Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sex of any kind outside of marriage is wrong. Gay or straight.
As for the question of who should be allowed to marry? The Bible doesn't say anything about a chastity test...and none of us would want the government to get involved in that anyway. But the example of marriage in the Bible that we're given is 1 man, 1 woman. Eventually, men took more wives...but it wasn't the original model.
As for divorce/remarriage? I wouldn't have a problem with the idea of making it harder to remarry. We all know those people that have been married 3-4 times or more and still don't quite know how to have a happy marriage.
1. Your bible only effects those who CHOOSE to worship under it and abide by it.
2. Marriage has always been a g'ment institution in this Nation, thanks to English Laws passed in the mid-1600's that translated through or Founding and contained within the English Common Law set we inherited. NO religion holds the rights or title to the term, or practice, of marriage.
3. As long as it is consenting adults who are marrying, divorcing, and remarrying, it's none of your, or my, business.
I find some problem with that, but as long as you don't remarry you can separate or divorce from an abusive spouse. (I'm speaking religiously)
On a civil basis the US has always allowed divorce and remarriage regardless of whether either party committed adultery. (Although in the past you did need some fault like abandonment, abuse, insanity, or what have you) It would be unwise, imprudent, and impossible to change that.
The argument on SSM, so far as I understand it, is that the notion of same-sex couples being married is a relatively modern development. It has no basis in Anglo-US tradition, which is the tradition our country is based. I think it's debatable that a same-gender union was ever deemed a marriage in any society. The examples I know of a male would be deemed "spiritually a woman" and marry a Man. (Or a female be deemed "Spiritually a Man" and marry a woman or a person be deemed as some third gender. Basically it was more like Trasvestism-Marriage.) Other examples I know of in certain cultures is young men engaging in "temporary marriages" before "graduating" to heterosexual marriages. This was usually in societies that were so intensely homosocial that men had to be almost "phased into" living with women.
Two men as husbands or two women as wives is not something I think existed, even as a concept, until the nineteenth century. When the subject was broached in the 1950s gay magazine "One" most homosexuals in the letters forum rejected the idea. They felt homosexuality meant you were "different" and that marriage was too normalizing. Even in the 1980s there were strong pockets of resistance to the idea among gays.
Thansk the gods for the natural process of Evolution, which includes the evolution of human cultures.
It's about time we stopped judging people not only on their skin color, but on their sexual orientation as well.
It is high time indeed we set aside the draconian, medieval mindset that gays are somehow "evil", "twisted", or "unnatural".
Good work Boxcar. You are really on a roll the last few days
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I think what this thread will find is that most Christians will want to keep their double standard.
They will want the country to enforce the biblical laws of marriages as they pertain to gay people, but they are willing to be much more flexible when it comes to straight people.
They want the Government to enforce the laws of the bible against people they don't happen to like, but not enforce the laws of the bible against people like themselves.
Thansk the gods for the natural process of Evolution, which includes the evolution of human cultures.
It's about time we stopped judging people not only on their skin color, but on their sexual orientation as well.
It is high time indeed we set aside the draconian, medieval mindset that gays are somehow "evil", "twisted", or "unnatural".
I don't think gays are evil or precisely unnatural. I suppose "twisted" would depend on what one means.
The New Testament statements on homosexuality are usually in a litany that includes adultery and idolatry. I'm not for banning African or American Indian traditional religions or adultery. (Although some African traditional religions contain practices that may be banned. Like that form of folk-medicine in Tanzania where they kill albinos as a ritual)
Still I'm fairly conservative. I don't think ancient institutions necessarily need to be redefined. I've also become skeptical something created for straight people will really work for homosexuals. Going by history and culture civil-unions seem to have more foundation to me. The uniting of two Men or Women in some kind of legal bond worked in many societies. Such a bond may be sexual/romantic, but need not be. Does that really sound like some kind of narrow Christian Right view? I was even, by implication, saying gay marriage is more acceptable if one and only one of them is wearing wedding dress.
It's not true that most Christians want or expect the government to violate the U.S. Constitution and incorporate in or implement Biblical mandates as laws. OP: The Bible clearly provides only two grounds for divorce: adultery and death. With those grounds, only the victim of adultery is released from the marriage and allowed to remarry. The adulterer is not released from the marriage, hence, the marriage is not severed in Heaven for the adulterer, whether he/she gets a divorce here on earth-according to the laws of the land-or not. The Bible furthers that the adulterer will forever be committing adultery. The issue is NOT that it's an unforgivable sin, so such an analysis is displaced. The truth/spiritual analysis is the adulterer is still committing the sin of adultery because in God's eyes, he/she is still married to his/her first spouse. So, the adulterer can't seek forgiveness/repentance if he/she has remarried because spiritually, he/she is still married to the first spouse, so therefore, in essence, is still cheating on his/her spouse. Other than that, a married Christian couple can separate but only to fast and pray, and return to that same spouse. It doesn't matter how commonplace 2nd+ marriages are in society. Christians answer to God.Further, it doesn't matter whether non-Christians/unbelievers agree w/ the Bible's stance on Christian marriages. The Bible's mandates don't apply to unbelievers, so they're not meant to be adhered to by them. The Bible is the blueprint for the Christian lifestyle. Christians understand how sacred marriage is to God. It's the foundational Christian relationship. It's held in such high esteem that the Bible likens the church as Jesus's bride and Jesus as the bridegroom. That's why pastors advise Christian brides and grooms during pre-marital counseling and the wedding ceremony itself, not to enter into marriage lightly. They understand how difficult it is to be Biblically/spiritually released from a Christian marriage. Erroneously doing so can lead a person to hell.
Cont'd: Erroneously b'g separated from a Christian marriage leads a lot of people in legitimate "earthly" 2nd+ marriages to hell because if they didn't have Biblical grounds for divorcing his/her first spouse, he/she is still married to the first spouse, and God is viewing the 2nd+ spouse as the mistress. God does not honor or recognize 2nd+ marriages unless they were entered into lawfully based on God's laws: The victim of adultery or death. Many Christian people in 2nd+ marriages do not understand or are unaware of this Biblical reality because they allow society to dictate to them what's acceptable to justify their actions. They allow unbelievers to convince them God would not be that "harsh", when the issue is not harshness. The issue is the sacredness of Christian marriage to God.As far as marital abuse is concerned: The Bible clearly states that what GOD has joined together, NO MAN can put it asunder. God DOES/DID NOT bring everyone together. Some people make decisions based on what they want to do vs. what God has told them to do. When God is not in a marriage, there are more cases of abuse. There are some cases where an abused wife can separate from her husband, fast and pray, and he can be delivered from abuse. Abusers can change, too. And, again, Biblical mandates apply to Christians/believers. This same Christian analysis can be applied to gay marriages: For Christians, regardless of what laws/legislation are passed, homosexuality is a sin for Christians and many other religious groups. The fact that it's a sin doesn't mean it's okay for Christians to bash, persecute, judge, or condemn homosexual people. What's clear from many of the threads discussing Christian beliefs is the danger in unbelievers attempting to explain Biblical concepts. It pretty much always results in misinterpretation and misconstruing of scripture. The Bible says the Word of God is foolishness to unbelievers, since these things are spiritually discerned. One must study the Word w/ the Holy Spirit. Unbelievers can't do that.
The idea that women were equal to men is relatively new, too. Yet the new-ness of an idea doesn't really prevent it from being adopted. It certainly doesn't make it wrong.
Exactly. Interracial marriage is another example. 30 years ago Christians were against the idea of two different races marrying just as much as they are with same sex marriage today. Today there's hardly anyone who bats an eye at interracial couples.
The argument on SSM, so far as I understand it, is that the notion of same-sex couples being married is a relatively modern development. It has no basis in Anglo-US tradition, which is the tradition our country is based. I think it's debatable that a same-gender union was ever deemed a marriage in any society.
Incorrect. Same sex marriages were conducted by the earliest Christian churches:
Exactly. Interracial marriage is another example. 30 years ago Christians were against the idea of two different races marrying just as much as they are with same sex marriage today. Today there's hardly anyone who bats an eye at interracial couples.
There is nothing in the Bible scripture that states interracial marriage is wrong or immoral.
What's clear from many of the threads discussing Christian beliefs is the danger in unbelievers attempting to explain Biblical concepts. It pretty much always results in misinterpretation and misconstruing of scripture. The Bible says the Word of God is foolishness to unbelievers, since these things are spiritually discerned. One must study the Word w/ the Holy Spirit. Unbelievers can't do that.
Above we have a perfect example of what I was speaking of in that thread. It's the ole "you can't understand the Babel without the Holy Spirit" line of BS. That one's been keeping priests and preachers employed for 2000 years now...
No sparky - no one needs your holy spook in order to understand The Bible, which is basically a book of ripped off fairytales compiled by and for desert goatherders with the minds of twelve year olds.
See, NOT having the voices in our heads telling us what the book "really" means actually gives us an unbiased advantage. We see it for what it IS not as what YOU want it to be/say.
We understand your "Christian beliefs" (retreaded paganism) and your book quite well. Better than most of you do yourselves, in fact.
Ciao
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
