What does same-sex marriage have to do with religion?

[Parsimony]

They need to get medically treated for their sickness.

Is that even possible? From what I understand, there are no reasonably effective means of changing one's sexual orientation (there might be some research into that which I am not currently aware of. In which case, I would welcome it being shown to me).

 

[Norman]

People got "married" long before religions.

Hi Ingledsva, Who was married before Adam and Eve? Man did not give us marriage, God did. Religion started with Adam and Eve.

Genesis 2:18…And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:1…And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took on of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; (22)…And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a women, and brought her unto the man.
Genesis 2:23…And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Genesis 2:24…Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh

I know that you are agnostic and these passages of scripture probably mean nothing to you. However, I am a creationist and whole heartedly embrace these passages. I do believe in tolerance and respect for other people's beliefs even those of same sex attraction. My church believes marriage is between one man and one woman, however, they are reaching out to members of my faith and to non members. http://mormonsandgays.org/ The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters (Dallan H. Oaks).

Ingledsva, It is basically a contract, and tells others you have chosen to be together.

Yes, it is a contract, however, this contract exceeds a civil contract by secular law, it is an eternal contract of God not of man. Yes, there are fringe benefits by secular law of marriage, I personally do not agree with these fringe benefits. I believe that Government should stay out of the marriage business.

Ingledsva, Interesting note - At least two Roman Emperors married men.

Are you referring to "Nero"? the most detailed images of homosexual marriages come from the descriptions of Roman emperors. Nero, a depraved first-century emperor, married at least two men. He wed Pythagoras in a formal same-sex wedding by first putting on a bridal veil that made Nero the "bride" and Pythagoras the "groom." Every symbol of a classical marriage was present at this ceremony: a dowry, marriage bed, torches, and witnesses. Tacitus, the great Roman historian who records the event, even alludes to the fact that Nero engaged in coitus with the man in front of all the guests, stating that "everything was public which even in a natural union is veiled by night."
According to Tacitus, Nero engaged in "every filthy, depraved act, licit or illicit." In A.D. 67 Nero ordered Sporus, a free man, to be castrated and then married to him. He allowed the boy to take the role of "bride" while Nero played the "groom." After extravagant public ceremonies that were celebrated in both Greece and Rome, they lived together as supposed "husband" and "wife."

I can't say much for "Nero" who " During his reign he captured Christians and, after fixing them to stakes, burned them in his garden at night for a source of light. He is known for numerous brutal executions, including that of his own mother. He committed suicide in June of 68.


Another emperor who "married" men was Elagabalus, who ascended the throne in A.D. 218 after a substantial bribe was offered by his powerful grandmother.
He married a total of five women. The second marriage was consummated after he had his bride's previous husband executed. His desires for his wives, however, were muted in comparison with his liking for men and boys. Elagabalus himself preferred to be the woman in the relationship, having the hairs plucked from his body to simulate femininity while at the same time wearing a wig and applying makeup. He is reputed to have offered his physician large sums of money if the doctor could change him into a woman.
The emperor's first "husband" was a blond slave named Hierocles. Elagabalus was described as being "delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the queen of Hierocles." In addition to playing sado-masochistic games with Hierocles, Elagabalus pretended to be a prostitute out in public, offering himself naked to random pedestrians in the palace or prostituting himself in the brothels and taverns of Rome.
The Augustan History states, "He set aside a room in the palace and there committed his indecencies, always standing nude at the door of the room, as the harlots do, and shaking the curtain which hung from gold rings, while in a soft and melting voiced he solicited passers-by."
Another of his "husbands" was Zoticus, an athlete from Smyrna whom he "married" in a lavish and public display in Rome. Many Roman citizens, whose senses had been dulled by years of the lewd and immoral acts of its leaders, cheered and celebrated the new union.

Source: http://www.fgfbooks.com/Turner-Craig/2013/Turner130323.html

*

Marriage is far more than a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage is a vital institution for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.
In view of the close links that have long existed between marriage, procreation, gender, and parenting, same-sex marriage cannot be regarded simply as the granting of a new “right.” It is a far-reaching redefinition of the very nature of marriage itself. It marks a fundamental change in the institution of marriage in ways that are contrary to God’s purposes for His children and detrimental to the long-term interests of society.
But as Dallin H. Oaks has observed, “Tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination
In addition to using the argument of tolerance to advocate redefining marriage, proponents have advanced the argument of “equality before the law.” No mortal law, however, can override or nullify the moral standards established by God. Nor can the laws of men change the natural, innate differences between the genders or deny the close biological and social link between procreation and marriage. (Dallin Harris Oaks is an attorney, jurist, author, professor, public speaker, and religious leader. Since 1984, He was president of Brigham Young University (BYU), a professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School and a justice of the Utah Supreme Court. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Oaks was considered by Republican U.S. presidential administrations as a top prospect for appointment to the United States Supreme Court)

Source: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

 

[Norman]

We don't have to talk to people who view us as lower than them due to innate traits. There's a few white supremacists on this board and I don't give them the time of day.

Ok, Yes you have that right. Thank you.

 

[Ingledsva]

Forgive me, I do not know the laws of your country. However, in the United States, the government can only regulate the use of words in commerce. For example, you cannot sell something as "low fat" unless it meets the criteria to do so. But I can call myself low fat, I can make a triple cheeseburger and call it low fat, as long as I am not selling it.

In the case of lawyers, you need a license to practice law professionally (ie: commercial purposes). However, you do not need any qualifications to represent yourself. In law, they are not even called "lawyers" but "legal council." You can consult with your retarded cousin for all they care, though they will probably advise against it.

There are a lot of banking regulations, although they are legally called "financial institutions." But if a piggy bank fits the criteria, then our regualtions are pathetic.

Notice how they use more specific words. This clears up alot of ambiguity, plus within the law they will define the terms as used within that law. A different law may define the term differently, and these definitions do not determine everyday use.

Even with the limited power that the government has over the words, none of these examples exhibit a "holy sacrament." The closest thing that I can come up with would be the use of the word "kosher." Could the federal government define what makes something kosher? If they do, they dictate that you cannot sell something called kosher without it meeting certain criteria. But, once again, this would not in anyway change what the Jews consider to be kosher. It would only apply to commerce.

Since marriage has nothing to do with commerce, the only conscern would be what it is called in the law. They can call it a "strategic tax alliance" or a "joint liability contractual obligation." It has been traditionally called marriage, and is considered such in the eyes of that law. For example, we could make a law that defines marriage as the union between a man and his dog, and the law could state that the man can void the marriage by taking his dog to an animal shelter. This would not effect the definition of a marriage as defined under any other law, nor would it effect the relationship between a man and his wife.

If the usage of a word is so important to a group of people, they need to request that a different word be used. The problem that we have here is that these people, since they hold the majority, wish to change the legal definition of the word. Our government has no business in regulating the qualification or procedures of religious ceremonies or sacraments. It baffles me why anybody would want to change that treasured separation.

Marriage was around long before the religions of Abraham.

We could care less that somewhere along the line religions started blessing those unions.

And finally - we are NOT the United States of Christianity!

Religious laws mean nothing!


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Marriage is far more than a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage is a vital institution for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.

ING - In YOUR opinion! To me marriage is a contract, and symbol of two people - heterosexual - or homosexual - that love each other and chose to stay together.
Two gay people can raise children just fine!

In view of the close links that have long existed between marriage, procreation, gender, and parenting, same-sex marriage cannot be regarded simply as the granting of a new “right.” It is a far-reaching redefinition of the very nature of marriage itself. It marks a fundamental change in the institution of marriage in ways that are contrary to God’s purposes for His children and detrimental to the long-term interests of society.

ING - Your God's laws mean nothing to me. Nor your religion's ideas about marriage!

But as Dallin H. Oaks has observed, “Tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination
In addition to using the argument of tolerance to advocate redefining marriage, proponents have advanced the argument of “equality before the law.”

ING - What redefining? Religions at some point in history tacking a blessing on a marriage, does not make marriage theirs, or their way ONLY - from that point on!

No mortal law, however, can override or nullify the moral standards established by God.

ING - So you can be forced to follow Hindi, or Pagan, ideas about "God's" law?

Nor can the laws of men change the natural, innate differences between the genders or deny the close biological and social link between procreation and marriage.

ING - Differences between genders does not dictate whom one LOVES! Nor is there any reason same sex couples should not be allowed to marry!

(Dallin Harris Oaks is an attorney, jurist, author, professor, public speaker, and religious leader. Since 1984, He was president of Brigham Young University (BYU), a professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School and a justice of the Utah Supreme Court. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Oaks was considered by Republican U.S. presidential administrations as a top prospect for appointment to the United States Supreme Court)

Source: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

SO! We don't care who he is.

YOUR religion's ideas, should not dictate Love and marriage!

PS - There is NO Adam and Chav'vah!

*

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Secular marriage is not bound by religious definitions. I could point out that my religion says nothing against homosexuality or same-sex marriage, but that'd be just as irrelevant to secular law as Christian marriage is. The state institution of marriage is by the state, and the state says marriage can be between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. How does gay marriage effect straight people?

 

[Ingledsva]

Secular marriage is not bound by religious definitions. I could point out that my religion says nothing against homosexuality or same-sex marriage, but that'd be just as irrelevant to secular law as Christian marriage is. The state institution of marriage is by the state, and the state says marriage can be between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. How does gay marriage effect straight people?

That is the big question, - that they can never adequately answer, - for it obviously harms no heterosexual couples, when gay couples marry.

*

 

[Dr. Strange]

People got "married" long before religions.

It is basically a contract, and tells others you have chosen to be together.

Interesting note - At least two Roman Emperors married men.

*

"Long before religions" marriage was not a word, nor was wife, nor husband, at least not in the ancient Hebrew language; long before religion. Yes, when a man had intercourse with a woman he was obligated to that woman to support her. You are right to call that a contract. The word marriage, et al, did not exist in the ancient Greek language which became the language text of the New Testament. Matthew 19: 9 translates the Greek word, gamEsE, marrieth. The root of this word, gamo, lends much meaning to why the Greek word "gamEsE" is translated "Should be marrying." The meaning of "gamo" is vulgur in our language and culture so I will not repeat this definition of "gamo." What we call marriage today is what the ancient cultures called a responsibility to a woman after, what we call today, premarital sex. Understanding the meaning of divorce and what it did to a man's woman is the sin that Jesus spoke. Divorce then, was an act, an abuse against a man's woman, hence the sin. Adultery was about taking another man's woman ( the correct translation where you see wife used in the Christian Bible) and the concern was about property. I could go on but then this is my first reply and I'm not here to write a book.

This reply is not to negate what you've said but to add to what you said with ideas that can be backed up.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

I don't know whydeletemy postsin this topic
Because the subject of important topics
It is from the heart of the matter
And the argument that marriage was known before religions
Thiscannot beproved
Because there is no written evidence
And the meaning of written evidence is human knowledge read and write
Theoldestdocumentsknown tohumanity
The Sumerian and Mesopotamian civilizations
The Bible is one of the oldest documents that were used to write
Therefore, we cannot prove that the marriage was known before religions
Civilizationابتداءتwithhuman learningwriting
Or any information beyond this period of time is just theories
Known to ancient civilizations
All without discrimination were the whoring known temples
And which is still known in some religions in India
And also there are in the Ismalia called range and Syria are few in number and not mingled
RevereGynecologicللمراءه
The effects of human life Totem period
Therefore that religion is the sexual relationship
Because sexual relations are human instincts
And we cannot curb these instincts to mean courtyard

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

A distinction must be drawn betweensexual act
And organizational relationship
Religionasexual actina legaltemplate
Orreligiousbase
It is the organizational work
And everyone can note the difference
Relationshipwhoring
Whichsexual act
But differ in organizational form have
Marriagejewelsex
But legal tender is the organizational strength

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Who wants to ignore the type his freedom in that
That knowledge does not belong to a particular human race
Onlyto provideproof
Sociologistssay
The invention of writingisthat you movedtoa new stage
Why every thing you know is written history on those documents reported by civilizations
The Torah was one of the earliest written documents
Memoryof humanitydoes notknow anything aboutits historybeforethe invention of writing
This rugged sex because sex instinct
Ofhumaninstincts
But marriage is between a man and a woman
This evolution occurred with religions, not accepted by the
I write in my
And do not write for tampering with computer keys

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Written historysays
ThatNeromarriedhis sister
NotethatNerowasin theperiodafterChrist
Why did the Romans know that marrying sisters
This proves definitively that marriage is an organizational relationship defined by religious law
Yes,theBibleisspeakingabout this
Also there are Sumerian texts, the Assyrian tablets
And pharaonic Papyrus
And evidence that the Romans did not know of the marriage bond
Thebeheading ofJohn the Baptist
Whenhe objected tothe marriage ofherodias
This is what he wrotehistory
And have evidence otherwise provided by
This increases our knowledge

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

And also another proof is proof that man has not been able to figure out the relationship in the name of marriage bond
The Americas
When he wenttoEuropeans
They found human beings and those people were eating and drinking
And have sex too
Because they multiply
So do they know this social organization and restricted in the name of marriage
The answer, asI knowit isnot
This is proof that the debt was organized by this sexual relationship under the cover of marriage

 

[Dr. Strange]

Is that even possible? From what I understand, there are no reasonably effective means of changing one's sexual orientation (there might be some research into that which I am not currently aware of. In which case, I would welcome it being shown to me).

That's not going to happen. Look, if you believe in a God that creates then you believe that all creation, even homosexuals, are created by God. A sickness, probably more accurately described as a perversion but, totally different where a sickness is as a disease and a perversion is a behavior. Homosexuality is neither. The fundamental Christian fear is causing the perversion.

 

[fantome profane]

I put it this way, which is my favourite saying. “The whole world is dysfunctional because of the fall and consequent sin, everyone in the world is dysfunctional, and the end of all dysfunction is death.’

pithy

 

[fantome profane]

Hello Gnostic Seeker, did you ignore "Albert Brownsey? If so, why would you do that. Isn't this forum the reason we call all share our belief's one with another. Where is the tolerance for someone else's belief's? Please correct me if I am wrong. If you respond, thank you.

I like the quote you have below about tolerance.

“Tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination

Exactly right, tolerance does not requite abandoning standards or opinions. In the spirit of tolerance I can say the view expressed in your post is ignorant and bigoted. That is tolerance. I accept your right to express any ignorant or bigoted opinion you wish, no matter how ridiculously antiquated it is.

The proper way to react to this kind of ignorance and bigotry is to condemn it is the strongest possible terms. And the point is that we can must condemn bigotry while still tolerating the right of people to express such disgusting viewpoints.

 

[Ingledsva]

"Long before religions" marriage was not a word, nor was wife, nor husband, at least not in the ancient Hebrew language; long before religion. Yes, when a man had intercourse with a woman he was obligated to that woman to support her. You are right to call that a contract. The word marriage, et al, did not exist in the ancient Greek language which became the language text of the New Testament. Matthew 19: 9 translates the Greek word, gamEsE, marrieth. The root of this word, gamo, lends much meaning to why the Greek word "gamEsE" is translated "Should be marrying." The meaning of "gamo" is vulgur in our language and culture so I will not repeat this definition of "gamo." What we call marriage today is what the ancient cultures called a responsibility to a woman after, what we call today, premarital sex. Understanding the meaning of divorce and what it did to a man's woman is the sin that Jesus spoke. Divorce then, was an act, an abuse against a man's woman, hence the sin. Adultery was about taking another man's woman ( the correct translation where you see wife used in the Christian Bible) and the concern was about property. I could go on but then this is my first reply and I'm not here to write a book.

This reply is not to negate what you've said but to add to what you said with ideas that can be backed up.

Yes, I've actually posted most of this material before.

Most Christians don't seem to understand that in these patriarchal cultures women were property - pretty much comparable to broodmares, to be exact. And the words being translated today as "WIFE" are actually "WOMAN/FEMALE! An owned object. Thus most of the laws are damages to the male's property rights.

*

*

 

[JerryL]

Ummm! Gay people, and a lot of Grandparents, raise children too, - and need protection for them!

That doesn't interact with my post... which was 9 years ago.

I wasn't discussing "gay people", I was discussing "same-sex marriage". If you don't understand the distinction: please ask questions before you run off with a response.

The salient point of that preamble was "conceived by the members of the marriage during the course of the marriage."

The simple nature of any discussion on anything is to establish a framework of shared presuppositions.

 

[JerryL]

Yes we demand our rights. This society runs on the premise of innate rights for all or none.

I'm not entirely sure which society you are referring to; but I doubt that your second sentence is actually true for it.

 

[dgirl1986]

Absolutely nothing at all. Legal marriage is secular, unless you get married in a church.