Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

It's implied in the passages that speak of two as one flesh, and a strong union not to be "put asunder" by man; and prohibiting remarriage unless the spouse has died Have to stop here for now.

Genesis 2:24 is consistent with polygamy.Matthew 19 is speaking against divorce and says nothing relevantMark 10 is the only possibly relevant passage. However, it seems to simply assume monogamy as the norm - without addressing polygamy. A polygamist, by definition, does not need to divorce a wife to take another. It would be interesting to find out where this assumption came from - and obviously relevant.I will note that Corinthians 7 takes a negative view of marriage, seeing it only as an unfortunately necessary outlet for physical desire. Even then neither of the verses speak against polygamy. 7:27 says that the married should not divorce and the unmarried should not marry. 7:39 speaks only of the duties of the wife, but Biblical polygamy is one man with more than one wife so it does not apply.I would add that 1 Timothy 3:2, in requiring that Bishops have only one wife, suggests an acceptance of polygamy even in NT times, even if it was seen as questionable.The references to divorce

It's normally understood to prohibit divorce, and there is no other NT mention of anything even remotely suggestive of accepted polygamy.I believe all the passages I quoted clearly prohibit polygamy.

quote:

---

It's normally understood to prohibit divorce, and there is no other NT mention of anything even remotely suggestive of accepted polygamy

---

It's a pretty odd phrasing for that.

quote:

---

I believe all the passages I quoted clearly prohibit polygamy.

---

Then I am sorry to inform you that you need to learn to read for comprehension.Forbidding divorce is not a prohibition on polygamy. Saying that a woman may only have one husband (at a time) is not saying that a man cannot have more than one wife.

Once again Faith, reality shows you are wrong. It was not the Supreme Court that legalized gay marriage but rather many different legislatures. The Supreme Court simply upheld lower court decisions and affirmed that such laws were Constitutional.AbE: Before the Supreme Court affirmed that same-sex marriage was Constitutional thirty-seven States and the District of Columbia has passed laws allowing same-sex marriages.
sourceThe Supreme Court did not make any law but only affirmed that the laws passed by the States were Constitutional.What that affirmation did do is affirm that the so called "Defense of Marriage Acts" passed in some States were NOT Constitutional.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Doesn't seem too likely that divorce was a problem with polygamists. Well, there isn't a shred of a hint of polygamy among the Jews in Jesus' or Paul's time. Even Herod only had one wife, and you'd expect the rulers and the rich to be the polygamists if it was tolerated.Maybe it existed among the Greeks and Romans? But there is a reference to Pilate's wife -- singular -- so you'd probably have to look at secular histories to find that out. I don't even think the Caesars had more than one wife, though of course the craziest of them lived wildly promiscuous lives.Certainly, when Christianity spread to other parts of the world it might have been read as prohibiting polygamy in places where it existed but then that wouldn't account for the odd phrasing.

I found a shred of a hint:

quote:

---

"When the Christian Church came into being, polygamy was still practiced by the Jews. It is true that we find no references to it in the New Testament; and from this some have inferred that it must have fallen into disuse, and that at the time of our Lord the Jewish people had become monogamous. But the conclusion appears to be unwarranted. Josephus in two places speaks of polygamy as a recognized institution: and Justin Martyr makes it a matter of reproach to Trypho that the Jewish teachers permitted a man to have several wives. Indeed when in 212 A.D. the lex Antoniana de civitate gave the rights of Roman Citizenship to great numbers of Jews, it was found necessary to tolerate polygamy among them, even though it was against Roman law for a citizen to have more than one wife. In 285 A.D. a constitution of Diocletian and Maximian interdicted polygamy to all subjects of the empire without exception. But with the Jews, at least, the enactment failed of its effect; and in 393 A.D. a special law was issued by Theodosius to compel the Jews to relinquish this national custom. Even so they were not induced to conform." Wikipedia

---

See above.Would it kill you to be right about something just once?

That's interesting, thanks.I'm right a lot, it just doesn't get acknowledged.

I've cheered you every time you were right.

quote:

---

Doesn't seem too likely that divorce was a problem with polygamists.

---

The Bible - and Jesus - seem to disagree. (E.g. Matthew 19:7-8)

quote:

---

Maybe it existed among the Greeks and Romans?

---

It's more likely that the Jews adopted monogamy due to Greek and Roman influences.

quote:

---

Certainly, when Christianity spread to other parts of the world it might have been read as prohibiting polygamy in places where it existed but then that wouldn't account for the odd phrasing.

---

Or it is a recognition of the fact that polygamy was still practiced in some countries and is not forbidden in the Bible.

The Defense of Marriage Act was a federal law that prevented states from having to recognize marriage in other states. Given that the constitution expressly requires states to recognize contracts made in other states, it was fairly obvious that the DOMA was never constitutional, to begin with.Bigots have actually gone out of their way to be offended by gay marriage. Many of them (and Faith may not fit into this category) talk about redefining of marriage as if they were personally affected by what spouse somebody else chose to marry. I'm not sure any personal right could be less intrusive to other folks. At least with respect to the first amendment, we get offensive speech. What effect does gay marriage have on anybody not involved? Pretty much none.As someone else expressed, some Christians martyr themselves in the kittens' den these days.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well, if there is no such thing as divorce, booting a wife out of the house even if the house was polygamous would seem to leave the dispatched wife with little to no prospects for the future. So, yeah it would be a problem.Instead of spending time wondering why you did not check before expounding, I looked to see what Jewish sources said about the practice of polygamy. As best as I can find, polygamy was eliminated from most of Jewish culture around 1000 years ago. That date would also be about 1000 years after the NT was written. It appears that the practice was discouraged but not prohibited. For example, one reference I encountered says that the Talmud discussed how to divide an estate between multiple wives.Just a moment...

quote:

---

Approximately one thousand years ago, the noted German scholar Rabbi Gershom the Light of the Diaspora banned polygamy.1 This ban was accepted as law by all Ashkenazic Jews, but was not recognized by Sephardic and Yemenite communities.

---

https://www.reddit.com/...why_did_hebrewsisraelitesjews_stop

quote:

---

The first outright ban on polygamy was around 1000, from the assembly of Rabbeinu Gershom, which banned it for Ashkenazi Jews (roughly European Jews, but they were much more geographically compact a the time). But it seems polygamy was already uncommon--the purpose of the ban was to make religious prohibitions on things that had been undesireable for centuries. That effectively ended polygamy for European Jews, though some, like Rabbi Jacob Emden, thought that the ban shouldn't've been made in theory, but didn't actually practice polygamy.

---

Forbidden - Stack Exchange

quote:

---

Around the year 1000, the rabbinic leadership of Jewry living in France and Germany (or "Ashkenazic" Jews, many of whom would later migrate to Eastern Europe) declared a ban on polygamy, which still stands today. Hence in the English-speaking world today it's virtually unheard of.

---

Ringo answered it from Wikipedia quoting Josephus. There is nothing in the NT -- except that one verse you brought up -- to suggest polygamy was still practiced among the Jews, but Josephus says it was, so that verse probably does imply that it was, as you thought.But there is absolutely no doubt that God's ordinance forbids it, none whatever. And that verse itself is evidence since there would have been no reason to forbid it to bishops or anyone else if God approved of it.

quote:

---

But there is absolutely no doubt that God's ordinance forbids it, none whatever. And that verse itself is evidence since there would have been no reason to forbid it to bishops or anyone else if God approved of it.

---

If it was forbidden there would be no need to specifically deny it to bishops.Not to mention the fact that polygamy is permitted by the Mosaic Law.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

A wedding cake is usually a custom affair made especially for the occasion

---

Not any more than any other cake.Remember, Faith: I used to be a cake decorator. There is nothing special about creating a wedding cake other than the person who is buying it from you has told you, "It's my wedding cake." There is no special ingredient you use to make a wedding cake that isn't used for any other cake you might make. There is no wedding fondant, no special way you make wedding roses out of icing, no wedding eggs to use in the batter, no wedding sugar that will immediately burn if you dare to use it for a birthday.

quote:

---

according to specifications given by the customer

---

Just like every other cake. "I need a cake for my kid's birthday, sports themed. She's really into the Pittsburgh Steelers, so can you do black icing? I'd like a football helmet...."There's nothing unique about a wedding cake. The only reason you even know it's a "wedding" cake is if the person tells you.

quote:

---

it's not a generic cake you can buy from the display case.

---

Actually, it is. Oh, the baker may want you to think that you're getting some sort of magical process (remember...the "wedding tax"? The wedding industry is filled with unscrupulous people who will overcharge you for their services the moment you use the "w" word) But, a cake is a cake. If they could make the thing beforehand and have a significant enough turnover so that it wouldn't go stale by the time it was bought, that's precisely how wedding cakes would be sold.Other than the timing, that's precisely what is done: You will notice that most wedding cakes look an awful lot alike: Either round or square sheets, covered with some sort of fondant (these days...I remember when icing was still used), and then decorated with various frills. The only reason it isn't made beforehand is because it isn't actually going to be delivered until months from now. It's not like the baker has to individually create each cake pan mold for each cake.

quote:

---

It's also not like a birthday cake since Christians have no reason to object to gays or anybody else celebrating a birthday.

---

And yet, some do. Some Christians do have plenty of reasons to object to gay people celebrating a birthday. That's what these "religious freedom" laws specifically allow: Any business owner can refuse to provide services to gay people due to their "religious freedom."So when the Civil Rights Act passed and segregation ended and various businesses insisted that their religious freedoms were being violated by having to serve black people, were they justified in doing so, Faith? Does "religious freedom" include being able to deny black people service?Because that actually happened, Faith. Remember Loving v. Virginia? The lower courts ruled against them specifically stating that god didn't want the races to mix: That's what the county court judge, Leon M. Bazile, wrote, Faith.Once again, we see your political correctness: You're PC enough to despise being thought of as a racist......and even more PC enough to relish being thought of as a homophobe.

quote:

---

What they can't have from a Christian baker is a special order for a gay wedding because that puts the baker in the position of treating the wedding as legitimate

---

Still waiting on your detailed description about how anybody else can "validate" someone else's marriage. After all, you're not the one getting married nor are you the officiant performing the ceremony. You're just a salesman being asked to do your job just as you would for any other customer. If you open your business to the public, you don't get to complain when the public shows up. If you want to pick and choose your clients, then you need to establish your business as a private contractor, not as a public accommodation.Back to the race, question, Faith: Would a business be able to claim a "religious freedom" exemption from anti-discrimination laws on the basis of race? If an interracial couple came in asking for a wedding cake, would the proprietor be allowed to say, "No. God says the races shouldn't mix and I wouldn't want to 'validate' your marriage"?If that's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?Or what about religion? Would a business be able to claim a "religious freedom" exemption from anti-discrimination laws on the basis of religion? If a Jewish couple came in asking for a wedding cake, would the proprietor be allowed to say, "No. God says Jews killed Jesus and I wouldn't want to 'validate' your marriage"?If that's a bogus argument when applied to religion, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

God has decreed what marriage is

---

Funny...I'm looking at the marriage contract for various states and I don't see anything about god in there. God didn't write the law. It seems that humans did.So when people claimed that god made the races separate and didn't want them mixing, were we wrong to ignore that?Do you honestly think you get to claim that god allows you to break the law when you don't like it?

quote:

---

that makes gay marriage a slap in God's face, which we will not participate in.

---

And how fortunate you are that nobody's asking you to participate. You're just being asked to do the job you consciously, deliberately, and purposefully said you would do for anybody who walked through the door.Do you truly not understand what "open to the public" means in regard to a business, Faith? It specifically means you don't get to say no to the customer. If you want to pick and choose who your clients are, then you must run your business as a private contractor. Even then, you still have certain legal regulations you must comply with, but you will have much more freedom to say no.Question: Do you think anti-discrimination laws are valid? Should a business have the right to deny service based upon a person's race? Sex? Religion?If not, why would they be allowed to do so based upon a person's sexual orientation?

quote:

---

The same is true for a florist asked to design arrangements for a gay wedding.

---

Precisely. There is nothing special about a wedding that changes the way the flowers are managed. You opened your business to the public, so you don't get to complain when the public shows up. Just as you would be in violation of the law if you denied a black couple or a Jewish couple, you are in violation of the law if you denied a gay couple.Unless you're saying that you should be allowed to refuse service to blacks and Jews.Are you, Faith? Do business owners have the right to deny service on the basis of race or religion?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law?

---

Why is this so hard to understand?

---

Because you keep avoiding the question. It's a simple yes-or-no, but you have yet to answer it.Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law?

quote:

---

Are you unaware that we were a Christian society up until very recently, which would never have dreamed of legalizing something as antichristian as "gay marriage?"

---

Are you unaware that we were never a Christian society?Have you forgotten that we as a society up until very recently would never have dreamed of legalizing something as anti-Christian as "interracial marriage"?Remember, Faith: That was the judgement of the court in Loving v. Virginia: Have you forgotten that we as a society up until very recently would never have dreamed of legalizing something as anti-Christian as equal treatment under the law? It's why we had segregation laws, Faith. And when they were struck down, people claimed "religious persecution" as if they had a religious exemption to the law.Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law, Faith?If it was a bogus argument when people tried to do so regarding race, what makes you think you're going to be able to get away with it with regard to sexual orientation?Is it "paganism" to allow blacks to marry? Was there any "religious freedom" lost when the law slapped down those people who invoked god as their exemption to anti-discrimination laws?Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law, Faith?There are still country clubs in this country that are whites-only, Faith. And they are perfectly legal because the club is set up as a private institution that isn't open to the public.But the public golf course doesn't get to keep the blacks out. Why? Precisely because it is a "public" golf course. It is "open to the public." Do you not understand what that means? When you open your business to the public, you gain the advantage of having anybody be a potential client. You are able to accept anybody who walks through the door. Rather than having to do all the work of finding your clients yourself, you can advertise your business to the public at large.And the responsibility you have for that freedom is that you don't get to say no to the people who show up. When you open your business to the public, you don't get to complain when the public shows up.If you want to pick and choose your clients, if you want to tell people no, if you want to be able to sit in judgement of the people who would seek to contract your services, you must remain a private contractor. You'll give up the freedom to have anybody as your client. You'll have to seek out your customer base on your own.But, you'll be able to tell someone who seeks to contract your services, "No. I don't wish to do business with you."

quote:

---

Capiche?

---

Well, since you still haven't answered the question, no.How does one "validate" a marriage if you aren't the one performing the sacrament?Do your religious proclivities allow you to deny interracial couples? Would you be "validating" "race-mixing" by doing so?Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a "no"Edited by Rrhain, : "County," not "country"Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a not, fixed a comma splice, typoEdited by Rrhain, : "You're," not "Your"