Slavery

[Lord Jim]

Hope it does you some good!

[Crackpot]

Fucking hell, it's like being back in Sunday School here....

Hen Quick! rap Gobs knuckles with a ruler to complete the illusion!

[rubato]

No, the reason I asked for quotes from outside of Leviticus is that we all know that Leviticus forbids a whole bunch of stuff which it is now ok to do.

According to whom?

I think Sue's point (whiffling over heads) might be that humans have decided that stuff forbidden in Leviticus is "OK to do".

That has absolutely no logical bearing on whether God regards such things as 'ok to do'. It's an invalid conclusion (is that it?) from the premise.

Meade

But you are saying that it is ok to strip homosexuals of civil rights but not those who eat pork, shellfish, have sex with their wives during menstruation, covet, commit adultery, dishonor their parents, worship idols, fail to observe the sabbath (the seventh day of the week), bear false witness.

The plain fact is that you excuse the biblical acceptance of slavery which is understood to be degrading both to the slave and the slave-owner to a modern person because "everyone was doing it" and your invisible sky-god was too weak to oppose a social practice that deeply entrenched but attack homosexuality because many modern people share your bigotry. Bigotry loves company.

If a plurality of modern people supported slavery you would find nothing to object about there either.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

(sigh) you are a sad little man.

Stripping homosexuals is not on my bucket list - not of civil rights or any other thing. I have posted before and will do so again my view that all people are entitled to the same civil rights; that government has no business peeking into people's bedrooms and shaping policy by what it sees there; that if government extends tax and other benefits to heterosexual married couples then it may extend the same benefits to those in civil unions, homosexual or otherwise.

Marriage is a word that describes a religiously sanctioned relationship between one man and one woman. I oppose identifying homosexual unions as 'marriage'.

I regret that you are unable to understand a logical argument and revel so much in your hatred and prejudice

Meade

last sentence corrected to clarify

[Big RR]

Marriage is a word that describes a religiously sanctioned relationship between one man and one woman

How do you conclude that? When one wants to get married under the law one does not need to contact a religious authority, all one needs to do is to apply for a license and contact a person legally empowered to conduct marriages (this may be a person of the clergy if you want a religious sanction or it may just be a person civilly empowered to conduct such ceremonies). but one may not be married without the license, which is a civil, not a religious sanction.

[dgs49]

"...strip homosexuals of civil rights..."

What a patently absurd formulation.

"Strip" implies removal. Removal implies that something existed and was removed. When, exactly, and where,exactly, did any United States citizens have the "right" to marry people of their own gender? I must have missed it. Please provide details.

When was the civil right to marry someone of the same gender created? Where?

How, exactly did it become a "civil right" capable of being removed or "stripped"?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Marriage is a word that describes a religiously sanctioned relationship between one man and one woman

How do you conclude that? When one wants to get married under the law one does not need to contact a religious authority, all one needs to do is to apply for a license and contact a person legally empowered to conduct marriages (this may be a person of the clergy if you want a religious sanction or it may just be a person civilly empowered to conduct such ceremonies). but one may not be married without the license, which is a civil, not a religious sanction.

Because "marriage" long pre-dated "civil" ceremonies. Governments horned in. What do you want, Big RR? I said the civil part could be equally valid for all.

Meade

[Sue U]

Because "marriage" long pre-dated "civil" ceremonies. Governments horned in.

That is patently false. Marriage has been a private contract/family law matter for all of recorded history, completely independent of any religious significance (in Near Eastern practice, traditionally sealed with a bride-price and/or dowry) and long pre-dating Chrisitanity. It was in fact the church that "horned in" on marriage, with bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 CE to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna: "t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust." In medieval Europe, the church began registering marriages. Then, according to Wiki, "[a]s part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state, reflecting Martin Luther's view that marriage was a 'worldly thing'. . . . As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1563 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, 'The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life.'"

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sorry Sue, but did I mention either "church" or "Christian" somewhere that I did not notice?

Mind you, I suppose you are right in that the first 'marriage' was created by the One who has the government upon His shoulders.... or is that religious?

Are you not confusing societies in which religion was the ruling force with societal developments creating a separate governing class?

Well no matter. As usual, every concession is met with a demand for something more.

Meade

[Econoline]

It doesn't matter whether or not religion ever had an exclusive right to define "marriage."

Since the word "marriage" now refers to something sanctioned by the state regardless of whether or not the participants have or desire any religious involvement, why is it up to homosexuals to come up with a new term like "civil union" to refer to their relationship? Why can't it be those who want the involvement of religion in the relationship who have to change their terminology?

If gays were allowed to "get married," I don't imagine many of them would mind if most religions still wouldn't let them "unite in Holy Matrimony."

Just a thought...

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't know Econo. There's not been much hardship associated with replacing 'homosexual' with 'gay'. It was a good propaganda move IMO. Changing the meaning of language is a very well recognised method of altering perception and even reality.

Thus any person who opposes homosexual marriage - which supposedly is promoted to gain "equal rights" - and prefers instead to accept civil unions which do gain those same rights, must be labelled 'homophobic'. I understand the method.

The issue is proven not to be "rights" after all - those can be legislated easily - but to defeat a heterosexual definition of marriage - one man / one woman. Homosexuals are not under attack (at least not by decent people, whether believer or unbeliever - but certainly by genuine hatemongers and low-lifes) but are on the offensive to force the surrender of those who do not want to lose "marriage" to a new and distorted meaning.

FWIW I would also oppose plural "marriage" of heterosexuals on the same grounds. Perhaps I am a heterophobe as well?

Meadeophobe

[dgs49]

The State can define "marriage" any way it wants.

The Church can stick with a traditional (and biblical) definition of marriage, or it can modify it according to the Church's beliefs.

Two different institutions with the same name. It doesn't hurt the State if the Church changes it's practice (like the American Episcopal Church), and it doesn't hurt the Church when the State changes its definition to include non-traditional relationships.

I do have a problem when a Court does it, reading something into the State's constitution that nobody ever saw before.

[Big RR]

Marriage is a word that describes a religiously sanctioned relationship between one man and one woman

How do you conclude that? When one wants to get married under the law one does not need to contact a religious authority, all one needs to do is to apply for a license and contact a person legally empowered to conduct marriages (this may be a person of the clergy if you want a religious sanction or it may just be a person civilly empowered to conduct such ceremonies). but one may not be married without the license, which is a civil, not a religious sanction.

Because "marriage" long pre-dated "civil" ceremonies. Governments horned in. What do you want, Big RR? I said the civil part could be equally valid for all.

Meade

Fine Meade, then we agree and both support that gays can and should be able to be married in civil ceremonies and religious ceremeonies of insitutions that choose to endorse such marriages?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I have previously posted that government should provide equality - if it gives a benefit here, then it should give the benefit there. I would prefer it gave no benefit whatever to "married" people as if they are something special vs people who are not married.

As long as they are not called "marriages", I have no argument. God also hates divorce; but society divorces. It pains me to think of all the people who are deliberately choosing to flout God and thereby seal their place in eternity. Everyone lives forever - it just depends in which place we choose to live it.

But I cannot vote for anyone who promises to work toward legalising homosexual 'marriage' (or heterosexual plural 'marriage' or .... double parking?). So I guess Obama is out after all - though I came close there for a while. Can't vote for Mitt though - so ..... no vote

Meade

[Big RR]

As long as they are not called "marriages", I have no argument.

And quite frankly that's the one point I cannot understand; you seem to have no problem with government involvement in marriages, nor do you seem to have any problem with heterosexual people (meeting some other criteria perhaps) being married in civl ceremonies and calling it "marriage". Further, you have no problem with a civil authority decreeing a divorce even when people are married with the blessing of a church, although you say it "pains you". Yet a civilly performed marriage between two people of the same gender is somehow different and should not be called "marriage". Why not just suffer silently as with divorce, and belong to a church which will not perform or recognize such marriages?

[Sean]

I'm with you Big RR...

I was married in a civil ceremony. There was absolutely no religion involved. Yet the certificate clearly states that this was a marriage, not a civil union.
I can understand and appreciate religious types not wanting a homosexual marriage taking place in their church or in their God's name if it contradicts their beliefs but to oppose a completely civil, non-religious ceremony being called a marriage seems ludicrous to me.

dgs put it best when he said (my bold):

It doesn't hurt the State if the Church changes it's practice (like the American Episcopal Church), and it doesn't hurt the Church when the State changes its definition to include non-traditional relationships.

Exactly! Why should any church (or any member of a church) give a toss about what any state decides to define legally as a marriage...