What is marriage, and why does it preclude homosexuality? (Moved from C,P&E to DOH)

[Tissue]

Marriage is a human, social institution with a precedent in Scripture, but an actual secular strength. The purpose of marriage is, ultimately, for the reproduction of the species, but it is widely held to be a bridge in the gender gap, a means of tempering and perfecting moral attributes in both persons involved, and a means by which two parents (a mother and a father) are provided for a child through birthright.

Marriage, as it exists in the State, is not about love. While there is certainly a romantic attachment in practically every single marital system (which exists, quite literally, in every tribe, society, and culture ever known, except for two or three arguable and murky instances), the ultimate purpose is for the proper rearing of children for the State.

To bring such an institution down to the level of "two people who love each other" is preposterous in the face of the history of marriage, the political nature of the institution, and the ramifications it has upon the persons involved and all of society. My spiritual and Biblical notions removed, homosexual marriage would be destructive to society, as it would mortally wound the institution of marriage, and change the face of interpersonal relationship as we know it.

 

[Lupinus]

All throughout history people have been intolerant of gender and race and sexual orientation.

It has to do with telling the truth about what is sin. It has nothing to do with hate or intolerance of a person. It has everything to do with intolerance of sinful actions.

I'm also intolerant of thiefs, murders, gloaters, gluttons, hateful actions, etc. Take away the sin and theres nothing wrong.

I know some that really really try... and ask for help from God... and they feel so worthless because they always fall short that they end up ending their own lives. But they really try so hard. I mean, really. It just causes more problems.

It isn't about them. If they can't bring themselves to be in a proper relationship that isn't sinful they shouldn't engage in any relationship.

Context people, context.

There is no context, wrong is wrong.

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

One small note about the bible not mentioning any happily married gay couples....they can't have children. The bible mostly talks about important people that produced other people throughout history. Not average Joe's or random happy couples. It traces families and bloodlines important to the biblical history.

And if you think it's a completely private matter, to follow that reasoning through, it's between the couple, IOW the business of no one else... so if I were to privately marry someone, no one should be able to say anything about it. Right?

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

Marriage is a human, social institution with a precedent in Scripture, but an actual secular strength. The purpose of marriage is, ultimately, for the reproduction of the species, but it is widely held to be a bridge in the gender gap, a means of tempering and perfecting moral attributes in both persons involved, and a means by which two parents (a mother and a father) are provided for a child through birthright.

Marriage, as it exists in the State, is not about love. While there is certainly a romantic attachment in practically every single marital system (which exists, quite literally, in every tribe, society, and culture ever known, except for two or three arguable and murky instances), the ultimate purpose is for the proper rearing of children for the State.

To bring such an institution down to the level of "two people who love each other" is preposterous in the face of the history of marriage, the political nature of the institution, and the ramifications it has upon the persons involved and all of society. My spiritual and Biblical notions removed, homosexual marriage would be destructive to society, as it would mortally wound the institution of marriage, and change the face of interpersonal relationship as we know it.

But then, your definition in turn seems to say that, for example, single parents and infertile couples who marry are damaging to the whole point behind marriage.

 

[Tissue]

Single parents ARE damaging to the whole point behind marriage. My mother is a single parent, and I can honestly tell you it is a strain, as opposed to a 'typical', nuclear family.

Infertile couples are exceptions to the rule, not a part of it.

 

[Lupinus]

One small note about the bible not mentioning any happily married gay couples....they can't have children. The bible mostly talks about important people that produced other people throughout history. Not average Joe's or random happy couples. It traces families and bloodlines important to the biblical history.

I dunno. I would think if God intended gay marriage he would have put a few examples into his word, rather then nothing but examples agianst it. Seems a might important.

But then, your definition in turn seems to say that, for example, single parents and infertile couples who marry are damaging to the whole point behind marriage.

Marriage is only partly about children. It is about one man and one woman coming together to be united in the eyes of God.

 

[Tissue]

I'm talking about marriage as a social institution, Lupinus, and that is not an attribute.

 

[WileyCoyote]

One small note about the bible not mentioning any happily married gay couples....they can't have children. The bible mostly talks about important people that produced other people throughout history. Not average Joe's or random happy couples. It traces families and bloodlines important to the biblical history.

And if you think it's a completely private matter, to follow that reasoning through, it's between the couple, IOW the business of no one else... so if I were to privately marry someone, no one should be able to say anything about it. Right?

The Bible doesn't mention any gay marriages, because any homosexual would have been put to death before the marriage. It amazes me how good people are at twisting scriptures to serve their own agendas. What a dishonor you do to gay individuals. Instead of getting them the help they need, you tell them their situation is normal, so they continue to suffer. And then they eventually die and go to hell, because of people like you telling them that it was ok. Who can people turn to for help when faced with a crisis? It seems even Christianity, which used to be a safe haven to shield us from evil, has been infiltrated by evil from within. It is truly sickening. I'm going to reveal something to you that you don't know. I have a gay brother. I love him dearly. But I am convinced what he is doing is wrong and sinful. And if he dies and goes to hell because of people like you telling him it was ok to be gay, then I will go to hell too, because I'll never bring myself to forgive someone who helped send him to hell.

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

The Bible doesn't mention any gay marriages, because any homosexual would have been put to death before the marriage. It amazes me how good people are at twisting scriptures to serve their own agendas. What a dishonor you do to gay individuals. Instead of getting them the help they need, you tell them their situation is normal, so they continue to suffer. And then they eventually die and go to hell, because of people like you telling them that it was ok. Who can people turn to for help when faced with a crisis? It seems even Christianity, which used to be a safe haven to shield us from evil, has been infiltrated by evil from within. It is truly sickening. I'm going to reveal something to you that you don't know. I have a gay brother. I love him dearly. But I am convinced what he is doing is wrong and sinful. And if he dies and goes to hell because of people like you telling him it was ok to be gay, then I will go to hell too, because I'll never bring myself to forgive someone who helped send him to hell.

There's more than one side to a coin http://christianforums.com/t6682775-a-slightly-different-angle.html

And Lupinus...to say the bible is God's infallible, literal, accurate, only and final word on anything and everything, is an opinion I have a really hard time accepting. I believe God guides and talks to his people through it. It has also been written and influenced and translated by man, with all that entails.

One cannot simply lift out ready answers to all life's questions from the bible. Things have to be thought through and discussed with God and each other. Afterall, aren't we in a relationship with Him through Jesus Christ? Do we not have the Holy Spirit within us?

 

[Lupinus]

Yes, and the bible is Gods word.

You can't discount it's words because you don't like them or think they are irrelavant.

Man didn't author the bible.

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

Yes, and the bible is Gods word.

You can't discount it's words because you don't like them or think they are irrelavant.

Man didn't author the bible.

I have done no such thing. Quote me, if you can, stating outright that any passage from the bible is to be ignored because I don't like what it says.

If marriage, being a union between two people in God's eyes, as a social tool to provide structure, support, stability and easy government, and prevent all the psychological and physiological problems associated with promiscuity, is available as an option to heterosexuals, why is it not to homosexuals? Why is it okay for hetero's to have a partner in marriage, but not for homo's going through temptation and lust also?

 

[Tissue]

However, Bible WAS authored for humanity in a specific cultural context, evident by the development of command and action from the OT to the NT.

 

[Tissue]

Because heterosexuality produces offspring. The State attempts to keep its citizens happen, but actual social institutions have a purpose, and the purpose of marriage is to reproduce. Just because some heterosexual partners choose not to have children, or cannot have children, does not change the ultimate goal of the institution.

Homosexuals are completely incapable of having legitimate offspring, and thus, do not fall within the bounds of marriage as an institution.

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

This may just be me being difficult, but bear with me:

Say a male and a female marry and have a child. This marriage is ended, either through death or divorce. The surviving parent then meets another partner and remarries; an ideal situation, assuming marriage is there for the stable raising of offspring.

Change it slightly, and add the fact that the new partner is of the same sex; the couple is homosexual, and also has a legitimately acquired progeny from one of the partners. Should they be denied marriage still?

(On the note of "could this really happen", I think it could; there's plenty of people who force themselves into a heterosexual relationship, only to later come to accept that they are homosexual)

 

[Anglian]

That's a very interesting argument. It seems I must research the validity of the Catholic Church's claim to teach with Jesus' authority. Simply because Jesus tells Peter that His Church will be built upon him doesn't mean that to follow the Church is to follow Jesus ...

Anyway, for the second time I ask, apart from the possible condemnation of homosexual sex, is there any other reason marriage precludes homosexuals? The Catholic Church states that in marriage we are meant to produce children, but I do not see why we may not simply adopt them.

Dear AtheriusLamia,

As I say, I am not personally unsympathetic to the viewpoint you suggest in your second paragraph. The problem comes in the first paragraph. The Catholic Church does hold that it speaks with the authority of Christ Himself; I am sure your priest will confirm that.

Protestants and non-Catholics are, of course, free to dissent, but the Catholic Church holds that a marriage can be between a man and a woman only.

However much you and I may argue the case for a different point of view, we have to accept what the Church teaches - or ship out. That does not, of course, mean that we cannot argue another way of seeing these things; but it does mean we cannot claim that just because we might interpret scripture in a different way, we are correct.

It can be a hard one for those of us brought up in the West. But on the one hand there is the tradition of the Church which is the body of Christ (as the Catholic Church holds) and which, as the inheritor of St. Peter's authority has the power to bind and loose, which speaks as it has always spoken; and on the other hand there is you, me and those who may think as we do. Who gave us authority?

Those Protestants for whom private judgement is paramount can argue from sola scriptura and come up with arguments that satisfy the authority by which they speak; but for Catholics and Copts, Tradition is part of the equation, and is the medium through which the interpretation of Scripture takes place.

We, of course, may be right; but when I come to put my flickering candle against the illumination of God's Church, I feel an urge to silence - which I shall now follow.

With peace,

Anglian

 

[Lupinus]

If marriage, being a union between two people in God's eyes, as a social tool to provide structure, support, stability and easy government, and prevent all the psychological and physiological problems associated with promiscuity, is available as an option to heterosexuals, why is it not to homosexuals?

Because as has been demonstrated homosexuality is sinful.

I'll say that marriage is not about having kids and not get involved in that branch of the debate further at this point. But it still bares no relavence to the debate as homosexuality is still sinful.

 

[Tissue]

I'll say that marriage is not about having kids and not get involved in that branch of the debate further at this point. But it still bares no relavence to the debate as homosexuality is still sinful.

Forgive me, but I think it quite likely that you know nothing of the history of marriage, the nature of it in multiple cultures, or its impact on political systems according to many political thinkers. In other words, I kinda know what I'm talking about. The Bible doesn't speak on marriage as an institution, and if that's your expertise, then you really have no business making a claim one way or another on marriage in a political sense.

Not trying to be snarky.

 

[Lupinus]

I know enough. I'm just not interested in this debate from a cultural or political view but a religious one.

I just prefer not to debate it in the way you refer to it.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

What other definition do you want?

I want a definition; there doesn't appear to be any in the Bible.

Umm, I think you will find that there are a lot of conservatives who would support a legal union between homosexuals. I personally find something along those lines to be agreeable as I think that they should be subject to the same protections under the law, and same tax penalties as those that are married have. However, what you see as conservatives trying to force our definition of marriage down everyone else's throats, I see as Christians clearly defending the institution of marriage that has been under attack in this country since the 60's. The fact that marriage and the family unit has been weakened by the secular progressive agenda in this country is not debatable. It is fact.

No, you see, two different things are being called "marriage." There is the marital contract that bestows socioeconomic sanctions, and the union God forms between two people.

What you say has been "under attack" is merely the former: everyone has a right to socioeconomic sanctions that are currently, in twenty-six states, being denied to homosexuals.

The problem is that we have not made a distinction between Christian marriage and what is still being called "marriage" in the government ... I'll just put my argument about this online, rather than retype it all here, and give you a link once I've done so.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Quick question. Do you have any evidence in the Bible where two people of the same sex married? If it was so accepted by God, it would have been happening at an alarming rate, and recorded in the Bible as acceptable. All you've managed to do is explain away the verses that says homosexuality is NOT ok. You have not offered ONE verse that says it is ok. If you can find me such a verse, then I will respect homosexuality and gay marriages.

I actually started that a while ago; you are the second to ask it of me. See http://www.danielbridges.info/pages/gays.shtml#supevi