Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Good passage.

Youre right. There is pretty much no distinction between Jesus and the Word. Problem is that many create one inadvertently...that is to say they believe, which by the logic is the same as the Word and then forget what the Word is all about. So I believe you have to stay focused on the Word first or the belief can flow from that.

After reflecting, I would say that I disagree that Christianity is not about 'performing a set of behaviors'. I think it is. Acts of kindness, etc. But there is an extremely fine line between trying to help others by showing the opportunities...and getting preachy. Based on true Christianity, telling others how to live their lives should not even be on the table.

Thanks for good discussion.

On the performing a set a behaviors thing, the way I'd put it is that Christ has to be the source and the natural fruit of that will be acts of kindness, love, etc. Makes me think of in Galatians where it says "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." But certainly there are many people who claim to be followers of Christ, but their lives don't show the fruit. I don't think we're that far apart in what we're saying. I think one should be extremely careful and cautious about how we speak into each other's lives, but I don't think you can take that entirely off the table, as there are times when we need someone to say something to us in a given situation and if they don't we're the worse off for them avoiding saying something, even if it's not entirely pleasant at the moment.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Condemn the sin, embrace the sinner.

Yes. Though doing this is easier said than done.

 

[unofan]

Thanks for good discussion.

On the performing a set a behaviors thing, the way I'd put it is that Christ has to be the source and the natural fruit of that will be acts of kindness, love, etc. Makes me think of in Galatians where it says "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." But certainly there are many people who claim to be followers of Christ, but their lives don't show the fruit. I don't think we're that far apart in what we're saying. I think one should be extremely careful and cautious about how we speak into each other's lives, but I don't think you can take that entirely off the table, as there are times when we need someone to say something to us in a given situation and if they don't we're the worse off for them avoiding saying something, even if it's not entirely pleasant at the moment.

That's all well and good as a general religious philosophy. But as the saying goes, the devil is in the details (pun semi-intended). The Bible is full of contradictions, conflicting statements, paradoxes, and the like. Not to mention that it's been translated numerous times.

Who gets to pick the right interpretation? Who gets to say which part of the contradiction is right, and which we ignore? How do we get to that point? Many Christian denomenations say drinking is a sin, yet Jesus's first miracle was turning water to wine.

Fishy pretty much stated his preference when he wanted to distinguish the Old Testament from the New Testament. If you believe the Bible is literally the Word of God and not a set of allegories and historical documents that have changed over the centuries, especially before the modern printing press, I don't see how you can logically do that. I do not know a single Christian denomination that says you can ignore the old testament that way without similarly doing the same to the new testament.

I guess I have no problem with people who view the bible as a book with lots of good advice and who wish to follow it for that reason. I struggle with people who believe in a literal interpretation of it and try to use it to justify imposing their vision of it on others, because a literal interpretation requires one to ignore the self-contradictions within the book, let alone things that science has proven to be incorrect.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

I guess I have no problem with people who view the bible as a book with lots of good advice and who wish to follow it for that reason. I struggle with people who believe in a literal interpretation of it and try to use it to justify imposing their vision of it on others, because a literal interpretation requires one to ignore the self-contradictions within the book, let alone things that science has proven to be incorrect

This. The world would be a much more peaceful place if people listened to the message of the bible (or any other holy book), and treated it as the book of allegories and myths that it is, rather than interpreting it a literal, infallible fact.

Also, if Jesus is literally the son of God...then WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Excerpts from Bret Stephens column in today's WSJ.

I have a crazy theory; see if you agree. It's that gay people generally want to lead lives of conventional respectability. So much so, in fact, that many are prepared to suppress their sexual nature to lead such lives. The desire for respectability is commendable; the deception it involves is not. To avoid deception, you can try to change the person's nature. Good luck with that. Or you can modify a social institution so that gay people can have what the rest of us take for granted: The chance to find love and respectability in the same person.

But wait, don't civil unions provide all of that? And if gay marriage, why not polygamous marriage? Where does it all end?

To the first question: How odd that the same people who argue that the distinction between "marriage" and "civil unions" has no practical difference should also insist on maintaining the distinction. If all they are doing is taking a bold stand on behalf of semantic purity, what's the point? And if they are trying to preserve a privileged status for traditional marriage, won't that encourage gay people to continue to seek straight marriages?

....

Now we get to the après gay marriage, le déluge argument. It's true that to tinker with tradition is to risk destroying it. But what tradition? Old-fashioned marriage—the kind that usually lasted a lifetime; the kind that didn't come with a pre-nup—has spent the past 50 years being shredded by a culture of Las Vegas marriages, Murphy Brown households, Deadbeat Dads and No-Fault divorces. If straight America wants more traditional marriage, it should practice more traditional marriage. As for that allegedly looming threat of polygamy, you may as well argue that hunting should be forbidden because it could lead to gun violence. The slippery slope argument usually winds up being on the side of mindless repression.

American conservatives should understand this better than anyone. Unlike European conservatives, we have always believed that it is better to channel passions than to dam them, better to have them disinfected by sunlight than to let them fester in shade. That's true of the lust for wealth, the lust for power, and for lust itself. The American bias has always favored openness, pragmatism, and the acknowledgment of reality as we find it. [emphasis added]

On the matter of gay marriage, the reality we find is millions of Americans who want to participate in all the institutions of American life, from politics to the military to marriage. What is there not to like? Conservatives spent the 90s worrying about the Balkanization of U.S. politics by every group that wanted to emphasize its differences. Here you have exactly the opposite trend.

I've suggested that gays recognize that civil unions are marriage, and be happy that they just received what they asked for, solely out of deference to people who believe only in the sacramental version. To me, there is no practical difference between the two; but if it works as a compromise that both sides can live with, why not?



My idea that there are two kinds of marriage, one an initiation ritual, the other a ceremony of joining, has nothing to do with gay or straight. That's the topic for another article.

 

[unofan]

I've suggested that gays recognize that civil unions are marriage, and be happy that they just received what they asked for, solely out of deference to people who believe only in the sacramental version. To me, there is no practical difference between the two; but if it works as a compromise that both sides can live with, why not?.

Because marriage is a fundamental right, and you don't comprimise on those. You also apparently missed the very point of the article you posted. If the term doesn't matter, why prevent it from being applied to same sex couples? Why should they have to comprimise to satisfy bigotry?

This is a generational issue. 81% of people under 30 support it. In 20 years, people will wonder what the big deal was, just as we do now with interracial marriage.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

This is a generational issue. 81% of people under 30 support it. In 20 years, people will wonder what the big deal was, just as we do now with interracial marriage.

Funny how people who are old enough to have lived during it, still think separate but equal is a valid suggestion.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Replace the Bible and Christ's message with any religion or cult, and you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Totally disagree. Totally.

There is significant validity that the only way to heaven is through Christ and that helping others to find it is 'blessed'. Although it is an outstanding Biblical question whether that means literally through outright belief in Him...or whether its through adherance to what He espouses - the Word. I happen to believe the latter..and that those who are good people will not go to hell (including if they've never been exposed to Christianity).

The problem is that at best many misunderstand and at worst many consciously misuse the Bible to preach to others about how they should be living. Misapplication of the Bible has led to much societal alienation and much worse (see the inquisition, crusades) and still goes on today. For example, an evangelical could likely preach someone who more closely follows Jesus' teaching than the evangical him/herself does.

IMO definition of marriage is one such area. I really don't know where Jesus would come down on the issue. But many evangicals appear to have no doubt.

While I agree that marriage is one area, I disagree with a lot of the rest. I have a tough time saying for instance, that if you are not a Christian, God is not going to find a way to interact with you. I don't think any Buddhist etc is not going to be with God simply because he is not Christian. I think that's narrow minded to tell the truth.

as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

Who gets to pick the right interpretation? Who gets to say which part of the contradiction is right, and which we ignore? How do we get to that point? Many Christian denomenations say drinking is a sin, yet Jesus's first miracle was turning water to wine.

I guess I have no problem with people who view the bible as a book with lots of good advice and who wish to follow it for that reason. I struggle with people who believe in a literal interpretation of it and try to use it to justify imposing their vision of it on others, because a literal interpretation requires one to ignore the self-contradictions within the book, let alone things that science has proven to be incorrect.

I think it's a mistake to view the bible literally. It leads you down so many roads that are indefensible and many more that you don't even know about. More to the point, I use it as a guide for life, and I try to take the parables that Christ taught as lessons in how to treat people, and so yes it is actions in some ways, plus the benefits of going to church are very helpful when life gets harder.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Because marriage is a fundamental right, and you don't comprimise on those. You also apparently missed the very point of the article you posted. If the term doesn't matter, why prevent it from being applied to same sex couples? Why should they have to comprimise to satisfy bigotry?

This is a generational issue. 81% of people under 30 support it. In 20 years, people will wonder what the big deal was, just as we do now with interracial marriage.

If marriage is a fundamental right, then that makes celibates inhumane?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

If the term [civil union] doesn't matter, why prevent it from being applied to same sex couples? Why should they have to comprimise to satisfy bigotry?

No one said anything about "have to." Once upon a time, people actually wanted to get along with their neighbors. If I could go along with something that had symbolic value for them, then why wouldn't I want to be accommodating, especially when I got something of real tangible value in return?

Pushing for the very last scrap, "give me everything to which I am entitled" doesn't seem to help people get along very well now, does it?

 

[unofan]

No one said anything about "have to." Once upon a time, people actually wanted to get along with their neighbors. If I could go along with something that had symbolic value for them, then why wouldn't I want to be accommodating, especially when I got something of real tangible value in return?

Pushing for the very last scrap, "give me everything to which I am entitled" doesn't seem to help people get along very well now, does it?

So African-Americans should have settled for separate but equal just to be neighborly, is that it? After all, they got something of real tangible value in return.

 

[unofan]

If marriage is a fundamental right, then that makes celibates inhumane?

No more so than you when you ignore your right to remain silent by constantly subjecting the rest of us to your not-so-witty attempts at trolling.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

If marriage is a fundamental right, then that makes celibates inhumane?

*headdesk* If you can't grasp the distinction between HAVING a right and choosing to exercise it, you're denser than I thought.

If I could go along with something that had symbolic value for them, then why wouldn't I want to be accommodating, especially when I got something of real tangible value in return?

Pushing for the very last scrap, "give me everything to which I am entitled" doesn't seem to help people get along very well now, does it?

You're right! Women should have been happy their husbands let them out of the kitchen, why did they have to push for the right to vote? And separate but equal was surely good enough, even the Supreme Court agreed in Plessy v. Ferguson! How dare those uppity minorities push further for actual equality?!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

You're right! Women should have been happy their husbands let them out of the kitchen, why did they have to push for the right to vote? And separate but equal was surely good enough, even the Supreme Court agreed in Plessy v. Ferguson! How dare those uppity minorities push further for actual equality?!

Considering that heterosexuals have been granted civil unions for centuries, how is granting same sex couples civil unions anything other than equality?

You wanted equal recognition under the law, you have it. That's "actual equality" isn't it?

I'll take the actual substance, thank you very much. Don't hurt your arm by patting yourself on the back so vigorously over your symbolic purity.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Considering that heterosexuals have been granted civil unions for centuries, how is granting same sex couples civil unions anything other than equality?

You wanted equal recognition under the law, you have it. That's "actual equality" isn't it?

No. If the law didn't also recognize "marriage" between heterosexuals, then maybe. But since it does, no. Even if both groups get A, that doesn't negate the fact that one group gets B and the other does not.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

*headdesk* If you can't grasp the distinction between HAVING a right and choosing to exercise it, you're denser than I thought.

So women hating me is my choice? DIAF.

 

[joecct]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

So women hating me is my choice? DIAF.

If, by your actions it happens, then yes.

 

[unofan]

Considering that heterosexuals have been granted civil unions for centuries, how is granting same sex couples civil unions anything other than equality?

You wanted equal recognition under the law, you have it. That's "actual equality" isn't it?

I'll take the actual substance, thank you very much. Don't hurt your arm by patting yourself on the back so vigorously over your symbolic purity.

If marriage is purely symbolic, why does it need defending from the gays?

And even if it is, why should that symbol be exclusive to heterosexuals?

My wife and I don't have a civil union license from the government, we have a marriage license. So your entire point is crap, anyhow.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

So women hating me is my choice? DIAF.

If, by your actions it happens, then yes.

What he said. If you choose to act in a way that repulses them, that's on you. I'm going to assume your behavior is the culprit. I have no idea what you look like, but I know plenty of ugly guys who get action, so that's no excuse.

Anyway, you still have the right to get married, even if you don't have the ability.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

What he said. If you choose to act in a way that repulses them, that's on you. I'm going to assume your behavior is the culprit. I have no idea what you look like, but I know plenty of ugly guys who get action, so that's no excuse.

Anyway, you still have the right to get married, even if you don't have the ability.

By your definition, so do the people that you all are whining about.