Traditional Marriage, Why It Matters, All Churches, Christians, Islam and Jews only please?

[SomeRandom]

Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Taoists, various pagans either have forbid it or at least frowned upon it. There was a reason why.

Excuse me. I was raised within traditional Hinduism and what you just said is blatantly false. Hinduism never once openly condemns nor openly condones homosexuality (though there are a few scriptures that are mildly condoning of homosexual relationships.) Pagans (that's a rather broad term, don't you think?) often don't give a damn. Many non Orthodox Jews seem to be largely indifferent to condemning gay people. Buddhists often favor celibacy, not heterosexuality.
Kindly stop presuming to speak for other religious traditions, thank you.

 

[LuisDantas]

Name religions, not liberal sections within religions.

Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Taoists, various pagans either have forbid it or at least frowned upon it. There was a reason why.

Don't presume to speak for my religion, please. Most of all on this matter.

As for those religions or sects that do disapprove of homosexuality: have hope. They will heal from that illness.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This paragraph is funny because my argument is about the superior value of a heterosexual marriage. What in the world makes you think I look kindly upon extramarital sex and pregnancy? There is nothing but trouble in that road. Hence my opinions about single parenthood.

But to have children is a virtue. And people should marry to do so.

The reason I bring those things up is because you regard having children as a virtue regardless of circumstance. I notice that you actually failed to address the question: do you think it is still virtuous to have children despite knowing you cannot adequately care for them, or having them for the sole purpose of exploiting them? If your answer to either or both of those questions is "no", then you must admit that having children in and off itself is not a virtue. Also, I never mentioned "extramarital" pregnancy or sex - all of the situations I described are just as capable of happening whether the individual is married or not.

And people don't need to marry to have children, so that point is also moot.

I was just asking.

No you weren't - you were accusing me of some sort of class bias. It is absolutely clear that no such thing is present in my post, so why on earth would you accuse me of it?

Where did I say you made that assertion? I was simply making an observation that the apparent lack of resources someone has (bbeing poor) shouldn't lead us to the conclusion that they shouldn't be having children. It is a virtue for them to have children as well.

I never said "lack of resources", I said "lack of ability or willpower". Being poor doesn't necessarily mean you lack the resources to care for children. You clearly accused me of some sort of anti-poor bias and said my post "smacks of class-ism". I will thank you not to make judgements about me or my beliefs that are based on the voices in your head rather than the words I actually write.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've already addressed why I believe heterosexual marriages are important even when there is infertility. I cannot keep repeating myself.

Let's put it another way: since infertile couples cannot have children, do you regard marriage between heterosexual infertile couples as "inherently inferior" (as you put it) to marriage between fertile heterosexual couples?

 

[JoStories]

Hey. What about pork. I love b.b.q.'d pork, and bacon, and ham.
Why am I left out of this?????
I could make a case against same sex marriage but the OP just did that.
Man + WOman = children = propagation of species and so forth.
Pretty basic really, what?
And just to maintain p.c. and not get banned from the forum I have nothing against people
of alternate lifestyles.
God, however, might not share that view. Don't know; haven't mentioned it to the
God of my understanding.

I think your last sentence is exactly on point...for you. And I further add that, for me, God is not how you view God. IMO, God is a facet of all faiths and of none. Why can God not be 'big' enough, and I don't like that word in truth because it intimates a capacity of God that doesn't exist, but it fits this discussion, again, why can God not be big enough to be able to aspire and be a part of ALL faiths, and not just yours? God can be the fact of Cernunos, Allah, Jehovah, and Krishna, or any of the others Jaeger? This is the essense of your statement "The God of my understanding".

 

[JoStories]

When Marriage was first instituted by God, it was between one man and one woman. Monogamy was his standard for the human race.

It was after sin entered the world that men changed the rules...made their own rules and diverted from Gods standards. Polygamy was one of those sinful practices instituted by man. Jesus said that those who marry more then once commit adultery. This shows that God views the first wife as the only wife....all other wives are nothing more then adulterous relationships.

Marriage, in various forms, existed long before your idea based on the Bible. Polyandry, etc, was common. Marriage was not instituted by God. In your religion, perhaps that is how you see this but the fact remains that in the ages before your God and his message per your view, marriage had some men marrying scores of women and vice versa. Polygamy is still practiced today by some Mormons. And does it strike you that the greatest percentages of divorces today and among straight couples, and many of whom are Christian?

 

[Pegg]

Marriage, in various forms, existed long before your idea based on the Bible. Polyandry, etc, was common. Marriage was not instituted by God. In your religion, perhaps that is how you see this but the fact remains that in the ages before your God and his message per your view, marriage had some men marrying scores of women and vice versa. Polygamy is still practiced today by some Mormons. And does it strike you that the greatest percentages of divorces today and among straight couples, and many of whom are Christian?

If God created the first man and woman, then he instituted marriage. There were no people before he created them.

And its not surprising that divorces occur mostly among straight couples, not at all. Satan has been attacking all of Gods institutions since the beginning when he turned the first man and woman away from serving God. But the divorce rate does not mean there is anything wrong with marriage. The major cause of marriage break up is infidelity. Why? Because we are created to be monogamous and when infidelity occurs, it tears at the heart of the relationship.

 

[JoStories]

Marital contract between two men is a sub-Law of the Noahide Law against immorality.

Marital contract between two men is a sub-Law of the Noahide Law against immorality.

Which is fine, as it pertains to your faith and its teachings Tumah. But that has no bearing on the laws of the US. I respect your beliefs but they're just that, beliefs.

 

[JoStories]

If God created the first man and woman, then he instituted marriage. There were no people before he created them.



And its not surprising that divorces occur mostly among straight couples, not at all. Satan has been attacking all of Gods institutions since the beginning when he turned the first man and woman away from serving God. But the divorce rate does not mean there is anything wrong with marriage. The major cause of marriage break up is infidelity. Why? Because we are created to be monogamous and when infidelity occurs, it tears at the heart of the relationship.

Regarding the first statement, that is only your belief Pegg. HIstorical fact doesn't support such a view. There were lots of varieties of people before your faith was instituted.
Divorce rates clearly indicate trouble in marriages. How can you not see that? If there was no trouble, there would be no divorce. I agree its mostly about infidelity. And how is a homosexual relationship not monogamous? Many gay couples have been married for decades, in the sense of being together as a couple.

 

[JoStories]

@Mestemia

Is it not natural for any species to mate male to female?
Isn't it natural for humans to made male to female?
It's not natural for two males to "mate" (?mate?) and marry as a couple.
Same with two human women.
Simply put that sort of activity is unnatural according to the basic laws of nature.
No bible verses, no political pro gay statements, just the observable laws of nature.
Look, I'm condemning no one, ain't in my job description.
Gays were called queers for a reason.

• 
  queer
  /kwir/
  adjective
  1. strange; odd.
     synonyms: odd, strange, unusual, funny, peculiar, curious, bizarre; More
  2. homosexual.
  noun
  1. a homosexual man.
  verb
  1. spoil or ruin (an agreement, event, or situation).

Why in the hell "gay" substituted for queer is beyond me.
If I lived to be a thousand years old I'll never understand what one man sees as
a sex organ another man's brown round.
Can anyone explain to me why that is and how that conforms in any way with
nature?
Nature keeps religion and politics out of the fray.
I condemn no one.
But natural is natural and queer actions are and always will be queer actions.
I had gay buddies, kind and gentile guys and sexual lifestyle wasn't ever a topic
of conversation.
How do you feel about a man or woman copulating a dog or horse or pig
with their mouths? To me two men going at it sexually are no different that
going the deed with a camel.
What's the diff if they are the the privacy of their bedroom............or barn?
No harm no foul right? Why not let a woman marry her German Shepard then?
Really, I mean that question to be taken seriously.
Explain that.
Next generation new will carry headlines like: "the dog wasn't minding the sex
so why can't I marry the dog, it's MY love and MY sex and no ones business."
Don't think so?
There is already ONE court case challenging the arrest of a woman who had
been copulating a dog for years.

Perhaps gay was subsituted because being with a woman made me happy..hence gay. And as for 'natural', Jaeger, my relationship with my late partner was a natural as breathing. Comparing that love to mating with a dog is simply insulting. I have tried to be polite to you and not insult in any fashion. I would appreciate that respect returned in kind. I care not about a case of beastiality, as its not pertinent to my having the same constitutional rights as you do. The fact remains that if I had had the right to marry my partner, she would likely still be alive today and that, sir, does matter to me in the most strenuous sense of the word.

 

[JoStories]

Norman: This sentence is in reference to same sex marriage and any other form that tries to replace marriage between one man and one woman. We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. (I want my voice to be heard also as a member of this Church)

We must continue to project that voice throughout the world in declaring why marriage and family are so important, why marriage and family really do matter, and why they always will.

That is perfectly fine Norman. But keep in mind that my voice will be heard as loud and strong as your's will. The Bible and its laws or dogma has no bearing whatsoever on my life. It does for you and that, too, is fine. But I am not required to adhere to these tenets.

 

[Pegg]

Regarding the first statement, that is only your belief Pegg. HIstorical fact doesn't support such a view. There were lots of varieties of people before your faith was instituted.

Of course there were. Judaism was not established until 15bce. But that doesnt mean its account about the first humans is wrong. The bible does not attempt to imply that the Jews were the first race of people. It actually names many of the tribes and nations who came before the Jews.

Divorce rates clearly indicate trouble in marriages. How can you not see that? If there was no trouble, there would be no divorce. I agree its mostly about infidelity. And how is a homosexual relationship not monogamous? Many gay couples have been married for decades, in the sense of being together as a couple.

I can see the trouble in marriages. But what i'm saying is that it doesnt mean the institution of marriage is a failure or that there is something inherently wrong with it. There is something inherently wrong with infidelity. I have no comment or opinion on homosexual relationships. I only have an opinion on what I believe marriage is and what it is designed for.

 

[Tumah]

Which is fine, as it pertains to your faith and its teachings Tumah. But that has no bearing on the laws of the US. I respect your beliefs but they're just that, beliefs.

I am not telling anyone what to believe or how to make their laws. Personally, I couldn't care less what non-Jews did with who. Sleep with your men. Sleep with your kids. Sleep with your pets for all I care. I was only putting the info out there.

 

[dust1n]

When Marriage was first instituted by God, it was between one man and one woman.

Where is this in the Bible?

The genesis account

Reference please.

 

[jeager106]

Perhaps gay was subsituted because being with a woman made me happy..hence gay. And as for 'natural', Jaeger, my relationship with my late partner was a natural as breathing. Comparing that love to mating with a dog is simply insulting. I have tried to be polite to you and not insult in any fashion. I would appreciate that respect returned in kind. I care not about a case of beastiality, as its not pertinent to my having the same constitutional rights as you do. The fact remains that if I had had the right to marry my partner, she would likely still be alive today and that, sir, does matter to me in the most strenuous sense of the word.

I understand your meaning. Thank you.

 

[JoStories]

I am not telling anyone what to believe or how to make their laws. Personally, I couldn't care less what non-Jews did with who. Sleep with your men. Sleep with your kids. Sleep with your pets for all I care. I was only putting the info out there.

Ok and that fine Tumah. But btw...I prefer to sleep with women and men. No children or pets thank you.

 

[JoStories]

I understand your meaning. Thank you.

anytime dear one.

 

[Akivah]

Your fear is pure alarmism: there's no basis to force religions to accept what is a civil definition of marriage when there's meant to be a general separation of state and church affairs by the establishment clause. Churches can still be racist, heteronormative and generally prejudiced, but they can't take those doctrinal assertions and apply them to civil law

So what does that mean in practice? I've already seen enough to give me alarm. It is rational for me to be alarmist.

Can a church refuse to officiate a gay marriage? Can they disallow a gay marriage to use their property or their facilities? Can any person that opposes gay marriage refuse to provide professional services for gay marriages?

 

[Nietzsche]

Name religions, not liberal sections within religions.

Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Taoists, various pagans either have forbid it or at least frowned upon it. There was a reason why.

The Norse had a law regarding the recognition of same-sex partners and their various rights to inheritance, the gist of it being that if either had fathered or given birth to a child(I'll get to that) they(the partner) were entitled only to the remainder that could not be split evenly amongst children(or in the case of only one child, about 1/5th).

As far as having children, in Norse society if you owned property, especially land, thralls or ships that you better have someone it can be passed down to so as to not start a fight between the families of the two people. It was a civic duty more than anything.

 

[muichimotsu]

So what does that mean in practice? I've already seen enough to give me alarm. It is rational for me to be alarmist.

Can a church refuse to officiate a gay marriage? Can they disallow a gay marriage to use their property or their facilities? Can any person that opposes gay marriage refuse to provide professional services for gay marriages?

It means in practice that a church can discriminate in terms of its services, but it can't do things that are against the law in a more general sense, like human sacrifice, child marriage, etc.

Yes to the first, no to the second because property and facilities aren't necessarily religious in character and subject to the exception given in the CRA and yes in principle, though in practice, again, just because you have religious objections doesn't give you carte blanche to deny a service you freely offered to the public