The Marriage Equality Thread

[Milkman]

Well this was staying mostly civil... until the nazi pope comment...

So, im jumping in here with some thoughts...

We have alot of smart people on here. Might i suggest an actual solution to the issue be devised? I think MOST of us agree that church and state need to remain separate. The government should not be able to tell us what to do if what we do does not harm another person(yes i realize this is a very wavy line).

What we think individually on what marriage IS and isn't and should and shouldn't be isn't something that will be agreed upon anytime soon. Nor will that definition stay the same over time or perhaps even be relevant in the future. Can we marry robots? AI? genetically grown or cloned beings?

SO.. how can the current laws be changed to allow everyone's opinion to viable and everyone rights to be upheld? Does the word marriage need to be removed from laws and kept as a societal(that a word?) issue? Can just the word legal union be used instead with the definition of that being the big discussion? And of course i have no legal background at all so this maybe far harder than i think it should be.

Point being... perhaps we CAN come up with a solution.

[OmahaStar]

Who said that all the divine inspiration could only occur in the past?

The Nazi Pope?

[JoeD80]

The Bible isn't the only book worth reading in this world (and I have read it plenty thank you very much. No I'm not religious but I was raised with it). If we are all God's creatures then perhaps we are getting a better insight into this creation called man than the people who lived 2000 years ago did, and can be accepting because that's where we should be as a society now. Who said that all the divine inspiration could only occur in the past?

[David Panzer]

Precisely. Religion in marriage is purely optional. I have yet to hear of anyone in favor of same-sex marriage that demands religious institutions to perform them.

[DaveNarn]

To satisfy the law of the land, shouldn't a civil union be [ all that's ] required for the union of two people to be legally binding?

Baha'i
Buddhism
Christianity
Hinduism
Islam
Jainism
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
Vodun
Druidism
Wicca

These beliefs offer personal and spiritual rituals - everything the state does not.
Nor should it for the same reason I wouldn't want to renew my drivers license at my local church.

[David Panzer]

The religious aspect of same-sex marriages are interesting, but honestly should not matter in municipal/state/federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages the same way that heterosexual marriages have been. Especially since weddings between atheists are more than going to the courthouse and signing the necessary paperwork.

[SmileOfTheShadow]

Smile, thanks for providing such detailed information. I haven't read the Bible in many years, and I certainly can't claim any in-depth knowledge or great insight. I do feel compelled to point out that logically there is at least a couple of alternatives to the apostles lying -- they could have been honestly mistaken or there could be issues in the translation.

Given the prevelant views of the time, they could have easily assumed that in the absence of an endorsement, Christ considered homosexuality as something excluded from a moral life. Mark 10 does not preclude homosexulaity. It defines a marriage between a man and a woman, but does necessarily define marriage as *only* between a man and a woman. Matthew includes a list from Christ of sins that also does not include homosexuality. We see this time and again. People will tend to read their own beliefs into someone else's silence. Of course, there is no way to prove a negative either way.

As far as translation goes, given the references you mentioned on JMS's FB page (as copied by Jan) I did some searches for the text. It seems as though there is actually a fair amount of debate on the meaning of arsenokoitai, which is the word used to establish the apostles position against homosexuality. One of the interesting observations I saw was around the fact that Paul seemed to create this word (no earlier recorded use is known) when at the time paiderasste was commonly used to refer to sex between males. In that context, they were questioning whether Paul actually meant something different from sex between men. I saw a number of alternative suggestions that in the absence of specific evidence seemed just as probable. Also, the two root words in arsenokoitai are "arsen" meaning "man" and "koitai" meaning "beds", so it wouldn't seem to be a condemnation of lesbianism regardless of the meaning you draw from it.

Except that again ignores the Jewish law that Christ was raised under in order to make that debate. It frames the meaning of the words under a modern, secular mindset, rather than a Jewish religious one. Paul, the author of most of the letters of the new testament was actually a Jewish religious scholar before his conversion. Prior to his conversion, he was a member of the Sanhedrin, which were elite judges that went around literally trying and executing people who violated Jewish law. The idea that homosexuality would have been acceptable would have been extremely foreign to both Christ's and Paul's culture. Again, this all presumes for the sake of argument that these are just normal human beings.

I've also heard the "it doesn't condemn lesbianism" argument several times, which is also framing the words in a modern English mindset. If you look in the Bible's original languages, in every instance where we would say "One who..." or "A person who..." they always use the masculine, He. It isn't that the Bible is anti-female or anything like that, but it was common to writings of the time. Separating out and specifically saying "lesbian" wouldn't have been part of his writing except in instances where he was only addressing women. There weren't lesbian special interest groups in Isreal in 60-80 AD for that to have been a consideration. Looking at the author's life again to try to discern the intention of the writings: the Jewish Law again doesn't make that distinction, so the intention of condoning lesbianism while condemning male homosexuality would again be highly unlikely.

[WorkerCaste]

Smile, thanks for providing such detailed information. I haven't read the Bible in many years, and I certainly can't claim any in-depth knowledge or great insight. I do feel compelled to point out that logically there is at least a couple of alternatives to the apostles lying -- they could have been honestly mistaken or there could be issues in the translation.

Given the prevelant views of the time, they could have easily assumed that in the absence of an endorsement, Christ considered homosexuality as something excluded from a moral life. Mark 10 does not preclude homosexulaity. It defines a marriage between a man and a woman, but does necessarily define marriage as *only* between a man and a woman. Matthew includes a list from Christ of sins that also does not include homosexuality. We see this time and again. People will tend to read their own beliefs into someone else's silence. Of course, there is no way to prove a negative either way.

As far as translation goes, given the references you mentioned on JMS's FB page (as copied by Jan) I did some searches for the text. It seems as though there is actually a fair amount of debate on the meaning of arsenokoitai, which is the word used to establish the apostles position against homosexuality. One of the interesting observations I saw was around the fact that Paul seemed to create this word (no earlier recorded use is known) when at the time paiderasste was commonly used to refer to sex between males. In that context, they were questioning whether Paul actually meant something different from sex between men. I saw a number of alternative suggestions that in the absence of specific evidence seemed just as probable. Also, the two root words in arsenokoitai are "arsen" meaning "man" and "koitai" meaning "beds", so it wouldn't seem to be a condemnation of lesbianism regardless of the meaning you draw from it.

My own beliefs around the Bible are that it contains a great deal of meaningful teaching, but that at it's root it is a book written by men and translated by men, thus with the possibility of error. To me, that is why doctrine needs to evolve. Our understanding can grow and expand. If we look at biological research, and if we look at same-sex behaviours in the animal kingdom, it would seem that God built homosexuality into creation. Just my 2 cents.

One last thing, putting aside the question of what religion truly tells us about homosexuality, do you really think that it is the right for a government to tell any two people who wish to build a life together that they cannot? And if they can build this life together, how can they be given fewer rights than other couples?

[Jan]

Jon (SmileOfTheShadow) asked me to pull this from a post he made to the llloooonnnngggggg thread on JMS' Facebook page. I want to commend him because he's the ONLY person I've ever discussed this with who was actually able to come up with something that Jesus is reported to have said. I haven't checked it out for accuracy but here's part of that post:

If you go back to the teachings of Christ himself, he defines what marriage should be in Mark 10: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter."

And further goes on to speak on adultery and the harms of it.

Paul also speaks of marriage, its merits and its laws in 1 Timothy and Titus.

Jan

[SmileOfTheShadow]

So no, you can't. Because the character never said anything of the sort. At best, all you have is hear-say. Good job.

I have testimony from eye witnesses, which is more than you have to presume that Christ did not say that or have a stance on homosexuality. The more important part of my paragraph was below those words you highlighted, which I'll restate for clarity, along with additional information:

His apostles, who were directly taught by Him, communicated that message in different letters to the Church at the time. Those letteres stated and reaffirmed Christ's moral messages, and how someone who should follow God (i.e. someone morally good) should act. Those teaching explicitly state homosexuality is wrong. Eye witness testimony therefore is in favor of Christ's opposition to homosexuality. Moreover, when the apostles did teach that homosexuality was wrong according to faith in Christ --they were doing so when people who had seen Christ speak were still alive. If Christ taught something contrary to what they were preaching, that would have come out at the time.

The only possibility then is that those apostles were lying. The apostles lived improvrished lives off of the charity of others, while keeping to their message through imprisonments, stonings, executions and crucifixions themselves. They did this because they had a fervor for following Christ's message. So it'd be a huge leap of faith to presume that they were attempting to present an inaccurate version of Christ's morals. There's no motive for them to do so, and likewise no evidence of that.

On another train of logic, you have to keep in mind that the gospels of Christ were also written by Jews who were impacted by Christ's message. In that ancient Jewish world, would it occur to an author to even have to restate that homosexuality is a sin in a narrative about who Jesus Christ was, based on his public appearances? Unlikely. There weren't gay pride parades going on in Jerusalem at the time for Jesus to have to rebuke. Quite the opposite, the Pharisees were an oppressive theocracy. What they were trying to communicate in the gospel were Christ's CHANGES from what the Pharisees were ruling.

If you read the gospel of Luke, Jesus Christ spent a considerable amount of his time in Jewish temples as a youth, and was raised as a devout Jew. His later teachings expand upon and are based on Jewish Law. His teachings all reference the Torah (the first five books of the old testament) as if they were fact. He quotes those books constantly in his message. The possibility that Jesus Christ thought homosexuality was morally neutral or good does not exist given that philosophical disposition. And this is presuming Christ is not the Jewish God, and that the New Testament isn't the divine inspired Word of God.

If Christ IS the Jewish God, then he gave the Jewish Law to the Israelites and therefore did pose homosexuality as morally wrong. From a Christian standpoint (since the whole point of Christianity is that Christ is the Jewish God), that ends the debate there without having to go through the logical exercise of the above.

If the New Testament IS the Word of God, and Christ is God, then it is written that homosexuality is a sin. Again, no dispute.

The totality above is why JMS in his post didn't point to Christ or the Bible as examples, but used a couple of examples of homosexuals in Roman Catholic Church in the 10-12th Centuries (when the church was most corrupt and more of a political machine than an institution promoting Christ's message -- they wouldn't even allow the common person to READ the Bible during that time) to make his point.

[OmahaStar]

I don't know. He may have.

So no, you can't. Because the character never said anything of the sort. At best, all you have is hear-say. Good job.

[DGTWoodward]

No actual bashing of any person, preference or religion is intended in my answer...

Several different but overlapping elements are in play here.

Firstly, JMS starts by using three important words...The Catholic Church. I cannot say that I am surprised by what he reveals, because the RCC has dons so many weird things that defies description, ranging from deliberately and repeatedly including mistranslations and even heretical scriptures just because it has suited them to do so....to burning people at the stake for even possessing a Bible (despite their continuous attempts to keep the masses educationally ignorant)...to more recently being deliberately non-cooperative and worse side-stepping and intentionally side-swiping police investigations into Paedophilia charges and investigations.

Let's not forget that this is the church he is referring to. Noting about the barbarisms of the early RCC surprise me.

While Joe's example of Church-approved gay marriage is historically problematic and very possibly untrue, the main point of his post is correct: Church doctrine has changed a great deal over the centuries. A lot of Christians seem to assume that what is sanctioned by the Church has always been the same, but the truth is that even the most fundamental issues (like the nature of Christ) were often seen in entirely different ways. And a simple look at the history of the Bible as a book shows the problem with claiming that any version of the Bible is authoritative or complete. And that's without going into the issues of authorship.

Beyond that, if Christians feel that the Old Testament forces them to reject gay marriage, that raises the question of why they feel so comfortable ignoring the other lifestyle-related commandments.

Agreed, I think there may be a smattering of revisionist history coming out there, still good points, apropos of which...

As to freedom and equality. There is no choice, if we truly wish to live in a world where everyone is really equal...then everyone must have the same equal rights...in law...regarding marriage, inheritance, everything. There can be no difference at all.

Coupled with the thought that 'Christians' are not under the Mosaic Law, as it was "nailed to a tree" at Jesus' death. The huge difference between being under Mosaic Law and being a Christian was your free choice and not hard-and-fast rules. You serve because you want to, not because the law says you have to.

So for Christians to say that gay 'anything' is against God's law is, in principle, correct...though there is no actual law in place anymore to enforce this anymore, nor has there been for about 2,000 years.

Purely as I understand it, Jesus does not mention it specifically but I could be wrong. Though the Apostles do mention it a fair bit. From which we can discern that a person may be born with such feelings...but being/to be a Christian '...Approved And Of Clean Conscience Before God' they would need to make a choice to serve God or to serve their own selves/feelings. Whose will/desires are such ones going to put first-and-foremost...as it were.

[SmileOfTheShadow]

Beyond that, if Christians feel that the Old Testament forces them to reject gay marriage, that raises the question of why they feel so comfortable ignoring the other lifestyle-related commandments. Or why they disapprove of slavery and polygamy and incest.

The new testament has several examples as to what marriage should be and speaks out against homosexuality. I posted those examples on JMS' facebook several days ago. Just to clarify the record here. This isn't a "Old Testament is outdated" debate.

The lifestyle comments of Jewish Christians vs. Gentile (Non-Jewish) Christians are addressed in several places in the new testament again for your conveinece. It's very clear as to what's acceptable for Christians and what's not (Galations 2, for the reference). It's not arbitrary.

[SmileOfTheShadow]

And I'm frankly disappointed that "Christians" have, by and large, forgotten what Jesus was all about - love one another, be kind to one another, and help each other. Oh sure, there is a minority which seems to remember that, but the overwhelming majority is over the top with their spewing of hatred. Sorry, you'll have to remind me again - who/what did Jesus hate?

And did Jesus ever say a single word about homosexuality? Ever?

I don't know. He may have. We have an account of four authors' interpretations of important points of three years in his life, the purpose of which was to convey his death and resurrection, and spread that news. What we do have is his apostles writing about morality in their letters to fledgling churches. Those directly taught by Christ certainly did write about homosexuality, affirming the law from the old testament from which which all Christian morals derive. Either they knew that Christ was opposed to homosexuality, or they were lying. The burden of proof would then be on you to prove they were lying. As direct followers of Christ (whom he taught personally), it would be difficult to establish a motive for them to want to distort Christ's words - especially since they faced imprisonment and harsh deaths because of their convictions to speak it.

The "love one another" is an argument I hear all the time, but love is not "let someone do whatever they want". I love my child plenty but I still point out when he does something wrong. Likewise in interventions, the friends and family don't do so out of hate, quite the opposite. That's part of love, and a hard part because it's not comfortable to do. Now I'm certain there's people out there who aren't acting out of love, and as a Christian I am equally opposed to that behavior, as that was not Christ's message at all as you rightly pointed out.

[Jonas]

[*] creates natural barriers to sexually transmitted diseases (i.e. monogamy)

Monogamy and marriage aren't the same thing, and history shows us that marriage hasn't really made the people who don't want to be monogamous be monogamous.

Everything else is fluffery.

I disagree. Marriage is a ritual; that's why people want the right to be married, not to have a civil union. Rituals are a way of expressing things that is as ancient as humanity, and their power should not be underestimated. In fact, it is the very pointlessness of marriage that makes it meaningful, like art. If people could get every advantage of marriage without being married, they would still get married, because of the symbolic power of the gesture. And that power is only increased when it becomes more purely idealistic.

Even more ideally, make marital infidelity a misdeameanor. As a bonus, make it one that excludes one from running for any federal political office. By-bye Newt.

I think that would be horrible and theocratic. Infidelity happens for all kinds of reasons. People fall in love, people fall out of love. And I prefer electing people on the basis of their ideas rather than of what they do with their genitals.

I respect that he has a right to his belief on whatever or whomever he wants to have a recognized relationship under the federal government, but to take a couple misused examples out of 2,000 years and ignore the actual doctrine of Christianity to make that point is intellectually dishonest, and I'm frankly disappointed in him for posting that.

While Joe's example of Church-approved gay marriage is historically problematic and very possibly untrue, the main point of his post is correct: Church doctrine has changed a great deal over the centuries. A lot of Christians seem to assume that what is sanctioned by the Church has always been the same, but the truth is that even the most fundamental issues (like the nature of Christ) were often seen in entirely different ways. And a simple look at the history of the Bible as a book shows the problem with claiming that any version of the Bible is authoritative or complete. And that's without going into the issues of authorship.

Beyond that, if Christians feel that the Old Testament forces them to reject gay marriage, that raises the question of why they feel so comfortable ignoring the other lifestyle-related commandments. Or why they disapprove of slavery and polygamy and incest.

More to the point, marriage isn't a Christian concept, it's a human concept. No-one is attempting to force Christians to marry gay people or to perform gay marriages in their churches; this is a purely secular question. And from a purely secular perspective there is no logical reason to deny homosexual people the right to be married.

Christian groups that feel that gay marriage is wrong could continue only performing heterosexual weddings. After all, most Christians of this persuasion also feel that only a Church wedding is a real wedding, but do not think that the existence of a secular marriage certificate makes their marriages spiritually irrelevant.