Gay Marriage- a general discussion.

[Gustaf]

I love it when people bring up Greece on this issue because it makes my point fairly well.  In ancient Greece, even if a man was gay, he still married a woman and fathered her children.  Marriage was even then about child raising.  Despite being gay, the man would be with a woman in marriage.

For the record:

A gay person doesn't have the right to marry another man, but neither does a straight person.  The only difference is that the gay person wants that right and a straight person doesn't.  There is no disparity; a gay man can still, as in ancient Greece, marry a woman and sire children.

On a similar note:
After the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, former slave owners lost their rights to own slaves.  However, at the same time abolitionists too lost THEIR slave owning rights.  The only difference was that the slave owners wanted that right and the abolitionists did not.

That's nonsensical...discrimination is still discrimination. We can always remove all choices but one, that's discriminating against those who want other choices. PLain and simple. Saying that everyone has the same right to vote for the communist party does, for instance, NOT constitute a democratic system.

[migrendel]

You haven't written a syllable about my contradiction, Rightwingnut. If you wait much longer, I will take it as a sign that you have conceded the legal framework of your opinion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Marriage has nothing to do with love….Marriage is about stability, not love….That was the working definition until around 45 years ago.  Funnily enough, the moral decline in this country coincides with the transition of popular opinion regarding marriage as a union of love rather than one of a stable child-raising environment.

No one is arguing that stability is not part of marriage, rather I am contending with you over your separation of “love” from “stability.”  And your statement that 45 years ago people viewed love and marriage as separate instruments is blatantly wrong, if not perverse.

Also, I don’t know what your definition of “morality” is, but it is a historical fact that the Christian scriptures have always presented “stability” as being part of the definition of “love”:

“4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails.”(1Cor 13:4-8)

What better picture of stability is there than that?
 

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For those who are not able to have children, I think the should be married, becuase there's always a possibility they could concieve- most cases of infertility are not definite. Further, they could always adopt a child.

If somebody who is quadroplegic gets married, he must open up the possibility of having children by adoption at least. Otherwise, I see no reason why they would want to marry. Civil Unions are just as good. I mean, if you're not going to have sex/have children... what's the point?

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For those who are not able to have children, I think the should be married, becuase there's always a possibility they could concieve- most cases of infertility are not definite. Further, they could always adopt a child.

If somebody who is quadroplegic gets married, he must open up the possibility of having children by adoption at least. Otherwise, I see no reason why they would want to marry. Civil Unions are just as good. I mean, if you're not going to have sex/have children... what's the point?

It isn't your, or anyone else's decision. Who are we to question responsible individuals for their personal choices?

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Becuase that's what marriage is for. Marriage is agreeing to love eachother so much that you will unite with that person and have children. But if you have no intention of having children, there really is not point in getting married except having the name, "marriage".

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But if you have no intention of having children, there really is not point in getting married except having the name, "marriage".

I strongly disagree, for there are reasons to get married other than simply having children:

1Cor 7:2 Nevertheless, TO AVOID FORNICATION, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

*gulp*

I agree with Brambila... in fact I think he's saying exactly what I think on the issue.

Though I would never support any legal restrictions to marriage for this reason, I do think there should be a social standard that marriage is for raising children - whether biological or adopted.  There should be a legal civil union for any couple, regardless of sexual orientation, who want to shack up with benefits... and a societal marriage for couples who are shaping the next generation.

[Brambila]

jcmfst, the bible's saying for the sake of avoiding fornication- meaning, premarital sexual itnercourse- to get married. "Fornication" in the bible and greek means illegal sex.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jcmfst, the bible's saying for the sake of avoiding fornication- meaning, premarital sexual itnercourse- to get married. "Fornication" in the bible and greek means illegal sex.

OK, but what's your point, the definition of fornication is not being debated?  Isn't Paul saying one of the reasons to get married is to avoid sinning?

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but the point of fornication is to have children. Remember the story of Onan? Further, if we read the early church fathers like Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, they clearly condemn unnatural birth control, and even natural birth control is condemned if not nessecary. The point of sex is to have children, if it's used otherwise it makes the couple into sex toys instead of playing a part in God's miracle of creating life.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Sure, but the point of fornication is to have children. Remember the story of Onan? Further, if we read the early church fathers like Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, they clearly condemn unnatural birth control, and even natural birth control is condemned if not nessecary. The point of sex is to have children, if it's used otherwise it makes the couple into sex toys instead of playing a part in God's miracle of creating life.

Well, this opens up a whole can of worms:

1)Onan was explicitly commanded to be the kinsmen redeemer, but he refused by spilling his seed upon the ground, so God killed him.  Therefore, his punishment had to do with disobeying a direct command, but birth control was simply the method by which he chose to disobey.  If Onan would have disobeyed by other means, like refusing to marry his dead brother’s wife, God would have still killed him for disobeying, but that wouldn’t make the general idea of choosing not to marry a sin.  The lesson is about obedience, not the means by which he chose to disobeyl.

2)The bible says, “Every fact must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”.  Therefore, if you’re going to ignore that advice by trying to create doctrine from these one-off examples, without any other scriptures to back it up, are you going to say all men should marry prostitutes based on the one example of God commanding Hosea to marry a prostitute?

3)No where in the bible does it even come close to stating “the point of sex is to have children”  Children, of course, are one result of sex, but having children is NOT the end-all-be-all of sex.  In fact, sex between a man and a woman is presented by the Apostle Paul as a picture of the intimacy between Christ and believers:  “and we are his body.  ’For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. (Eph 5:30-32)”

4)If children are the only point of sex, then there must be numerous guidelines governing what can and cannot be done in bed between a husband and a wife (guidelines which some churches try to impose).  But scripture places absolutely ZERO limits to what can take place in the marriage bed.

5)If children are the only point of sex, then martial sex between those unable to conceive becomes “dirty”.  Yet scripture, though it mentions many examples of barren women, NEVER places any restriction on them having sex with their husbands.  Also, barren women would be forbidden to marry, yet scripture gives no such restriction.

6)If children are the only point of sex, then sex would be forbidden once a spouse is incapable of reproducing due to old age.  But such a stoppage of having sex is totally unscriptural, for  Proverbs 5:19 states, “may her breasts satisfy you ALWAYS, may you ever be captivated by her love”.  Obviously, “always” doesn’t end at menopause.

7)  One of my favorite passages of the bible is when King David was near death.  The way his subjects knew he was about to die is when they placed the most beautiful virgin in all of Israel in bed with him naked.  And when David “got no heat from her”, they knew for sure that he was a gonner and started making plans for a new king!  LOL!  Just goes to show you that scripture acknowledges the desire to have sex up to the time of death.

[Nym90]

Haha. That last passage is pretty good Jmfc, I must admit.

Which passage is that? I'll have to check it out.

I'll take your side in this debate, too Jmfc. I must take full advantage of my few opportunities to do so. Sex is about a lot more than just children.

I really wonder where the idea that it's only about having kids even came from, since it isn't rooted in the Bible or anywhere else that I can see, and really makes no logical sense either.

Personally, I definitely see marriage as being about a lot more than having kids. It's about making a lifelong committment to be with only one person, forever. The ultimate committment that you can make. Why should that be reserved only for those who want to have children? It should be possible for all couples who love each other enough to be willing to make that commitment to one another to be able to do so, and it's in the best interests of society to give benefits to those who are married, as it is desireable to encourage people to make lifelong monogamous commitments to one another and to avoid promiscuity.

My father and stepmother love each other dearly and are 100% committed to each other for life. The fact that the marriage can never be consummated detracts from it not at all, in my opinion. If anything, it strengthens the bond. I'd take great offense to anyone saying that their marriage deserves some kind of lower status due simply to my father's paralysis, which is entirely beyond his control.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Haha. That last passage is pretty good Jmfc, I must admit.

I'm just glad you read such a long post.  The passage is 1Kings 1:1-5...

1   Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
2   Wherefore his servants said unto him, "Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat."
3   So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king.
4   And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.
5   Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, "I will be king!"

[Storebought]

Haha. That last passage is pretty good Jmfc, I must admit.

I just glad you read such a long post.  The passage is 1Kings 1:1-5...

1   Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
2   Wherefore his servants said unto him, "Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat."
3   So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king.
4   And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.
5   Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, "I will be king!"

Coming from the Old Testament, that crudeness is expected. Christians are supposed to be better than that :-)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Coming from the Old Testament, that crudeness is expected. Christians are supposed to be better than that :-)

I firmly believe God has a healthy sense of humor...just look at some of the posters on this forum!  

[Nation]

Coming from the Old Testament, that crudeness is expected. Christians are supposed to be better than that :-)

I firmly believe God has a healthy sense of humor...just look at some of the posters on this forum!  

Ouch, that's a zinger

[Brambila]

Jcmfst, I think you misunderstood me. Sex is also for pleasure- otherwise God woudln't have made it enjoyable. But sex is also clearly for children as well- if you use contraception, you're denying to give life. You're disobeying God, which is why he punished Onan. Yes, Onan's punishment was for disobedience, but you're disobeying God as well by not being open to having children. I don't know of any passages in the bible that explicitly talk about sex, but that's irrelivent. The truth is clear.

Once again, if you make sex purely for enjoyment, then you're making your bodies sex objects instead of really being united, which is what marriage is for. Why did God make sex? Just for enjoyment? Or for occasional enjoyment and once in a while offer sacrifices to God by getting pregnant? Do you think that Adam and Eve used contraceptives? Of course not. God gave us sperm/eggs and nerves/protein. If he only wanted sex for pleasure, he would only give us nerves/protein. If he only gave us sex for reproduction, he would only give us sperm/eggs. But God gave us both, so clearly he wants sex to be for both enjoyment and reproduction, not just one.

"And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But sex is also clearly for children as well- if you use contraception, you're denying to give life. You're disobeying God, which is why he punished Onan….“And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply…”

1st)  I never said sex was only for pleasure.

…and your logic is riddled with contradictions:

2nd)  The command given to Adam and Eve to multiply is NOT still in place, otherwise no reproductively viable person would have the right to renounce marriage in favor of chastity.  We have freedoms, like the freedom to eat meat, which Adam and Eve never enjoyed.  Likewise, Adam and Eve didn’t have a choice of whom they were going to marry since they were the only two people on earth, but “there is more than one fish in the sea” for Christians, provided he/she marries a believer.

3rd)  Christians are nonetheless commanded to “bear fruit” and multiply seed (parable of the sower) just as Adam and Eve were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply”.  But the fruit and seed Christians are commanded to multiply is a SPIRITUAL seed, not a physical one.  It is beyond argument that this is the NT fulfillment of the command to “be fruitful and multiply”, for there is no NT command for Christians to have children, hence the right to disavow sex and marriage entirely.

4th)  Even if we were to bind the physical command to multiply on Christians, the command to multiple can’t be interpreted to exclude contraception since it is possible to be BOTH a “multiplier” and a user of contraception.  For example, my wife and I will be having our fourth child around Thanksgiving, at which time she will have her tubes tied.  No one can question that we haven’t “multiplied” by a factor of two, yet we have been users of contraception off and on throughout our ten years of marriage.

5th)  Onan was commanded to be a kinsman redeemer. The kinsman redeemer role is NOT a command of the NT because it was fulfilled in Jesus Christ who is our “redeemer” redeeming his kinsmen, even us.  

6th)  Onan used contraception as the means to avoid fulfilling his role as kinsman redeemer.  But you can’t point to the means as the sin since I can point to dozens upon dozens of methods used throughout the bible to disobey God (e.g.: allowing enemies to live, fleeing on a boat, striking a rock with a rod, etc), yet you would never point to those methods as sinful within themselves once removed from the context of the command given to the individual in question.

[Brambila]

The first Christians disagree:

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" -Clement of Alexandria

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" -ibid.

"Moreover, [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [oral sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’"-Letter of Barnabas

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" -Jerome (Who translated the bible into Greek and Latin)

Clearly, Christianit and Judaism (see Deut 23:1) throughout their history have never supported contraception. Any Christian philosopher during the apostle's time would condemn the contracpetion that was so common in the Roman Empire. Contraception is insulting to God. You're telling God you're not open to him. You're doing something completely unnatural for the sake of pleasure. You mentioned Adam and Eve, but those laws STILL apply, as do all of God's commands. Reason being, God blessed Adam and Eve, and blessings don't wear off.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You mentioned Adam and Eve, but those laws STILL apply, as do all of God's commands. Reason being, God blessed Adam and Eve, and blessings don't wear off.

1st)  If God’s blessings can’t be removed, then neither can his curses; but we know that not to be the case, for it is written: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal 3:13)

But not only can God remove a curse, he can also remove a blessing and replace it with a curse, contrary to your claim that “blessings don't wear off”:

”If you do not listen, and if you do not set your heart to honor my name," says the LORD Almighty, "I will send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not set your heart to honor me.” (Malachi 2:2)

The truth is that God presents us with a choice of blessing or curse, just as Adam and Eve’s choice of eating from the forbidden tree brought a curse.  In fact, God explicitly told Israel he was setting both blessing and curses in front of them:

“This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19)

---

You mentioned Adam and Eve, but those laws STILL apply, as do all of God's commands.

2nd)  All of God’s past commands are NOT still applicable.  Otherwise Christians wouldn’t be allowed to eat shrimp or pork and would still be bound by the Law of Moses which forbid the eating of unclean meat.  And it is also clear that Adam and Eve were vegetarians – they did NOT have the liberty to eat meat whatsoever, yet we do.

---

3rd)  As far as the other writings you mentioned….you’re obviously not going to convince me by quoting extra-biblical sources.  Especially by quoting early Christians advocating restrictions on the activities of the marriage bed; for the bible places no restrictions whatsoever on sexual kinkiness between a husband and a wife.

What’s more, those quotes you offered would also forbid a husband from having sex with his pregnant wife since his seed would be wasted.  Yet not even the Law of Moses, which forbid sex during a woman’s period, restricted sex during pregnancy.  

Even during a woman’s period, the logic of the Law of Moses focused on the woman’s issue of blood, NOT on the husband’s seed being wasted: “'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people” (Lev 20:18)

The sexual restrictions of the Law of Moses were many!  But none of them, not a single one, focused on whether or not the man’s seed was wasted.  

Nor did any of the laws restrict kinkiness between a husband and a wife.  The scripture is totally silent in this area, therefore: “Where there is no law there is no transgression.” (Rom 4:15)

---

Contraception is insulting to God. You're telling God you're not open to him. You're doing something completely unnatural for the sake of pleasure.

Since you never responded to this verse, I’ll give you another crack at it:

Proverbs 5:19 “may her breasts satisfy you always”

Is the word “always” not inclusive of the post-menopausal stage of life?  Is sex unnatural for post-menopausal or barren women?  And is there any scripture that forbids sexual activity for the sake of pleasure?

---

Also, you never answered my question of how my wife and I are going against God’s command to “multiply” by having her tubes tied after already having four children?

---

Your example of Onan “pulling-out” is no more a moral reflection on contraception than beating a rock with a stick is condemnable simply because Moses smote the rock with his staff instead of bringing forth water from the rock by simply speaking to it as God commanded.

What's more, not only does your argument ignore the context of Onan's sin, but you no longer have even the luxury to argue the context since his command to be the kinsman redeemer has been fulfilled in Christ and is not a requirement on the NT church.

[Nym90]

Haha. That last passage is pretty good Jmfc, I must admit.

I'm just glad you read such a long post.

What's that supposed to mean?

Let me guess...the fact that I can't figure it out for myself shows that I've answered my own question?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm just glad you read such a long post.

What's that supposed to mean?

Let me guess...the fact that I can't figure it out for myself shows that I've answered my own question?

I simply meant Im glad someone other than the person I'm directly addressing is reading my posts, even when the post is long.  I actually dread discussions such as this thread.

[Nym90]

Ah, ok. Well don't worry, I read most of your posts, even if they are long, and even if I don't contribute to the thread. You aren't wasting your time typing them out.

[classical liberal]

aren't the 10 commandments part of the law of moses which is supposedly not binding anymore?

relatedly:

This thought popped into my head as I was ordering lunch today.  I was wondering why the Christian Fundamentalist Faction is so intent on keeping other people out of hell.  Isn't it everyone's own responsibility to keep themselves out of hell?  Where do you get off pushing a growth in government with the intent of doing for others what they should be doing for themselves?