Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

[Real Korimyr #9]

I believe Korimyr is referring to the harm it does to the moral fabric of a society, I could be wrong, but you'll have to wait from him to come back to explain it better.

Yes. I do not believe that homosexual marriage harms the moral fabric of society, but the argument can be made that it does, and I consider it a valid argument-- however misguided-- against legalizing it.

If I believe that homosexual behavior were harmful, or that permitting homosexual marriages would threaten the integrity of the institution of marriage-- as many people do believe-- I would be absolutely opposed to homosexual marriage. It is because I consider marriage to be morally desirable behavior that I support legalizing it for homosexuals.

 

[Panache]

That is a pretty broad interpretation for something he said that literally meant people who could not have sex.

What did Jesus say about hermaphrodites? Who should they marry?

 

[stars2heaven]

Yes. I do not believe that homosexual marriage harms the moral fabric of society, but the argument can be made that it does, and I consider it a valid argument-- however misguided-- against legalizing it.

If I believe that homosexual behavior were harmful, or that permitting homosexual marriages would threaten the integrity of the institution of marriage-- as many people do believe-- I would be absolutely opposed to homosexual marriage. It is because I consider marriage to be morally desirable behavior that I support legalizing it for homosexuals.

I see. I have no intention of arguing the point with you since you don't seem to hold it and you are not putting it forth for debate, but I am curious as to which argument you are referring that you think is valid. I don't know of many arguments against gay marriage that hold that status. I assume I am familiar with them all, or atleast the mainstream arguments and maybe most of the less popular ones.

 

[stars2heaven]

What did Jesus say about hermaphrodites? Who should they marry?

I don't think many Christians today have a good idea of how to deal with the plethora of hermaphroditic disorders when it comes to Biblical doctrine. Imagine a person with CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity disorder) who has been happily married for many years. Is this a heterosexual relationship or a homosexual one?

 

[Black Dog]

What did Jesus say about hermaphrodites? Who should they marry?

Since they have the sexual organs to be either, they could marry either as it would still be a lawful marriage.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Since they have the sexual organs to be either, they could marry either as it would still be a lawful marriage.

They have a right to freaky marriage :crazy3:

 

[Black Dog]

I don't think many Christians today have a good idea of how to deal with the plethora of hermaphroditic disorders when it comes to Biblical doctrine. Imagine a person with CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity disorder) who has been happily married for many years. Is this a heterosexual relationship or a homosexual one?

In most cases they are either sexually non functional (eunuchs from birth) or female. So a problem biblacally speaking does not really arise.

 

[Black Dog]

They have a right to freaky marriage :crazy3:

:lol:

Pretty much. Like I said if they have both, they would get to decide what sex they want to live as. The only time a problem would arise is in the case of some kind of sexual immorality like fornication or adultery etc.

 

[stars2heaven]

In most cases they are either sexually non functional (eunuchs from birth) or female. So a problem biblacally speaking does not really arise.

They may appear female, but tell that to the Olympic commitee. I know, that was somewhat of a red herring. In anycase, I think whether or not there is a problem biblically depends on how one defines gender. In that instance it may not be as easy as looking at the persons parts.

 

[Black Dog]

They may appear female, but tell that to the Olympic commitee. I know, that was somewhat of a red herring. In anycase, I think whether or not there is a problem biblically depends on how one defines gender. In that instance it may not be as easy as looking at the persons parts.

I agree. It can be complicated.

I think speaking from a Christian perspective (I do not speak for all Christians though) in the end it would be between that person and God.

Edit: As far as the law goes, it is defined by genitalia as far as I know. Be it natural or a sex change operation etc.

 

[Andalublue]

I think speaking from a Christian perspective (I do not speak for all Christians though) in the end it would be between that person and God.

I thought that was the very raison d'être of organised religion: to prevent people communicating directly with God.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I thought that was the very raison d'être of organised religion: to prevent people communicating directly with God.

I find it ironic when those demanding tolerance show little.

 

[Black Dog]

I thought that was the very raison d'être of organised religion: to prevent people communicating directly with God.

That comment is completely off topic and amounts to nothing more than trolling.

Jesus died on the cross for exactly the opposite reason.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I thought that was the very raison d'être of organised religion: to prevent people communicating directly with God.

That's a very clever way of putting it!

 

[spud_meister]

I find it ironic when those demanding tolerance show little.

What was intolerant about that statement? Where has Andy demanded tolerance?

And not to mention that his statement has a lot of historical context to it, before Mr. Luther came along, the church was the only way for the common, uneducated people to commune with God, as they could not read the bible. So while it may not be as valid today, it can be said that organised religion was set up as a link between the common folk and God.

 

[Black Dog]

What was intolerant about that statement? Where has Andy demanded tolerance?

And not to mention that his statement has a lot of historical context to it, before Mr. Luther came along, the church was the only way for the common, uneducated people to commune with God, as they could not read the bible. So while it may not be as valid today, it can be said that organised religion was set up as a link between the common folk and God.

Please point out how this is on topic or relevant to the discussion in any way?

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

I believe marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

What say you?

As a Libertarian, I believe as long as two people are consenting adults, they can get married if they so choose. I could care less if the women that live down the street from me want to marry.... it does not affect me in a least.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

The problem is you aren't speaking the same language as other people.

Marriage, to other people, comes in a civil form that belongs to the state and a religious form which belongs to the church.

Those people believe that the civil form can allow same sex couples to marry while the religious is free to recognize just a "man and woman" definition.

What you fail to do is explain why the civil and religious are one in the same.

Wouldn't I have to hold this position, in order to explain it? :lol:

Although as I have said in other threads, I think this is just rhetoric your side uses when your actual agenda is to make sure that homosexuality is not accepted as a part of society.

How prejudicial and bigoted of you. also dishonest. :thumbs:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

As a Libertarian, I believe as long as two people are consenting adults, they can get married if they so choose. I could care less if the women that live down the street from me want to marry.... it does not affect me in a least.

As A Libertarian. I think the state has no business with marriage. furthermore, this thread, was a great demonstration of agenda driven "see what you want to see" retorts. I have said time and again, I don't care one way or the other about gay marriage, it has no effect on me. I have said this since well, 5,6,7 years on numerous forums. Even here very recently I have stated it.

I find it funny how, I can say this until I am blue in the face, but the moment I make a statement believing marriage is between a man and a woman, (it is, it is also whatever you, or others believe its between, as I said, I don't care). I am accused of bigotry, homophobia, big government statism, you name it.

(not by you, I am using your post as a springboard catch all for others)



I made no commentary about state enforcement of a man+woman only marriage, I get accused of it.

I made no commentary that marriage was ONLY between a man and a woman, I get accused of it.



Funny thing is, our President said the very same exact phrase, and he gets a pass, by some of my louder detractors. I find that, rather hypocritical.


My real feelings on the subject is that of Tashah's, When someone says marriage, I will always think to a man and a woman, as that is what in this country, typical "marriage" is. As a libertarian, my position on gay marriage is its none of my business what two free individuals want to do, and I wish them the best.


Get the government out of this mess and it insantly becomes a non issue.

 

[spud_meister]

Please point out how this is on topic or relevant to the discussion in any way?

It's not, it's just one of those interesting side topics that springs up now and then, like when someone makes a comment, and another person responds to it, and then another person responds to it, and then another person responds to it, and then one of the earlier respondents asks how it's relevant.

 

[Black Dog]

It's not, it's just one of those interesting side topics that springs up now and then, like when someone makes a comment, and another person responds to it, and then another person responds to it, and then another person responds to it, and then one of the earlier respondents asks how it's relevant.

It was clearly inflammatory and no more than baiting as the majority of modern religions do not operate that way. On top of that it had literally nothing at all to do with even my post. And yet he made the response directly to me as a Christian.

Yes it was completely and utterly bigoted.

 

[Gardener]

It was clearly inflammatory and no more than baiting as the majority of modern religions do not operate that way. On top of that it had literally nothing at all to do with even my post. And yet he made the response directly to me as a Christian.

Yes it was completely and utterly bigoted.

as inflammatory and bigoted as all those who define marriage in such a way that Anda is excluded?

I would say that it only rose to the same level.

 

[Gardener]

That comment is completely off topic and amounts to nothing more than trolling.

Jesus died on the cross for exactly the opposite reason.

He said ORGANIZED religion, which is actually quite compatable with Jesus' message. After all, in the Sermon On THe Mount, Jeusus seemed quite clear as to how Prayer should be carried out.

 

[Andalublue]

It was clearly inflammatory and no more than baiting as the majority of modern religions do not operate that way. On top of that it had literally nothing at all to do with even my post. And yet he made the response directly to me as a Christian.

Yes it was completely and utterly bigoted.

Come, come, you're being much too sensitive. I didn't single out any individual or any specific religion. I'm terribly sorry if you took it as a personal attack, it certainly wan't intended as such. It was off topic, I concede and apologise for that too.

 

[Andalublue]

Now, back to the topic in hand. I'm struggling to understand Rev's position, and believe me, I'm trying to.

On the one hand he says that when he thinks of marriage, to him it means one man+one woman. On the other he doesn't want to impose this position on anyone who would see it differently. What I don't get in that is whether he believes that gay people should therefore be permitted to marry. What I also don't get is his motivation for starting the thread merely to restate a position that he's made many times before on other threads.

I understand very well the conservative position, bound up as it often is with religious considerations and an often contradictory position regarding the separation of church and state. If I don't share the theological beliefs then I can hardly be expected to accept as valid the social policy positions that flow from those religious beliefs. And I don't.

Having said all that, you might be surprised to learn that I'm not in favour of gay people getting married. I am in favour of them being able to, should they wish to, for as long as the institution is state sanctioned and brings benefits that are not conferred on the unmarried. I'm not in favour of religious groups being allowed to define the meaning of the term marriage for any official purpose because I believe in the separation of church and state; it should have nothing to do with religion what the State decides to do about demarcating domestic organisation. Personally, I'd like the state to have nothing to do with licencing domestic arrangements and gifting certain benefits to those who toe the conventional line, but that's a minority opinion, I'll concede.