filtherton

I realize that it's been a while since we had a gay marriage thread so i though i would offer this up as a sacrifice. If this needs to be moved to politics or philo, by all means.


http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4702312.html



This is important in light of the fact that the biblical definition of marriage is often used as a way to justify the denial of the homosexual right to marry. The fact is that marriage in the bible takes many forms, most of which would either be criminal or morally abhorrent in "christian" america. This guy puts into words many things i have thought with more authority on the matter than i could ever pretend to have. The concept of marriage is apparently more important to those who would claim to speak for god than for god.
If we are ever going to have a rational debate on this subject we need to understand it in terms of the here and now, not selective paraphrasings from a book that, in terms of culture, is mostly irrelevant.

I know were all adults here, so let's try to keep it civil. Also, one sentence posts aren't generally useful, so please be substantial. I don't care if you don't want gay marriage, just don't hide behind your god.

Cynthetiq

damn... i read the words "the bible" and didn't read anymore.

I'm equally biased and closed minded as those on the other side of the fence now.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

filtherton

I'm surprised you don't post in politics. You'd fit right in.

SecretMethod70

Should have read. It was a good article and very true. Christianity is about love and preserving the dignity of all human beings (among other things), and denying two people the ability to express their love is a denial of their dignity. That doesn't mean the religions should necessarily marry them or condone it, but they certainly deserve the public right.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Strange Famous

Thats a cool article

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Cynthetiq

Very true, and I did read the article. Just initially I tuned it out, filtered it as unacceptable because it said,"Bible" it must be from the wrong point of view.

The difference between me and another person, is that I'll at least go back to try to understand that point of view. I may still not subscribe to it, but I will try to read and observe with as open a mind as possible. Without that open mind I would have never moved forward in reading new authors, hearing new styles of music, etc. etc. etc.

The views of the pastor is exactly on point. The bible can be used to support or undermine just about any position since it covers plenty of time and ground.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

raeanna74

From what I understand, the basic issue isn't necessarily just marriage but sexual relations between those of the same sex. That is mentioned in the Bible as being against what is holy. Marriage is just another step beyond what many Biblicists see as already sinful.

I'm not backing it up mind you. I am fairly open minded and bi-sexual already. I'm not against the same sex marriage union. This is what I understand from the Biblicists perspective. If you would like book/chapter/verse references for the location of the verses that are believed to speak against same sex physical relations I will be glad to provide them. (I'm being lazy right now and not looking them up. I will later though.)

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

tangledweb

I LOVE this kind of thread! You can beat this horse to death from just about every angle and no one perspective is going to win out in the end.

As far as the sentiment expressed about Christians or religious folks using a single reference to condemn or justify behavior, it isn't just the religious who do it. I think that is an equally abused notion from both sides of the fence.

SecretMethod70

tangledweb, you're completely right.

reanna, while the argument does focus on the view that those sexual relations are wrong, Chritianity does not give the right to take someone's human dignity because they are not perfect. It's the blind leading the blind.

A Catholic monk whom I've read recently said, literally, that finding God is a matter of "minding your own business." This is a view I also subscribe to. Concentrating on other's problems is a convenient way to avoid concentrating on your own.

Whether or not same sex sexual relations is "right" - and I support every religion's right to say that it isn't - taking away the person's ABILITY to make choices and lead their life as they see fit is a denial of their dignity and is NOT necessary to avoid condoning it. Religious need to recognize that allowing someone the public right to express the love that they genuinely feel does not equate to condoning it in private. Condemn it all you want in religious services, don't marry them in the religion, but they can do all that while allowing them the right to their own dignity by acknowledging that, while they may feel it is wrong, these feelings of love are very real.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Midnight_Son

I'm all for gay marriage, as long as both chicks are hot.

__________________
SWM, tattooed, seeks meaningful tits and beer. Enjoys biker mags, pornography, and Sunday morning walks to the liquor store. Winners of erotic hot dog eating contests given priority.

filtherton

I see what you're saying, but homosexual relations are just one of the many behaviors that the bible can be interpreted to condemn. There are many other condemned behaviors that probably get much more play in the bible than gay sex that christians accept and endorse every day. It is hypocritical to condemn homosexual relations whilst working on the sabbath or refusing to stone infidels in the village square. Not really directing this at you, just the biblicist perspective you brought up.

Is there any other kind of thread out there?

Skettios

As much as I like this kind of thread, I started looking at Secret's girlfriend and lost my entire train of thought.

I think it was something like this. We're not a religious state, so why would marriage be sacred in our country? Which leads to another important point... why can't I have the biblical marriage described in this article? Why can't I have a few wives? Why does the government get to dictate this sort of thing?

__________________
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

Frederich Nietzsche

sexymama

Yeah, why not? And why can't I have a couple of husbands? Or why can't four of us marry? As long as there is a true commitment, with the intent to "make it work," who are we to "judge" anyone's rights to be with the people they love? (Yet, as I read what I wrote, I realize I have my own biasis -- which is marriage is a life long commitment -- works for me, but maybe not everyone out there -- hmmm.)

As for the article, one word to the author: bravo!

__________________
If you can go deeply into lovemaking, the ego disappears. That is the beauty of lovemaking, that it is another source of a glimpse of god

It's not about being perfect; it's about developing some skill at managing imperfection.

Litespeed

It all comes down to how you treat the ones you love. Do you cherish them? Will you be good to them? Will you see to their needs? Will you love them the way that they need to be loved, and they do the same for you in return?

When it comes to same-sex marriage, or even plural marriage for that matter, I vote to have those not involved keep their mouths shut and don't object to those things they are ignorant about.

When someone is hurt or wants out, they should be given that right. If there is a loving environment in a home, there is no reason to tear that home apart. There is no reason to dissallow alternative union patterns.

Awesome article to post. Thanks for the food for thought filtherton.

Memnoch

There are plenty of arguments to give against gay marriage...here's mine.

Using the idea of there being both feminine and masculine parts of one's psyche, or even better, soul, we have to examine part of what several mainstream religions look at as a holy union: marriage between a predominantly masculine psyche and a predominantly feminine psyche. Marriage, in my opinion, needs to be looked at as the culmination of love - the becoming of a single entity in all senses: financial, emotional, spiritual and physical. The problem I have with gay marriage is that two predominantly masculine or two predominantly feminine souls are incapable of having either a physical or spiritual union. This is my opinion on gay marriage.

However, I am all for gay civil unions, and I am also all for the right for churches to choose whether or not they are for or against gay marriages, in the spiritual sense. I don't see any reason why two people who live together in very much a similar manner as a heterosexual couple shouldn't be getting the same benefits, in a legal sense. I also cannot even for a moment fathom why the FUCK the government is telling our churches what they can and cannot do.

__________________
Doing my best not to end up like Kathleen Chang.

filtherton

We're all entitled to our opinions, but let me point out to you that every healthy person contains a good balance of both masculine and feminine traits. In fact, there are many straight women who are more masculine than many straight men. There are also many very feminine men who would probably balance out perfectly with moderately masculine fellow. If marriage is, like you say, to be looked at as the becoming of a single balanced entity, than most marriages in america would be as imbalanced as you claim homosexual marriage would be. You can't treat masculine and feminine traits like ions because that's not how they're meant to work. Ideally you could add equal parts masculine and feminine and expect a balanced union, but feminine and masculine aren't quantifiable and don't exist in constant equal amounts in men and women.

Memnoch

See: Jung's Aenima/Aenimus theory.

I do see your point, and concede it's definitely valid. However, I hold to my statements; particularly the fact that homosexual unions cannot, in fact, have completed spiritual or physical unions.

__________________
Doing my best not to end up like Kathleen Chang.

brianna

even if your arguement were verifiablly true it still wouldn't be a credible basis for a law against gay marriage -- when it comes to legal marriage (not religious marriage) we do not hand out licenses based on the psycological compatiblity of the man and woman who are getting married so I don't see anyway that you can justify doing so for same sex couples.

tisonlyi

We can _know_ nothing except through personal experience, to say "homosexual unions cannot, in fact, have completed spiritual or physical unions" comes, it seems, from an offhand prejudice.

How many homosexual relationships have you been a party to?

Judge not, lest ye be Judged.

With regards to wedded bliss:

You (plural, not necessarily just 2) want to live together and love each other for the rest of your lives? To forge a common life, no matter what life may throw at you?

Fair fucks, you're braver souls than I.

---

And for those whose minds could be a little broader, what happens to intersex/hermaphrodite genders?

Do their doctors/parents choose the gender of their life partners?

Gender, like sexuality (and pretty much eveything) in general, is a whole great big mess of grey with only small patches of black and white.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

yeshua

huh?

Memnoch

Brianna - I believe you're not reading my original post right. <b>I support commonlaw marriages amongst homosexuals and bisexuals</b>, despite my own feelings on the matter. My arguments are why I don't believe in gay marriage as a holy union - not only that, but I have expressed my desire to see <b>churches</b>, and <b>not</b> the government, have the choice as to whether or not they believe in gay marriage as being a holy union.

tisonlyi - When I say homosexuals cannot have spiritual or physical union, this does not make me closed minded. Unless disagreeing with any "liberal" ideas people decide to spout off is considered "closed-minded" - if that's the case, than I am guilty as charged. Homosexuals CAN'T have complete physical union, it's not, at the most basic of roots, anatomically possible. Period. I apologize for grouping spiritual and physical union together, however - it is of my opinion that they can't have complete spiritual union, and that is definitely not fact.

Along similar lines, I'd like to address the usage of "Judge not, lest ye be judged" in these discussions. Take a look at the semantics of that sentence, people. It doesn't mean "Don't you dare judge people, because they don't judge you." It means "Unless you are willing to be judged by others, do not judge them yourself." I AM willing to be judged by others - I have nothing to hide. I'm not an amazing person, but I'm not quite a horrible one, either. In the same vein, I am not calling anyone bad. I don't believe homosexuals are "bad" people. If you had read my post carefully and not just spouted off a generic "You're wrong because you're judgmental and conservative" post, I think you'd know that NOWHERE in any of my posts have I claimed that I am better than anyone else, or that homosexuals/bisexuals/transsexuals are "bad" or anything of that like.

Please read my words more closely and choose yours more carefully before you just cast me off as another ignorant bigot. I'm not, and I will not stand for anyone implying or accusing me of that.

__________________
Doing my best not to end up like Kathleen Chang.

brianna

memnoch: I don't believe my post was dismissive of your views. I did read both of your previous posts before responding and you stated that you are against gay marriage but for civil unions -- if what you ment is that legally civil unions and marriage should be completely the same then fine -- but why the different nomenclature? I honestly have no problem with calling same sex marriage civil unions if legally it's the same as marriage and it makes religious folks feel less afraid (though really i don't see why calling it by a different name should appease people... whatever).

Your claim that homosexuals cannot have a physical union is somewhat uncreative -- even if you limit the scope of "physical union" only to penetrative acts I can still think of plenty of such acts that can be carried out in a same sex setting. though I still don't really see how you connect penetrative sex to a "holy union" (i know that you apologized for grouping these two ideas together but i still don't see any real evidence to support your claim that two members of the same sex cannot have a deep spiritual connection).

I don't think anyone is proposing forcing churches to marry same sex couples -- each individual religion should be free to bestow or withhold its blessing on whichever unions it sees fit.

shakran

There are several things about this issue that, frankly, baffle me.

First off, why is the government trying to pass laws based on passages from the bible? What's next? Will I get arrested when I see my neighbors ferarri and wish aloud that I had it? (10th commandment, thou shalt not covet . . .any thing that is thy neighbor's).

Second, why do religious people care so much what other people do? If you're religious, that's great. YOU do what you believe will get YOU into heaven, nirvana, that whorehouse with 72 virgins, whatever. Leave everyoen else alone. My actions will not prevent you from getting into heaven, and frankly, if they did, would you really want to be in a place that's run by the guy that made that rule?

Derwood

For me, the single worst tenet of christianity is the idea of evangelism. "Spreading the word of Christ" has been warped into "judge anyone and anything that does not fall into what you interpret as christian or non-christian"

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

DelayedReaction

Only for the fundamentalists. Your average Christian (or Muslim, Jew, Hindi, Buddhist, or basically anything but Scientologist) is pretty tolerant of other religions, and will only offer to share their beliefs when asked. Those who intrude upon the lives of others are typically scorned.

I am agnostic, so this entire religious debate is particularly scary for me. Are the rights of people who simply do not have a specific belief destined to be ignored? Freedom of religion includes the freedom NOT to have a religion at all.

That said, the government should not be in the business of deciding how people live their lives. As far as Uncle Sam is concerned, there should be no such thing as marriage. Everything should be a "civil union," a politically neutral bond between consenting adults that carries with it specific legal benefits and responsibilities. Please note that I said consenting adults; in the eyes of the government this should be no more than a legal contract. If you can't enter into a legally binding contract, you shouldn't be able to enter a civil union.

Let the churches handle who can get married where. The governments job should be protecting the rights of the people, not deciding who marries who.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

filtherton

Well, it depends on how you define spiritual/physical unions. I'm trying to infer your definition and all i can deduce is that you believe it to either be heterosexual vaginal intercourse or the merger of bodily fluids to create another human being.

While you are entitled to your own opinions the former seems rather arbitratrary to me.
I would argue that experiencing the pleasure of an orgasm brought about by someone for whom you care deeply can be exceedingly spiritual regardless of orifice or method.

If it is the latter, than you must know that sexual preference is irrelevant to the physical ability to procreate. By this i mean that heterosexual intercourse doesn't always make a baby. In fact, i'd even go so far as to say that most hetero sex doesn't result in a visit from the stork. This idea would also seem to suggest that the infertile should be excluded from marriage but eligible for civil union.

I'm just trying to understand your perspective. Either way, you're entitled to your opinion and if you've actually taken the effort to reason it out on your own terms then that is commendable. Most people just repeat the talking points.