[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: The Myth About Marriage Why do some people who would recognize gay civil unions oppose gay marriage? Certain religious groups want to deny gays the sacredeness of what they take to be a sacrament. But marriage is no sacrament. Some of my fellow Catholics even think that “true marriage” was instituted by Christ. It wasn’t. Marriage is prescribed in Eden by YHWH (Yahweh) at Genesis 2.24: man and wife shall “become one flesh.” When Jesus is asked about marriage, he simply quotes that passage from Genesis (Mark 10.8). He nowhere claims to be laying a new foundation for a “Christian marriage” to replace the Yahwist institution. Some try to make the wedding at Cana (John 1.1-11) somehow sacramental because Jesus worked his first miracle there. But that was clearly a Jewish wedding, like any other Jesus might have attended, and the miracle, by its superabundance of wine, is meant to show the disciples that the Messianic time has come. The great Johannine scholar Father Raymond Brown emphasizes this, and concludes of the passage: “Neither the external nor the internal evidence for a symbolic reference to matrimony is strong. The wedding is only the backdrop and occasion for the story, and the joining of the man and woman does not have any direct role in the narrative.” The early church had no specific rite for marriage. This was left up to the secular authorities of the Roman Empire, since marriage is a legal concern for the legitimacy of heirs. snip Those who do not want to let gay partners have the sacredness of sacramental marriage are relying on a Scholastic fiction of the thirteenth century to play with people’s lives, as the church has done ever since the time of Aquinas. The myth of the sacrament should not let people deprive gays of the right to natural marriage, whether blessed by Yahweh or not. They surely do not need—since no one does—the blessing of Saint Thomas. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 81. Genesis 2:19 -24 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animalsr and all the birds in the sky.s He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man calledt each living creature,u that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. This confusion about marriage stems from the false idea that marriages are made on earth. If marriage exists as simply an earthly custom, then marriage will change as customs change. Are marriages made in heaven? Yes! God in heaven made marriage. He declared, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” … Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man (Genesis 2:18, 22). God established marriage with the first man and first woman whom he created. Jesus confirmed this understanding of marriage. He taught, “What God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). God created marriage as his blessing for all people. Genesis 2:24, tells us God’s plan to continue marriage following Adam and Eve. For all time, God designed marriage for one man and one woman to be united together in a life-long relationship. The proper understanding of marriage helps us have the proper understanding of God’s love. God established the eternal union between his Son Jesus and Jesus’ Bride, the Church who are all believers. Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. He died for the sins of his Bride. He cleansed the guilt of his Bride with the power of baptism. He lives and rules in heaven now, waiting to bring his Bride into the glory of the life to come. God made marriage in heaven for people on earth. When the earth no longer exists and earthly marriage has passed away, God’s faithful people will enjoy a wedding feast with Jesus that lasts forever. Had God thought another man would suffice for Adam he'd only have made another man. But then they wouldn't have been able to go forth and multiply either. They'd have died out or as we saw at Sodom and Gomorrah they were willfully snuffed out by God Himself for the abomination they had become. For their sexual perversions and evils God destroyed them.
#28. To: SJN (#24) The proper understanding of marriage helps us have the proper understanding of God’s love. God established the eternal union between his Son Jesus and Jesus’ Bride, the Church who are all believers. Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. He died for the sins of his Bride. He cleansed the guilt of his Bride with the power of baptism. He lives and rules in heaven now, waiting to bring his Bride into the glory of the life to come. So if the Church is all believers and all believers includes men, then how can the Church be the bride of Christ? If the Church is the bride and Christ is the husband, how does that marriage is about having natural born children apply?
#30. To: lucysmom (#28) The Gospels use this connection as an example of the righteous tie between believers in Christ and Christ Himself. But it also illuminates the sacredness of the marriage union.
#33. To: SJN (#30) And no one's commitment to a bond between two people should have to banned and in a legal sense made inconsequential purely on the religious beliefs of one group. The United States is not a theocracy. There is a Constitution here that gives freedom of or from religion. And that Constitution is there to protect minority groups from the capriciousness and malevolent whims of the majority. Until everyone has the legal right to marry, this albatross of injustice is a stink that hangs around everyone's neck. An injustice to one is an injustice to all.
#35. To: Ferret Mike (#33) What is unjust is for homosexuals to want to pervert the marriage vows that God bestowed on ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. They may desire to thwart God by declaring their desire to be just like heterosexuals in the marriage union, but alas God will not change His mind about their perversion regardless of the charade they attempt to force on the rest of society.
#48. To: SJN (#35) What is unjust is to try to impose your religion on the laws that involve everyone else. There is nothing obscene about one human being making this strong a commitment to another.
#49. To: Ferret Mike, SJN (#48) What is unjust is to try to impose your religion on the laws that involve everyone else. [?] There is a precursor to your idea that needs an answer before your question is answered. How does a homosexual promote social standards and goals since a homosexual can not have children? As a group, aren't they a detriment to social goals for the survival of society?
#50. To: buckeroo (#49) Homosexuals have children, and the ability to procreate is not the benchmark to determine if a marriage is valid or not.
#51. To: Ferret Mike (#50) Homosexuals have children Can you explain this natural phenomena?
#52. To: buckeroo (#51) I don't need to explain it twice. You lack rationality in stipulating the child bearing issue is the benchmark of marriage and then saying that only homosexual couple who don't have children with each other or through adoption are the non-childbearing couple to be discriminated here. You explain to me how people past child bearing years or are incapable of having children with each other should be allowed to marry yet claim that the only thing that is important in marriage how well the team of two can drop pups. This is an illogical posture to take, but you don't care because the primary motivation you have here is based on hatred and intolerance. I seem many women couples in town who have plenty of kids who are well adjusted and flourishing. And the kids do not turn out gay if their parents have that gender preference. It is inherent in a person's nature to be straight or gay. It is not taught or a fad someone buys into.
#53. To: Ferret Mike (#52) Yes you do need to explain your post. You made the post, correct? How do homosexuals NATURALLY have children? Don't evade the question, Mike. Come clean and discuss the merits of your ideas.
#54. To: buckeroo (#53) I have. Just because you don't want to acknowledge I've addressed this, I am not going to pander to your contrivance here.
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#54) Are you saying that homosexuals have natural birth? Let us see....
Homosexuals have children and
Homosexuals have babies all the time. Can you explain in any detail how this phenomena occurs?
#57. To: buckeroo (#56) (Edited) I explained how. You are just unwilling to acknowledge that. To you, a heterosexual partner who have to rely on a surrigate Mom or artificial insemination as being normal but a gay couple who does the same sort of thing with the same end goal in mind are horrble to you. This is a double standard, and points to the fact I have already covered this base with you and points to the bigotry that spawns your cognitive dissonance on the topic.
#60. To: Ferret Mike (#57) I explained how. [how homosexuals have children NATURALLY] I know you regard me as a fairely simple and stupid poster, as though I am a mere country bumpkin, but I am intrigued how two males can have children OR conversely, how two women can have children naturally without male/female interaction. Look, I am learning all the time. Help me!
#61. To: buckeroo (#60) The point you make a mountain out of a molehill over is that has nothing to do with the right to marriage. Unless you are a believer that infertile humans should be banned from marriage, or even have it ended if their fertile period of life ends.
#62. To: Ferret Mike (#61) The point you make a mountain out of a molehill over is that has nothing to do with the right to marriage. Marriage has ALWAYS been between a single man and a woman. It is a contract between themselves and society at large. It is a rite of passage about one's maturity to be successful in the raising of children and family life overall. How is that idea a "mountain out of a molehill over is that has nothing to do with the right to marriage"?
#63. To: buckeroo (#62) (Edited) Homophobia and bigotry of homosexuals has not always been such a common affliction. Your 'always" is a lie. Marriage is a commitment between two people that should always be permitted. The human race would not be better if people who prefer same gender relationships were forced to go against their will to marry someone of the opposite sex. Hatred and oppression would win, and human rights and the common good would suffer greatly.
#64. To: Ferret Mike (#63) Homophobia and bigotry of homosexuals has not always been such a common affliction. Your 'always" is a lie. Lets review human history for a moment. Where has homosexuality been honoured?
#67. To: buckeroo (#64) Homosexuality in History This is just one of many links with material covering the topic. I already did this ground in more then one sociology class, and I am not going to do it once more here. I am not gay and do not feel the pressing need to devote this much time and more to this topic; particularly in this hostile venue. You are welcome to read up on this should you chose.
#75. To: Ferret Mike (#67) You are welcome to read up on this should you chose. No. Stand your ground, Mike. Put up or shut the fuck up about how homosexuals have children naturally. No stinkin' hotlinks.
#78. To: buckeroo (#75) End of discussion. You no longer wish dialog anyway.
#81. To: Ferret Mike (#78) You are wise to shut the FUCK UP.
Replies to Comment # 81. "You are wise to shut the FUCK UP." Piss off.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 81. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|