank so I could not guess your background. You may know but in case you don’t, the verse is from the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians 6:12.
…

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ - Correct.

The false premise accepted without scrutiny is that all change is good because supposedly change = progress, when modern society in the First World has shown in how many areas change = devolution in the name of deconstructionism.

To proclaim an artificial “right” and be opposed in that attempt, does not make the opposition “bigots.” It sometimes (depending on the issue, such as this one) makes them much better informed about the basis of constitutional law and makes them representatives of reason and moderation.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The community is like a living organism – if one part is unhealthy, it affects the rest of the organism. But there have been enough threads in this forum with a title along this line, how does MY same sex marriage affect YOUR straight marriage?, this thread yet another variation. It’s not just a culture war; it’s a conscience war, Mudgely. Basing on this, I hope you can understand a bit why opposition to SSM, which you put up there with ‘progress’, is not rationalizing bigotry. If you have time, please investigate natural law using more than a cursory reading. It is not meritless, as you suggested in a post elsewhere, dismissing it by simply taking the base meaning of the words ‘nature’ and ‘law.’ You might understand why faith and reason do converge in Catholic teaching; on this particular subject, the teaching is that no participation or acquiescence should be given towards legalization of SSM for it does not lead to the common good. It has no social purpose other than making a segment of the population feel good about indulgence in unnatural and sinful behavior.

The problem with a conscience war is that the government can’t take sides based on religious reasoning. The “natural law” arguments are weak at best; you really do need to accept some religious premises before you can make a convincing case against the legalization of gay marriage. The other way to make a case against gay marriage is to provide actual evidence that gay marriage will harm society in a tangible way, something opponents of gay marriage have so far been unable to do. Just because you feel it is sinful does not mean it should be outlawed.

 

[Elizabeth502]

you really do need to accept some religious premises before you can make a convincing case against the legalization of gay marriage.

Completely false. Lots of non-religious arguments have been made, and can be made, opposing the artifice of gay “marriage.”

Please become informed before making such inaccurate statements. Examples contradicting your statement are plentiful.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Completely false. Lots of non-religious arguments have been made, and can be made, opposing the artifice of gay “marriage.”

Please become informed before making such inaccurate statements. Examples contradicting your statement are plentiful.

Sure, people make non-religious arguments, but they are not convincing. Some of the “non-religious” arguments actually have religious premises, but have disguised them.

I have argued extensively about gay marriage on this forum, see for example this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=595932

If you think there is an argument I have not seen, then it is likely an argument the rest of CAF has not seen either and I’m sure we would all love to hear it.

 

[Brendan]

Hardly, modern prisoners are compensated for their work.

That depends on the jurisdiction. Here in Michigan, prisoners have wages attached to their work, but the money is given to the victims of the crime as restitution payments.

So how, exactly, does that differ from Exodus 21 then?

The bible explicitly states that slaves are their master’s property.

See
Exodus 21:2-6
Leviticus 25:44-47

Actually, no they don’t. The slave, under circumstances, goes free, if they bring a wife, they wife is not a slave,

Note Lev. 25:53
They are to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly.

It states right there that the obligation is for service owed. The person themselves is still regarded as a human person, and is given human rights. That differes entirely from chattle slavery of the antebellum yeears.

Say, then, that you owned slaves in the biblical sense. Would you say that “changing the definition of slavery devalues my ownership of slaves?”

The biblical definition never changed. There were those who attempted to change the definitions to meet their personal desires for something more than what the biblical terms allowed for.

But we can see the problems with allowing that, can’t we