Do we really want marrige to be as defined in the Bible?

[kpierce]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Keven,

Can you please keep these "hot topic" items in the Not for Everyone forum. They rank right up there with the political stuff.

[Michael Larson]

Context, context, context or lack thereof

But my final “so what” here is to Ms. Miller and her tribe of social liberation kin: don’t kid yourself about what you “of course” don’t want. I find it almost incredulously-ironic, as I said above, that when Ms. Miller lists the sins of the OT patriarchs, she overlooks how the Bible describes what these acts were: “every man did what was right in his own eyes,” and “they did what was evil in the sight of YHVH, and they provoked Him to jealousy with their sins that they committed, more than all that their fathers had done.” It is expecially vexing and darkly funny to see her editor Mr. Meacham appeal to the sacrament of marriage when what he wants isn't what God has specifically called holy. To appeal to sacrament is to appeal to God's view of a thing, and to call for a blessing on an invented standard which seems right to a man but ignores or contorts God's specific prescription for things is exactly the opposite of "sacrament".

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

Keven,

Can you please keep these "hot topic" items in the Not for Everyone forum. They rank right up there with the political stuff.

Why no post in Rick's political thread "Illinois Politics"? Can we at least be fair here?

[nwagner]

Are you ever going to stop whining about the oxymoron called gay marriage?

Like you really give a flying PHIC about homosexuals. This is just one of many platforms of convenience for you bigoted atheists to disparage theists. Quite a petty means to an end.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

To be fair I believe "religions" have every right to define marriage as they see fit between their consenting members, but those traditions have no place in national policy regarding how two consenting adults join together under a secular contract.

Marriage stopped being a religious sacrament a long time ago and regardless of whatever church ceremony is performed it is invalid without a state license issued by a secular office of government that is blind to religion or Bible dictates.

Spin it any way you like... A marriage performed under a license by a secular judge is valid whereas a marriage performed by a church official is not recognized as valid unless it was accompanied by a bona fied secular state issued license.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

I was just a minor request. A simple "no" would have sufficed. Had not been down to the other thread yet. From the title of his post, it was not that inflammatory. Your post was and is, specifically aimed at stirring things up. Each to his own.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by nwagner

Are you ever going to stop whining about the oxymoron called gay marriage?

Yep, when it's accepted.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by nwagner

Are you ever going to stop whining about the oxymoron called gay marriage?

Like you really give a flying PHIC about homosexuals. This is just one of many platforms of convenience for you bigoted atheists to disparage theists. Quite a petty means to an end.

You are correct is is much deeper than simple concern for a single group of citizens who have had their constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness impinged upon, it is truly about each and every American and their dream to live free from the religious dictates of others.

It appears the discussion of personal freedom & liberty somehow upsets you, I am truly sorry for your distress but this issue is not going away until this travesty of civil injustice like its predecessor slavery, suffrage and civil rights has been corrected. Mark my word Prop-8 will be overturned in California and around the nation.

[William J. Decker]

Marriage IS the joining of a man and a woman. Always has been, throughout history. Never mind religion. No country, society of civilization has allowed for homosexual marriage. There have been some recent, and silly, exceptions with some small European countries, but that hardly consitutes history.

I won't even comment on the Newsweek issue because they, like most reporters, are just plain silly and regularly write about things that they have no clue about. The whole thing is so silly that any 8th grade bible study class could point out all the mistakes.

But, and having nothing to do with religion (and I am not debating from that point), there are very clear and valid secular arguments against homosexual, secular marriage.

1) Every time this issue has been taken to the people, via democratic votes, it has failed. The only times that civil, homosexual marriage has become accepted by law is when Judges change the law, by fiat.

2) The silly comparision between "gay discrimination" and racial discrimination, with regards to civil marriage is also not valid. There is no real difference between a black man and an oriental man and a white man. There is a profound difference between men and women of all races.

3) Our constitution and laws recognize that difference and there are many laws that recognize that difference. Women do not have to register for the draft. Women are protected in courts from men (spousal abuse). In other words, the differenced between men and women are clear, profound and very real.

4) Marriage is the joining of differents. It is NOT the joining of the same.

5) If homosexuals want the same, preferential treatment in their civil unions, as they currently have and have had for years in California and many other states, fine. They already have it. The ONLY thing they don't have is the word, "Marriage". And they can't. Words have definitions and mean things.

6) Just because it may offend the special sensitivites of, say, some color blind people, that all people refer to the clear sky as blue is no reason to attempt to try to (legally) change the definition of blue to red. Blue is blue, red is red and marriage is marriage.

No need to resort to Religion, except if you want to slam it.

And, if this "gay Marriage" crap keeps going on, the freedom of religion in this country will soo pass by the way side.

Just my 2 1/2 cents.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by wdecker

And, if this "gay Marriage" crap keeps going on, the freedom of religion in this country will soo pass by the way side.

How does allowing gay marriage infringe on your freedom to practice the religion of your choice?

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Just because it may offend the special sensitivites of, say, some color blind people, that all people refer to the clear sky as blue is no reason to attempt to try to (legally) change the definition of blue to red. Blue is blue, red is red and marriage is marriage.

Your analogy is way off base. This is not about gay's being offended, it's about having equal rights. Are we trying to discriminate against the color blind and withhold equal rights? No.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by wdecker

And, if this "gay Marriage" crap keeps going on, the freedom of religion in this country will soo pass by the way side.

You really had me going there till the end, you laid off the religious overtones and were making a positive statement for your cause, but you just couldn't leave it as a difference of ideologies and allow free thinking people to make up their own minds could you? You just had to go and threaten that something dark & sinister will befall America should the constitutional freedom some of us freely exercise is fully extended to each & every American citizen regardless of sexual orientation. Fear is always the final ingredient that Republicans & religious wonks add to any political discussion to get results ain't it?

As far as I'm concerned the only thing that will happen should (as I fully expect) the Draconian laws like Prop-8 be repealed -or- found unconstitutional is that every American citizen will finally be equal in the freedoms we all share, nothing more nothing less.

This use of the fear-factor is proof positive that the issue is already lost. It is now just a matter of time before it is over, the courts frown upon the type of democracy where two foxes and a chicken get to vote on what to have for dinner, throwing out Prop-8 would be very consistent with their previous decisions regarding matters of civil rights you can count on it.

[klott]

joe, no one cares if you and kevin want to hook up, just go ahead and do it, and quit moaning, except in private that is!

[Greg Bell]

Maybe we should make gay unions the only legal ones in the world. That would certainly solve the over population crisis.