Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights - Page 20

Zeta-Flux · 2008-05-23, 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by S485122

The mores and rules described in the Bible are appalling (sending a soldier to a sure death to take his wife as a concubine...

The story of David and Bathsheba is not a story condoning such an action. It is the story of the fall of David. When the prophet confronts David, it isn't to congratulate him on his conquest, but to condemn him for stealing and murder. I recommend you reread the story.

Quote:

...selling ones daughter as a slave...

Again, such actions are not condoned but condemned.

Quote:

...death penalty for adulterous relations, for working on sabbath, for wearing clothes made of more than one type of fiber...

In the context of the times, the Jews covenanted with God to be His people and live those laws. I don't see why, if one agrees to such conditions, that makes them appalling.

Quote:

There is no mention of a marriage between Adam and Eve : does it mean they should have been stoned ? By whom ? Their children ?

The story of the marriage of Adam and Eve is given in Genesis chapter 2. God creates Eve from Adam's side, and joins them together. In verse 25 she is called his wife. I'm sure other possible interpretations are possible, but historically this is always how it has been interpreted in context. Jesus uses this marriage by God to teach "that which God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."

I hope this helps answers a few of your questions.

Cheers,
Zeta-Flux

Uncwilly · 2008-05-23, 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by S485122

The mores and rules described in the Bible are appalling (sending a soldier to a sure death to take his wife as a concubine, selling ones daughter as a slave, death penalty for adulterous relations, for working on sabbath, for wearing clothes made of more than one type of fiber...)

There is no mention of a marriage between Adam and Eve : does it mean they should have been stoned ?

Last point first:

Quote:

..brought her unto the man. 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. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

That is the marriage. Very simple, a man takes a woman, they are joined.

First point:
You have a mixed bag, the first example is the failure of a man, this is the single case of this man failing.
I am not sure of what incident that you are refering to about the slave.
Death penalty for adultry, death penalty for many crimes in many codes in the past was common and not unique to the Jews
DP for work on Sabbath, any arguement that I may make on this you will not accept (fairly detailed, etc.), suffice to say that that law has been 'repealed', of sorts in the New Testatment.
Wearing of diverse fibers did not carry the death penalty, rather shunning from the community. Again the arguement is not one that many would find satisfying. It has to do with the seperation of the Jews from the other nations, ploughing with diverse animals, clothing requirements, etc. are to teach and enforce that (one could tell an observant Jew by their clothes).

Note, my response is concurrent with Z-F's

For what it is worth Nelson, does not reflect all Christians. His level of reasoning, deep thought, or lack thereof is typical of those that listen to a preacher and just believe it. Those that have looked at and studied for themselves both the Bible and examined evidence for its veracity tend to be more willing/able to give a decent arguement.

BTW, I would suggest the folks capitalize the name of the book, 'the Bible', just as one would for the name of any book, etc., eg. 'War and Peace'.

Brian-E · 2008-05-23, 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

...For what it is worth Nelson, does not reflect all Christians. His level of reasoning, deep thought, or lack thereof is typical of those that listen to a preacher and just believe it. Those that have looked at and studied for themselves both the Bible and examined evidence for its veracity tend to be more willing/able to give a decent arguement....

Of course Nelson's views don't reflect those of all Christians, any more than Zeta-Flux's views do or yours or the views of my Christian partner who has had a gay relationship with me for 22 years and who manages to interpret the Bible in a modern setting based on current scientific knowledge and social realities. The fact that I don't share his religious beliefs is neither a problem for him nor for me. Our country has opened marriage to same-sex couples and this is mostly not at odds with the large Christian population (plus many muslims too). Sometimes there is a conflict of ideals involving religion but generally most Christians here are perfectly able to accept the human reality of same sex partnerships. You have undoubtably studied the Bible in great detail, Uncwilly, but could it be that you would also benefit from talking rather more with other Christians who have managed to shed more modern interpretations on some of its teachings?

S485122 · 2008-05-23, 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Last point first: That is the marriage. Very simple, a man takes a woman, they are joined.

So women are the property of the first man to take them ? This is not a definition of marriage that I would endorse (nor is it the mutually accepted bond or covenant other parts of the bible speak of.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

I am not sure of what incident that you are referring to about the slave.

Exodus 21,7 But my knowledge of the bible is rather rusty, it dates mostly from more than 40 years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Death penalty for work on sabbath, any argument that I may make on this you will not accept (fairly detailed, etc.), suffice to say that that law has been 'repealed', of sorts in the New Testament.

A lot of old rules were repealed by the new testament. The new covenant tried to adapt the religion to the changing mores and to a loving god instead of a god of wrath... The same thing happened with the quran. The problem with religious reformists is that their vision and teaching are very soon frozen and used literally centuries afterwards. The only things that seem to matter are the letters not the spirit of the word.

Jacob

P.S. As for capitalisation of the name of books it depends of the typography. I do not feel the need to capitalise the words god or bible. I never saw the word atheism capitalised in the middle of sentence. As for your example in the original title "Voyna i mir" the second word was not capitalised AFAIK (I never saw the manuscript or the first edition of the book.). The first word is capitalised because it is the beginning of a sentence (rather the fragment of one.)

Uncwilly · 2008-05-23, 23:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by S485122

So women are the property of the first man to take them?

No, it is a mutual thing, I was using a common phrase. However 'back in the day', primaraly because of physical strength, etc. men did tend to have the greater ablity to provide.

Quote:

Exodus 21,7

Read from verse 1-11 for context. This is for someone 'down on his luck', and the bethrothal is at issue. If she was not betrothed, she was to go free like a man. These stipulations are rather more generous and protective than what was the norm of other nations at the time. These were codified protections, there were to be no perpetual slaves of the Hebrew nation.

Quote:

The new covenant tried to adapt the religion to the changing mores and to a loving god instead of a god of wrath...

That is a simplistic view that does not take into account what is actually said in the NT. The principles have not changed, nor the utility of the laws, (9 of the 10 commandments are repeated). The 'Law of Moses' was a national law, the 'Law of Christ' is for believers in all nations, so the laws concerning building, etc. , while teaching principles, are not binding.

Quote:

P.S. As for capitalisation of the name of books it depends of the typography. I do not feel the need to capitalise the words god or bible. I never saw the word atheism capitalised in the middle of sentence. As for your example in the original title "Voyna i mir" the second word was not capitalised AFAIK (I never saw the manuscript or the first edition of the book.). The first word is capitalised because it is the beginning of a sentence (rather the fragment of one.)

Nit pick, the custom in English is to capitalise the signficant words (not: of, the, and, or, in, etc.; unless they are the first word or some how signifacnt, like the band name The The) in the title of books, magazines, films, poems, works of art, songs, organizantions, dieties, group names, personal names, countries, languages, days of the week, etc. I understand that is not the convention in some languages, but it is in English. I don't 'believe' in Hermes, but I do follow the conventions for English.

Brian-E · 2008-05-24, 16:54

Without comment:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nelson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nelson

Brian,

I believe you as a person and your partner as person have a right to protection under law. There are examples in the Bible of covenant relationships between men such ad David and Jonathan. David even said at Jonathan's death that the love of Jonathan was sweeter than the love of women. By establishing that covenant David made all of his resources available to Jonathan as Jonathan made his resources available to David. David still had control of his resources and Jonathan still had control of his resources. In a covenant relationship both partners are declaring that if necessary they will use everything in their power to protect the other from harm even to the point of death. David fulfilled his side of the covenant later in caring for and maintaining Jonathan's crippled son Mephibosheth. Although David was a weak vessel, indicated by his may wives and one very shameful one at that Bathsheba why is it that he is acclaimed the most beloved king of Israel of all time even thaough his son Solomon was much wiser and wealthier. Neither he nor Jonathan could be considered homosexual.

Perhaps you are missing the point that Marriage is not a "right" for any one. My post to Silverman addresses some of that multiple times. He doesn't want to listen. All rights are actually only a perception of whether laws are in agreement with the laws of God or not. When laws are out of agreement with the laws of God pertaining to humans then they always in danger of stepping on someones God given rights.

When Jesus is asked how to get into the kingdom of God, he asks a question, "What does it say in the law?" The answer is the first two commandments of Moses. Jesus commends the one desiring admittance to the kingdom ... saying he had answered well and that all the law and prophets are based on those two commandments. I just take it further to what are those two commandments based on?

You really have to put your thinking cap on to understand this. In the first chapter of the bible God says, "Let us make man in our image ..."he also defines what he wants man to do ie take care of animals plants trees and the planet in general. What I contend(fight for) here is make man in our image is both the basis of those two commandments and what makes any and all individuals of any worth whatsoever.

When Human rulers conquer a region or it comes to them by less dubious means. I will use the examples of Jeanne d' Arc, and Napoleon. I could use Lenin and Stalin as well but they are not what I would call shining examples of goodness nor Napoleon either although he may have done some good. Nevertheless images of these persons are set up all over the country. I think your Queen is on the Dutch Euro or at least some coin if I am not mistaken. At least her image was on the old Guilders. What does that signify? It signifies that Holland is her kingdom. Are you with me? Now if God puts his image on You and me doesn't that signify that he is ruler over all mankind?

Now that he is ruler over all mankind doesn't provide a basis for his Authority any more than your queen has authority over Holland merely because she is Queen. I know that she still answers to a majority rule of some form of parliament and law making body but she symolizes that authority. What makes that authority valid besides the consent of the Dutch people? It is based on something far more subtle than consent of the people. I add too that it is only a tiny shimmering light of God's authority.

By making Laws in Holland what does your government do? Does it not through negotiation with other countries and holding people accountable for there misdeeds whether speeding, stealing or any other crime against you that you may have a secure environment in which to go to work earn a decent amount of money to pay rent and provide your needs? It also helps to finance the building of dykes and canals to clear land for people to live grow food so that the country can sustain itself independant of others(Make Gouda cheese heh-heh). Provides a police to keep miscreants at bay, perhaps a small army and enlists the people to be a part of that army to provide that security.

My argument is that these things sometimes we are not even aware of are the basis of the authortiy of your government. When your government would cease to provide those things it would cease to have any authority. If a new government were not established very quickly would you feel very safe hopping on your bicycle to go down the street to buy a few potatoes or whatever suits your fancy to prepare for dinner? For people who don't feel safe even with all those safeguards that is another matter. All governments have those who don't agree with the government that is nothing new.

So even God's authority is questioned by ones who choose to disobey the things he has given them to do. Caring for the Earth, not a great nor impossible thing in my opinion. but what is the basis of his Authority. I would even think you could think of some things after everything said about Holland. What does he provide us with? I'll list a few Air, water, areable land, plants for food animals for Our and his entertainment, light warmth, arguable during the winter months, adding seasons with that one. Those are only a few and some he provides through human agency who wouldn't be able to do so if he hadn't provided the materials.

We could analyze some of thoae things but when I tried to do that it turned into a book. Something I have never even come close to in all my life. I don't have a great fondness of writing. Passion can really change a lot of things. I remember well the times I was in love and Creative juices would really flow like honey like at no oher times in my life. None of those adventures ever came to a marriage and at 62 years now I don't really hold much hope for that. Could still happen I suppose but she would have to be quite a lot younger to help accomplish the things I would like to have accomplished in that area.

I may be able to condense that analysis into somthing that would fit into a new post. What I'm dealing with here is the basis of God's authority If we can establissh the basis of his authority then all the other contradictions fall away. If we can't confirm that authority such that we are willing to submit to it for us it remains no authority but that only applies to those who presume his non existence and and thus think that they don't fall under his rule. Unfortunately that is also their biggest mistake because the refuse to recognize his authority eventually they fall under his authority by force and have no recourse to do so willingly because they are no longer under the living.

If you on the other hand decide Holland has it all backward and we should all drive on the left side of the road like they do in England you would run up against the folly of that very quickly. God's authority works the same way because in reality the authority of governments come from him in the first place and they are his agents to maintain peace and tranquility.

Now you have to decide for yourself with no further input from me.whether you're ready and willing to submit to God and his ways or continue to maintain that he is either to good to punish me or unable. because if you do you really don't understand his goodness. which makes him able to help you understand that you are more than homosexual you are a man nothing more and nothing less. Homo -sexuality has nothing to do with your Identity nor that of your partner Your Identities lie in the fact that you are created in the image of God which of itself gives you incredible worth to God. Along with that image goes a responsibility to not allow that Image to become defaced to the point of being unrecognizable similar to a coin laid on a railroad track and flattened to the point of no longer being usable to buy some pommes or maybe just a waffel und sirop.

Sexuality although it gives pleasure wasn't designed for that purpose any more than eating was designed for pleasure. Very few people would deny that eating is pleasurable Although for some with bad teeth or no teeth it could be quite a chore. George gets great pleasure out of writing Programs which are a lot of work to crunch prime number candidates. I hope he wouldn't put writing programs so high that he would neglect eating entirely. The purpose of eating is of course to gain nourishment. Now that you have eaten would it be right to regurgitate the food you just ate so that you would have an empty stomach and be able to enjoy the pleasure of eating again and again. It is really basically a question of design. What is the heart designed for Pump blood the mouth take in food, speak/communicate our thoughts to others, the nose well it has multiple functions to but drinking isn't one of them that could have some dire consequences. Since certain parts are designed for certain functions why is it so incredible to imagine that there might be external Natural laws governing the use of those parts?

I will break for now there and when you are ready with questionslay them on me If I don't have the answers I'll try to find them an you can be sure I'll be honest with you if I can't find any.

nelson

Hi Nelson,

You have your views and I have mine. My main concern is to post on the public discussion page because I believe the discussion is extremely important at a time when in many areas of the world marriage may be on the point of opening. Therefore I wish to make my arguments known to as many as possible, and for that reason I am frankly not keen to spend time corresponding with you in private as my time can be more effectively spent on the public pages. I am more than happy to discuss everything you say there.

My only question now is: do I have your permission to post what you wrote to me on the public forum, or do you want it to remain private?

In any case please don't continue the private discussion about gay marriage. Thankyou.

Brian.

You have my permision explicitely to post this mail in it's entirety with your reply(not the previous one) if you think that it will contribute substantially to the discussion at hand. No extractions but that does not preclude you from commenting on any part after doing so.

nelson

Brian-E · 2008-05-26, 09:15

It seems to me that the subject of this thread is suitable for a poll at some point if and when the discussion about it has died down. Having said that, there might also be a case for preferring not to have a poll. Does anyone have any views on this? And if we do hold a poll, should it just be a simple yes/no or could there be alternative answers such as "no gay marriage, but civil partnership should be created", or "there should be a referendum and marriage should be opened if the public votes for that"?

crash893 · 2008-05-28, 15:38

I think that the main point of this thread has wondered away from its original question

The question is about the legality of gay marriage not the Religious morality of gay marriage

I think that the fact that the Religious factors keep cropping up is a fairly certain indication that Religion is playing a major roll in how laws are made in the US.

R.D. Silverman · 2008-05-28, 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash893

I think that the main point of this thread has wondered away from its original question

The question is about the legality of gay marriage not the Religious morality of gay marriage

I think that the fact that the Religious factors keep cropping up is a fairly certain indication that Religion is playing a major roll in how laws are made in the US.

What about the morality of religious intolerance and discrimination??
Jesus would be appalled.

Religious morality, as practiced today, is an oxymoron.

Brian-E · 2008-06-01, 09:59

Just read on a Dutch language news site that the states Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah have asked California to delay the planned opening of marriage on 17 June in order for them to work out how they stand legally with recognising same-sex marriages of couples living in their states who have travelled to California to get married. (The governor of New York state on the other hand announced that his state will recognise gay marriages from California.)

Now, am I missing something, or is this just a cynical attempt to cause delay in California with implementing the supreme court's decision and ending the discrimination there? Because how is the situation for these states made any different now by the court ruling in California? Massachusetts opened marriage to gay couples in 2004 so I fail to see what these states think has changed from their point of view: they already potentially have same-sex couples with USA citizenship who have married in Massachusetts.

I hope California doesn't pay any heed to this indefensible delaying tactic. A lot of people are waiting to finally be allowed to marry and have presumably already made their wedding arrangements.

cheesehead · 2008-06-01, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Now, am I missing something, or is this just a cynical attempt to cause delay in California with implementing the supreme court's decision and ending the discrimination there?

Opponents for whom gay marriage is religiously or morally abhorrent will try any legal avenue they can, but I'm not sure that "cynical" is the right adjective. Perhaps "stubborn"?

Quote:

Because how is the situation for these states made any different now by the court ruling in California? Massachusetts opened marriage to gay couples in 2004 so I fail to see what these states think has changed from their point of view: they already potentially have same-sex couples with USA citizenship who have married in Massachusetts.

... any legal avenue they can ...

2008-05-26, 09:15	#216
Brian-E "Brian" Jul 2007 The Netherlands 7×467 Posts	Poll? It seems to me that the subject of this thread is suitable for a poll at some point if and when the discussion about it has died down. Having said that, there might also be a case for preferring not to have a poll. Does anyone have any views on this? And if we do hold a poll, should it just be a simple yes/no or could there be alternative answers such as "no gay marriage, but civil partnership should be created", or "there should be a referendum and marriage should be opened if the public votes for that"?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Patient Rights	R.D. Silverman	Soap Box	25	2013-04-02 08:41
Marriage and Civil Partnerships: what is the ideal situation?	Brian-E	Soap Box	53	2013-02-19 16:31
Gay Marriage: weekly alternating viewpoints	Brian-E	Soap Box	46	2008-11-09 22:21

2008-05-28, 15:38	#217
crash893 Sep 2002 2³·37 Posts	I think that the main point of this thread has wondered away from its original question The question is about the legality of gay marriage not the Religious morality of gay marriage I think that the fact that the Religious factors keep cropping up is a fairly certain indication that Religion is playing a major roll in how laws are made in the US.

2008-06-01, 09:59	#219
Brian-E "Brian" Jul 2007 The Netherlands 7×467 Posts	Just read on a Dutch language news site that the states Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah have asked California to delay the planned opening of marriage on 17 June in order for them to work out how they stand legally with recognising same-sex marriages of couples living in their states who have travelled to California to get married. (The governor of New York state on the other hand announced that his state will recognise gay marriages from California.) Now, am I missing something, or is this just a cynical attempt to cause delay in California with implementing the supreme court's decision and ending the discrimination there? Because how is the situation for these states made any different now by the court ruling in California? Massachusetts opened marriage to gay couples in 2004 so I fail to see what these states think has changed from their point of view: they already potentially have same-sex couples with USA citizenship who have married in Massachusetts. I hope California doesn't pay any heed to this indefensible delaying tactic. A lot of people are waiting to finally be allowed to marry and have presumably already made their wedding arrangements.