Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,772 Year: 4,029/9,624 Month: 900/974 Week: 227/286 Day: 34/109 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 559 of 759 (702877)
07-12-2013 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 558 by AZPaul3
07-12-2013 2:03 AM


Re: Pointy Sticks
The "crap" is in any claim that actual same-sex MARRIAGES as the equivalent of heterosexual marriages existed except as very very rare aberrations. The article blurs a whole bunch of stuff together in such a way that it's hard to know what they are claiming. Same-sex UNIONS are not MARRIAGES. Informal same sex unions have always existed and nobody is objecting to them, and the existence of elaborate rituals also does not make a marriage in the usual sense. We know there are lifelong homosexual partnerships and that's basically all the article is describing. That has nothing to do with granting FORMAL LEGAL MARRIAGE to homosexuals. If you would like to wade through that article and make a case for whatever ACTUAL MARRIAGES may be documented in the same sense as heterosexual marriages, instead of leaving it all blurry and vague implying more than actually ever existed and falsely implying that permanent unions are somehow the same thing, please do so. I'm not going to do that work. Far as I can tell it's all a bunch of politically correct machinations to pretend something existed that never did. Homosexual relationships have always existed, but nevertheless homosexuality has always been marginalized across cultures, which has been my argument, and nothing in that article shows otherwise, and whatever "marriages" existed are mostly NOT true marriages but something else. See if you can prove otherwise from that odd document.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by AZPaul3, posted 07-12-2013 2:03 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by AZPaul3, posted 07-12-2013 8:17 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 563 of 759 (702890)
07-12-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 560 by AZPaul3
07-12-2013 8:17 AM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Nobody is objecting to homosexual unions that are established spontaneously or with rituals of any sort that don't involve redefining marriage for the state or the whole society. It is impossible to tell from that article if any of the unions being discussed are of the latter sort and they may not be. Nobody is objecting to any other kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by AZPaul3, posted 07-12-2013 8:17 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 576 by Taq, posted 07-12-2013 5:04 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 587 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 8:51 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 564 of 759 (702891)
07-12-2013 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 562 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2013 11:27 AM


Re: Pointy Sticks
It is absurd to call an ancient institution like marriage discrimination against people who don't qualify for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:27 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by AZPaul3, posted 07-12-2013 12:55 PM Faith has replied
 Message 586 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 8:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 566 of 759 (702897)
07-12-2013 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 565 by AZPaul3
07-12-2013 12:55 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
I'd just remind you that it was Christians who originally opposed slavery and who ultimately succeeded against the ancient practice.
To compare marriage to slavery is of course an absurdity in itself but that doesn't seem to faze you.
However you are quite right that you are going to "change another bigotry" according to your twisted definition and Christians aren't going to have anything to say about it. You can probably even get us arrested for "hate speech" for our opinions. Have at it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by AZPaul3, posted 07-12-2013 12:55 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 567 by jar, posted 07-12-2013 1:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 569 of 759 (702909)
07-12-2013 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by Jazzns
07-12-2013 2:30 PM


Re: Can't we just go back to "traditional" marriages?
What Christ CHANGED was their casual acceptance of the sin of polygamy, by emphasizing God's ordinance, not GOD'S ORDINANCE itself. Sheesh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by Jazzns, posted 07-12-2013 2:30 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by Rahvin, posted 07-12-2013 4:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 580 by Jazzns, posted 07-12-2013 6:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 572 of 759 (702912)
07-12-2013 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 570 by jar
07-12-2013 4:24 PM


Re: Can't we just go back to "traditional" marriages?
You're going to have to provide chapter and verse for that one, jar, God never commanded polygamy, and never told Hagar to return to Abraham. And Hagar had taunted Sara for being infertile, let's get our facts straight here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by jar, posted 07-12-2013 4:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 579 by jar, posted 07-12-2013 5:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 585 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 8:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 573 of 759 (702913)
07-12-2013 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 571 by Rahvin
07-12-2013 4:25 PM


Re: Can't we just go back to "traditional" marriages?
I say these things about marriage as they relate to my religion in answer to others who brought up the subject. I didn't bring it up.
Christian law WAS the law of the US and the UK and many European countries, and still is to some extent; funny there's now a question about "imposing" it on anybody. All your freedoms derive from it. Not going to be the case when Sharia kicks in.
Yes, we're no longer a Christian country, we're pagan as all get out and soon to self-destruct for it. Enjoy.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by Rahvin, posted 07-12-2013 4:25 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 574 by NoNukes, posted 07-12-2013 4:58 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 577 by Taq, posted 07-12-2013 5:05 PM Faith has replied
 Message 578 by onifre, posted 07-12-2013 5:30 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 581 by AZPaul3, posted 07-12-2013 6:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 582 by jar, posted 07-12-2013 6:56 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 584 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 8:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 589 of 759 (702941)
07-12-2013 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by Taq
07-12-2013 5:05 PM


Re: Can't we just go back to "traditional" marriages?
That's hilarious given that the First Amendment tells everyone that they are free to ignore the First Commandment.
Good point, it does, to the nation's shame really. There were antichristian influences as well. But much of American law was also based on the Old Testament, through Blackstone. Both are true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Taq, posted 07-12-2013 5:05 PM Taq has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 590 of 759 (702942)
07-12-2013 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 579 by jar
07-12-2013 5:51 PM


Jar's misrepresentations of the Hagar story
You started your quote at the point where Sara "mistreated" Hagar, leaving out the reason she did it, Hagar's despising her for her infertility:
Gen 16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
Gen 16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
Gen 16:5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong [be] upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
Gen 16:6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid [is] in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face
You had also said in your Message 570 that God sent her back to "Abe," but God sent her back to her mistress Sarai. If that was intended to be your proof that God commanded polygamy it doesn't work for that purpose. It was Sarai who gave Hagar to Abraham in the first place, it was not God's plan and there is nothing anywhere in scripture that shows God commanding polygamy.
As He said in 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.
ONE "wife" not plural "wives." And this was reiterated in the NT by both Jesus and Paul which I already quoted earlier in the thread. The polygamous Israelites were in sin.
So you were wrong about the three things you said, that God commanded polygamy and that God commanded she return to Abraham, and the implication that Sarai mistreated Hagar for no good reason. Here's that Message 570 where you said all that:
jar writes:
They were not just allowed to continue polygamy, according to the Bible God even commanded it.
When Hagar left Abe acauseof Sara got in her face and dissed her, God stopped her and commanded she return to Abe.
Also there were TWO episodes where Hagar was sent away, both times for the same reason of despising and mockery of her mistress, in the second case by her son Ishmael, which was the incident I had in mind:
Gen 21:8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the [same] day that Isaac was weaned.
Gen 21:9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
Gen 21:10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, [even] with Isaac.
Gen 21:11 And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son.
Gen 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Gen 21:13 And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he [is] thy seed.
Gen 21:14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave [it] unto Hagar, putting [it] on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.
Gen 21:15 And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.
Gen 21:16 And she went, and sat her down over against [him] a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against [him], and lift up her voice, and wept.
Gen 21:17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he [is].
Gen 21:18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.
Gen 21:19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by jar, posted 07-12-2013 5:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by jar, posted 07-13-2013 9:14 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 591 of 759 (702943)
07-12-2013 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 583 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2013 8:35 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Indeed, so far from him openly disapproving of polygamy, he set special blessings on such polygamists as Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, without even mentioning to them his preference for monogamy ... no-one would ever have guessed that he was secretly disapproving of their marital arrangements.
You might not guess it but a good Biblical exegete does.
God also called David a man after His own heart although David not only committed polygamy but seduced the wife of one of his loyal soldiers, then had the man killed to cover his tracks.
It doesn't have to be said in so many words for us to recognize sin in God's people, you simply have to know what God commanded and when they violate it you know they are in sin. Much of the OT shows sin that is not identified as such. You're supposed to know the commandments and know sin when you see it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 8:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:18 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 593 of 759 (702945)
07-12-2013 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 587 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2013 8:51 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Nobody is objecting to homosexual unions that are established spontaneously or with rituals of any sort that don't involve redefining marriage for the state or the whole society.
Many people object to them, in fact.
Excuse me, I should have been clearer: The arguments against Gay Marriage as such are not against any other form of homosexual union, the objection is to the misuse of the institution of marriage.
As for the definition you supplied of "marriage" it's clearly a modern politically correct definition. You might consider Noah Webster's definition from his dictionary of 1828, and in fact those who deny the original Christian mindset of America might consider it as well:
marriage
MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.
1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.
2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 8:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 594 of 759 (702946)
07-12-2013 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2013 11:18 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
Murder and adultery were also punishable by death. Often the Israelites forgot the commandments and went their own way, nothing unusual in that. The OT is a great deal about human sin and the failure to keep God's law. That isn't God's fault, that's human nature. Eventually their sins accumulate and they come under Judgment though.
Also, you can see God's judgment in the case of David's adultery and murder in what happened with his sons later. You can also see the consequences of Solomon's sins in the splitting of the kingdom and the rule by evil kings. You have to be alert to how God works, you see. You judge superficially, but God's workings are clear to those who understand.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 596 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 597 of 759 (702951)
07-12-2013 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 596 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2013 11:27 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
They got punished along with all the other sins committed by David and Solomon, and others too, as I describe above, in the consequences to David's sons and daughter, and the consequences to the nation of Israel as it was split into two kingdoms and had many evil kings.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 599 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:53 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 598 of 759 (702956)
07-12-2013 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by Jazzns
07-12-2013 6:10 PM


Re: Can't we just go back to "traditional" marriages?
What Christ CHANGED was their casual acceptance of the sin of polygamy, by emphasizing God's ordinance, not GOD'S ORDINANCE itself. Sheesh.
Where did Christ do this exactly?
I answered this back in Message 544 where I said:
Marriage is a Creation Ordinance, established by God, by which a man and a woman become "one flesh" which is expressed in the offspring they create which are literally one flesh out of the two of them. This is said in Genesis 2:24 and quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, and by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:16 and Ephesians 5:31. Although there are certainly conditions that prevent fertility in heterosexuals, they are still by principle able to become one flesh, whereas the rectum cannot conceive a child no matter how much you might wish it.
God stated the principle of marriage as one man and one woman uniting to make one flesh, and Jesus repeated it and so did Paul. The polygamous Israelites were in sin against God's ordinance and by reiterating it the New Testament establishes it and outlaws polygamy on its basis.
And what about the tradition of rape? There are clear commandments from god for rape and genocide victims to marry their attackers.
Doesn't occur to you that this was a mercy to the victims, who would otherwise be abandoned to a horrible fate, does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by Jazzns, posted 07-12-2013 6:10 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 605 by Jazzns, posted 07-13-2013 1:36 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 600 of 759 (702958)
07-12-2013 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 599 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2013 11:53 PM


Re: Pointy Sticks
No, it's not in the Mosaic Law, marriage is a Creation Ordinance, established at the Creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2013 11:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 601 by Theodoric, posted 07-13-2013 12:02 AM Faith has replied
 Message 602 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2013 12:03 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024