What about Mark 10?

[AetheriusLamia]

The original post may be found at Gaia Online.

This morning I again read Mark 10.1-9, where Jesus addresses the issue of divorce:

He set out from there and went into the district of Judea (and) across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around him and, as was his custom, he again taught them.
The Pharisees approached and asked, "Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?" They were testing him.
He said to them in reply, "What did Moses command you?"
They replied, "Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her."
But Jesus told them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment.
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife),
and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

Footnote:

[2-9] In the dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees on the subject of divorce, Jesus declares that the law of Moses permitted divorce (Deut 24:1) only because of the hardness of your hearts (Mark 10:4-5). In citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 Jesus proclaims permanence to be the divine intent from the beginning concerning human marriage (Mark 10:6-8). He reaffirms this with the declaration that what God has joined together, no human being must separate (Mark 10:9). See further the notes on Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-9.

(Hyperlinks to those verses are provided in the footnote at the provided website.)

I had to read the following several times:

But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife),
and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.

I used to argue, "Of course, when asked about heterosexual divorce, he would discuss heterosexual marriage," and argue that this passage didn't necessarily exclude homosexuals from marriage, but rather that Jesus didn't mention homosexuals simply because he wasn't asked about them. (If discussing the best way to harvest a field of tomatos, you wouldn't necessarily discuss a field of potatos.) I had to read this part several times:

But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife),
and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Jesus quotes the Jews' creation story, and his point is quite clear: God intentionally made us male and female, and the union of man and woman as one flesh is a direct consequence of being made male and female ... and this is marriage, a direct result of God's plan and actions. Jesus makes no distinction between marriage and heterosexual marriage because there is none to be made. I am not arguing from silence that there is no homosexual marriage because Jesus didn't mention homosexuals. I am saying, very simply, that men have always unioned with women; we have always had this institution of marriage, and the idea that homosexuals are being denied it is new.

After reading that chapter, it seemed quite clear what the order of things was meant to be. Men were meant to union with women and bring children into the world; this is called marriage, and a family. (This morning I again briefly mourned that God didn't bless me with a womb as a woman, but then realized that more than half the humans on this planet had them, that men are needed, and that I was only considering half of the deal.)

I then thought, "Well, what's to stop me from unioning myself with a man?" The answer appears to be, nothing. Only this union is not marriage; it is instead a legal or civil union. Furthermore, I cannot become one flesh with him, because we lack the sexual complementary... I must think more about what this truly means; I do not claim to completely understand it yet. There seems to be some kind of spiritual and physical connection between men and women. God has made the physical complements more obvious, and we ourselves discover the emotional complements ... At this point I must refrain from further speculation; at this point I should read John Paul II's Theology of the Body, and investigate what he has to say about sexuality and marriage. Surely he has more insight than I.

My next question was, "And what's to stop me from raising children with this guy?" This question was the hardest of all to answer, and I currently don't think I'm capable of answering it satisfactorily ... For one, I am not sure that God intended for us to be homosexuals; the argument that I was not meant to take it up the butt or in the mouth has an air of validity to it. (For one, neither cavity seems to be of the proper shape or design.) And is chaste love of another man truly "homosexual"? I do not think so; we were meant to love one another.

In this light the Catechism makes more sense when it says:

[Homosexual actions] are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.

Your thoughts? Do you have a counterargument, or corrections to my logic?

 

[KCKID]

The original post may be found at Gaia Online.

This morning I again read Mark 10.1-9, where Jesus addresses the issue of divorce:
Footnote: (Hyperlinks to those verses are provided in the footnote at the provided website.)

I had to read the following several times:
I used to argue, "Of course, when asked about heterosexual divorce, he would discuss heterosexual marriage," and argue that this passage didn't necessarily exclude homosexuals from marriage, but rather that Jesus didn't mention homosexuals simply because he wasn't asked about them. (If discussing the best way to harvest a field of tomatos, you wouldn't necessarily discuss a field of potatos.) I had to read this part several times: Jesus quotes the Jews' creation story, and his point is quite clear: God intentionally made us male and female, and the union of man and woman as one flesh is a direct consequence of being made male and female ... and this is marriage, a direct result of God's plan and actions. Jesus makes no distinction between marriage and heterosexual marriage because there is none to be made. I am not arguing from silence that there is no homosexual marriage because Jesus didn't mention homosexuals. I am saying, very simply, that men have always unioned with women; we have always had this institution of marriage, and the idea that homosexuals are being denied it is new.

After reading that chapter, it seemed quite clear what the order of things was meant to be. Men were meant to union with women and bring children into the world; this is called marriage, and a family. (This morning I again briefly mourned that God didn't bless me with a womb as a woman, but then realized that more than half the humans on this planet had them, that men are needed, and that I was only considering half of the deal.)

I then thought, "Well, what's to stop me from unioning myself with a man?" The answer appears to be, nothing. Only this union is not marriage; it is instead a legal or civil union. Furthermore, I cannot become one flesh with him, because we lack the sexual complementary... I must think more about what this truly means; I do not claim to completely understand it yet. There seems to be some kind of spiritual and physical connection between men and women. God has made the physical complements more obvious, and we ourselves discover the emotional complements ... At this point I must refrain from further speculation; at this point I should read John Paul II's Theology of the Body, and investigate what he has to say about sexuality and marriage. Surely he has more insight than I.

My next question was, "And what's to stop me from raising children with this guy?" This question was the hardest of all to answer, and I currently don't think I'm capable of answering it satisfactorily ... For one, I am not sure that God intended for us to be homosexuals; the argument that I was not meant to take it up the butt or in the mouth has an air of validity to it. (For one, neither cavity seems to be of the proper shape or design.) And is chaste love of another man truly "homosexual"? I do not think so; we were meant to love one another.

In this light the Catechism makes more sense when it says: Your thoughts? Do you have a counterargument, or corrections to my logic?

All of the above are mere words. They don't explain WHY someone is 'gay' and they only add more of a burden on those who wish that they were not. At the end of the day when all of the scriptures have been presented and scrutinized a 'gay' person is still a 'gay' person. Nothing has changed. Their burden - if indeed their sexuality IS a burden to them - is still a burden. They are also sexual beings who should not have celibacy forced on to them. Some - even many - don't care for the promiscuous scene and so they seek a committed relationship with someone they care for. Again, at the end of the day the print from an ancient book will NOT change what IS. The quoting of this scripture or that scripture in regard to the issues that homosexuals might face is POINTLESS.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

KC, you're missing my point. You're right, I've said nothing about homosexuality here; this thread is about the definition of marriage, and whether it's something homosexuals can actually have.

they only add more of a burden on those who wish that they were not.

Life is not easy.

At the end of the day when all of the scriptures have been presented and scrutinized a 'gay' person is still a 'gay' person.

Not true. Examination of the scriptures, prayer, and the holy spirit may reveal that a "gay" person is actually a heterosexual with homosexual problems. It is possible to learn from reading. However, I have not yet been able to come to that conclusion, after a year of studying and praying.

They are also sexual beings who should not have celibacy forced on to them.

What a huge assumption! First of all, nothing is really "forced" on anyone: We have free will. Secondly, what about Matthew 19.10-12?

[His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, [8] but only those to whom that is granted.
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage [9] for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

Footnotes:

8 [11] [This] word: probably the disciples' "it is better not to marry" (Matthew 19:10). Jesus agrees but says that celibacy is not for all but only for those to whom that is granted by God.

9 [12] Incapable of marriage: literally, "eunuchs." Three classes are mentioned, eunuchs from birth, eunuchs by castration, and those who have voluntarily renounced marriage (literally, "have made themselves eunuchs") for the sake of the kingdom, i.e., to devote themselves entirely to its service. Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry, since that suits better the optional nature of the decision: whoever can . . . ought to accept it.

Certain parts have been bolded for emphasis. It is possible that "eunuchs from birth," "those who have been born so," may include those lacking heterosexual attractions.

 

[Phinehas2]

Very good post Atheriuslamia.
The key to this is that in the begginning God made male and female, not heterosexual or homosexual. Male and female describes the sex of the person according to their sexual organs (hermaphrodites etc accepted) Heterosexual and homosexual describes sexual attraction/desires and are nothing to do with the physical sex of the person. The Genesis 2 passages that Jesus cites is in the beggining God made them male and female for this reason/thus 'ken' a man shall leave his father and mother and unite with his wife.
KCKID says that when all the scriptures have been presented a gay person is still a gay person, but this merely denies the scriptures and cant even be supported by a consensus of scientific agreement or the dictionary definition.
One cant debate this if two worldviews have entirely different starting points, but there is a basic underlying clue. Without a male and female uniting there could not even be a gay person. Indeed a man cannot leave his father and father, or mother and mother in the first place.
And yes as Jesus refers to the Bride and Bridegroom as husband and wife there is also a spiritual mystery of the union here.

 

[tulc]

hmmm does that mean a man has to live with his father and mother until he gets married? That's also something you could take from that Scripture.
tulc(just curious)

 

[lincolngreen50]

hmmm does that mean a man has to live with his father and mother until he gets married? That's also something you could take from that Scripture.
tulc(just curious)

Funny you should bring this up tulc.Many single men and women are choosing to stay with their parents longer due to the high cost of housing nowadays.
Sensible move and makes common sense.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Come on, guys ... Surely I haven't found the answer; what is the counterargument to this, hm?

To clarify my position on gay marriage: I believe marriage is a religious idea, and I believe in the separation of church and state. Thus marriage has no place in our legal system. (The California ruling on gay marriage is thus another step in the wrong direction. The state can say nothing about marriage -- what about Mormons and polygamy? Their religious rights are being infringed upon, if the state defines marriage!) Heterosexual couples should instead receive nothing but civil unions from our legal system, and then if they desire marriage, they take it to their local church.

The same hold true for homosexuals. They are, by law, entitled to civil unions, unless there is a valid reason that gays shouldn't raise children. And if they want marriage, then they as well would take it to their local churches (thus my questioning whether marriage is inclusive of homosexuality, by its definition.)

 

[IamRedeemed]

Excellent post. I think you are very courageous to have opened yourself up this way and shared some of the things here that you did.
I think some people here missed some of what you said, not realizing where you started from. But God opened your eyes and the truth became evident to you this morning. I believe you are sincere in your servantship to the Lord and have sought Him and He answered you, with the living powerful Word, that cut right down to the heart of the matter and spoke God's wisdom to your heart, and because like many of us, who have overcome struggles in the past with various temptations that the world has to offer, your ears and heart are inclined to Him, you heard Him and the truth was made manifest to you. Praise the Lord!

God bless you!

The original post may be found at Gaia Online.

This morning I again read Mark 10.1-9, where Jesus addresses the issue of divorce:
Footnote: (Hyperlinks to those verses are provided in the footnote at the provided website.)

I had to read the following several times:
I used to argue, "Of course, when asked about heterosexual divorce, he would discuss heterosexual marriage," and argue that this passage didn't necessarily exclude homosexuals from marriage, but rather that Jesus didn't mention homosexuals simply because he wasn't asked about them. (If discussing the best way to harvest a field of tomatos, you wouldn't necessarily discuss a field of potatos.) I had to read this part several times: Jesus quotes the Jews' creation story, and his point is quite clear: God intentionally made us male and female, and the union of man and woman as one flesh is a direct consequence of being made male and female ... and this is marriage, a direct result of God's plan and actions. Jesus makes no distinction between marriage and heterosexual marriage because there is none to be made. I am not arguing from silence that there is no homosexual marriage because Jesus didn't mention homosexuals. I am saying, very simply, that men have always unioned with women; we have always had this institution of marriage, and the idea that homosexuals are being denied it is new.

After reading that chapter, it seemed quite clear what the order of things was meant to be. Men were meant to union with women and bring children into the world; this is called marriage, and a family. (This morning I again briefly mourned that God didn't bless me with a womb as a woman, but then realized that more than half the humans on this planet had them, that men are needed, and that I was only considering half of the deal.)

I then thought, "Well, what's to stop me from unioning myself with a man?" The answer appears to be, nothing. Only this union is not marriage; it is instead a legal or civil union. Furthermore, I cannot become one flesh with him, because we lack the sexual complementary... I must think more about what this truly means; I do not claim to completely understand it yet. There seems to be some kind of spiritual and physical connection between men and women. God has made the physical complements more obvious, and we ourselves discover the emotional complements ... At this point I must refrain from further speculation; at this point I should read John Paul II's Theology of the Body, and investigate what he has to say about sexuality and marriage. Surely he has more insight than I.

My next question was, "And what's to stop me from raising children with this guy?" This question was the hardest of all to answer, and I currently don't think I'm capable of answering it satisfactorily ... For one, I am not sure that God intended for us to be homosexuals; the argument that I was not meant to take it up the butt or in the mouth has an air of validity to it. (For one, neither cavity seems to be of the proper shape or design.) And is chaste love of another man truly "homosexual"? I do not think so; we were meant to love one another.

In this light the Catechism makes more sense when it says: Your thoughts? Do you have a counterargument, or corrections to my logic?

 

[Brieuse]

Funny you should bring this up tulc.Many single men and women are choosing to stay with their parents longer due to the high cost of housing nowadays.
Sensible move and makes common sense.

Hell no. I couldn't get out of the house fast enough.

 

[Gishin]

Because there are more marriages than strictly christian marriages. And there are legal marriages in courtrooms. By the legal definition, gays should be able to be married to each other. By the spiritual definition, that is up to them and their church or lack thereof.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Because there are more marriages than strictly christian marriages. And there are legal marriages in courtrooms. By the legal definition, gays should be able to be married to each other. By the spiritual definition, that is up to them and their church or lack thereof.

Allow me to explain what's going through my mind:

You have the marital contract, the legalities associated with "marriage." You then have marriage, which is where the God of Abraham unites a man and woman as one flesh. Over time, marriage became entangled into our legal system, thus we see courtroom proceedings involving marital contracts erroneously called "marriage." I partially blame the Roman Catholic Church, when it became involved in politics. We see the word 'marriage' arising mid 13th century:

[Origin: 1250&#8211;1300; ME mariage < OF, equiv. to mari(er) to marry1 + -age -age]

I believe the Roman Catholic Church was very influential during this time, yes? By the time Protestantism emerged in the 16th century, marriage had already become entangled in our legal system. But make no mistake, you cannot properly call the legal proceedings that became entangled with marriage "marriage."

The unions of other cultures, be it ancient Egyptian or African, may involve the God of Abraham, they may not. It is erroneous to look at them, see some similarities, and assume they are the same, and call them "marriage."

Are these points clear? Can you show me where I have made any mistakes? In short, we are calling the civil unions of many different cultures, including our own, "marriage," when they are not necessarily so, or in some cases, specifically not.

Futhermore, we now have homosexuals -- or heterosexuals with homosexual problems, whichever it turns out to be -- desiring these legal civil unions, but they have only ever heard them called "marriage" during their lifetimes, so that's what they think it is. And then you also have people all in an uproar over these civil unions, because they also think they're 'marriage' ...

So we need a complete separation of marriage from our legal system. Our government needs to call them what they actually are -- they are civil unions -- and leave marriage to our local churches.

 

[Gishin]

I can agree with that.

But imagine the outcry if the government said that for all legal purposes, all government marriages are civil unions. Christians would be outraged at the "downgrade" of their marriage.

Personally, I don't see why we can't use the same word, it's overly complicated and arrogant to say that only marriages in churches with an Abrahamic God are actual marriages. What about the millions of pagans, buddhists, shinto, animist, and countless other religions with their own kind of marriage?

 

[AetheriusLamia]

imagine the outcry if the government said that for all legal purposes, all government marriages are civil unions. Christians would be outraged at the "downgrade" of their marriage.

Well, people en masse are stupid. That doesn't change what needs to be done.

Personally, I don't see why we can't use the same word,

Can you correctly call a car a truck? Nope. Can you refer to a blue jay as a bluebird? Nope.

it's overly complicated and arrogant to say that only marriages in churches with an Abrahamic God are actual marriages.

It's no more arrogant or complicated than saying a blue jay is not a bluebird.

What about the millions of pagans, buddhists, shinto, animist, and countless other religions with their own kind of marriage?

You mean "their own kind of union." We would call them what they should be called. Does a Japanese couple suddenly jump into English when they refer to their union? I imagine they have their own word for it, in their own culture.

When speaking of the second Pillar of Islam, for example, we do not call each obligation a prayer, we call each a salah, because that it what it is.

It is simply a matter of choosing the right word. Sadly, Americans have become lazy and sloppy, and these poor habits need to be corrected. We make a joke of not understanding the distinction between who and whom, but it only testifies to the poor job our government has done with teaching our children (and strongly suggests that we carry the responsibility of teaching our children ourselves, rather than handing over more power and money to the government.)

 

[tulc]

Funny you should bring this up tulc.Many single men and women are choosing to stay with their parents longer due to the high cost of housing nowadays. (emph. added)

Ahhh! so there are things we can choose to obey or not obey in the Bible?
tulc(thanks for clarifying)

 

[tulc]

Allow me to explain what's going through my mind:

You have the marital contract, the legalities associated with "marriage." You then have marriage, which is where the God of Abraham unites a man and woman as one flesh. Over time, marriage became entangled into our legal system, thus we see courtroom proceedings involving marital contracts erroneously called "marriage." I partially blame the Roman Catholic Church, when it became involved in politics. We see the word 'marriage' arising mid 13th century:
I believe the Roman Catholic Church was very influential during this time, yes? By the time Protestantism emerged in the 16th century, marriage had already become entangled in our legal system. But make no mistake, you cannot properly call the legal proceedings that became entangled with marriage "marriage."

The unions of other cultures, be it ancient Egyptian or African, may involve the God of Abraham, they may not. It is erroneous to look at them, see some similarities, and assume they are the same, and call them "marriage."

Are these points clear? Can you show me where I have made any mistakes? In short, we are calling the civil unions of many different cultures, including our own, "marriage," when they are not necessarily so, or in some cases, specifically not.

Futhermore, we now have homosexuals -- or heterosexuals with homosexual problems, whichever it turns out to be -- desiring these legal civil unions, but they have only ever heard them called "marriage" during their lifetimes, so that's what they think it is. And then you also have people all in an uproar over these civil unions, because they also think they're 'marriage' ...

So we need a complete separation of marriage from our legal system. Our government needs to call them what they actually are -- they are civil unions -- and leave marriage to our local churches.

So only certain groups in our society have a true understanding of what a "marriage" is and the rest of the US needs to accept their definition as the only true one?
tulc(I'm also fairly certain returning to a pre 13th century understanding of the word "marriage" is going to be a bit problematic)

 

[BreadAlone]

Ahhh! so there are things we can choose to obey or not obey in the Bible?
tulc(thanks for clarifying)

The Scriptures are not saying that one must stay with their parents. YOU are adding what is not there.

 

[LightHorseman]

The Bible says lots of things we no longer feel obliged to follow

 

[AetheriusLamia]

So only certain groups in our society have a true understanding of what a "marriage" is and the rest of the US needs to accept their definition as the only true one?

Basically.

I'm also fairly certain returning to a pre 13th century understanding of the word "marriage" is going to be a bit problematic

That's dangerously close to a straw man argument. If you wish to summarize my solution in one sentence: I'm saying we accept the definition of marriage upon which I've expounded -- it is not new, nor has it been recently forgotten -- and replace "marriage" with "civil union" in our legal and educational institutions... except, of course, where a better word is applicable. (If discussing Shinto unions, and they have specific ideas and words attached, it would be prudent to use them.)

The biggest challenge to this solution, obviously, is that people don't wish to acknowledge that marriage is a religious word, and there is such a disdain for religion today that people would not want to refine their vocabulary even if it is.

Am I right about the history of the word marriage? I don't know; it's largely speculation: I haven't researched the issue much at all, and don't really care to. I'd rather argue about other things ...

I suppose you have raised a more important question: Does it matter, what we call things?

 

[LightHorseman]

Am I right about the history of marriage? I don't know; it's largely speculation: I haven't researched the issue much at all, and don't really care to. I'd rather argue about other things ...

Seems kinda... hubristic... to admit you havn't studied the subject yet you assume your own personal definition is the correct one, the standard to which all others should agree.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

I edited that post; be sure you read it again ... And no, I have studied what the Bible has to say about it. You speak as if I pulled these ideas out of thin air.