DOMA and Prop 8

479 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

Gloria -- I am disputing YOUR points.

YOU said we shouldn't have gay marriage because it goes against the definition of marriage. You've clung to that. And yet we've changed it numerous times to accommodate the rights people deserve.

Bonita wanted benefits to non-spouses. That doesn't actually affect marriage.

Then there was a confusing thing about paying for gay people's marriages, which we determined only happens if they're federal employees, sort of. Digression.

Not one argument against it has held up....especially this new one that I suddenly agree with you, which is kind of hilarious considering I was the witness at my Dad's wedding when he got married in NY.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Bonita wanted benefits to non-spouses. That doesn't actually affect marriage.

No, I think legal benefits should not be tied to marriage. That they should be two completely separate entities.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

No, I think legal benefits should not be tied to marriage. That they should be two completely separate entities.

That still doesn't affect gay marriage. Or are you still advocating taking away my government marriage but keeping your church marriage?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Gloria -- I am disputing YOUR points.

YOU said we shouldn't have gay marriage because it goes against the definition of marriage. You've clung to that. And yet we've changed it numerous times to accommodate the rights people deserve.

No you are repeating the dispute you made on my point. So I guess I will repeat mine. The core definition of marriage as between a man and a woman has not changed. Just repeating the same argument doesn't make it true.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

No you are repeating the dispute you made on my point. So I guess I will repeat mine. The core definition of marriage as between a man and a woman has not changed. Just repeating the same argument doesn't make it true.

Laws around marriage have changed multiple times over the years and gay marriage is now legal in multiple countries and states. It is indeed changing.

You'd better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone
For the times, they are a-changing.

(Sing along!)

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I am lost.

What are the objections remaining to gay marriage?

Help!

1. It changes the definition of marriage. Wait, now that's okay. It has changed before anyway.
2. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage? Haven't seen a reason why it shouldn't except for a proposal for a new utopia in which siblings and friends can be put on our insurance & given benefits. This wouldn't affect marriage after all, it seems.
3. Taxpayers have to support the gays financially? Wait, no they don't unless they're federal employees.
4. The Bible says it's wrong? Wait, we don't make laws based on the Bible.

Where did we net out here?

1- Just because other marriages were allowed previously in history doesn't mean it is ok.. or that groups will view it as right. Nor does it mean that it isn't changing the definition we currently use in our society.
2- Government shouldn't be telling people they have to agree to something against their religious beliefs.
3- I already showed that YES they would have to support gay marriage.
4- Prove that the majority of laws are NOT based on the Bible.. I will contend that the majority of laws were based on the Bible. And if not.. where did they come from?

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"Rivergallery" wrote:

1- Just because other marriages were allowed previously in history doesn't mean it is ok.. or that groups will view it as right. Nor does it mean that it isn't changing the definition we currently use in our society.
2- Government shouldn't be telling people they have to agree to something against their religious beliefs.
3- I already showed that YES they would have to support gay marriage.
4- Prove that the majority of laws are NOT based on the Bible.. I will contend that the majority of laws were based on the Bible. And if not.. where did they come from?

1. Doesn't mean it isn't okay. Certainly isn't enough of a reason to deny rights or forestall progress.

2. No one is telling anyone they have to marry a gay person.

3. Still don't see where you are being forced to support gay marriage. Did we determine that you support others' marriages?

4. We have multiple religions here in America as well as atheism. Our laws are not dictated by religion.

Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

"Rivergallery" wrote:

1- Just because other marriages were allowed previously in history doesn't mean it is ok.. or that groups will view it as right. Nor does it mean that it isn't changing the definition we currently use in our society.

So then which "traditions" do we pick as right? Since we've made so many changes to marriage rights since this country began do we stop those and reverse them?

2- Government shouldn't be telling people they have to agree to something against their religious beliefs.

Nobody is saying you have to agree with it. I don't agree with homeschooling but I'm fine with it being legal.

3- I already showed that YES they would have to support gay marriage.

There are so many things we pay for that I disagree with. It's part of being a society though. You don't always get to not support things you don't like.

4- Prove that the majority of laws are NOT based on the Bible.. I will contend that the majority of laws were based on the Bible. And if not.. where did they come from?

If this is true, I can't wait for polygamy to become legal again! No, I don't think we base our laws on the Bible. I do believe a lot of laws are found to be supported by the Bible and other religious texts.

Again, this country should not be basing ANY laws on ANY religious texts. That's crazy.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Rivergallery" wrote:

1- Just because other marriages were allowed previously in history doesn't mean it is ok.. or that groups will view it as right. Nor does it mean that it isn't changing the definition we currently use in our society.
2- Government shouldn't be telling people they have to agree to something against their religious beliefs.
3- I already showed that YES they would have to support gay marriage.
4- Prove that the majority of laws are NOT based on the Bible.. I will contend that the majority of laws were based on the Bible. And if not.. where did they come from?

Actually, just about all religions and Eastern philosophies agree on a few basic things e.g., murder is bad. The fact that we make laws banning murder is not because it is part of the 10 Commandments or any other religious beliefs.

Can you direct me to the passages in the bible that our drug laws are based on? Labor laws? Education laws? Immigration?

And can you direct me to the laws that ban tattoos, mixing fabrics, cheeseburgers, and adultery, divorces?

In countries where the majority of the population isn't Christian, are they just lawless? Like in Japan, can I just go around killing people?

The best laws are ones that can be supported without a biblical argument. In theory, you don't need to pass a law telling Christians not to kill because they are going to follow the bible. In theory, an atheist wouldn't follow the bible or laws based on the bible. So who exactly is the law for?

I can make a human rights argument against murder. I don't need to cite the bible to convince others that murder is wrong.

If Christians are supposed to follow biblical law, and the MAJORITY of the laws are based in the bible, why are there so many Christians in prison?

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

I find this song from decades gone by extremely relevant.

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

Bob Dylan

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Years ago they ... said I was a prophet. I used to say, "No I'm not a prophet" they say "Yes you are, you're a prophet." I said, "No it's not me." They used to say "You sure are a prophet." They used to convince me I was a prophet. Now I come out and say Jesus Christ is the answer. They say, "Bob Dylan's no prophet." They just can't handle it.

- Bob Dylan

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Years ago they ... said I was a prophet. I used to say, "No I'm not a prophet" they say "Yes you are, you're a prophet." I said, "No it's not me." They used to say "You sure are a prophet." They used to convince me I was a prophet. Now I come out and say Jesus Christ is the answer. They say, "Bob Dylan's no prophet." They just can't handle it.

- Bob Dylan

I certainly didn't say he was a prophet. He's a musician.

When he wrote this song, he wasn't being prophetic, he was commenting on the times. I think it applies really well to to what is going on now too.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Actually, just about all religions and Eastern philosophies agree on a few basic things e.g., murder is bad. The fact that we make laws banning murder is not because it is part of the 10 Commandments or any other religious beliefs.

Can you direct me to the passages in the bible that our drug laws are based on? Labor laws? Education laws? Immigration?

And can you direct me to the laws that ban tattoos, mixing fabrics, cheeseburgers, and adultery, divorces?

In countries where the majority of the population isn't Christian, are they just lawless? Like in Japan, can I just go around killing people?

The best laws are ones that can be supported without a biblical argument. In theory, you don't need to pass a law telling Christians not to kill because they are going to follow the bible. In theory, an atheist wouldn't follow the bible or laws based on the bible. So who exactly is the law for?

I can make a human rights argument against murder. I don't need to cite the bible to convince others that murder is wrong.

If Christians are supposed to follow biblical law, and the MAJORITY of the laws are based in the bible, why are there so many Christians in prison?

None of this answers the position. Instead you are deflecting into other arguments/discussions. I will answer but please address the comment. I think you know the majority of the Founding Fathers, who created the constitution and those who wrote the Federal Bill of Rights had a strong sense of a Sovereign God. To say they did not use the Bible in creating these documents, "The majority of our laws" is short sighted at best.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

I'm not too concerned about times changing. They have changed before. The Bible has stood the test of time for the last 2000 years and it is still the most read book in the world.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299
GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

Biblical Marriage Not Defined Simply As One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious Scholars' Op-Ed

===Post Traumatic God Disorder===: 5 Other Biblical Definitions of Marriage

Kristen Howerton: The biblical definition of marriage and its relevance to marriage equality - Red Letter Christians

Searching for How the Bible Defines Marriage - Reb Jeff

The second article is my fave.

You are right. Because God didn't say it to Moses.
Jesus is the one that said it.

Matthew 19:4-6
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Mark 10
5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

I wonder why none of those articles address that verse?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Rivergallery" wrote:

None of this answers the position. Instead you are deflecting into other arguments/discussions. I will answer but please address the comment. I think you know the majority of the Founding Fathers, who created the constitution and those who wrote the Federal Bill of Rights had a strong sense of a Sovereign God. To say they did not use the Bible in creating these documents, "The majority of our laws" is short sighted at best.

Please cite specifically which of our laws come from the bible? Other than our current bans on gay marriage, I can't really think of any laws that had to come from the bible? I mean, you could say "thou shalt not kill" and things like that, but murder is also illegal in non-Christian countries, and also it seems to me that apparently we don't follow the commandment of "thou shalt not kill" in our country. The government kills inmates and sends soldiers off to war to kill, plus we let killers off the hook (hi GZ! Lookin' at you, baby!) The commandment doesn't say 'Thou shalt not kill except when...." it just says "Thou shalt not kill." full stop. And that's just one example. So, I'm going to need to you to back up your thesis that our laws are based on the bible a little bit. Thanks!

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

You didn't actually read any of the articles, did you Gloria. Because that passage is specifically discussed and by your own quote it makes ZERO reference to "marriage". Go ahead and bury your head in the sand all you want, but the bottom line is that it is hypocritical to hold steadfast to ONE 'Biblical' definition that doesn't even exist in the way YOU want it to exist, but then say that incest and polygamy - both discussed in and clearly supported by the Bible are against your moral standards. Of course incest and polygamy are not cultural norms of our society. We have done away with those. That's okay, right? So, if your Biblical 'definition' of marriage existed, you hold fast to the notion that it will withstand the test of time when clearly other historical behaviours that were once condoned are now immoral and/or illegal?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

You didn't actually read any of the articles, did you Gloria. Because that passage is specifically discussed and by your own quote it makes ZERO reference to "marriage". Go ahead and bury your head in the sand all you want, but the bottom line is that it is hypocritical to hold steadfast to ONE 'Biblical' definition that doesn't even exist in the way YOU want it to exist, but then say that incest and polygamy - both discussed in and clearly supported by the Bible are against your moral standards. Of course incest and polygamy are not cultural norms of our society. We have done away with those. That's okay, right? So, if your Biblical 'definition' of marriage existed, you hold fast to the notion that it will withstand the test of time when clearly other historical behaviours that were once condoned are now immoral and/or illegal?

It absolutely does exist and that is not the only verse that talks about marriage. If it wasn't addressing marriage what was it talking about? They were actually asking him about divorce. How could he be addressing divorce if he wasn't talking about marriage?

Mark 10
Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Jesus was also making clear that polygamy is no longer supported in the same verse. There were a lot of things done in the Old Testament that Jesus said were no longer acceptable.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

but then say that incest and polygamy - both discussed in and clearly supported by the Bible are against your moral standards.

Just to clarify, polygamy is not supported in the bible. It happened, but is taught against. (Not that it matters in the context of this debate, but just wanted to point that out.)

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

You didn't actually read any of the articles, did you Gloria. Because that passage is specifically discussed

Can you show me where? Because I did look at the articles and I went back and looked at them again, and I don't see either of those verses discussed. Maybe I missed it somehow.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

I'm not an expert, but saying that a man shouldn't divorce his wife and that a man and woman should be together is not speaking out against gay marriage.

Anyway, we don't make laws based on Jesus' teachings, worthwhile and profound as they can be.

We don't live in a country dictated by Christian theology. Influenced, yes. Dictated, no.

And...

(Timeline of civil marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I bolded some key ones.
[h=2]1800–1899[/h]

[h=2]1900–1999[/h]

  • 1900 – All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.
  • 1904 – LDS Church President Joseph F. Smith issues the 1904 "Second Manifesto",which stated that the church was no longer sanctioning plural (polygamous) marriages and would excommunicate anyone who participates in future polygamy.[3]
  • 1907 – All women acquire their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.
  • 1933 – Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
  • 1948 – California Supreme Court overturns interracial marriage ban (Perez v. Sharp).
  • 1965 – The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut).
  • 1967 – The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).[4]
  • 1969 – The first no-fault divorce law is adopted in California.[4]
  • 1971 – The Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law which automatically changes a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.[citation needed]
  • 1971 – The Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling allowing prohibition of same-sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson).
  • 1972 – The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception (Eisenstadt v. Baird).
  • 1973 – Maryland becomes the first state in the U.S. to define marriage as "between a man and a woman" in statute.
  • 1975 – Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.
  • 1975 – Three states outlaw same-sex marriage by statutes.
  • 1976 – The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.
  • 1993 – All 50 states have revised laws to include marital rape.[4]
  • 1994 – 40 of the 50 states amend their marriage statutes to outlaw same-sex marriage.
  • 1996 – President Bill Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law, which outlaws federal recognition of both same-sex marriage and polygamy, and removes any requirement that states recognize such marriages entered into in other jurisdictions.
  • 1998 – Hawaii amends its constitution to allow the legislature to ban same-sex marriage, in response to a court ruling which would otherwise have allowed such marriages. Alaska becomes the first state to ban both same-sex marriage and polygamy in its constitution.
  • 1998 – South Carolina is the penultimate state in the U.S. to remove the ban on interracial marriage in its state constitution.

[h=2]2000–present[/h]

  • 2000 – Nebraska amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.
  • 2000 – Alabama becomes the last state in the US to remove the ban on interracial marriage in its state constitution.
  • 2002 – Nevada amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.
  • 2004 – Massachusetts grants and recognizes same-sex marriages, while 14 states rush to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state constitutions in response.
  • 2005 – Texas amends its state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy.
  • 2006 – 26 states outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state constitutions. Arizona becomes the first state in the United States to reject a constitutional amendment banning both same-sex marriage and polygamy, but passes a constitutional amendment two years later.
  • 2006 – 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Nebraska's ban on gay marriage.[5]
  • 2008 – New York starts recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, but does not grant such marriages. Connecticut begins granting and recognizing same-sex marriages. California briefly granting and recognizing same-sex marriage until the passage of Proposition 8 later in the year (as well as both the states of Arizona and Florida in banning same-sex marriage and polygamy on the same day in there state constitutions). In California only (prior to Proposition Dirol continues recognizing same-sex marriages entered into prior to the proposition's passage. 29 states outlaw same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state constitutions.
  • 2009 – Iowa and Vermont grant and recognize same-sex marriages; the District of Columbia starts recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, but does not grant such marriages. Maine repeals the legalization of same-sex marriage before coming into effect by popular vote, which was overturned three years later by another popular vote.
  • 2010 – New Hampshire and the District of Columbia begins granting and recognizing same-sex marriages. Maryland starts recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, but does not grant such marriages. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a district court overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage (however, the decision is stayed pending an appeal).
  • 2011 – New York begins granting and recognizing same-sex marriages.
  • 2012 – A federal appeals court upholds the district court decision that struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage (the case is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court).[6]
  • 2012 – North Carolina amends its state constitution by a vote to outlaw both same-sex marriage and polygamy, bringing the total to 30 states that have outlawed both same-sex marriage and polygamy through their state constitutions. Rhode Island starts recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, but does not grant such marriages.
  • 2012 – Both Washington and Maine begins granting and recognizing same-sex marriages, only after approval from a referendum. While Minnesota rejects a constitutional amendment banning both same-sex marriage and polygamy.
  • 2013 – Maryland begins granting and recognizing same-sex marriages, only after approval from a referendum.
  • 2013 - Legal same-sex marriage beings in Delaware and Minnesota.
  • 2013 - The Supreme Court of the United States finds that there is no standing for the appeal of the decision overturning Proposition 8 in California, leading to re-introduction of legal same-sex marriages in that state.
  • 2013 - The Supreme Court of the United States overturns the Defense of Marriage Act, which outlaws federal recognition of both same-sex marriage and polygamy. Requiring that the federal government recognize marriages, in states where such unions are legal.

Lots of changes on both ends of the spectrum.

Time for more changes....

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

It absolutely does exist and that is not the only verse that talks about marriage. If it wasn't addressing marriage what was it talking about? They were actually asking him about divorce. How could he be addressing divorce if he wasn't talking about marriage?

Jesus was also making clear that polygamy is no longer supported in the same verse. There were a lot of things done in the Old Testament that Jesus said were no longer acceptable.

Agreed--- AND even in the OT people had consequences for polygamy.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

double post

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I certainly didn't say he was a prophet. He's a musician.

When he wrote this song, he wasn't being prophetic, he was commenting on the times. I think it applies really well to to what is going on now too.

The POINT is that he is also a Christian. Wink

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"Rivergallery" wrote:

The POINT is that he is also a Christian. Wink

He's also a Jew.

But...how does that factor into any of this? Not sure what the point is you're trying to make.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

This is from one of the articles that I cited, which is the same passage as you also quoted, and it is the first paragraph, part of which I bolded, and note that your quote is actually Jesus quoting Genesis:

The man named all the cattle, birds of the sky, and wild animals, but no match was found for a man. Adonai God cast a deep sleep upon the man and he slept. God took one of his ribs and closed the flesh in its place. Adonai God fashioned the rib that God had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man. The man said, "This time [God has brought me] bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. I will call this one 'woman,' since she was taken from 'man.'" That is why a man leaves his mother and father and attaches himself to his woman so they will be one flesh. (Genesis 2:21-24)

This is the most common passage offered as evidence of a biblical definition of marriage, although, usually only the last verse is cited. When you read the whole story, though, it is clear that this passage is not about marriage.

This story is an etiology, a story that explains how the world came to be the way it is. The purpose of the story is to explain why human beings appear in two different forms, male and female. God determined that the man needed a match, a partner who was his equal. (The common translation "helper" or "helpmeet" is incorrect. The word ezer means "strength" or "power" in Biblical Hebrew, not "help.") God had to fashion a new being for the man from the man's own body, since none of the newly created animals could match him. That being was named "woman" (ishah) because she was taken from "man" (ish).

The story also explains why men seek out women and why "he attaches himself to his woman to form one flesh" (I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out what that's talking about). The story explains that this desire to connect bodies is an impulse that overrides even a man's attachment to his parents.

This passage does not define anything. Rather, it is an explanation of why the world is as we see it. There are two kinds of human beings who are made out of the same stuff and, because of that, they are attracted to each other in sexual union.

Where did I say that the Bible does not refer to marriage? Of course it does. My dispute with what you have said is the 'Bible's definition of marriage.' It is nowhere defined in the Bible.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

This is from one of the articles that I cited, which is the same passage as you also quoted, and it is the first paragraph, part of which I bolded, and note that your quote is actually Jesus quoting Genesis:

Where did I say that the Bible does not refer to marriage? Of course it does. My dispute with what you have said is the 'Bible's definition of marriage.' It is nowhere defined in the Bible.

Jesus may quote Genesis, but he IS talking about marriage, that is why he says WIFE

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

*yawn*

Is this theology class or a debate on equal rights?

If the USA takes old or New Testament bible theory into consideration when making laws something has gone awry. All Americans deserve equal rights. The right to marry is one that should extend to gay people as well as straight because our constitution declares all equal.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Jesus may quote Genesis, but he IS talking about marriage, that is why he says WIFE

But that is inferred, Gloria. And again, nobody is saying that marriage between a man and a woman is not talked about in the Bible, but nor is it defined solely as such. Why are you being so resistant to that? Why is it okay to do away with some parts of scripture because they don't hold up anymore, yet take others as your own (the whole hetero man/woman marriage thing), turn them into something different because it coincides better with your morals and claim that 2000 years of historical misrepresentation is going to continue to stand the test of time? It won't. It can't. Maybe not in your microcosm, but you can't deny that in the blink of an eye, historically speaking, the world is changing its views on marriage equality because most open minded people, including Christians, know there is no validity in hiding behind scripture and distorting the true message of it.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

No, it's not a theology class, Melis, but I cannot stand the bible being used in this way. I am the last one to go around citing bible passages, but if Gloria wants to use the claim that the bible defines marriage in one particular way I will challenge that. It is simply not true.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

The bible was used in this debate to defend slavery and multiple articles have been posted talking about how using the bible to be bigoted against gay Americans is not biblical. Suffice it to say few agree with the "theologians" who are using the bible to excuse their homophobia while not bothering with way bigger issues- like obesity or divorce- because that would make them distinctly uncomfortable. To that end it just gets ridiculous at some point to try to argue with people who will twist the bible into their own personal hate book, that's all.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

Yes, that is true, of course. Sometimes I need to say my peace, even if I know it will go nowhere.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Rivergallery" wrote:

None of this answers the position. Instead you are deflecting into other arguments/discussions. I will answer but please address the comment. I think you know the majority of the Founding Fathers, who created the constitution and those who wrote the Federal Bill of Rights had a strong sense of a Sovereign God. To say they did not use the Bible in creating these documents, "The majority of our laws" is short sighted at best.

I am disputing your claim that the majority of laws are based on the bible. You don't seem to grasp just how many laws there actually are.

You can say whatever you want about the FF, but the 1st amendment made it clear that the gov't would not endorse one religion over another. If a law is based solely on the bible and has no other argument, it won't hold up to legal challenge. But if no one challenges those laws, they will continue to be law. In the case of same-sex marriage, the laws are now being challenged.

Currently one group of people is trying to deny others their civil rights. They are basing it on their interpretation of their bible. However, others' religious viewpoints are not in agreement. So whose "wins"? If we're both Christain but I believe divorce is never warranted under any circumstances and you don't, should I get to control the decisions you are allowed to make? If one Christrain group wants to outlaw certain activities between a loving couple, should other couples just have to go along with that because the religious argument was made?

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

Right. Based on RG's argument atheists wouldn't be allowed to get married. Good grief, could you imagine? The common-law relationships would just run amok. At least they wouldn't be trampling on the rights of us hetero married folks.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

We don't even have "common law" marriage in most states (and IMO it shouldn't exist at all)

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

But that is inferred, Gloria. And again, nobody is saying that marriage between a man and a woman is not talked about in the Bible, but nor is it defined solely as such. Why are you being so resistant to that? Why is it okay to do away with some parts of scripture because they don't hold up anymore, yet take others as your own (the whole hetero man/woman marriage thing), turn them into something different because it coincides better with your morals and claim that 2000 years of historical misrepresentation is going to continue to stand the test of time? It won't. It can't. Maybe not in your microcosm, but you can't deny that in the blink of an eye, historically speaking, the world is changing its views on marriage equality because most open minded people, including Christians, know there is no validity in hiding behind scripture and distorting the true message of it.

If Jesus tells us what it IS.... why does he have to then list everything it isn't? That just doesn't makes sense. If I say my car is blue, do I then have to say.... its not gray, not green, not black? It is NEVER talked about in any other context than between a husband and wife, male and female, man and woman in every verse discussing marriage in the whole new testament. Do you think there were no gay people back then? I'm pretty sure they existed because it was condemned as a sin. So how is marriage not defined solely as between a man and a woman? The world's views don't change what the Bible says in black and white.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

I should have never bothered. Anyone want to discourage me from going and banging my head against the wall?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

Right. Based on RG's argument atheists wouldn't be allowed to get married. Good grief, could you imagine? The common-law relationships would just run amok. At least they wouldn't be trampling on the rights of us hetero married folks.

I actually had someone on this very board once tell me straight up that I'm not married because my husband and I are atheists. It's memorable just because....wow! But I'm actually way less worked up about that (like times a million) than I am about gay marriage because luckily the people who think atheists "aren't really married" aren't actually trying to take our civil rights away. That's why I think it's so funny that some Christians rail about "being forced to accept...." No, they aren't. If gay people are allowed to get married under the law, they can consider them not married if that's what floats their boat, just like they can consider me not married if that's what floats their boat. Who cares? It wouldn't affect anyone but themselves, having to carry around all of that negativity.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

I should have never bothered. Anyone want to discourage me from going and banging my head against the wall?

I believe that you're fighting against the logical fallacy "affirming a disjunct." The bible verse does not state exclusivity, ("if and only if") so it's possible that other definitions of marriage exist and are valid.

In other words
A or B (or is used inclusively, not exclusively)
A, so not B

Marriage is between a man and a woman or between a man and a man
Marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore not between a man and a man. (Incorrect statement because or was not defined as exclusive, so it could be both rather than only one or the other.)

I think that's what you're debating, but my Philosophy 101 is rusty. Biggrin

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 1 hour ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Jesus may quote Genesis, but he IS talking about marriage, that is why he says WIFE

Yeah, because we all know the word "wife" exists in Aramaic and/or Hebrew. Right. Just like "virgin" does. Except that those words don't exist in those languages. Things get lost in translation.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Spacers" wrote:

Yeah, because we all know the word "wife" exists in Aramaic and/or Hebrew. Right. Just like "virgin" does. Except that they don't. Things get lost in translation.

So what do you suggest he was talking about when they asked him about divorce?

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

If Jesus tells us what it IS.... why does he have to then list everything it isn't? That just doesn't makes sense. If I say my car is blue, do I then have to say.... its not gray, not green, not black? It is NEVER talked about in any other context than between a husband and wife, male and female, man and woman in every verse discussing marriage in the whole new testament. Do you think there were no gay people back then? I'm pretty sure they existed because it was condemned as a sin. So how is marriage not defined solely as between a man and a woman? The world's views don't change what the Bible says in black and white.

It made sense with regards to love, no?

1 Corinthians 13:4-8
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 1 hour ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

I should have never bothered. Anyone want to discourage me from going and banging my head against the wall?

:banghead: Give it up, Lisa, they aren't worth the trouble. They are going to have to be dragged against their will into the 21st century concept of equal human rights and they'll be kicking & screaming & pounding their bibles all the way. You made really good arguments but they are falling on deaf ears.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

But Bob Dylan is Christian!

Sorry, I just had to throw that in there....still trying to figure out why it's relevant, and I went to lunch and came back but still didn't find out.

Anyway, discussing marriage as it was known then does not equal a blanket statement about homosexuals.

I can say, "and then the woman gives birth, and becomes a mother" but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as adoption. There are other ways to become a mother.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Exactly Laurie. Short of an "if and only if" statement, it can't be confirmed as an exclusive statement.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Exactly Laurie. Short of an "if and only if" statement, it can't be confirmed as an exclusive statement.

Except it isn't only mentioned in that one place. It is mentioned there and affirmed again and again in all the other verses that talk about husbands and wives and their relationship and how they should treat each other.

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

But our laws don't have wives submitting to husbands, because our laws aren't made to accommodate what it says in the Bible.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

But our laws don't have wives submitting to husbands, because our laws aren't made to accommodate what it says in the Bible.

But our laws do recognize the basic premise that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the most basic definition and that has not changed.

Pages