"As a Christian, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman." Is this argument even...

[Solon]

religiously valid?

I bring this up, because I heard that most objections to same sex marriage usually boil down to this exact point. Even Obama has used this particular argument.

Yet, I must ask, where in the Bible is marriage even defined, if such a definition can be found?

No matter if you are a Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative Christian(Theologically and/or Politically), the only thing they all agree on, really, is that the Bible is, in some sense, the Word of God, and therefore has some authority over their lives. Their differences usually boil down to interpretations of this Holy Text, plus which translations and/or books within the Bible are the most valid.

Yet, within all these different interpretations, and whether some books are omitted or included, none of them include a definite definition for marriage.

If we were to leave it up to interpretation, or implication, then we could say that in the beginning there was no marriage, a lot of men and women "knowing" each other, and begetting offspring, but little mention of marriage, or even marriage ceremonies. Later on, when the Bible described the Married life of Patriarchs and leaders, well, their marriages could have been defined as One Man, One(or more Wives), Servants/Slaves, Concubines, and Prostitutes.

So in the Bible, the norm for marriage, as it were, seemed quite flexible, and include various combinations of the above. Polygyny was considered the norm.

Given this evidence, I find it inconsistent for Christians to claim that this definition of Marriage that they put forward as an argument has any religious basis at all. Its a matter of personal belief, independent of their religion, that leads them to believe that Marriage is between one man and one woman, and its this belief, combined a gross misreading of Leviticus that leads some to oppose same sex marriage and call homosexuality a sin.

This personal belief is rather bigoted, even if it did have a religious basis, it would still be bigoted, but one cannot claim that because they are Christian they HAVE to believe this way.

I mention this, because I find it especially egregious that some people, even on this board, are arguing that to oppose these people's beliefs about marriage, that its being anti-religion, or intolerant. There's nothing in their religion that can be used to justify having this belief. Instead, they use their religion as a cover for their own bigoted point of view, and because of this, I think they diminish and disrespect their own religion. I think we give too many people a pass on a matter of personal belief, because we bought into the argument that its a religious belief.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. The Bible was also used to interpret black people as being evil...

For a president to make it clear that he uses interpretations of the Bible to guide himself in ruling a country is wrong. This is starting off on the wrong foot.

[Toucano]

2. It is not accurate religiously or historically.

Early Christians performed same-sex unions.

It's well documented.

[Somawas]

4. Please post some links to those sources.

I'd love to have them.

[question everything]

6. The Bible says that "a man and a woman should cleave"

or something like that.

For non-Christian, here is a link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7994881

[Solon]

10. I've heard that before, but that only relates to sex, not necessarily marriage...

And the examples in the Bible seem to indicate something quite different. Don't remember the Bible condemning Solomon for having umpteenth wives and concubines.

[LibertyLover]

41. See the book

Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell. It's about 13 years old but still a reasonable compilation of information about same sex unions that were solemnized by the Church.

[Toucano]

52. Delayed response.

I was referring to the below mentioned "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" by Boswell.

You can find it here:

http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679751645

I believe it has failed to have much impact due to the dry, scholarly manner it which it is written, but the research is very good.

[foxfeet]

3. I do not acknowledge the Bible as having any authority at all over my life.

Gee, was that intolerant of me?

[Synicus Maximus]

23. No, but

It would be intolerant of you to say the Bible should not have any authority over the life someone who believes in it.

[foxfeet]

38. And I didn't.

[Turbineguy]

5. It is valid in a certain context

It wasn't however about the man and the woman per se, it was about protecting the woman in an age before contraception. It was about security for children in an age without an economic safety net.

These so-called Christians have it wrong (as they so often seem to do).

[uppityperson]

7. It depends on the definition of "Christian", or perhaps what type "christian" a person is.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. My church performs same-sex wedding ceremonies, even though

they have no legal standing in Minnesota. :shrug:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. Marriage should be a civil issue

If it will help, call it something else, but require everyone to be legally married by a judge. Everyone gets the same rights by this, the only legal marriage. If churches wish to join their members in a spiritual ceremony, they are welcome to do so. But such ceremony will have no legal standing.

[Peacetrain]

11. Truth be told, "church" marriages have no legal standing at all..

It's not till the "marriage" is registered at the court house, ie a civil union is then put into the books, and the couple can then and only then get the benefits of "marriage"

Actually I agree with you, all unions should be civil unions, and then they can solemnize any way they want, church, outdoors, underwater etc., and anyone can call themselves married, bound, ball and chain what ever they want only after they have had the civil union.

Solemnization ceremonies should only happen after the civil union has been approved.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. And ministers should not have the civil authority

to marry someone legally. Yet they do--no clerk's signature was required on the marriage license when I married a couple--only mine--with citation of the page where my ordination is registered with the county clerk.

[Peacetrain]

24. I understand, again it is the registration with the clerk of court.. that

made that "marriage" legal. Ordination, justice of the peace, someone is witnessing that the two people agree to the legal aspect of marriage or union.

I am sure someone will come after me and call me a "commie" at some point but this has been my point of view for years. Kind if what they did in the old soviet union. But I promise you I am not a communist. I have written more than one post and thread on it myself. All unions should be civil unions. They are technically, but for the gay community they are limited to one or two states that they can have a civil union in.

People who are not gay can get married in all 50 states, or have a civil union in all 50 states. And then you have the divorce issues. It is a nightmare for the gay community. You get married in one state, but cannot get divorced in another if your marriage or civil union is not recognized.

I get everyone hopping mad at me, about wanting every union to be a civil union, with solemnization ceremonies to be a private affair later. :)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

37. Hey, I agree with you

the reason I want the state to take away the civil function that clergy can perform is that it is this that muddies the water, and gives religious types the foot in the door, as it were, to the marriage controversy. And I'm saying this as an ordained minister myself.

Spiritual weddings are wonderful for believers, and I'm all for those of a spiritual bent to get them. But the legal marriage should be civil and recorded only with government registrars, like judges, justices of the peace, etc. If a person with one of these offices happens to be a minister, they should perform the legal duty as a secular affair.

[mondo joe]

25. I don't mind because I think about anyone should have the authority to perform

the function - so long as the state does the licensing.

[azureblue]

12. It is not.

According to the Bible marriage is between one man and as many women as he can afford, including concubines. Hit back with this one- it always gets the bigots upset.. Nowhere in the Bible is marriage described as monogamy.

But that is not the argument. the argument is this: What did Christ say about gay marriage? Nothing. What DID he say about divorce? "What God hath joined together---.".

further, the Old Testament also forbids many things- touching pig skin, for one, and approves of genocide, slavery suppression of women, selling your oldest daughter into slavery..

[shadowknows69]

50. "What God hath joined together---.".

Bingo, throw that one at a multiple divorcee and remind them they're sinning worse than any married gay couple.

[Gwendolyn]

13. Their argument is that God created Adam and Eve... one man meant for one woman.

Also, the basic theme of much of the OT is "go forth and multiply." Those are the two main rationalizations uber Christians will offer for their views.

You're right about what you say. Most of the OT is an epic novel chronicling the sexcapades and wacky adventures of wealthy, influential clans. Sort of an original Sopranos, or Desperate Housewives, so those forays into polygamy, prostitution are regarded as men veering off track for awhile (sometimes with not so good results - Solomon), particularly during a time when lots of bodies were needed to fight wars, etc... but that the original plan was always one man, one woman.

[bertman]

14. The marriage is a "one man-one woman sacrament" appears to have evolved

independently of scripture, very much like the current Christian concept that it's okay to bomb the fuck out of any country that isn't Christian.

Just like almost everything ALL religions seem to end up justifying, this abomination of an idea has mutated over the years and has now become DOGMA among the believers despite being totally contrary to the ideas the alleged founder of Christianity, Jesus H. Christ, espoused. Nowhere in the scripture does Jesus even bother to talk about homosexuality or homosexual relationships. But he does talk about loving one's neighbors and also says a thing or two about God being Love. And, truth be told, he spent an awful lot of time with grown men and never had a girlfriend or wife. Go figure.

How did this get to be about one man marrying one woman? The early Catholic church. That revered institution that sanctioned subjugating women, encouraged and sponsored genocide, roasted human beings alive for being non-believers, and allowed its priests to molest young boys and girls.

Pardon me if I defer from believing that these people have any moral authority whatsoever.

Edit for clarity.

[Solon]

16. Actually, it wasn't the Early Church, but the Early Medieval Church that really wrote the book on...

it. For almost a thousand years, the Church actually didn't sanction marriage, it wasn't a sacrament at all. The church basically thought it wasn't their business, and being extremist Paulites, they thought even sex within marriage was sin. So pretty much every couple, married or not, was "living in sin" for nearly a thousand years. It was public pressure, eventually, that lead the Hierarchy of the Church to finally make marriage a sacrament.

Note, local churches(and priests) did do what they wished, it was the Roman Church that opposed marriage as a sacrament for most of this time.

[Peacetrain]

17. Marriage is not a sacrament in the protestant churches.

They have only baptism and communion.

[Solon]

20. That's true, of course, this was well before the Protestant Reformation...

and in fact, I think this, in addition to the Catholic Churches abuse of the belief in Purgatory were, at least in part, lead to the instigation of the Reformation.

[Peacetrain]

28. Those dang indulgences.. drove Luther nutsy fagen.. He never

intended to leave the Catholic church..but yep there you have it..

[Solon]

29. If I remember my history right, the Church basically asked for bribes from loved ones...

of dead people the church said was in purgatory, apparently, with money, the church can assure your relatives get to heaven, or some such BS. Hell, I was raised a Catholic, and I fully believe the church, to raise money, would try the same bullshit today.

[Peacetrain]

31. Yep, you could buy your way to heaven!

Fortunately the religion does not form the person.. two of the best men I have ever known in my life are my husband and son, both lapsed Catholics, who spent all their years in Catholic schools. Actually my son is a Methodist now, and his dear old Mom is a non practicing UCC. But we are people of faith, spirituality..but not so much of the governmental laws of any of the churches

[Solon]

32. My parents are lapsed Catholics, I'm an atheist, and my sister is a Pagan...

No one in the family actually talks about Religion that much, no offense, but the name Jesus Christ is usually only uttered here as an exclamation, more than having any religious overtones. Well, except for my mom's rants against the Pope, but those are more political than theological. :)

[Peacetrain]

35. Well churches and "religions" are human things

gathering places for people who have agreed to live with the same laws to make themselves set apart from the rest of the population and depend on each other.

I am fully a committed follower of Christ, but you and I Solon are in the "church" of the Democratic Underground. We are living with agreed laws to keep us all together and can lean on each other with our political thoughts and activities. We are Democratic brethren

I am not much for churches and church laws myself. Think I am getting closer to being a Quaker every day.

:hi:

edit for spelling

[ProdigalJunkMail]

22. in fairness to Paul

he never suggested that sex within the bounds of marriage was a sin in any size, shape or form...in fact he cautioned against NOT having sex.

sP

[Peacetrain]

26. Yep Paul thought the second coming was going to be "next" week so to speak

He did not think people should marry, own property, have stores etc.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

27. but for those who were married he did not say anything

about sex being a sin... and yes, as a new christian he was a rabid communist as were most...

sP

[Peacetrain]

30. ~rofl~ no kidding about the rabid communist.. The best

explanation I ever heard of Paul, James, and Peter, was that James of course, thought you had to be Jewish before you could be Christian and you needed to keep all the laws.. Paul's perspective was that he was the 13th disciple, and that non Jews were not bound by the same laws,, and poor old Peter was the one constantly trying to make peace between those two

[ProdigalJunkMail]

34. 'peace' might be a stretch

but he was the Apostle to the Gentiles...and did more to spread early christianity than anyone else...hence all those books in the new testament...and he really preached against trusting in circumcision and got pretty pissy (no pun intended) with the non-Jews who were getting circumcised to 'join-up'...too bad my folks didn't read that part in time :-)

sP

[Peacetrain]

36. ~ROFL~ a little off thread, but did you ever see the

Seinfeld, where Elaine had to get the moil, (sp?) for the circumcision and he had a drinking problem.. whoa

[ProdigalJunkMail]

54. i loved ALL the Seinfelds (well, the bulk of them)

and that one was priceless. i loved the way they poked fun at the religious stereotypes out there...

sP

[canetoad]

15. Ya forgot one thing Solon

Religion can do whatever the fuck it wants. That's why we have lots of different ones and they all say they are the only ones with the answer.

So if you expend you time and energy rebutting religious hipocrisy, good luck to you, but it is never going to end. First of all you need to get to the bottom of WHY people need religion to get them through their day. That is a big question. I'll take on most philosophical questions but not this one because it gets right down to the question of why no two people can ever be the same.

As an aside, would you consider polygamy a situation where a group of women 'owned' a man? Sometimes it is only a shift in emphasis that makes the difference.

[Solon]

18. Well, technically, legally, marriage was, all the way up till the late 18th to 19th centuries...

actually a property contract between an owner and the buyer, the owner was whoever was the senior male member of the bride's family, and the buyer was the groom. The property was the bride. The difference between marriages from Biblical times, with polygyny, and monogamous marriages, was the amount of brides you could buy.

Some cultures also have similar customs, but they were reverse, with polyandry, that's why I didn't say polygamy, for that can apply to either sex. Marriage itself was redefined because of the Women's Liberation Movements of the centuries I mentioned above, eventually leading to women becoming, legally, equal partners in marriage, rather than property. Practical application of this equality differs, obviously, but the legal protections are there.

[mykpart]

21. The problem with the religious argument is

that it should only be an argument that a clergyman would use to refuse to marry couple in a church. There are many other reasons a clergyman might refuse to marry a couple in church - the Catholic church and many others do not recognize divorce, for example. And that's fine, that is why we have separation of church and state. But marriage is also a legal contract, and that has nothing to do with religion. My husband and I could not be married in a Catholic church, so we were married by a Justice of the Peace. While the church may or may not recognize our marriage, we have all the same legal rights and privileges and responsibilities as any other married couple, whether married in church or not. So why doesn't the government just preside over the legal contract of marriage, and leave the religious definition to the preachers?

[Celeborn Skywalker]

33. It's stupid.

There are something like three references in the Bible to homosexuality. There are probably more in reference to not eating pork or seafood than the "evils" of being gay.

[Merlot]

39. It really doesn't matter. We are NOT a Christian nation.

So if a Christian believes marriage is between a man and a woman, then they know who they can and can't marry. That's all it means. It doesn't mean non-Christians and persons of other faiths should adopt the beliefs of Christians.

I'm a vegetarian, I believe eating meat is wrong, so put down that hamburger right now!

[Toasterlad]

40. Oh, It's As Valid As Anything Else They Say.

You can make that book mean anything, and they have...for hundreds of years.

[unblock]

42. well, "as a nonreligionist, i believe that christians should not be allowed to breed."

obviously satirical, but it exposes the point: since when do you get to impose YOUR religious beliefs on others who quite obviously do not share those beliefs? and in this country, THE LAW is CERTAINLY not to be used to impose religious beliefs on others.

[GeorgeGist]

43. Obama does not doubt the ...

the sanity of religion. And that's a major obstacle to his credibility.

[dflprincess]

44. I believe a Christian or any other religious person can believe anything they want -

they just can't impose their religious beliefs on everyone else.

[Solon]

46. They can believe whatever they want, but its not a religious belief, and we should call them out...

on that.

[terrya]

45. They apply this arguement even if you get married at City Hall

I mean, even when you leave church and religion completely out of it.

People don't support same-sex marriage because of their discomfort about homosexuality. Period.

[Norrin Radd]

47. I wonder how Christians feel about a one man and one woman marriage,

if one of those two has had a sex change?

[Solon]

48. For the most conservative of them, I think they view Transsexuals as mentally ill...

so they have very draconian views on transsexuals.

[and-justice-for-all]

49. Only if you subscirbe to the doctrine is it valid...

otherwise, its meaningless.

What they do is use their religion as an excuse to be bigots and when the courts rule in their favor, it just gives them validation of their bigotry and sends them the message that its 'a-ok'.

There is no excuse, at all, as to why same-sex couples can not marry and by voting on a civil right is WRONG. There is suppose to be a separation of church and state, but when they allow religion to do as it had done with Prop.8; the wall is shattered. Someones religious view has no place in the bigger perspective, if validating same-sex marriage also meant that they HAD to have a same-sex marriage, then they would have a right to bitch. But that is not the case and never has been, no one is forcing anyone to do something that they do not want to do.

There should have never been a vote on same-sex marriage, it is appalling to have done so. I am not a second class citizen because of how I choose to live MY life, it is mine and I can live it any way I choose. Allowing religious bigots to have the delusion that we are second class citizens is disgusting as well. They have an invisible friend(s) and we are suppose to give them some extended privileged and respect!? fuck that.

[Orsino]

51. "I hide *my* hate behind a Bible." n/t

[SidDithers]

53. My response is usually something along the lines of...

"Your Christian beliefs don't, and shouldn't, count for a damn thing when civil rights are being discussed."

Why does a religious opinion carry any fucking weight whatsoever with regard to secular governance?

Sid