Same Sex Marrige By a Church.

[Archer]

It's not my business to state what any Church can sanctify or not. I really don't care anyway.

Nor do I really care that the Bible, quite apparently the OT, has a proscription against homosexual behavior.

What I do care about is when individuals use the Bible as an be all and end all of inquiry yet cannot answer this one simple question I ask them: What does the Bible state explicitly about intersex?

If you are speaking of a Hermaphrodite then one of the closest to it I can find is From Mathew 19 an eunuch:
1 : a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2 : a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals
3 : one that lacks virility or power <political eunuchs>


verse 12 essentially is a genital birth defect as Jesus states born with. I will not even attempt to interject my POV (It does sound like in red pick what you want to be)

9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

 

[fantome profane]

If you are speaking of a Hermaphrodite then one of the closest to it I can find is From Mathew 19 an eunuch:
1 : a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2 : a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals
3 : one that lacks virility or power <political eunuchs>


verse 12 essentially is a genital birth defect as Jesus states born with. I will not even attempt to interject my POV (It does sound like in red pick what you want to be)

9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

So what are your feelings concerning a church that will marry a previously divorced person? Should they be “allowed” to do this? (assuming the divorce was for reasons other than fornication)

Does you church allow people who have been divorced to marry someone else?

 

[Archer]

So what are your feelings concerning a church that will marry a previously divorced person? Should they be “allowed” to do this? (assuming the divorce was for reasons other than fornication)

Does you church allow people who have been divorced to marry someone else?

First off I quoted all of that so it would be in context not to bring up the divorce issue.

Honestly I really have issues with the way many treat marriage and I am rather radical in my views. So if you really want to beat me down I will tell you.

There is no room for divorce in marriage other than infidelity. I do disagree with it because too many times I have seen it taken lightly and rushed into only to end badly. I have had divorces effect my children and the ones who were married never knew each other (internet got them together internet separated them).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you are speaking of a Hermaphrodite then one of the closest to it I can find is From Mathew 19 an eunuch:

Nope. "Intersex" and "eunuch" are not the same thing. You're closer to a eunuch than an intersex person is.

 

[Archer]

Nope. "Intersex" and "eunuch" are not the same thing. You're closer to a eunuch than an intersex person is.

Jesus addressed those who are born that way. A genital birth defect. As I said the closest I could find.

 

[McBell]

There is no room for divorce in marriage other than infidelity.

A completely un-Biblical, personal interpretation.

 

[gnomon]

If you are speaking of a Hermaphrodite then one of the closest to it I can find is From Mathew 19 an eunuch:
1 : a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2 : a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals
3 : one that lacks virility or power <political eunuchs>


verse 12 essentially is a genital birth defect as Jesus states born with. I will not even attempt to interject my POV (It does sound like in red pick what you want to be)

9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Have you ever heard of XY women? They exist. I seriously doubt that verse 12 has anything to do with XY women or any form of intersex. Actually, the whole of Matthew 19 shows the reality of ancient philosophers grappling with an issue of human behavior of which they could have possessed no knowledge.

1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3Some Pharisees came to him 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,'a]" class="footnote">[a] 5and 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'b]" class="footnote">[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Contrary to the concept that God made them male and female it is quite apparent, actually it's basic fact, that not all human beings can be classed as either male or female. Hence the term intersex and the push to recognize that sexual dimorphism is not an absolute in the human condition. One could argue that because of "the Fall", not a universal tenant among Biblical followers, that there were originally man and woman but intersex individuals came about as the fall. Yet the Bible has no mention of them anywhere. Would be a rather dim view to take of such individuals anyway.

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriagec]" class="footnote">[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Now this is very interesting considering some earlier comments regarding the uselessness of homosexuality because they "cannot" add to society by means of sexual reproduction. I believe that was in the other thread on this similar topic. But what of people who believe that such social usefulness is defined by sexual reproductive capacity and married heterosexuals who are sterile and cannot reproduce. If one adheres to that the best is for individuals to reproduce then the moral imperative is to divorce a sterile spouse. However, that would appear to violate the words of Jesus regarding divorce and if one wishes to take Jesus' words as a moral imperative, according to Matthew, then they must not divorce.

A simple dilemma but still a dilemma nonetheless for that person. Which is the moral imperative. Not to commit adultery or to bring forth children.

The reference to eunuchs appears to solely refernce quite frankly males who do not wish to marry and are unburdened by sexual desire. Has nothing to do with intersex, sterile men nor homosexuality.

The Little Children and Jesus

13Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." 15When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.
The Rich Young Man

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'d]" class="footnote">[d] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'e]" class="footnote">[e]"
20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
27Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"
28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or motherf]" class="footnote">[f] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

Nothing of which Jesus says about attaining eternal life has anything to do with sexual behavior among humans.

However, if you wish to be perfect, give up everything.

An incredible passage. If anything it essentially damns those who take a hard core religious stance, at least a Christian one, on not allowing a secular state to recognize gay marriage.

 

[McBell]

The Bible does yes it does explicitly state "not to lay with a man as a woman"
so also anywhere marriage is talked about it is between a man and woman.
If two people feel they love each other and they want to be together and are homosexual-that is their business.They can stay together and good luck to them...it just cannott be sanctified by christian church...nor is it to be legal "matrimoney"in Gods eyes nor the legal system....

And yet you still have not presented a single verse that says same sex couples are not to be married.

And as far as it being legal...
There is not one single legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage.
But that is for a different thread.

 

[Archer]

Have you ever heard of XY women? They exist. I seriously doubt that verse 12 has anything to do with XY women or any form of intersex. Actually, the whole of Matthew 19 shows the reality of ancient philosophers grappling with an issue of human behavior of which they could have possessed no knowledge.



Contrary to the concept that God made them male and female it is quite apparent, actually it's basic fact, that not all human beings can be classed as either male or female. Hence the term intersex and the push to recognize that sexual dimorphism is not an absolute in the human condition. One could argue that because of "the Fall", not a universal tenant among Biblical followers, that there were originally man and woman but intersex individuals came about as the fall. Yet the Bible has no mention of them anywhere. Would be a rather dim view to take of such individuals anyway.



Now this is very interesting considering some earlier comments regarding the uselessness of homosexuality because they "cannot" add to society by means of sexual reproduction. I believe that was in the other thread on this similar topic. But what of people who believe that such social usefulness is defined by sexual reproductive capacity and married heterosexuals who are sterile and cannot reproduce. If one adheres to that the best is for individuals to reproduce then the moral imperative is to divorce a sterile spouse. However, that would appear to violate the words of Jesus regarding divorce and if one wishes to take Jesus' words as a moral imperative, according to Matthew, then they must not divorce.

A simple dilemma but still a dilemma nonetheless for that person. Which is the moral imperative. Not to commit adultery or to bring forth children.

The reference to eunuchs appears to solely refernce quite frankly males who do not wish to marry and are unburdened by sexual desire. Has nothing to do with intersex, sterile men nor homosexuality.



Nothing of which Jesus says about attaining eternal life has anything to do with sexual behavior among humans.

However, if you wish to be perfect, give up everything.

An incredible passage. If anything it essentially damns those who take a hard core religious stance, at least a Christian one, on not allowing a secular state to recognize gay marriage.

I never said anything about homosexuality other than it cant be condoned by a Christian Church that is following scripture. If I did please find it! I did quote scripture but that was for reference.

Also what was Jesus referring to when he spoke of those born that way? Also the text was quoted as it was so it was taken in context! I dont like people pulling the one liner crap as they tend to fill in the blanks that have already been filled in by the surrounding text.

 

[Archer]

OK! the big problem. Same sex marriage cannot be addressed in the Bible as it condemns same sex relations. I have quoted it before and I can quote it again.

You will not find anything about the same sex relationship in the Bible other than it is wrong in the eyes of God,[FONT=arial, helvetica] Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."[/FONT]

Paul also spoke on this subject so if this is not enough then find something to the contrary, as direct as this countering it. HINT: you wont. it ain't there.

So I will recap, in a book that condemns homosexual acts you will not find homosexual marriage being condoned or even spoken of in anything other than a negative light. I have never seen reference to it in the Bible.

If two people of the same sex want to marry who cares, just don't claim it is Biblical (other than the love and commitment).

 

[gnomon]

I never said anything about homosexuality other than it cant be condoned by a Christian Church that is following scripture. If I did please find it! I did quote scripture but that was for reference.

Also what was Jesus referring to when he spoke of those born that way? Also the text was quoted as it was so it was taken in context! I dont like people pulling the one liner crap as they tend to fill in the blanks that have already been filled in by the surrounding text.

I quoted and interpreted the entire passage in context.

Christian literature is incredibly devoid of rational discourse on human sexuality compared to the Hindus, Greeks, Chinese and even the Jews. The Hebrew people in their religion, the basis for Christian theology, even had recognized some differentiation among human sexual development. Though reading some of those references makes me happy we no longer adhere to their concepts. The Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics states that Rabbi's held sex with a hermaphrodite was to be punished by stoning. Brilliant minds at work there.:sarcastic

 

[Archer]

I quoted and interpreted the entire passage in context.

I know and I do appreciate it.

Christian literature is incredibly devoid of rational discourse on human sexuality compared to the Hindus, Greeks, Chinese and even the Jews. The Hebrew people in their religion, the basis for Christian theology, even had recognized some differentiation among human sexual development. Though reading some of those references makes me happy we no longer adhere to their concepts. The Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics states that Rabbi's held sex with a hermaphrodite was to be punished by stoning. Brilliant minds at work there.:sarcastic

I agree but that is still no excuse to add to or take away from ones holy text if there is no foundation there is no foundation.
Ouch.

 

[gnomon]

If two people of the same sex want to marry who cares, just don't claim it is Biblical (other than the love and commitment).

On that point, I don't think most people care anymore. Heterosexual society has already well paved the way for altering all concepts of Biblical marriage. edit: Remarriage, adultery, etc. no longer being stridently mixed in with secular law.

However, if a Christian Church wishes to marry homosexuals then they will do so, no matter your interpretation. Or mine. Just like most Jews, Christians and Muslims no longer stone people to death even though the Bible explicitly states to do just that. Shall we call those Jews who refuse to stone homosexuals or the picture of the idiot I saw who had tattooed his arm with the passage of Leviticus condemning homosexuals. The only thing more stupid is to tattoo your arm with the passage of Leviticus condemning tattoos!

 

[Archer]

On that point, I don't think most people care anymore. Heterosexual society has already well paved the way for altering all concepts of Biblical marriage. edit: Remarriage, adultery, etc. no longer being stridently mixed in with secular law.

However, if a Christian Church wishes to marry homosexuals then they will do so, no matter your interpretation. Or mine. Just like most Jews, Christians and Muslims no longer stone people to death even though the Bible explicitly states to do just that. Shall we call those Jews who refuse to stone homosexuals or the picture of the idiot I saw who had tattooed his arm with the passage of Leviticus condemning homosexuals. The only thing more stupid is to tattoo your arm with the passage of Leviticus condemning tattoos!

Yes the world is changing for the worse, not because of homosexuals but because nobody will willingly stand in adversity anymore, when things get tough most people cave.

 

[Archer]

There have been many views expressed that are for same sex marriage, NONE ARE BIBLICAL.

I don't care what the world does but the church is to be in the world not of the world.

 

[Archer]

You know, proselytizing is strictly forbidden on this borad, as are personal attacks. Enjoy your infraction.

Storm I did not report you when you told me to go to hell! Ease off some of your posts can be just as offensive to others as theirs are to you.

1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause

All I saw was sharing of his views.

 

[Storm]

Storm I did not report you when you told me to go to hell! Ease off some of your posts can be just as offensive to others as theirs are to you.

If you think I violated the rules, go right ahead.

 

[Archer]

If you think I violated the rules, go right ahead.

Emotion is not a violation of any rule and I would not report someone for stating what they believe and getting a little angry at times. You sometimes forget that you do some of the same things you condemn others for. ie. you cant tell someone not to share their views about something while storm can do as she pleases without becoming a contradiction.

I love you.

 

[Archer]

christians can get away with thinly veiled threats like no one else.
(well, besides muslims, lol)

after all... GOD said it. not me.

the sense of glee always makes me giggle.

Well God said it and I believe it. But, I do not disagree with you, simply put if they cant back it up then they are FOS and if they can tough luck.

 

[blackout]

If your god, thinks I'M EVIL.

your god is a total nutcase.

EDIT: and i don't even need a bible to know that.