Traditional Marriage

[rdBGd5W99F]

Hello,

One thing I've struggled with as I've tried to learn about the legalization of gay marriage in the United States is the idea that gay marriage damages the sanctity of traditional marriage, which is blessed by God. The argument goes that gay marriage is a sin, which aims to excludes God from the union.

Isn't the same true of heterosexual couples who do not believe in God? Their unbelief (willful or not) could also have the same effect, could it not?

 

[Mudinyeri]

I don't recall a Biblical reference requiring those who married to be Christians. I do recall marriage instructions being exclusive to men and women, however (not men and men or women and women).

 

[Catherineanne]

Hello,

One thing I've struggled with as I've tried to learn about the legalization of gay marriage in the United States is the idea that gay marriage damages the sanctity of traditional marriage, which is blessed by God. The argument goes that gay marriage is a sin, which aims to excludes God from the union.

Isn't the same true of heterosexual couples who do not believe in God? Their unbelief (willful or not) could also have the same effect, could it not?

Yes, of course.

When we have celebrities marrying one person after another, five, six, seven or more times then it is a bit late to talk about the sanctity of marriage. That horse has well and truly bolted.

 

[Catherineanne]

I don't recall a Biblical reference requiring those who married to be Christians. I do recall marriage instructions being exclusive to men and women, however (not men and men or women and women).

There are many different models of marriage in Scripture, not just one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/esther-j-hamori/biblical-standards-for-marriage_b_1540159.html

 

[Mudinyeri]

There are many different models of marriage in Scripture, not just one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/esther-j-hamori/biblical-standards-for-marriage_b_1540159.html

Ah, the Huffington Post, that bastion of journalistic integrity and exhaustive research.

Every "model" of marriage in the Bible is between (at least) two members of the opposite sex.

... why then do some churches only marry couples who are believers?

Because churches have beliefs - some of which are man-made. I'm not saying that this particular belief is man-made or wrong. I'm simply saying that you can't use the standard of a church to substitute for God's standard.

 

[Catherineanne]

Ah, the Huffington Post, that bastion of journalistic integrity and exhaustive research.

The source is immaterial, given that it provides Biblical verses.

Every "model" of marriage in the Bible is between (at least) two members of the opposite sex.

Yep, some of them siblings. Fun, that one. And polygamy; lots of that.

Not quite what we think of when we consider Biblical marriage, is it?

 

[Catherineanne]

Right, but my confusion is in the interaction between those beliefs and concerns over legal matters. If the institution of religious marriage is separate from civil marriage, why lobby against civil marriage if it is ungodly anyways? Is it extrapolating religious marriage to the irreligious, or is it a concern over the encroachment of civil marriage into the religious realm?

Quite right.

Clearly whatever it is that Christians think of when they say 'marriage' is very far from what other people think of.

Any glance at a celebrity magazine makes that clear enough.

 

[Mudinyeri]

The source is immaterial, given that it provides Biblical verses.



Yep, some of them siblings. Fun, that one. And polygamy; lots of that.

Not quite what we think of when we consider Biblical marriage, is it?

Of course the source is material. A source known for poor research methods, strong journalistic bias and taking information out of context is not to be trusted regardless of whether they use Bible verses or not.

Actually, that is how I think of Biblical marriage - primarily polygamous. Monogamy is a relatively new concept in terms of human history.

 

[Dave-W]

Right, but my confusion is in the interaction between those beliefs and concerns over legal matters. If the institution of religious marriage is separate from civil marriage, why lobby against civil marriage if it is ungodly anyways? Is it extrapolating religious marriage to the irreligious, or is it a concern over the encroachment of civil marriage into the religious realm?

Civil marriage has certain legal benefits. And for well over a century in the US, the christian denominations imposed their idea of "christian marriage" onto the civil definitions. That was the case for several centuries in Europe. Which had the advantage of the civilian authorities getting their hands dirty in investigating and prosecuting violations; rather than church leadership.

 

[Dave-W]

that is how I think of Biblical marriage - primarily polygamous. Monogamy is a relatively new concept in terms of human history.

There is nothing in the NT to prohibit polygny, except in the case of congregational leadership (elders, deacons).

 

[Mudinyeri]

There is nothing in the NT to prohibit polygny, except in the case of congregational leadership (elders, deacons).

Agreed.

 

[rjs330]

Homosexual marriage is no more sinful than homosexual civil unions. Practicing homosexuals are not suddenly worse sinners just because they get married. For years they have wanted to,legitimize their homosexuality and marriage is the ultimate acceptance of their lifestyle.

When they are told you can't get married it's saying there is something wrong with their relationship that society does not accept. Being,allowed to,marry removes a huge barrier to feeling all,he right,and good with their relationship.

The fight was not about marriage per se, but about the legitimization of an unnatural and sinful relationship. America has been slipping for a long time into moral decay and the acceptance of sinful behavior as being just fine. This is just another step.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Dave-W]

The fight was not about marriage per se, but about the legitimization of an unnatural and sinful relationship.

Well said. Trying to call evil "good."

 

[Cute Tink]

Homosexual marriage is no more sinful than homosexual civil unions. Practicing homosexuals are not suddenly worse sinners just because they get married. For years they have wanted to,legitimize their homosexuality and marriage is the ultimate acceptance of their lifestyle.

"The Gay Lifestyle" - a term with no actual meaning.

When they are told you can't get married it's saying there is something wrong with their relationship that society does not accept. Being,allowed to,marry removes a huge barrier to feeling all,he right,and good with their relationship.

The fight was not about marriage per se, but about the legitimization of an unnatural and sinful relationship. America has been slipping for a long time into moral decay and the acceptance of sinful behavior as being just fine. This is just another step.

The gay marriage fight had nothing to do with whether it's considered sin. It's not about Christianity.

 

[rjs330]

"The Gay Lifestyle" - a term with no actual meaning.



The gay marriage fight had nothing to do with whether it's considered sin. It's not about Christianity.

It does have meaning. Not as broad as perhaps insinuated by lifestyle. But it really is different than a heterosexual lifestyle because they marry and have sex with the same sex and cannot conceive children within that relationship. Heterosexual lifestyle is marrying opposite sex and can propagate within the confines of that relationship. That is generally what is,meant by lifestyle. Its just an easy word to,use to indicate the profound difference.

Gay marriage absolutely had to do with legitimizing sin whether the gay,community wants to acknowledge that or not. It also had to do with society as a whole. Society did not recognize it as a legitimate relationship, whether sin was involved or not and the gay folks wanted a legitimately recognized relationship. But in the larger unseen picture, a spritual battle was taking place. And recognizing homosexuality as a legitimate relationship was another slap in the face to God who says it is not.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Cute Tink]

It does have meaning. Not as broad as perhaps insinuated by lifestyle. But it really is different than a heterosexual lifestyle because they marry and have sex with the same sex and cannot conceive children within that relationship.

Except they can and do. They need a surrogate or sperm from an outside source, just like some heterosexual couples do, but what you are discussing there is not a "lifestyle" difference. It's a difference in specific details only.

Heterosexual lifestyle is marrying opposite sex and can propagate within the confines of that relationship.

Not necessarily. Not all heterosexual people get married or want to. You can be hetero without forming that relationship.

That is generally what is,meant by lifestyle. Its just an easy word to,use to indicate the profound difference.

A lifestyle is a particular way of living. That is what defines the term "lifestyle". Being attracted to members of the opposite sex is not a lifestyle, nor does it define how you live your life. Same with being attracted to members of the same sex. "Lifestyle" seems to imply that being gay is more about the stereotypes that people attribute to gay people than anything, based on how I see it used most often.

Gay marriage absolutely had to do with legitimizing sin whether the gay,community wants to acknowledge that or not. It also had to do with society as a whole. Society did not recognize it as a legitimate relationship, whether sin was involved or not.

This assumes that the gay people who wanted to form a legally recognized and protected relationship did so because Christianity defines it as sin. The reasons had nothing to do with the fact that you and Christians classify it as sin. That's strikes me as a belief that gays just wanted to stick it in Christianity's eyes. That's quite a complex there.

You also assume that getting "married" is the only form of socially recognized (in your word: legitimate) relationship. That isn't so. It merely wasn't a legally protected relationship, just like any other couple who hasn't gotten married yet.

 

[essentialsaltes]

One thing I've struggled with as I've tried to learn about the legalization of gay marriage in the United States is the idea that gay marriage damages the sanctity of traditional marriage, which is blessed by God. The argument goes that gay marriage is a sin, which aims to excludes God from the union.

The only gay marriage I've attended was in a church, and God was certainly not excluded from the ceremony.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Hello,

One thing I've struggled with as I've tried to learn about the legalization of gay marriage in the United States is the idea that gay marriage damages the sanctity of traditional marriage, which is blessed by God. The argument goes that gay marriage is a sin, which aims to excludes God from the union.

Isn't the same true of heterosexual couples who do not believe in God? Their unbelief (willful or not) could also have the same effect, could it not?

The legalization of same-sex marriage had nothing to do with God or Christianity (see the establishment clause of the Constitution) and everything to do with the 14th amendment to the Constitution (equal protection).

Stop thinking the US is some sort of theocracy. It isn't. The administration of legal marriage is from the state. The marriage license confers certain legal benefits and protections. Again see the 14th amendment, section 1 which reads as follows:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The italicized part above is called the "equal protection" clause of this amendment. It's pretty clear once you get past the smokescreen.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Marriage" these days is more of a secular, civil institution than an exclusively religious one. If you want your marriage to have religious meaning, that's up to you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[rjs330]

Except they can and do. They need a surrogate or sperm from an outside source, just like some heterosexual couples do, but what you are discussing there is not a "lifestyle" difference. It's a difference in specific details only.



Not necessarily. Not all heterosexual people get married or want to. You can be hetero without forming that relationship.



A lifestyle is a particular way of living. That is what defines the term "lifestyle". Being attracted to members of the opposite sex is not a lifestyle, nor does it define how you live your life. Same with being attracted to members of the same sex. "Lifestyle" seems to imply that being gay is more about the stereotypes that people attribute to gay people than anything, based on how I see it used most often.



This assumes that the gay people who wanted to form a legally recognized and protected relationship did so because Christianity defines it as sin. The reasons had nothing to do with the fact that you and Christians classify it as sin. That's strikes me as a belief that gays just wanted to stick it in Christianity's eyes. That's quite a complex there.

You also assume that getting "married" is the only form of socially recognized (in your word: legitimate) relationship. That isn't so. It merely wasn't a legally protected relationship, just like any other couple who hasn't gotten married yet.

Sorry But they cannot propagate inside a marital relationship they are the same sex. Just because a hetero couple can't is not based upon the fact it is impossible because they are the same sex. Its because something is wrong with one if their reproductive abilities. The fact is they still need a man and woman to procreate. Just as God intended.

You're right. Lifestyle was a term indicating indicates everything you do from working to were you live etc. I don't mean it that way. Perhaps a better word can be used. It just seems like "unnatural relationships" seems a little bulky. But if preferred I can use that instead since it is More accurate, but it also comes across as more,harsh. Maybe it doesn't make,any difference.

Just where do you think the ban on homosexual marriages originated? It started with the religious community. It was pervasive throughout society. Society didn't accept it from a foundational standpoint which basis came from the bible.

But I have no doubt that the gay community wasn't singling out Christians to poke them in the eye. I don't feel picked on in any way by this. They just want to,make their relationship accepted and legitimized. I get it. There was no "we're gonna get those christians" in the suits.

Except they can and do. They need a surrogate or sperm from an outside source, just like some heterosexual couples do, but what you are discussing there is not a "lifestyle" difference. It's a difference in specific details only.



Not necessarily. Not all heterosexual people get married or want to. You can be hetero without forming that relationship.



A lifestyle is a particular way of living. That is what defines the term "lifestyle". Being attracted to members of the opposite sex is not a lifestyle, nor does it define how you live your life. Same with being attracted to members of the same sex. "Lifestyle" seems to imply that being gay is more about the stereotypes that people attribute to gay people than anything, based on how I see it used most often.



This assumes that the gay people who wanted to form a legally recognized and protected relationship did so because Christianity defines it as sin. The reasons had nothing to do with the fact that you and Christians classify it as sin. That's strikes me as a belief that gays just wanted to stick it in Christianity's eyes. That's quite a complex there.

You also assume that getting "married" is the only form of socially recognized (in your word: legitimate) relationship. That isn't so. It merely wasn't a legally protected relationship, just like any other couple who hasn't gotten married yet.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk