toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[Town Heretic]

The the homosexuals can draw up a contract and the government should honor the contract, fine.

In terms of the law that's what we're talking about.

That says nothing about marriage.

Only if you integrate your religious view into the topic, but that's as applicable as those anti Catholics deciding to do the same thing.

Marriage is not just one form of contract.

Well it isn't more than one.

Else, I noted the additional import and its foundation and that it is a foundation that can't control the subject in a secular society and a law that rests on equity.

:e4e:

 

[elohiym]

Think about it. Did Paul advocate action against the Roman government for allowing (in limited ways) polygamy?

The original Greco-Roman view, founded in the traditional pagan religion of the hearth, was that marriage is indissoluble and monogamous. Roman law essentially forbade polygamy (pg. 396).

He did say that Christian Deacons and Elders should be husbands of one wife (literally "a one-woman man"), but he didn't suggest that believers in his day try to change Roman law.

Paul's statement is made in the context of a monogamous Greco-Roman culture regarding the quality of the relationship, i.e. relating to the faithfulness of the husband within a monogamous context, not in contrast to a polygamous concept. Similarly, Paul writes a widow should be a "one-man woman" (1Tim 5:9). Therefore, since polyandry was not practiced in Greco-Roman and Jewish culture, "one-man woman" cannot be about polygamy; and likewise, "one-woman man" is not likely about polygamy (a divinely sanctioned form of marriage, according to scripture).

 

[elohiym]

Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

I am generally against government licensed, church "sanctioned" marriages. I am generally for the right to contract absent illegality under U.S. law.

 

[graceandpeace]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for June 17th, 2011 10:26 AM

toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Depends on whom they claim to be..if they are OF the world..let 'em have it. If they claim to be 'christian', don't give Jesus a bad name.

 

[graceandpeace]

Marriage, at least in the way we often look at it, is an affair of the state. What the world does it does, and if I strain to look with secular eyes I do not blame it in this regard.

However, same-sex marriage has no place in the church. Christians should not have sexual relations with the same sex in or out of faux marriage. Christians should not have sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage regardless.

The church's understanding of what a marriage is is different from that of the state--which necessitates the different approaches. While Christians can vote on such matters, I support them voting their consciences in regard to this. However, I do not support any active persecution of homosexuals whatsoever. They are flawed human beings like the rest of us, and if we start throwing stones most of us are in big trouble...

Totally agreed.

 

[john w]

Reason and experience, as in using my mind to study it and other knowledge.

Example: Genesis 1 and 2 are myths, they do not convey any factual information about how the earth and the universe came to be.
The text attempts to describe it (although I would not say that the authors attempted to write science), but it is simply wrong. The universe is 13,7 billion years old, life probably originated through abiogenesis, life diversified through the process of evolution. No man was ever 900 years old, and there was no flood. No amount of blind faith changes those facts.

Name the infallible source authority by which you make the assessment "Genesis 1 and 2 are myths, ...but it is simply wrong...The universe is 13,7 billion years old, life probably... No man was ever 900 years old, and there was no flood. No amount of blind faith changes those facts...."

"probably......those facts"

I see.

Let me guess: Assert, pound the table, declare victory, return to "Well, in my opinion....probably, but these are the facts..." echo chamber.

"simply wrong"-Never trust a man who qualifies alleged truth with "simply," or whistles. You do both.

 

[Uberpod1]

Depends on whom they claim to be..if they are OF the world..let 'em have it. If they claim to be 'christian', don't give Jesus a bad name.

Seems a fine idea to me at first blush.

But, who has ultimate practical authority on who qualifies a an xtian? Maybe you need to get more specific. An Evangelical Christian is different than a Christian Universalist.

 

[graceandpeace]

Seems a fine idea to me at first blush.

But, who has ultimate practical authority on who qualifies a an xtian? Maybe you need to get more specific. An Evangelical Christian is different than a Christian Universalist.

That is God's job...to figure out, not mine.

 

[john w]

Once again, I don't think that is a valid comparison. Just because I eat animals which is part of a normal diet does not mean that I'm willing to torture them.
Animal rights do matter, we are animals as well.



Homosexual couples say they love each other. I have no more reason to doubt that than when a heterosexual couple say they love each other.



What experience do you have other than thought experience and conservative Catholic influences?



Of course there are people who support it. However, euthanasia does not follow from secularism. Euthanasia was, is and will be opposed from secular sources. Secularism is not the problem in the euthanasia debate, lack of information and poor understanding of the relevant ethical implications.



What statistical data have I rejected? You did not present any statistical data, you presented an assertion that all secular people think that the law is there merely for protection. That may very well be the case, but you have in no way demonstrated that and it is a bald assertion to make without any evidence.
And I do not think it is wrong to think that the law is for protection. You are confusing legality with morality, they are not always the same.

"Animal rights do matter, we are animals as well."-Selaphiel

Fine. Release them from cages, zoos. Why are you discriminating against them, you mean spirited, intolerant, bigoted, close minded, intolerant, judgmental, hate filled, "un cultured," narrow minded,unenlightened,anti-intellectual, anti-science, animal-phobic, militaristic, uncompassionate............ wacko. Don't you know that they have equal rights?

 

[bybee]

Oh my goodness, what are you all talking about now? What is up eh? Oh this is terrible........


........this popcorn needs more salt........ I'll be back quickly!

.......... :noid:

Oh let's go someplace else. How about a nice genteel tearoom?
Some lovely sandwiches, choice of tea and scones with strawberry jam.
Other peoples bedrooms ought to be off limits.

 

[Universalist]

Seems a fine idea to me at first blush.

But, who has ultimate practical authority on who qualifies a an xtian? Maybe you need to get more specific. An Evangelical Christian is different than a Christian Universalist.

Extremely different, I am a CU myself.

 

[elohiym]

[Masturbation] frustrates the natural end of the reproductive organs and it hinders Christian Charity

It appears that natural law allows for, and perhaps necessitates, masturbation.

According to obstetrician David Greening, a rigorous program of daily masturbation can actually improve sperm quality in men with fertility problems. (Samples collected at the end of the program showed less DNA damage and higher sperm motility than samples from control subjects.) Since masturbation can help you have babies, Saletan argues, it must also serve the "procreative and unitive purposes" described in the Catechism.​

 

[elohiym]

So the question at stake is only whether homosexuality is harmful or disordered, right? Your whole case rises and falls on the belief that it is harmless, just as mine rises and falls on the belief that it is harmful. Do we agree so far?

Homosexuality per se is neither harmful nor contradictory to natural order or law. That seems self-evident to me; "defective" people shouldn't breed, but they shouldn't be alone (Ge 2:18). Using a version of natural law, one could make an argument that we should not give heterosexual type 1 diabetics insulin, but let them die because allowing them to live beyond childhood to procreate will result in harm to society (more type 1 diabetics via procreation) and is disordered and against natural law (they would die naturally if left to themselves without insulin). It seems disordered and harmful to mess with natural selection in many cases, but people do, choosing to follow what they perceive is the higher natural law or that "crazy thing called love."

I don't believe my position rises and falls necessarily on biological determinism being the cause of homosexuality, but it is unassailable, in my opinion, if it is the cause. Science is slowly proving what should be self evident to any person who cannot choose to be attracted to, or fall in love with, the same sex--homosexuality is biologically determined. It is fundamental that God's justice account for biologically determined factors, and that is evident by example in the Book of the Law of Moses (e.g. sin offerings for menstruation, cities of refuge, David eats the Holy bread, etc.).

To briefly address the scriptures and the words of God: Homosexuality per se is not condemned in scripture. Rather, its general condemnation has been read into scriptures that are not about homosexuality per se, if about homosexuality at all in some cases. I suggest you read The Church and the Homosexual by McNeil (Catholic scholar using Catholic sources), which does an okay job of addressing the mistranslations and misinterpretations of most of the scriptures presumed to be about homosexuality per se. But the overriding principle is this: Matthew 7:12. That principle is not violated by two woman loving each other and uniting as a family, whether that relationship involves sexual intercourse or not.

 

[Cleekster]

The Government should'nt pick sides...so as long as marriage is a legal issue then yes gays should have the same rights as straight people have. i also think however that the Church should have say in who is blessed based on denominational bias's......

Bottom line: let the government issue civil unions and leave marriage as a religious matter.

 

[kmoney]

The Government should'nt pick sides...so as long as marriage is a legal issue then yes gays should have the same rights as straight people have. i also think however that the Church should have say in who is blessed based on denominational bias's......

Bottom line: let the government issue civil unions and leave marriage as a religious matter.

:thumb:

Good first post. Welcome to TOL. :wave2:

 

[ThermalCry]

For it. Doesn't bother anyone, and it has absolutely nothing to do with me. People that are against it are bigoted fascists and future generations will be ashamed of them.

 

[ThermalCry]

The Government should'nt pick sides...so as long as marriage is a legal issue then yes gays should have the same rights as straight people have. i also think however that the Church should have say in who is blessed based on denominational bias's......

Bottom line: let the government issue civil unions and leave marriage as a religious matter.

Marriage isnt a religious matter, though.

 

[Cleekster]

Marriage isnt a religious matter, though.

Yes it is....in most peoples eyes marriage is a matter between a couple and God. At some point somebody who was clearly brilliant decided that intermingeling Marriage and Government would be the perfect way to control an aspect of peoples lives.

 

[Cleekster]

:thumb:

Good first post. Welcome to TOL. :wave2:

Thank you kmoney. nice to meet you.

 

[john w]

For it. Doesn't bother anyone, and it has absolutely nothing to do with me. People that are against it are bigoted fascists and future generations will be ashamed of them.

"bigoted fascists "

Is that it? I was also expecting mean spirited, intolerant, close minded, intolerant, judgmental, hate filled, "un cultured," narrow minded,unenlightened,anti-intellectual, anti-science, homophobic, militaristic, uncompassionate...

More emotionalism, not an argument.