Homosexual marriage

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Didn't Jesus basically reject the laws of Leviticus?

Some say he did, some say he didn't.

If he came from the area where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, a theory that is popular with some major Biblical scholars at this time, then his people did hold to The Law. But I don't believe that. I think that theory is put forth only to increase interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think the scrolls are some apocryphal writings of the Sadducees. (The sons of Zadok are supposedly different from the Sadducees, but I think it's a transliteration variance).

Therefore we only have the four accepted Gospels and Thomas to go by, in which case you can interpret it that Jesus did offer a New Law, which is sometimes called the New Covenant, and that's why the books they accept about him are called the New Testament. In my opinion, when James the brother of Jesus refers to "freedom", he does mean freedom from the Law of Moses, which had reached such a level of picky detail that Jesus felt it necessary to point out the absurdity of these Laws.

For instance, once a person had undergone a particularly detailed cleansing ritual, after a long fast, he couldn't touch anything until he sacrificed a lamb at the temple. Jesus depicted such a man in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

In another case he asked if your donkey fell into a hole on the Sabbath wouldn't you save it's life?

An adulterous woman who was supposed to be stoned under the Old Law finds forgiveness from Jesus and a reprieve. He saved her life and bid her go and "sin no more".

And there's more. The Bible is a worthy read, really. It is necessary, really, in our world today, if only to protect us from those who do not read it but want to tell us what it says.

Anyway, I say yes. To my understanding he does bring a New Covenant. And this Covenant not only lightens the harsh punishment of the Old Covenant, it even redefines what is and what is not sinful.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Even if we are to assume from that reading that homosexual SEX is wrong (by the way is there anything in the bible saying that anal sex is wrong whether between same sex or different sexes?) does that reference say anything about homosexual MARRIAGE per se? Seems like one could at least justify being married as long as there is no sex. Which granted is a bit ridiculous but certainly within the scope of the statement and therefore ok.

Every reference to God's design/plan for marriage (as opposed to some of the merely historical descriptions that describe multiple wives, for example) is always that it is between one man and one woman, so I'd say it's pretty plain that anything outside of that (homosexual marriage, polygamy, etc.) is definitely not a part of the design.

[Elfhelm]

I didn't realize there were ANY references to "God's design/plan for marriage" in the Bible. I only see human plans and designs there. Which design are you referring to? This one:

Matthew 22:30

At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven

[Rían]

That's a very interesting verse! I can't wait to find out more about it!


I'm referring to this one:

Matthew 19:3-8
3 Some Pharisees came to him [Jesus] to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

[inked]

well worth everyone's time to read:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/191kgwgh.asp

[Elfhelm]

I don't think that's what he means, Rian. I think he is quoting the "of one flesh" idea, meaning in the same family. According to that tradition a man leaves his parents and joins his wife's family. "One flesh" means the man is now of the woman's family.

He is talking about divorce. They are debating Deut 24.

It is not, in my opinion, about God's "design" that marriage should only be between one man and one woman.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by inked

well worth everyone's time to read:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/191kgwgh.asp

It's a shame! Shame on the Pope, I say! No respect whatsoever. Talk about people's hearts being hard! They care more for words on a piece of paper than for widows and orphans.

[Rían]

I don't think verses 4, 5 and 6 could be any clearer that God (as completely and fully represented by Jesus, and also quoted by Jesus) designed marriage, from the beginning, as one man and one woman. Yes, the subject was divorce, but in addressing that subject, Jesus makes very direct and clear statements about the design of marriage, which divorce breaks, btw.

I also think the "one flesh" thing is plainer than plain. The man and the woman become one flesh, not the man and the woman's family. It specifically refers to "man" and "wife", and the TWO shall become one flesh. If it meant the family, then it would have to be more than two.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

It's a shame! Shame on the Pope, I say! No respect whatsoever. Talk about people's hearts being hard! They care more for words on a piece of paper than for widows and orphans.

Then ditto for the homosexual lobby

from the link
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights, issued a thundering denunciation of the Catholic hierarchy: "These bishops are putting an ugly political agenda before the needs of very vulnerable children.

If they REALLY cared for kids more than their agenda, they'd let the Catholic organization continue to place kids! There's other avenues for homosexuals to adopt kids. Shame on the homosexual lobby for not trying to keep the Catholic adoption agency in business!! They could have easily said, "We think their policy is wrong, but hey, they're putting needy kids into good homes, so by all means let's give them a religious exemption and keep them in business!"

[inked]

Of the people/by the people/for the people/it's a vote thang!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/us...in&oref=slogin

unless it is NOT a vote thang:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...A4MWMyMGI0YWM=

some rights are more equal than others: even in Canada:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06050807.html

or

http://www.civitatensis.ca/archives/2006/05/08/1317
“..gay Edmonton teacher Kathy Da Silva…. is opposed to parents having some control over their children’s education.� May we observe that some militant proponents of same-sex behaviour and ideology prefer anti-democratic attitudes and activities, which if– applied in return– would elicit howls of protest. The rainbow swastika, is it? … (civitatensis)

which should it be?

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think verses 4, 5 and 6 could be any clearer that God (as completely and fully represented by Jesus, and also quoted by Jesus) designed marriage, from the beginning, as one man and one woman. Yes, the subject was divorce, but in addressing that subject, Jesus makes very direct and clear statements about the design of marriage, which divorce breaks, btw.

I also think the "one flesh" thing is plainer than plain. The man and the woman become one flesh, not the man and the woman's family. It specifically refers to "man" and "wife", and the TWO shall become one flesh. If it meant the family, then it would have to be more than two.

Rian, to me it can't be plainer that to take 4,5,and 6 out of 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, etc is out of context.

To me it can't be plainer than that this passage is a debate about Deut 24. And it is not about "marriage should ONLY be one man and one woman".

[Rían]

How is it out of context? Divorce is the breaking-up of a MARRIAGE, and in that discussion, Jesus describes the plan of marriage.

Any comments on my "one flesh" comment?

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then ditto for the homosexual lobby



If they REALLY cared for kids more than their agenda, they'd let the Catholic organization continue to place kids! There's other avenues for homosexuals to adopt kids. Shame on the homosexual lobby for not trying to keep the Catholic adoption agency in business!! They could have easily said, "We think their policy is wrong, but hey, they're putting needy kids into good homes, so by all means let's give them a religious exemption and keep them in business!"

THEY!? The only "they" who is saying NOT TO DO SOMETHING is the Pope. The state of Mass. doesn't have a problem with gay adoption. The state has a problem with someone who WON'T ALLOW IT. Need we spell it out?

[Rían]

IIRC, "they" (the homosexual lobby) started the motion to shut down the Catholic adoption agency. That's a pretty big "something", IMO, and shows to me that "they" care more for their agenda than for kids IMO, if they TRULY cared for the kids, they'd try to keep that highly successful adoption agency up and running.

And the state has provisions for religious exemption in place. Legal provisions. I'm not sure why there's a problem with that, it's a long-standing American tradition.

[Elfhelm]

So it's OK with you that an agency excludes people from the adoption list as long as you agree with the people excluded, but when a state excludes an agency from doing that then the state is wrong, as long as you agree with the agency. But I bet if the agency was only letting gays adopt you wouldn't have a problem with shutting them down.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

How is it out of context? Divorce is the breaking-up of a MARRIAGE, and in that discussion, Jesus describes the plan of marriage.

Any comments on my "one flesh" comment?

2 Sam 5:1
Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, "Behold, we are your bone and your flesh."

To be of the same flesh meant of the same family.

here's your passage again:

4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Clearly this supports matrilineal descent. And it's against divorce.

I can see in a fuzzy way how someone would WANT it to be saying only one man may marry only one woman and there is no other definition of marriage. But that's fishing, IMO.

[Rían]

wow, I guess we'll just have to politely agree to disagree then, because IMO your reading is really fishing. The Matthew passage clearly says "the TWO ("man and wife") will become one flesh".

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

But I bet if the agency was only letting gays adopt you wouldn't have a problem with shutting them down.

If there's an agency who wants to specialize in any type of group adopting, as long as all groups have options to adopt somewhere, then I don't see anything wrong with that offhand, although I haven't thought much about it.

Don't you think it would have been more compassionate to the kids for the homosexual lobby to have NOT started the action to shut down the Catholic adoption agency?

[Rían]

More ...

Passage in Matthew: 4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

It seems to me very clear that:

1. at the beginning, God made people male and female;

2. a man leaves his parents and unites to his wife.


How is this anything other than a one-man/one-woman marriage? I really don't see the problem that you have with this If there were other options, wouldn't it read "for this reason, a person will leave his parents and be united to another person or persons"? "Man" and "wife" are very specific; why would Jesus list only one option if there were more than one option available?

[Elfhelm]

See you are arguing that the apple is red and I am saying some fruit is not red. Do you not see where we diverge? He was talking about, say, an apple being red, but not all fruits are apples. So to say that he therefore didn't want anything but red fruit on the face of the earth would be a narrow conclusion to draw.

FWIW, I think he was wrong on this point.

And above all, The Bible is not the basis of American Law. It is the scripture of the faith of 75% of the population (according to an old census figure). In America, one's scripture is a guide to one's own life. In Judea 2,000 years ago it was Law, but here it is a personal guidance tool.

If it affects your vote, that's your choice.

The opinions of the other citizens are not superceded by the scripture of your religion.

The law, as in the other case, is decided by courts and legislators who are elected. If you don't like Mass. Law, live in Utah or something.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

See you are arguing that the apple is red and I am saying some fruit is not red. Do you not see where we diverge? He was talking about, say, an apple being red, but not all fruits are apples. So to say that he therefore didn't want anything but red fruit on the face of the earth would be a narrow conclusion to draw.

FWIW, I think he was wrong on this point.

And above all, The Bible is not the basis of American Law. It is the scripture of the faith of 75% of the population (according to an old census figure). In America, one's scripture is a guide to one's own life. In Judea 2,000 years ago it was Law, but here it is a personal guidance tool.

If it affects your vote, that's your choice.

The opinions of the other citizens are not superceded by the scripture of your religion.

The law, as in the other case, is decided by courts and legislators who are elected. If you don't like Mass. Law, live in Utah or something.

And, if you don't like the law, change it. And if the law you like is under attack defend it.

Unless the votes go against what Elfhelm wants, then what?