Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

[eider]

It isn't meant as an inquisition, but rather a reflection on your values. Does it help me know if you are a believer or not?

It's just the way that you treat simple truth...... it's almost as if you react as if antogonists were honest 'by mistake'. And I was having fun with it.... is all.

Maybe, perhaps. I have had a few friends like you. They got mad at me when I questioned their love for God in becoming unequally yoked (realize the context is fundamental Christians, not something that would be an easy conversation with one who is not).
Christians are about their Savior's business, I told them. Nobody likes to hear that they are neglecting God in their lives but I think it an important word that needs to be said. After already in a marriage? All I can do is watch, these I've spoken to had already ended in divorce and I didn't say anything until atf. Would you hate me for saying your attention is divided? 1 Corinthians 7:33 For me, at least, raising kids with a Christian spouse, we are able to serve Him with understanding, when it interferes with family time.

My attention divided?
Oh no. After our third 'walking out' (a date) my wife gave me a small St Christopher pendant (a secular gift here) and on the reverse was engraved 'I will love you more tomorrow than today'. That was 25 years ago (I was a widower after a 20 year marriage) and I have never ever been able to get over her looks, grace, character......... I'm mad about her.... no divided attention at all. It gets stronger every day, week, month.... and on.
But I don't mean to be hurtful, I just don't believe in your Jesus, I believe the true Jesus is much different to yours. I cannot debate my faith for Jesus on TOL for various reasons, but I can tell you that I absolutely believe in the Gospel of Mark, save for some passages known to be edits. And the Jesus that I believe in would not mind my undivided love at all. But on TOL that could be construed as 'bad'.
I spend most of my internet time debating furiously with mythers, supporting the true life and mission of Yeshua BarYosef, and I don't get to see too many puritan or fundamentalist Christians on those sites.

....... found you to be pretty offensive toward those you were talking with. There is no way any of us are seeing eye-to-eye with you over the thread topic, but perhaps even you could be a bit more empathetic. I'm endeavoring to bring meaning to all of this discussion. I think it was needful, but I wasn't as gentle and for that, apologies.

My aggressive debating habits have developed from other forums, debating mythers so fundamentally opposed to religion that they probably spit as they read my simple truths, thrust down their throats. Imagine getting on a tram, or train on Christmas Eve and wishing the person opposite a 'Merry Christmas', who then starts shouting at you and threatening you because of a perceived insult. That's not a particularly extreme myther!

Maybe even start a thread. It would shed light on the rest of this as well. ATF? I don't think anyone of us would recommend you divorce. Israel had even forced mass divorce over such. Paul does not recommend that in 1 Corinthians 7. It is what compromised the Northern Kingdom (intermarriage).

Not my culture. Not my country. Where I live we treat inter-racial, inter-faith, inter-national, inter-colour, inter-sexual, marriage as fine, and our population shows this. And we live together. We stand together. ...... of course there are exsceptions but the general population is like this.
Again..... I believe in the Gospel of Mark. You can push me further on this but I cannot clarify because of forum rules.

Thanks for the sensitivity. It is all public, imo. If I had PMed you, I might ask for a bit of privacy, but not from your wife. One flesh is one flesh.

My wife (and myself) would find that 'one flesh' description as strange. We are our own individual selves, and individual in mind, body and soul. Because of this we must take care of our togetherness every second, never ever presuming, assuming, takingforgranted... the other.
My wife has never told me what to wear, for any event, nor I to her. Individuals in love.

Would you like me to start that thread? I'd encourage you to do so, however, so you can ask your own questions regarding it as well.
Thanks for the laurel also.
-Lon

About atheists, agnostics, strange creeds on TOL, or about marriage outside of faith?

The agnostics/atheists on TOL thing is a trap, Lon.
EDIT: I had to answer the door.
Read Mark 2:14-18 ....?

 

[Lon]

About atheists, agnostics, strange creeds on TOL, or about marriage outside of faith?

The agnostics/atheists on TOL thing is a trap, Lon.

Interfaith marriage. As I said, atf, most of us if not all, would follow Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 7. Rather, such a thread would explain a bit about the sanctity of marriage. In a nutshell, Genesis 2 "one flesh" and Ephesians 5 "a picture of Christ and His church." We believe strongly in a marriage that has Christ as the center, because it is His creation for His purposes.

I am not in the business of telling the world how it should behave. Because this is a 'political' thread, I've no real problem with the way voting goes, but we didn't get to vote on this matter. It was basically shoved down our throats. The largest problem is trampling old mutuality. The Government took upon itself involvement in marriages for tax and property purposes. Anybody, should be able to direct their estates and desires for self. Rather, "Marriage" is a religious meaning whereas the government ever was only interested in legal matters of estate and person. Because they messed this up, it has caused all these problems. Basically, in another nutshell, they were inept. Granted there was/is an agenda, and courts caved in to 'rights' but failed to realize separating church and state simply by adopting 'civil union' 'legal union' or such, instead of 'marriage' would have sufficiently alleviated the great rift.

As I said, I 'think' a lawsuit simply asking the government to stop 'marriages' by government and instead pick up "civil union," there may still be questions such that this thread asks, but the 'problem' per say, would cease to exist without conflict of interests. My two cents -Lon

 

[eider]

I would like to find out.

Do you oppose the legal right to marry for persons with hereditary diseases?

No.

By the way. I was impressed by your 'let them in' answer to my TOL question. After all, Jesus liked to eat and drink with the sinners.....

 

[eider]

Interfaith marriage. As I said, atf, most of us if not all, would follow Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 7. Rather, such a thread would explain a bit about the sanctity of marriage. In a nutshell, Genesis 2 "one flesh" and Ephesians 5 "a picture of Christ and His church." We believe strongly in a marriage that has Christ as the center, because it is His creation for His purposes.

I am not in the business of telling the world how it should behave. Because this is a 'political' thread, I've no real problem with the way voting goes, but we didn't get to vote on this matter. It was basically shoved down our throats. The largest problem is trampling old mutuality. The Government took upon itself involvement in marriages for tax and property purposes. Anybody, should be able to direct their estates and desires for self. Rather, "Marriage" is a religious meaning whereas the government ever was only interested in legal matters of estate and person. Because they messed this up, it has caused all these problems. Basically, in another nutshell, they were inept. Granted there was/is an agenda, and courts caved in to 'rights' but failed to realize separating church and state simply by adopting 'civil union' 'legal union' or such, instead of 'marriage' would have sufficiently alleviated the great rift.

As I said, I 'think' a lawsuit simply asking the government to stop 'marriages' by government and instead pick up "civil union," there may still be questions such that this thread asks, but the 'problem' per say, would cease to exist without conflict of interests. My two cents -Lon

Only a very few folks here will be aware of the old Church Courts, but Charles Dickens described their dreadful corruption in Great Expectations.

Way back in time, when a couple lived together for about two Years, they became man and wife in marriage by common law. Today common law marriage offers no protection or security to either partner. Before Christianity there was marriage, of course,amongst many cultures.
In early first century Galilee and other provinces a young man (15-17?) would offer his girl a coin, and if she took it they were engaged-in-a-way and most probably made love. Ceremonies would come later. This from an ancient Jewish historian.
I don't think Jesus would mind my/our marriage although he may well have worried about a Galilean boy marrying a Samaritan because they made sacrifice at different venues, although both had the same prophets and God.
I must go my mobile battery is down.

 

[glassjester]

No.

So you want marriage to be legal, even for couples whose children may suffer from hereditary diseases or defects?

 

[glassjester]

1. Can you think of a few reasons why people would undertake SSM?

2. If my country denied a person with a motorcycle licence (only) the right to fly an A380 Airbus, would you think that to be a breach of their equality rights?

1. Probably to establish a permanent relationship (although for anyone who believes in divorce, the vows are somewhat dishonest). Or (in the case of Christian homosexuals) maybe they marry as an attempt to get God to approve of their illicit sexual activity.

2. No. But if they wouldn't allow two siblings to fly a plane together, just because they're siblings, would you consider that unequal?

 

[ok doser]

1. Can you think of a few reasons why people would undertake SSM?

the most obvious one that comes to me is to get society to accept them as "normal"

 

[glassjester]

the most obvious one that comes to me is to get society to accept them as "normal"

Well... the most obvious reason would be that they love each other.

But, as seen in the case of incest, love is not sufficient justification for marriage.

 

[eider]

I would like to find out.

I could not answer this post earlier, but all I can say is, that I could never ever share my experiences about discovery of genetic and other related conditions on this site. Absolutely impossible. Only the most empathic, understanding, synpathetic and philosophical eyes could read those stories, I'm afraid.

But believe me when I tell you that this subject is with me for all my life, to the end.

 

[glassjester]

I could not answer this post earlier, but all I can say is, that I could never ever share my experiences about discovery of genetic and other related conditions on this site. Absolutely impossible. Only the most empathic, understanding, synpathetic and philosophical eyes could read those stories, I'm afraid.

But believe me when I tell you that this subject is with me for all my life, to the end.

I understand.

I do not wish to make the conversation a personal one.

 

[glassjester]

It is possible to discuss the issue, without revealing any personal history.

 

[glassjester]

(he loves when we say that).

:thumb:

I consider it a good thing if I am "called out" as a Catholic.

 

[Lon]

I could not answer this post earlier, but all I can say is, that I could never ever share my experiences about discovery of genetic and other related conditions on this site. Absolutely impossible. Only the most empathic, understanding, synpathetic and philosophical eyes could read those stories, I'm afraid.

But believe me when I tell you that this subject is with me for all my life, to the end.

Transgender? Androgynous? Something of the like? Don't answer. Please. I'd think I really cannot relate, regardless of empathy. Some might but such is not fodder for TOL. I agree. These kinds of things are really very foreign to all our sacred and secular experiences. I've no idea how to relate and I think you correct. Bruce (Kaitlyn) Jenner was lambasted on TOL. I've no idea how I would talk to him/her if Bruce-Kaitlyn came to TOL.

 

[glassjester]

Transgender? Androgynous? Something of the like?

I don't think so. He was referring to some type of hereditary disorder or birth defect.

 

[eider]

Transgender? Androgynous? Something of the like? Don't answer. Please. I'd think I really cannot relate, regardless of empathy.

No. But you really could not relate to a physical condition....androgynous? Wow... strange.

Some might but such is not fodder for TOL. I agree. These kinds of things are really very foreign to all our sacred and secular experiences. I've no idea how to relate and I think you correct.

Lon....... your mind...... it moves in mysterious ways.

Bruce (Kaitlyn) Jenner was lambasted on TOL. I've no idea how I would talk to him/her if Bruce-Kaitlyn came to TOL.

Who in..... the World... is Bruce Jenner?

 

[eider]

I don't think so. He was referring to some type of hereditary disorder or birth defect.

The above weas sent to another.

OK...... I'm back.

So you've been trying..... that is really good. Reasons for Gays to marry, which at least tuicks back in line with the OP title.

1. Establish a permanent relationship. GlassJester
2. To be accepted as having a normal union. Dosey
3. That they love each other. GlassJester.

Fair enough....... My turn?
4. To establish the Primary relationship and 1st 'relation' to each other.
(previously, even in civil partnerships, a gay couple did not have the privilege, responsibility or authority for each other over all other relatives. If one of the partners died, or fell very ill other relatives could take charge of decisions, even excluding the gay-partner.)
5. Joint Tenancies, Joint ownerships, Joint accounts etc. Even if Gays in a civil partnership left wills to benefit each other, any will could/can be contested if the applicant/contestant had enough funds, and it's surprisingly easy to overturn wills if sp[ecialist lawyers can be afforded. Marriage kills such attemps dead.
6. Partners in a legal marriage have the right to adopt children. I know a female couple who wish to adopt a child, but male married couples can as well, as shown by Elton John's (and his partner's) children.


.....more?

 

[eider]

:thumb:

I consider it a good thing if I am "called out" as a Catholic.

You..... you...... you Catholic, you! :chuckle:

Look at this article from the Guardian. (If for any reason you think the Guardian's rubbish, then most other papers reported ....thus:-

Vatican: ‘Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer Christians’

...a cutting...

The pope recalled Church teachings, saying: “[Gay people] should not be discriminated against. They should be respected, accompanied pastorally.
“I think that the Church not only should apologise … to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by (being forced to) work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons.”

The point is this...... it does look as if the Pope and several Cardinals are ready to speak up for their receptions of the true messages of Christianity.

This is not the reception of or about Gays that I tend to read upon TOL, for instance, although I only know of one Catholic here.... there must be a lot of them?

 

[glassjester]

You..... you...... you Catholic, you! :chuckle:

Happily and humbly so.

The point is this...... it does look as if the Pope and several Cardinals are ready to speak up for their receptions of the true messages of Christianity.

Yes, certainly. A message, however, which does not include homosexual marriage.

This is not the reception of or about Gays that I tend to read upon TOL, for instance, although I only know of one Catholic here.... there must be a lot of them?

I can think of two others - Chrysostom, Nihilo. There were others - Cruciform, Traditio, CatholicCrusader. They seem to have left TOL, though.

 

[glassjester]

1. Establish a permanent relationship. GlassJester
2. To be accepted as having a normal union. Dosey
3. That they love each other. GlassJester.

Fair enough....... My turn?
4. To establish the Primary relationship and 1st 'relation' to each other.
(previously, even in civil partnerships, a gay couple did not have the privilege, responsibility or authority for each other over all other relatives. If one of the partners died, or fell very ill other relatives could take charge of decisions, even excluding the gay-partner.)
5. Joint Tenancies, Joint ownerships, Joint accounts etc. Even if Gays in a civil partnership left wills to benefit each other, any will could/can be contested if the applicant/contestant had enough funds, and it's surprisingly easy to overturn wills if sp[ecialist lawyers can be afforded. Marriage kills such attemps dead.
6. Partners in a legal marriage have the right to adopt children. I know a female couple who wish to adopt a child, but male married couples can as well, as shown by Elton John's (and his partner's) children.


.....more?

Alright... now why can't siblings have those same rights?

 

[Lon]

....the true messages of Christianity.....

Loving others is the Second command. ANY time it interferes with the first command, do the first: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. It is an 'all-in' proposition. The 'true' Christian message is 'all in.'