Jump to content

Saw A Pro-prop Demonstration Today


Recommended Posts

I was driving home from a couple of towns over and saw a bunch of people with McCain/Palin signs. :rolleyes: They were asking people to honk and it was COMPLETELY SILENT! :lol: I loved it. No one was honking! Then there were people with "Vote yes on Prop 8" which would make a consitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. That just ticked me off! I was seconds away from rolling down my window and giving them a thumbs down. I *wanted* to flip them off, but since I don't flip people off my thumbs down would have been a good way to communicate my disgust. What I really want to do is have rational discussion with them in which they realize that there is no legitimiate reason for banning gay marriage and they come to their senses and vote no on Prop. 8. Dream on, huh? Anyhow, just needing to vent my distaste for intolerance and bigotry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k

I doubt these people can be "reasoned with". They already have their minds made up about the subject and, to them, no further discussion is necessary.

 

Personally, I would favor gay and lesbian unions or partnerships recognized by the states and the government. But I would reserve "marriage" for man and woman. Why? Because marriage itself stems from the biblical idea of a man and a woman. That is why they are often done in churches. It irritates me that the priest says, "By the power invested in me by the state of..." The ceremony and rite of marriage comes from the church, not from the state.

 

So I tend to think that churches should conduct marriages while states should conduct unions or partnerships. The rights of both marriages and unions should be protected. But I would think that it would be the churches responsibility to support/protect the rights of marriages and the states to support/protect the rights of unions.

 

Just my 2c.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely disagree. In the bible marriage is between a man and multiple women. Also, men "married" concubines. A man could rape a woman who was not betrothed and then she would have to marry him. (If she was engaged then they'd both be stoned, unless it happened in a rural area). Marriage in the bible is many different things. Between one man and one women it definitely is not! Marriages in their many different forms existed long before the bible. And they have also evolved considerably since the beginning of time. The Bible gives a good idea of the many different concepts of marriage!

 

Churches and synagogues were the first of any group in the US to recognize the right that ultimately exist for two people of the same gender to get married. They were followed by some employers and insurance companies. Now, finally the governments of MA and CA have recognized that right. I believe the churches and synagogues should be the headlights in society (as the church I belong to is) and not the tail lights as they have been in the past with civil rights issues. Calling the relationship between two people of the same gender something different than the relationship between two people of different genders is an awful lot like (if not the same thing) as the separate but "equal" laws that were in place before the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's. If they are called the same thing then one group can't be discriminated against while another group gets certain privileges. It is best to recognize that a marriage is a marriage rather it is between two men, two women, or a man and a woman. Quite frankly the people I know from church who gay/lesbian and are married (legally or by mutual commitment) are just as married as any straight couple I've ever known! Calling it something different is ridiculous to the nth degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k

I guess I should have stated that marriage in the New Testament is between a husband and a wife. I'm not sure how much polygamy was going on in New Testament times, but it seems that most of the biblical references refer to *a* husband and *a* wife. BTW, I didn't write it, just referring to what it says. :)

 

I'm not against gay or lesbian partnerships. I'm just not convinced that, from a NT perspective, they should be called marriages, a husband and a wife. That's all I'm saying.

 

Now, if we want to progress beyond NT definitions, then I suppose we can define marriage as between two men or two women or two men and one women, etc. If we stray too far from the NT perspective, then what limits or boundaries exist for a legitimate marriage? I don't mean to be crass, but can marriage be between a mature person and a child? Between a person and an animal? Between animals? How far open do we want to throw the door to say that any two entities who dwell together constitutes a legal or sacramental marriage?

 

Just something to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Testament is just a glimpse in history. You still had polygamy, it was just going out of style. Again, the concepts of marriage were evolving. And child marriage was perfectly acceptable. Girls were regularly married to older men. Men could also divorce women for any reason and women could not divorce men, period. So if you want a New Testament marriage we should be marrying 14 year old girls (or even as young as nine when they get their first period) to men who are 19+ years of age.

 

The writers of the New Testament were short-sighted, that does not mean we have to be.

 

To compare two consenting adults (two men or two women) getting married to an adult marrying a child (who cannot consent) or an animal or two animals (who cannot consent) is just plain old silly. That logical fallacy is so obvious I'm embarrassed for you for using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
To compare two consenting adults (two men or two women) getting married to an adult marrying a child (who cannot consent) or an animal or two animals (who cannot consent) is just plain old silly. That logical fallacy is so obvious I'm embarrassed for you for using it.

 

It's not silly at all, OA. You just happen to be picking the arbitrary standard of "consentment" by which you judge what validates a marriage. Many societies and cultures have NEVER had that particular standard.

 

The historical fact is this: marriage has, within Christianity, traditionally been between one sex and the other sex. Male and female. Now, if you want to take the stance that this is wrong, that the term "marriage" should progress to include male and male or female and female, then fine, take that progressive stance. But you just need to realize that in doing so, the term "marriage" is now left open for any society or culture to redefine it to whatever they want it to mean. We can then say that marriage could be between one consenting man and four consenting women, or one consenting man and three consenting adolescent girls. Who is to say what marriage should NOT be?

 

Again, I'm not against gay and lesbian unions. But I find the notion that they want the church to "bless" their "marriage" quite incongruous with the church's traditional view of marriage. To me, it is sort of like a Muslim asking to be baptized as a Christian while staying in the Muslim faith. If I were gay and sought a union, I would seek neither the church's blessing nor their condemnation. As long as our rights were protected under the law of the state or the government, I would care less what the church thinks about it. To expect a church to give it's "blessing" would be, to me, a sign that I *need* the church's approval in order for me to feel good or validated about the relationship.

 

I am much the same way in my spiritual life. I believe what I believe and, frankly, I could care less what the institutional church says about it. I don't need their blessing nor their approval. And I don't need their validation in order for me to feel that I am right with God. If two people (of any sex) find fulfillment, meaning, and love in each other, that in itself should be the proof and reward. Current statistics show that about 65% of "church blessed" weddings between heterosexual Christians still end in divorce. Seems to me that marriages or unions are what WE make of them, not the results of the blessings or curses of the church. So I think when gay and lesbians demand that the church marry them, they are putting way too much faith in the institutional. After all, even in "church weddings", the official pronouncement and license comes from the state, not from God.

Edited by wayfarer2k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings Wayfarer2k and October's Autumn,

 

It seems to me that marriage is a man made concept or institution that is by some but not all, attributed to God. It has been and is defined and modified by geographies, cultures (societies) times and evolution whether it be by churches or the people. Nature itself speaks of no such fixed concept as is presently defined by man. So do we allow same sex marriages or not? It seems to me it has been and will be up to a particular society itself to determine its own definition and boundaries of this concept called marriage. Personally, I am neither for or against the present issue. Perhaps there is no need for an opinion to be found in me. Whatever temporary conclusion society comes to will be fine with me and those who are offended either way will have to 'get over it' or continue to re-enforce their separateness and magnify their anguish with the rest of humanity.

 

Perhaps just a different view to consider,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not silly at all, OA. You just happen to be picking the arbitrary standard of "consentment" by which you judge what validates a marriage. Many societies and cultures have NEVER had that particular standard.

 

The historical fact is this: marriage has, within Christianity, traditionally been between one sex and the other sex. Male and female. Now, if you want to take the stance that this is wrong, that the term "marriage" should progress to include male and male or female and female, then fine, take that progressive stance. But you just need to realize that in doing so, the term "marriage" is now left open for any society or culture to redefine it to whatever they want it to mean. We can then say that marriage could be between one consenting man and four consenting women, or one consenting man and three consenting adolescent girls. Who is to say what marriage should NOT be?

 

Again, I'm not against gay and lesbian unions. But I find the notion that they want the church to "bless" their "marriage" quite incongruous with the church's traditional view of marriage. To me, it is sort of like a Muslim asking to be baptized as a Christian while staying in the Muslim faith. If I were gay and sought a union, I would seek neither the church's blessing nor their condemnation. As long as our rights were protected under the law of the state or the government, I would care less what the church thinks about it. To expect a church to give it's "blessing" would be, to me, a sign that I *need* the church's approval in order for me to feel good or validated about the relationship.

 

I am much the same way in my spiritual life. I believe what I believe and, frankly, I could care less what the institutional church says about it. I don't need their blessing nor their approval. And I don't need their validation in order for me to feel that I am right with God. If two people (of any sex) find fulfillment, meaning, and love in each other, that in itself should be the proof and reward. Current statistics show that about 65% of "church blessed" weddings between heterosexual Christians still end in divorce. Seems to me that marriages or unions are what WE make of them, not the results of the blessings or curses of the church. So I think when gay and lesbians demand that the church marry them, they are putting way too much faith in the institutional. After all, even in "church weddings", the official pronouncement and license comes from the state, not from God.

 

You are all over the place.

 

What I don't see is where you respond to the fact that New Testament marriages were between adolescent girls and older men and wanting to maintain that as traditional marriage. You seem to have ignored that which was the basis of your original sentiment that the term "marriage" should only be between a male and a female.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that marriage is a man made concept or institution that is by some but not all, attributed to God. It has been and is defined and modified by geographies, cultures (societies) times and evolution whether it be by churches or the people. Nature itself speaks of no such fixed concept as is presently defined by man.

 

This is all very true.

 

So do we allow same sex marriages or not? It seems to me it has been and will be up to a particular society itself to determine its own definition and boundaries of this concept called marriage.

 

 

Good point. In reality they happen. If you step back and look at marriage as a romantic/sexual relationship between two people for a long term, it isn't a matter of allowing or disallowing. It is really a matter of acknowledging.

 

Of course what is being fought for by so many of my friends is the *legal* rights and protections that go along with marriage. The problem they (and I and many others) have with using a different name for same-sex people is that laws could then be written that gives those who are married one set of rights/privileges while those who are in civil unions other rights and privileges. Which is what currently happens in CA as gay couples can become domestic partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
What I don't see is where you respond to the fact that New Testament marriages were between adolescent girls and older men and wanting to maintain that as traditional marriage. You seem to have ignored that which was the basis of your original sentiment that the term "marriage" should only be between a male and a female.

 

I haven't ignored it, OA. Our culture's understanding of marriage does seem to grow out of the biblical concept. This is why marriages are done in church by a priest and often have some type of scriptural passage that accompanies the ceremony. This is not always the case but it often is.

 

But I know that, for the most part, marriage in the bible is about property rights. The man owned the woman. She was a piece of property much like cattle or land ownership. And, yes, I do know that older men could take very young women as their wives. I don't approve of such practices but that is what happened. Even the modern day act of the father "giving away" his daughter's hand in marriage points to the notion of property.

 

All of this makes me wonder why gay/lesbians would want to stand in such a tradition. I even wonder why ANYONE would want to stand in such a tradition if they really knew what it was all about. But I suspect that we, as human beings, simply enjoy the rites and ceremonies without giving too much thought as to what really lies behind them. How often do we really think about the words of hymns we sing or creeds we recite? Not much, I suspect. We just go through the motions.

 

Maybe it is time that modern (or postmodern) culture complete shed the idea/sacrament of marriage and simply go with unions or partnerships. Maybe the term marriage has too much baggage that goes with it, especially considering that it was initially not about partnerships, but about ownership. My wife and I wrote our own wedding vows because we didn't like the verbage in the traditional form. I guess that is one of PC's struggles -- how much of our tradition do we keep? How much is too primitive to be retained? How much of it do we reform or redefine?

 

Thanks for listening.

Edited by wayfarer2k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

In Africa there is one tribe where an elderly man marries a young girl. He teaches her everything and takes care of her. When he dies the now elderly girl marries a young man and teaches him everything and takes care of him. This is also their social security system.

 

Another tribe marry, but every year they have a festival where the woman can trade her husband for another.

 

Marriage is not set in stone. Same sex marriage does not affect my marriage. If it affects someone's marriage then their marriage is weak, and the bonds are not strong; therefore, they had better review their Christianity and go deeper in their relationship with the Lord. Controlling, hostile emotional tactics, belligerence, and domineering tactics used against gays are probably the reasons some Christians have a problems with same sex marriage, but really it is the emotions, attitude and feelings that cause the problems in the marriage and not the same sex marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are very right, Soma.

 

There is no such thing as a "biblical" marriage or a "traditional" marriage. The idea has most definitely evolved over time. It is time to evolve again. There are obviously (to me anyhow) two types of marriage. The legal marriage and the emotional marriage. The legal marriage is what is defined by the culture or state. So in the culture you describe it looks a certain way. In another culture it might look differently. Emotional marriage is what my husband and I were before we were legally married. We were committed to each other for life, we were monogamous, etc. but we were not yet legally married. There have been GLBT people for generations and generations who have been married to each other emotionally for years and years. They don't have the legal protections that straight people do, though. I had hoped that they would gain those instead of being treated like second class citizens. I've 2 disappointments this election. One is that David Drier was re-elected to the House of Representatives and the other is that Prop. 8 passed. However, I'm comforted by the history of the civil rights movements to know that this is not an easy battle, and that why we may have lost a battle, we have not and will not lose the war! GLBT people will have their right to marry legally recongized by the State of CA and the United States. I'm saddened by the stain of this prop passing on the history of California, though. It is embarssing to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service