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

[davedjy]

... and, you guys ... please create a new thread in the homosexuality board and continue this debate there, if it no longer pertains to marriage. Or is it acceptable at this website for threads to go off-topic?

No, and it shouldn't, it isn't fair to you or the other posters, which is why I told Mattlock I will not respond to anymore of his posts, but will do so in the homosexuality subforum.

 

[mattlock73]

WHERE IS THE FEMALE - FEMALE VIOLATION?
please do explain that away, because that is a faulty point you made.
The context I brought shows that it isn't the sex act, but the ceremony that is the sin. The historical context backs the ceremonial lexicon, as well as the reason why female-female isn't mentioned.

I did not try to explain anything away. I said I don't know, nor do I feel it is necessary because it IS dealt with elsewhere.

The death penalty WAS given for that offense, you clearly aren't familiar with old Jewish law:

LOL, I thought we were discussing the Bible's view? Now, I do not know much about the Talmud, but I do know it's not part of the Bible, but a record of rabbinical discussions on the Torah. It may be based on the Bible, much like the Roman Catechism, but I don't subscribe to that either. Let's try to stay on task, shall we?

Being cut off from your people, also was another way of being put to death.

umm, no. The separation was not permanent, to compare it to being stoned is absurd.

Regardless, it is ridiculous to make any current day law claim based upon the nature of the punishment back in those days.
Even by today's standards, if someone was cut off in a way that wasn't by death, it is absolutely RIDICULOUS, so why use any of these laws as a current day example?

Because you keep saying something to the effect of "meh, it's just a ceremonial restriction, it's not that serious." I am simply saying that it was pretty darn serious if you were going to get stoned over it.

The Bible does not mention gay marriage, nor does it talk about a monogamous same sex relationship. Appeal to silence.

You have yet to prove the context is in that of monogamous, same sex relationships, or relationships at all.

I hear that statement a lot from Fundamentalists that "His Word is clear", yet you haven't prove that His Word is clear in the relationships we speak of, or of a sexual orientation.

You don't see the proof because you don't want to see it. That's fine. I have nothing against you personally, it's just that we disagree on the interpretation of these scripture references.

Disprove the link - disprove the information from Religious Tolerance, don't just say something. I have seen the translation of masturbators, and it WAS translated that way. So go on and disprove the information on the link. You haven't disproved it, and saying "the link is hardly better", does not disprove my source.

I didn't say it was disproved, but it obviously has an agenda. It presented one side of the argument as solid fact, without mentioning any opposing viewpoints at all or citing any sources other than the 5 or 6 other agenda driven books it had drawn from.

Regardless of whether the word existed, OR if he made it up, the translation accuracy is not there due to the word being pretty obscure.

Davedy, you are the one who said the word didn't exist. I don't disagree with you that has been some argument over the meaning of the word, the link I posted shows that there has been and continues to be.

I don't see how that disproves that it is on a list of economic sins, or the relevance of what you are saying in context with what I'm saying.

*sigh* I never said it disproved it was used that way. What I said was that there are proofs that not all early church fathers translated this word to mean masturbaters.

All that link ultimately amounts to is a supposed rebuttal to Boswell's claim.

Yes, it is written from that viewpoint, but it goes on to explain how the word is translated correctly to mean homosexual. I assume you didn't get that far.

A red herring? that seems to be your new favorite word, and you are throwing it around on baseless claim.You brought up this whole natural order discussion, and yet it doesn't really hold water. Homosexuality is shown in over 450 vertebrate species. Only a minority of the population has ever been gay, bi, or lesbian, so what is your point with that? obviously not everyone is all one way, hence reproduction occurs.

Not baseless. Quite accurate. Again, it was you who brought up natural a couple of posts ago, and I quote "Using the two Greek phrases that are used in Romans 1...phusis and phusikos..." We don't use the exception to the rule when declaring the 'nature of' something, we use the rule of thumb with the understanding that there are exceptions. The nature of man is sinfulness, although Christ is the exception. See what I mean? The only defense you have here is to say that the nature, that Paul was referring to, is their own personal proclivities. There is no evidence that is what he meant.

However, Paul is using the same group, and brings them to the point where they are full of total depravity as a result of their idol worship. There isn't any proof it has anything to do with homosexual behavior, or that this is what Paul is condemning in the passage.

I agree, if you throw out those pesky verses numbered 26 and 27. They tend to throw kind of a big monkey-wrench in the whole theory.

If you want to continue this, I will, but do it over in the homosexuality sub-forum, this is in the wrong one.

I have no desire to continue this conversation really. I have provided my proofs and you have provided yours. We aren't going to change each other's minds about anything, and I for one, do not enjoy argument for the sake of argument or rehashing the same ground over and over again.

I agree it's in the wrong forum, it was suggested to the author to move it a couple of times, he said it was where it belonged.

Let's just agree to disagree respectfully and leave it at that. If you ask me whether I think homosexuality is a sin, I would say yes, based not on animosity or emotional feelings, but on what the Word says. Like I said, I don't claim gay people are evil, or condemn them to hell or even claim (like some) that I know that God will send them to hell. That's not my job (thank God), nor would I ever want it to be. We are all sinners, and I am no exception. There is no weighing of sins in God's eyes so my sins are no better nor worse than a homosexual or murderer or anyone else. The question of translations came into play a couple of pages ago and that is what Aetherius and I got going on. That was it.

Thanks for keeping things relatively civil, and for anything I might have said that offended you, I apologize.

 

[mattlock73]

mattlock, thanks for the post (near the top of p 15) ... i like the idea of this prayer thing, and people thinking of me, although that's probably just my ego ... makes me feel loved. <3 lol

... and, you guys ... please create a new thread in the homosexuality board and continue the debate about the clobber passages there, if it no longer pertains to marriage. Or is it acceptable at this website for threads to go off-topic? I'd like us to discuss things tangent to marriage ... It's 1 am and I'm tired; I suppose homosexuality is related to marriage between gays, right? ... oh well. I just don't want to see this thread wind up in the Homosexuality board, because that's not what it was intended for. I really wanted this thread to discuss aspects of marriage: how it evolved, who coined the word, whether it is proper for atheists to be "married" by courts, if polygamists sin, etc. To be fair to myself, though, I think in the OP I only asked about gays marrying.

I agree as well, I really did not intend for it to go down this rabbit hole either and respectfully will bow out of any further discussion here.

 

[sunlover1]

sunlover, thanks for the post (at the top of p 15); i appreciate it.

Thanks, it's not fun to look back at that time.

mattlock, thanks for the post (near the top of p 15) ... i like the idea of this prayer thing, and people thinking of me, although that's probably just my ego ... makes me feel loved. <3 lol

... and, you guys ... please create a new thread in the homosexuality board and continue the debate about the clobber passages there, if it no longer pertains to marriage. Or is it acceptable at this website for threads to go off-topic? I'd like us to discuss things tangent to marriage ... It's 1 am and I'm tired; I suppose homosexuality is related to marriage between gays, right? ... oh well. I just don't want to see this thread wind up in the Homosexuality board, because that's not what it was intended for. I really wanted this thread to discuss aspects of marriage: how it evolved, who coined the word, whether it is proper for atheists to be "married" by courts, if polygamists sin, etc. To be fair to myself, though, I think in the OP I only asked about gays marrying.

Sorry for participating in the rabbit trail.
I too am interested in how marriage
evolved, and what it consists of, and
what exactly God has to say about it.

But yeah, it is very difficult not to "go
there" when discussing this subject.

Get some rest.
Oh, and speaking of love.

17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God!
how great is the sum of them!
18 If I should count them,
they are more in number than the sand:

WOW!
http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=42531032#_ftnref1

 

[davedjy]

LOL, I thought we were discussing the Bible's view? Now, I do not know much about the Talmud, but I do know it's not part of the Bible, but a record of rabbinical discussions on the Torah. It may be based on the Bible, much like the Roman Catechism, but I don't subscribe to that either. Let's try to stay on task, shall we?

I'm not gonna get into the whole thing, since this has gone off, but I want to respond to this one thing...

Stay on task? I presented proof of the Jewish law, which IS based upon the Bible, and in that situation it was punishable by death. Your only point was to try to make homosexuality a bigger punishment, which you failed to do. You tried to prove that by something being punishable by death, it was somehow a bigger sin, yet they were both punishable by death under the Jewish law.


Btw, there isn't any "monkey wrench"...as said, about Phusis and Phusikos, you ARE limited to the definitions of those words, which are an individual's natural disposition and natural instincts. Do you have any proof these words mean anything else?

 

[Anglian]

Dear AtheriusLamia,

I'm glad you spoke to your priest.

I mean no disrespect to our Protestant brothers and sisters here when I say that they can quote different meanings to different parts of scripture almost forever; but that is not the way the Catholic Church proceeds. Of course our teaching must be supported by Scripture, but the teaching of the Church down the ages also has authority, and the Church has spoken very clearly here. Unfortunately for you (and for those who think as I do) the voice of the Church makes it plain we are, in its eyes, wrong.

Your priest spoke correctly. Homosexual orientation is not a sin; acting on that orientation is. Heterosexual attraction to a woman is not sinful - but acting on it is when you are not married to that woman.

But you long ago pointed out here the central difference between the active homosexual, the adulterer and the fornicator; the last two can either stay faithful to their wife/husband, or marry one; the homosexual cannot and is therefore, as things stand, called to lifelong celibacy.

The Church does not recognise or bless same-sex unions or recognise them as marriages. So, although all your arguments would stand if the Church allowed such unions, they fall because it does not.

Should you decide to become actively involved in a homosexual relationship then you face a dilemma. If you say nothing you can go to Church and take communion, even though you will be in a state of sin; or you can tell your priest who will have to bar you from communion.

It is precisely this sort of situation which makes some of us argue for a change. A faithful and honest Catholic who tells his priest is barred; one who doe not care to tell his priest is not - even though he is in a state of sin. Make sense to anyone?

That said, as I have concluded before, rather sadly, the Church has, and dies, pronounce against us.

In peace,

Anglian

 

[Angel4Truth]

As far as I understand it, the Bible does not define marriage. Rather, it seems the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church decided what marriage should be, and then the powerful groups of Protestants, when they broke off, found no problem with their ideas.

So now, reading the Bible with an open mind, temporarily suspending what I have been told to think while so doing, I have not found sufficient discourse in the Bible about marriage that justify barring it from homosexuals, especially as it is the only venue for releasing sexual tension, as Paul recommends for those who cannot remain abstinent.

In fact, I only recall reading two passages specifically about marriage. The first appears at Genesis 2.22-24. But that is not a definition of marriage, it is merely an explanation for heterosexuals forming unions with each other, as well as evidence that God designed men and women to go together. It is not evidence that men can't also go with men: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Jesus later references this passage in Matthew and Mark, but Jesus speaks about heterosexuals who wish to divorce. Nothing is stated about the nature of marriage by Jesus other than its permanency, that the two are bound as one flesh, and that humans are not to interfere with the union God made.

Then, from where does the idea arise that homosexuals may not marry? No where in the Bible is emphasis placed upon the body, other than the old Sinai Covenant, where God makes it clear that men are not to enjoy sex so much (by ordering their foreskin removed -- alas!); to the contrary, the New Testament is about focusing on your spiritual affairs, and admonishes against wrapping yourself in earthly affairs, such as, for example, caring about the location of reproductive organs.

And actually, it seems to me that the Bible supports the idea of not placing too much emphasis upon your earthly body or earthly marriage. See Matthew 22.23-30, where the Sadducees question Jesus about the Resurrection, involving Levirate Marriage. Also, Paul says there is no male or female in Heaven (Galatians 3.26-28).

Please explain to me what I am missing about marriage. Why does it matter what I have between my legs? The Roman Catholic Church says intercourse is sinful if it is not penal-vaginal; they appear to me to have an unhealthy fixation on the idea. Many do not want children, and many wish to adopt (including homosexuals), yet the Roman Catholic Church acts as if gays are incapable of raising adopted children, simply because they cannot birth them.

In short, the Roman Catholic Church cites as one of its only reasons for prohibiting gays from marriage that gays cannot birth children. They are, in short, claiming that God cannot or will not bless them, which is blasphemous. It is also poor logic, as the same precludes those born with birth defects (and what of hermaphrodites?), those who have suffered testicular or ovarian cancer, those sterile, etc.

Please help me understand marriage, because it appears that, after reading everything the Bible has to offer, I don't understand what the majority of Christians (or at least the loudest) seem to believe.

I have been considering this topic for about two years, and after much prayer and consideration, I feel that God doesn't care what your sex is, nor does God have a problem with gays.

To be clear, this thread is not about homosexuality, it is about marriage. So please, do not move it to the Debates on Homosexuality board, because it does not belong there.

See Matthew - chapter 19 - In it Christ defines marriage clear in every translation and its intent from the begining. No need to define what it isnt when its clearly defined what it is.

 

[Polycarp1]

See Matthew - chapter 19 - In it Christ defines marriage clear in every translation and its intent from the begining. No need to define what it isnt when its clearly defined what it is.

That is not defining marriage; it's a condemnation against divorce for individual convenience.

 

[Angel4Truth]

He also defines marriage - read the whole chapter.

 

[SolomonVII]

Amoba exist as asexual blobs that can procreate themselves.

For people though, the organism does not consist of one, but of two. This is in fact the very definition of sexual organisms. Two flesh become one flesh to recreate the basic organic unit that is required for life to sustain itself.
Anything else may be defined as sensual, but, literally speaking, has nothing to do with sex at all-
for the basic physiology required for a union to be sexual is the one flesh union of male and female. This is the minimal physiological requirement necessary to fulfill the surivival need of the repoductive system.

The human mind and the human spirit give way to the possibility of choice and to the possibility of a life no longer dictated by instinct or (genital) behavior resulting necessarily from physiological processes alone.
We have by all accounts become free agents in the universe. This is both our blessing and our curse. Whether choice is a blessing or a curse depends on how well we choose, both as an individual and as a society that we are continually recreating according to our behavior.

Marriage is the social institution that promotes, maintains and sustains this one-flesh union in order that free choice may exercised in a way that is beneficial to the society as a whole.

To the extent that marriage is defined according to the maintaining the strength of the primal one-flesh union that is necessary for human life, a society is well placed to thrive.

But to the extent that a society no longer regards such a primal institution to be necessary for its own sustenance, the trajectory will undoubtedly be one towards decadence and decay.

Like eating is for the individual, marriage based on the one-flesh union of a man and a woman is simply not an option available to us, if we choose life. The survival of a population within a species is as dependant on the institution of marriage sustaining this primal one-flesh union as it is upon having access to other primary resources such as food, shelter and potable water.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

AetheriusLamia
... and, you guys ... please create a new thread in the homosexuality board and continue this debate there, if it no longer pertains to marriage. Or is it acceptable at this website for threads to go off-topic?

No, and it shouldn't, it isn't fair to you or the other posters, which is why I told Mattlock I will not respond to anymore of his posts, but will do so in the homosexuality subforum.

Thanks.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

See Matthew - chapter 19 - In it Christ defines marriage clear in every translation and its intent from the begining. No need to define what it isnt when its clearly defined what it is.

Read http://danielbridges.info/pages/gays.shtml#marriage please.

Jesus does not define marriage; he merely quotes Genesis, which addresses heterosexual behavior (for the sake of argument, let us say heterosexual marriage), because he was asked specifically about heterosexuals divorcing.

When you are asked a math problem involving multiplication, and you begin by quoting the rules of multiplication, that does not mean that division doesn't exist. (Probably a poor analogy, but I hope you understand what I mean by the previous paragraph and through reading the linked content on my website.)

 

[Angel4Truth]

I disagree - As Jesus is God and He stated the intent and defined marriage as being a man and a woman - he goes on to speak of those who cannot (or will not) accept that and its to remain celibate for the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Aetheriuslamia

Jesus does not define marriage; he merely quotes Genesis, which addresses heterosexual behavior (for the sake of argument, let us say heterosexual marriage), because he was asked specifically about heterosexuals divorcing.

No Genesis addresses God&#8217;s creation of man and woman, no mention of sexuality, that&#8217;s an assumption you have added. Your ideas are contrary to what Genesis says, and as Jesus affirms Genesis 2 your ideas are also contrary to Jesus Christ&#8217;s teaching. Genesis 2 describes how God made woman for man, that opposite to what you are implying and Genesis 2 describes how a man and woman shall be untied as one flesh, what their sexual preferences are is irrelevant. Adam could have been gay and Eve a lesbian, it doesn&#8217;t change the marriage union definition. Angel4Tuth is absolutely right. Marriage is a man and a woman, there is no such thing as &#8216;heterosexual&#8217; marriage.

When you are asked a math problem involving multiplication, and you begin by quoting the rules of multiplication, that does not mean that division doesn't exist. (Probably a poor analogy, but I hope you understand what I mean by the previous paragraph and through reading the linked content on my website.)

Ah but the Bible does point out that division, (same-sex sex), subtraction, (adultery) and addition (sexual immorality) isn&#8217;t part of maths. Marriage is maths not multiplication.

 

[Phinehas2]

Genesis 2 does mention the union between man and woman but doesnt mention heterosexual. So why are people votng that for Genesis dealing with something it doesnt even mention at the expense of what it does?

 

[davedjy]

Genesis 2 does mention the union between man and woman but doesnt mention heterosexual. So why are people votng that for Genesis dealing with something it doesnt even mention at the expense of what it does?

Genesis doesn't have to coin the term "heterosexual" in order for it to be describing one type of relationship.

What "expense"? nowhere in this passage does it state this is the only, exclusive relationship allowable. The passage also does not mention that marriage is limited to two opposite sex genders.

 

[Angel4Truth]

What "expense"? nowhere in this passage does it state this is the only, exclusive relationship allowable. The passage also does not mention that marriage is limited to two opposite sex genders

Please tell me you are kidding here? There is no way it can be any other way because the only people there were adam and eve - that limits the entire situation described by Christ as "as it was in the begining" to being one man and one woman because thats all that were there !

 

[Angel4Truth]

What "expense"? nowhere in this passage does it state this is the only, exclusive relationship allowable. The passage also does not mention that marriage is limited to two opposite sex genders

Also you are quite incorrect - He did say and said why - in matthew -Matthew 19: 4. And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning `made them male and female,'
5. "and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

 

[davedjy]

Please tell me you are kidding here? There is no way it can be any other way because the only people there were adam and eve - that limits the entire situation described by Christ as "as it was in the begining" to being one man and one woman because thats all that were there !

Kidding here?


The relationship describes ADAM AND EVE...this does not describe all relationships, nor does it even mention or condemn any other. Arguments from "silence" aren't good ones, anyways.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Un not from silence - Jesus cleared it right up in matthew - look above