Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Waddy, I clicked on that link and Amazon must have recognised me. Now 'the page I made' section on Amazon is chock full of recommendations for gay literature :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Hello all, I want to dip my toe into this topic and I've had a glance across some of the previous posts, but please forgive me if I re-cover ground already addressed earlier ... I'm coming in quite late and there's too much to read in detail!

Some of the themes I've picked up on cover issues of legal privilege, natural behaviour, the meaning (and 'ownership'?) of the word 'marriage' by any particular society or group, whether religious or not. It's all very interesting but it's clearly also very emotionally charged. That's quite natural, marriage is a huge thing and I've never been nervous and emotionally het up in quite the same way as on my own wedding morning ... but that's a different story. :)

Western society in general seems to hear the word 'marriage' and ascribe to it a set of vaguely Christian moral assumptions. (In a way I'm all for it because I believe Christian morals, when applied in a way consistent with the Bible, reflect the way of life for which we were all created). Because society adopts these assumptions, it gets upset when some group or individual behaves in a way incosistent with the 'norm'. Homosexual marriage falls outside this 'norm' so is frowned upon.

However, what tends not to be considered is that 'marriage' in our modern society is loaded not just with Christian moral assumptions but with a whole lot of civil and legal privileges and obligations. Thus it becomes very difficult for the two 'sides' of the argument so reach any kind of agreement. On the one hand, those who subscribe to the 'Christian' view, whether explicitly or by vague assumption, see the joining of a man and a woman for comfort, mutual support and the raising of children - the Biblical reasons for marriage - while those who advocate same-sex union see themselves as currently disbarred from civil priviliges in a wholly unjustified manner.

I do not think there is any necessary conflict here though. The Bible makes no command about tax breaks or inheritance rights for married couples. These things are part of civil society and should rightly be accessible to any couple prepared to enter into a legally binding partnership. You could call that marriage if you like. On the other hand, for a Christian intent on obeying God's take on the whole subject, what is important is not the provision made by civil authorities for people who have entered into such a legal partnership, but the whole business of becoming 'one flesh' etc etc - a very spiritual thing. It is not at all uncommon among smaller, more evangelical denominations, whose meeting places are not registered for marriages, for a couple to go to a register office on a Friday afternoon, or first thing Saturday morning, with the minimum legal number of witnesses, to complete the legal formalities of marriage, but not to consider themselves married until they are 'married before God' at Church later.

If that were the end of the argument, the way forward would be obvious - to make a clearer distinction between the signing of a legal partnership (open to anyone) and the sealing of a commitment laden with religious implications (open to adherents of that religion).

Where conflict is inevitable is when homosexual people who consider themselves part of the Christian community demand to be married not just in a civil sense but according to the rites of the Church. Despite the clamour of liberal theologians to re-interpret the Bible's teaching on this point, Christianity as a whole continues to hold what the Bible says very clearly indeed:

1. Christian marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and acts as a visible symbol of God's eternal plan for a spiritual 'marriage' between Christ (represented by the man) and his Church (represented by the woman).
2. Homosexual activity of any form departs from God's intention in creating male and female and is therefore wrong.

Naturally I can only speak with any real insight about the Western, Christian-influenced world, however I believe you would find similar tensions among the other major world faiths. However essentially what I am saying is I think it ought to be possible for same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal privileges as the rest of us, provided they also accept the same obligations. Meanwhile the various religions should be free to deny a religious marriage ceremony to anyone who does not fully accept that religion's tenets.

ok, there goes my lunch hour... back later :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr @ towny, who does he think he is, coming on here and spouting off common sense as usual..... :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well said Towny.

Like me you see the clear distinction between the religious and civil definitions of marriage which are at the heart of the debate. Once that distinction is made there is actually very little between the two extremes of opinion.

That said the churches themselves are beginning to take on board the need to rethink some of the entrenched attitudes towards gays both in their teachings and also in their own internal structures following the appointment of an openly gay Bishop in the US recently.

In time I suspect that the spirit of a loving, tolerant and understanding God will guide the churches to a resolution even of the vexed question of the recognition of gay marriage, but I suspect that may be some way off just yet. (Just look at the time it took many of them to consider let alone endorse the ordination of women.)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

The issues within the church are far more complicated than those outside ... for example, regarding ordination of women, high-church Anglicans and extremely evangelical Anglicans alike opposed the move, but for entirely different reasons. High-churchmen see the priest as a representative of Christ at the front of the congregation, so naturally the priest must be male as Christ is. Fundamentalists oppose women as priests because of teachings by St Paul that women should not be permitted to take authority over a man. I'm not going off topic by saying which (if either!) of these positions I have sympathy with, I simply use it as an illustration of how things are rarely as simple as you think!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Actually it's the logical fallacy known as "The Slippery Slope": If we allow *this* then all of *that* will follow.

Of course there's no proof, only opinion...!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No, I think what you (possibly entirely unconsciously) object to is a marriage between 2 same-sex people in *YOUR* church and then have extrapolated that (incorrectly) into *any* church.

From what I understand, you don't object to others not holding the same beliefs as you, nor if they don't hold *any* beliefs, so if Church X (which is not your church) decides that it *will* allow gay marriages, surely you won't object to that, will you?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Graham, you are welcome to disagree with anything I say or think on here, but you will stop putting words in my mouth and passing comment/judgement on things I have not said.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Russ, I suggest you read the message again.

The first paragraph starts with "I think", ie it is stating *my* opinion, not just "you are saying" which *would* be "putting words into your mouth".

The second is based on things you have said repeatedly, in forums and PMs.

So please let me ask you directly: Do you object to homosexual marriages in *ANY* churches, no matter what their faith or beliefs or creed?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

If that church hold marriage in the same regard as I, then yes.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Maybe so, but you've failed to answer the question, merely attempted to narrow its scope. The Christian church has prohibitions against homosexual marriages, so do some other religions. But what about a situation where the religion has absolutely no objections to homosexual marriage? If a couple were to get married under the auspices of that church would you fail to recognise them as being married? I`m sure you'd be the first to kick up a stink if someone from a church other than your own refused to recognise your marriage.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

My opinion isn't based on the individual church. I'm not against gay marriages "because it's against what the church says". I'm against it because of how I view marriage. That's been my view for close to 12 years.

As I've said, I don't care about the religion. It's about how marriage is viewed.

Here, look at it like this: it's not just gays, it's also divorcees too. Both contravene what I consider the 'qualification' for marriage. Also people who are to be in an 'arranged marriage' (can't wait for someone to accuse me of being a 'racist' for saying that.....).

I'd kick up a stink? Well you REALLY know me then don't you... :rolleyes:

No actually, I wouldn't care. As long as God recognised my marriage, I couldn't care what others thought.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Ok, so you say it has nothing to do with your religion, that's how you've always viewed marriage. It's not to do with the specific religion, it's merely to do with how the marriage is viewed, and let's just remind ourselves, it's your personal viewpoint.

I suggested to you an example of a hypothetical church that incorporated the acceptance of gay marriage as part of the religion. However, you've already said that in your personal viewpoint this would be wrong, therefore, you are also saying that at least one aspect this religion is wrong.

At some point earlier in this thread you lambasted Kronas for commenting that your religion is wrong, but by following the logical chain of your argument, it would appear that you would actually have no qualms doing the same to another religion if it involved a matter you disagreed with strongly enough. Let he who is without sin..............

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Can you actually name a (mainstream would be nice) religion that allows such things?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Not a current one, comparative theology isn`t my field, but the religions of the ancient Greeks certainly didn`t have any problems with homosexuality, I don`t know whether they went as far as marriage. But it has also been argued in this thread that marriage is all about 1 man, 1 woman and the kids, and the Mormons are a current religion that certainly don`t take that viewpoint.