Pagan Journeys
Pagan Journeys => Pagan Chat => Topic started by: Tirya on June 25, 2011, 10:18:06 AM
-
The news out of New York has gotten me thinking. (uh oh) The main argument against same-sex marriage seems to be "because the Bible says so". If that rationale held true ("you can't do it because my holy book says so"), then shouldn't eating pork and shellfish also be illegal, because the Torah and Koran forbid it? I'd like to see state legislatures try to pass THAT.
-
The best thing is, Tir, that most of them base THAT arguement on the story of Sodom and Gamorrah....and the more I think about that story, the less I believe it actually had anything to do with homosexuality. When the people of that place want the man to hand over his visitors, they want to beat them and steal from them. That would go against the laws of hospitality that many cultures had at the time.
Of course, when I start pointing out there may be another interpitation to ANYTHING in the bible, I get a slew of "lalalalala I can't hear you"!
-
The whole "one man, one woman" argument sort of goes out the window with David, doesn't it?
And if the State is limiting marriage based on a Biblical interpretation, shouldn't divorce also be illegal?
I'm just hopefuly that the SCOTUS gets this in the near future and ends the discrimination on a nationwide basis. If you have two couples who want to get married, who are identical in every way except that one is same-sex and one is opposite-sex, and one couple can marry but the other can't "because the Bible says so", that's patently unfair and discriminatory.
-
I would love to see SCOTUS get this. It would force narrow minded states like mine to reverse their constitutional amendments that have banned same-sex marriages.
-
I can't just let things go without a good debate, so I sat and thought up some possible non-Christian objections. The first thing to consider would be the cultural definition and function of marriage. It is normally a way of establishing kinship ties and to create a family. If the main purpose of family is procreation then perhaps you would have a valid argument against same sex marriage. Certainly in it's traditional concept it establishes access rights to a woman by a male helping determine paternity. Women are perfectly capable of having children without marriage but men, women and especially the children all benifit by a formalization of family. While sanctioned same sex marriages have existed in various cultures around the globe throughout history it was uncommon for it to more then an unofficial relationship. It could further be argued that if in the Western cultural tradition marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman it should be called by a different name if it is a different kinship relationship.
-
If the main purpose of family is procreation then perhaps you would have a valid argument against same sex marriage.
Dan and I knew before we got married that we were not going to have children. And yet we were still able to be married. Nowhere in the marriage process were we asked "are you going to have kids?", and nowhere in our marriage license does it mandate that we have children as a condition of being married.
My brother and sister-in-law are infertile and are unable to have children. And yet they are still able to be married. Their marriage was not made null and void when they found out that they were unable to have children.
If children "need to be raised with role models of both genders" then all single parents must immediately remarry under pain of death.
It could further be argued that if in the Western cultural tradition marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman it should be called by a different name if it is a different kinship relationship.
If it walks like a duck and it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, why not just call it a duck instead of having double-entry legislation for "ducks" and "civil ducks"?
-
The institute of marriage was for more than establishing paternity for any resulting offspring, Vordan. It was also to establish the rights of both parties involved, and PROTECT those rights should something happen to one partner. The institution of a formal marriage also pre-dates the major religions of today, so by what right do they define it? And what happens when two major religions have different deffinitions?
Marriage was always supposed to be a civil union. it is called MARRIAGE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Etymology
-
All excellent counter arguments. I did my part to give the subject a good kick around, I am interested to see if anybody else can come up any objections to same sex marriages.
-
... I am interested to see if anybody else can come up any objections to same sex marriages.
I don't know that I even want to try. I see no reason for it. If two people love each other I see no reason to deny them the same rights all other couples have the option of ... regardless of their identity or sexual orientation.
-
I've never understood the "logic" behind denying two mutually consenting adults the ability to enter into a legal contract based solely on their plumbing.
Should churches be able to refuse to do the ceremony or recognize the marriage within their own church? Absolutely. If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church has done that for centuries. But they do not have the right to deny a couple the right to be legally married in the eyes of the State.
-
Nor should the State pander to a particular religion.
What gets me is that when pressed as to why, individuals can't come up with any reason other than that set forth by their religious leaders ... and the "one man one woman" thing isn't logical at all when there is some evidence of the early Christian church performing marriage between gay men.
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
-
Although I am married, I feel that marriage was originally a business relationship. Marry my daughter, I'll give you money. Marry your cousin, and keep the royal blood in the family. There were always ulterior motives to marriage.
Now, marriage is about the connection between two people - love :loveheart: Who those two people are shouldn't matter.
But I still feel like :brickwall: :gaah:
-
There seems to be no substantial support at all for the one man one women idea... all nuns being married to Christ flies in the face of that idea as well.
-
My current theory is that same sex marriage opposition is rooted in opposition to homosexuality. I don't think it's about marriage as much as it is about sexuality. People can argue anything they like, but in the end most strong opinions have at least an element of us/them in them.
There seems to be no substantial support at all for the one man one women idea... all nuns being married to Christ flies in the face of that idea as well.
This made me giggle, EM. I think it's funny, nuns as sister wives. :rotflmao:
-
This made me giggle, EM. I think it's funny, nuns as sister wives. :rotflmao:
:laughfit:
-
Personally I found a bit ridiculous that it took New York this long to pass something like this. New York City. Home of some of the very flamboyant, very glittery and more often than not winged parades couldn't agree on whether half of what they boast to home, could be happy or not.
One man one woman? Jacob had five wives too didn't he?
I just tried to Google something I once found about a story in the Bible that if read, truly sounds like the two men, who were beloved by God, had a homosexual relationship with one another. I failed at finding it. However I did find a website saying that there are practices we do today that the Bible didn't condone and ones that we disagree with that they said was fine. Don't exactly have my Bible on hand :whistle: so not certain if these are accurate descriptions but:
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
(website it came from: http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian)
-
Might it have been the link I posted earlier in the thread? http://www.paganjourneys.com/index.php?topic=1480.msg20434#msg20434
-
Might it have been the link I posted earlier in the thread? http://www.paganjourneys.com/index.php?topic=1480.msg20434#msg20434
Was actually a story featuring two different men. I wish I could recall their names...bah :gaah: