I agree; some Europeans countries actually separate civil and religious marriages; they require, for those who wish to have a religious ceremony to have a separate civil one.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Marriage Equality Is a Theological Necessity
- Thread starter Green Gaia
- Start date
I agree; some Europeans countries actually separate civil and religious marriages; they require, for those who wish to have a religious ceremony to have a separate civil one.
Smoke
Done here.
It wouldn't bother me, and they'd probably have an easier time achieving their goal than we're having. They'd have Bible to back them up, after all, and no anti-gay bigotry to complicate their movement.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
This shows an extreme lack of knowledge of the history of marriage. Do some research before making such claims.
blackout
Violet.
I actually do agree that the govt. should get out of the business of marriage.
The govt. should issue agreements of legal unions
between ANY people/peoples who choose to unite themselves binding legal agreement/s.
There should be no differentiations for monogamous/2 partner opposite sex couples.
No "titles" of "marriage". Only legal documentations of partnership agreements.
(maybe call it a "co'operation" as opposed to a "coorperation" ?)
If people then want some kind of "spiritual marriage" beyond that,
they need to do it in their own way (via personal ceremony/church...whatever).
This however is a PERSONAL thing.
A thing of personal definition.
Govt. should not be in the "marriage" business period.
Govt. is about legalities. Nothing more.
I really don't know why religious people even feel the need to drag govt. into their religious union.
Oh yesssss.... the "perks".
The govt. should issue agreements of legal unions
between ANY people/peoples who choose to unite themselves binding legal agreement/s.
There should be no differentiations for monogamous/2 partner opposite sex couples.
No "titles" of "marriage". Only legal documentations of partnership agreements.
(maybe call it a "co'operation" as opposed to a "coorperation" ?)
If people then want some kind of "spiritual marriage" beyond that,
they need to do it in their own way (via personal ceremony/church...whatever).
This however is a PERSONAL thing.
A thing of personal definition.
Govt. should not be in the "marriage" business period.
Govt. is about legalities. Nothing more.
I really don't know why religious people even feel the need to drag govt. into their religious union.
Oh yesssss.... the "perks".
Last edited:
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Off topic. Feel free to start another thread dealing with that topic.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Prove? Evidence? Something besides because "you and your hypothetical deity say so"?
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Please see this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...illogical-position-opposing-gay-marriage.html
You prove it's point precisely.
Smoke
Done here.
Bigotry and superstitious bluster is all they have to support their position. You'll wait a long time for a reasoned argument from these people. (But you knew that.
)
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Yep, I know that. I've yet to ever to see reasoned, logical argument. But I keep on askin'....Bigotry and superstitious bluster is all they have to support their position. You'll wait a long time for a reasoned argument from these people. (But you knew that.
blackout
Violet.
If you're going to call legal governmental unions between ANY peoples "marriage",
then yes,
I am all for calling the legal unions of polyamorous peoples "marriage" as well.
But then as I said,
I don't think the govt. should be in the business of "marriage" at all.
Only legal unions. Period.
All that you say is fine as long as it is not man that is interpreting what God is about. Many a Christian would tell you that the Word of God is the Holy Bible, or more specifically, the KJB. Saying that if the Bible was good enough for God it is good enough for me. Problem is that there are no original New Testament manuscripts to know what was originally written. If that is not bad enough, it was man that translated the old Hebrew language of the Old Testament. Hence man's interpretation of the Bible. Hence, the Word of God is not what is literally written in the Bible. The Word of God is what the Bible says to the one reading it. A small revelation of sorts.
So choosing which side of the law to be on is, at the very least, is a 50/50 chance of choosing God's law.
Any reference in the Bible on homosexuality is blown way out of proportion. I mean to say that man's translation and interpretation of what the Bible says about homosexuality is off the mark. In some instances it is not the sin of homosexuality that is talked about it is abouit the violence of rape, about the inhospitality. The interpretation of homosexuality was not apart of the ancient traditions. Nowhere else in the Bible are the usage of the words, to`evah or to`ebah (meaning unclean), or yadha (meaning to know) in connection with homosexuality. So it is bad exegesis to say that the Story of Sodom and Gomorrah has anything to do with homosexuality. The Bible is used to define itself. Word usage varifies what a passage says whether it is in the OT or NT. Hermeneutics is used to interpret the Bible but it is also used to keep that interpretation from being corrupted. It does not go well to pick and choose what principals of hermeneutics one uses to interpret the Bible. And that is what modern translations have done.
So what does the Word of God say to us as individuals?
Marriage was sancitified by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent, circa 1400. The Church did so because it became apparent that the Bible said nothing pertaining to God's law and marriage. The Jews recognized this and set forth in the Talmud laws about marriage, establishing a marriage contract. It was a business deal.
Ecclesiastical law has no business in Constitutional law.
I noticed that you did not reference Christianity as your source to state that marriage is between a man and a woman. Just as well, since I find no reference to Biblical law pertaining to marriage. Thomas Aquinas would refer to the "state of innocence" as the first mention of marriage in the Bible. But doing so just makes it so for Christians to believe that marriage was God given by law. Well, that is a "leap of faith."
Let's talk about what marriage really means to a couple. Marriage is all about a relationship. And if you want to address marriage from the point of view the Bible gives then you have to look at marriage as symbolic, relational and contractual, and only mentioned in respect to receptions.
So I ask, in the OT, what constituted a marriage? Since the Bible did not answer that question the Talmud did. The Catholic Church recognised that the Bible said nothing about marriage and made it a sacrament at the Council of Trent, circa 1400. All that says is that neither the Holiness code nor anywhere in the Bible was marriage made a law. So marriage comes to us from Ecclesiastical Law.
Contractually, laws were made to protect women rights and property. Laws in the US are made to protect rights and property too. So, if marriage is about relationships and contractual issues why do we deny same-sex couples the right to marry?
St. Augustine of Hippo, 4th century Christian
Patriarch, stated the following of the Western Christian
community of his century:
"But here there is no ground for a criminal
accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime
when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it
is no longer the custom......The only reason of its
being a crime now to do this, is because custom and
the laws forbid it.>1. . . . That the holy fathers of olden
times . . . to whom God gave His testimony that
'they pleased Him'. . . it was permitted to . . . them
to have a pluraltiy of wives. . .>2 . . . the honorable name
of saint is given not without reason to men who had
several wives. . . nor did the number of their wives
make the patriarchs licentious.>3
[>1 A Select Library, vol. iv; p. 289; >2 A Select Library,
Vol. V; p. 267; >3 A Select Library, Vol. iv; p. 290]
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
I agree, there is nothing wrong with a polyamorous union/marriage. There is nothing wrong with a gay union/marriage. I've yet to see any evidence on this thread so suggest otherwise. Unless you count 'I think my god's against it' stands as an agrument.
If religion calls marriage a union, a relationship between a man and a woman and the government recognises marriage in the legal sense allowing religions to marry couples then it stands to reason that the government does not interfere with the religion's choice to marry male and female. What the government is interested in pertains to public safety and contractual interests.
If the government permits same-sex marriages and polygamous marriages their only interest should be about public safety and contractual relationships. This is not interference with religion but requires religion to comply with the law of the land.
In the Christian Bible there is no law requiring marriage.
Another thought. It wasn't too long ago that "Three Taliban mullahs brought them [a young couple eloping] to the local mosque and they passed a fatwa (religious decree) that they must be killed. They were shot and killed in front of the mosque in public," the governor said."
So the laws of man vs. the laws of god. And if it is the law of god that prevails who is to say that what is the law of god is what man makes it. So in essence, god's law becomes man's law anyway.
Government law pertaining to marriage is about the legality of the relationship. God's law is about the relationship. And as I said before, nothing in the Bible is about what constitutes a marriage.