interesting new angle on the gay marriage debate - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-14-2006, 07:14 PM   #226
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


This makes about zero sense. How does, "It's not good to marry" translate to "have sex within marriage"?

Funny, all this talk about cutting and pasting scripture, but it seems that everyone does it.

In 1 Timothy 4, Paul says: "The Spirit makes it clear that as time goes on, some are going to give up on the faith and chase after demonic illusions put forth by professional liars. These liars have lied so well and for so long that they've lost their capacity for truth. They will tell you not to get married. They'll tell you not to eat this or that food—perfectly good food God created to be eaten heartily and with thanksgiving by believers who know better! Everything God created is good, and to be received with thanks. Nothing is to be sneered at and thrown out. God's Word and our prayers make every item in creation holy."

So I think you would be hard pressed to say that Paul was negative towards marriage.

The Message translates 1 Corinthians 7 this way: "First, Is it a good thing to have sexual relations? Certainly—but only within a certain context. It's good for a man to have a wife, and for a woman to have a husband. Sexual drives are strong, but marriage is strong enough to contain them and provide for a balanced and fulfilling sexual life in a world of sexual disorder."

In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul addresses the issue of sexual immorality as it related to the city of Corinth, which had an array of sexual temple practices. In a culture as highly sexually charged as Corinth was, people in the church were trying to figure out how to deal with it. Some people seemed to want to choose a life of celibacy, like Paul, and needed to be encouraged. Others seemed to fear getting married -- Paul was encouraging them as well.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 07:23 PM   #227
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader



BVS – 1 Corinthians 7 makes perfect sense in the context of this discussion. “Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry (or ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’) But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” 1 Corinthians 7:1-2. In this chapter, Paul is telling people not to get married if their primary calling is to the Lord. But if the desire for sexual relations is too great, then a person should get married. (verses 8 & 9) Reading through the passages would help understanding on this point.
Right I understand this, this is how I've always understood this passage. But he does put celibacy first, above marriage. Which I was trying to get AEON to put this in context with his "downfall of society" theory. Which is if homosexuals got married somehow reproduction would slow to a hault.

Interesting sidenote; that verse 25 makes it clear that this is Paul's opinion and not God's word. And here I thought there was no opinion in the Bible.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-14-2006, 07:28 PM   #228
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Funny, all this talk about cutting and pasting scripture, but it seems that everyone does it.

You too missed my point.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-14-2006, 07:38 PM   #229
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:22 AM
NBC...Thank you for the response

[Q]I think this is true in application[/Q]

And maybe that is where I think Gay marriage should fall. The application of biblical meaning towards marriage has not remained stagnant in the old or new testaments. It has changed and evolved over time.

Application is everything and I think that is one of the biggest issues...we have picked and choosed how we apply it, and not just on this issue. So why have we allowed the applications of things to evolve and change. Divorce is the main thing I am thinking of in this instance. The biblical application of this concept has evolved and changed. Has it changed because of society? Is it because as a society we changed? Has it changed because it impacted the MAJORITY of people, rather than 10% of the world wide population?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 07:49 PM   #230
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You too missed my point.
I feared my comment would rankle. Sorry -- it wasn't targeted at any one person, including you. Still, the point stands -- saying that Paul's only perspective on marriage was that it was good not to marry, is misleading and based in looking at one verse, instead of the bigger picture.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 07:56 PM   #231
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Still, the point stands -- saying that Paul's only perspective on marriage was that it was good not to marry, is misleading
I realize that, and that wasn't my understanding of it, or my point.

But thanks for the clarification of the above comment.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-14-2006, 08:11 PM   #232
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


As for the original subject of the thread, the NY case Hernandez v. Robles, I don’t know if anyone has read the actual opinion.


i have read the actual opinion.

but, thanks for addressing what was supposed to be the point of the thread.

i think the case presents a great argument for working through the legislature rather than the courts.

also, i wonder if there could be a "rational basis" to outlaw interracial marriage. or interfaith marriage.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-14-2006, 09:54 PM   #233
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:22 AM
The court in Hernandez pointed out that there was no rational basis for a ban on interracial marriage.

A ban on interfaith marriage may have more of a chance, given the courts reasonings.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 10:10 PM   #234
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Application is everything and I think that is one of the biggest issues...we have picked and choosed how we apply it, and not just on this issue. So why have we allowed the applications of things to evolve and change. Divorce is the main thing I am thinking of in this instance. The biblical application of this concept has evolved and changed. Has it changed because of society? Is it because as a society we changed? Has it changed because it impacted the MAJORITY of people, rather than 10% of the world wide population?
If the application of Scripture with respect to divorce has changed, has it changed for the better? (And I realize the sensitive nature of this topic, having very close friends and a mentor with divorce in their backgrounds).

Even Jesus acknowledged our stubbornness on this subject. Historically, we've tried different methods to fool ourselves to get around divorce (like annulment - pretend it never happened). Today, we've really stopped trying, with divorces that are mere filings. I don't think we've changed as people or society.

I have Matthew 19:6 engraved inside my wedding ring as a reminder for me.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 10:37 PM   #235
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:22 AM
[Q]If the application of Scripture with respect to divorce has changed, has it changed for the better? (And I realize the sensitive nature of this topic, having very close friends and a mentor with divorce in their backgrounds).[/Q]

My point is not to debate divorce...

However...

If it has applied to divorce.....Why not Gay marriage?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 10:13 AM   #236
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 10:22 AM
Letter to the Boston Globe by Rabbi Kushner. I love "complain to the manufacturer"

"Should an amendment banning gay marriage ever reach the ballot, I hope all fair-minded people will vote decisively against it. I would hope that even people who are opposed to homosexual behavior on moral or religious grounds will be able to coexist with people who differ from them, as people morally opposed to drinking have learned to tolerate the legal sale of alcohol and people disgusted by rap music manage to keep their distance from it without depriving others of the right to listen.

To me (and I have no personal stake in the question), the case is clear:

1) In every generation, a certain percentage of people will find themselves sexually attracted to others of the same gender. If you don't approve of this, complain to the Manufacturer.

2) These people will form erotic attachments whether we like it or not.

3) It is in society's interest that those relationships be legally formalized, even as it is in society's interest that straight men and women get married rather than flit from relationship to relationship.

Rabbi HAROLD KUSHNER, Natick
The writer is the author of ``When Bad Things Happen to Good People."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 11:53 AM   #237
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
"Should an amendment banning gay marriage ever reach the ballot, I hope all fair-minded people will vote decisively against it. I would hope that even people who are opposed to homosexual behavior on moral or religious grounds will be able to coexist with people who differ from them, as people morally opposed to drinking have learned to tolerate the legal sale of alcohol and people disgusted by rap music manage to keep their distance from it without depriving others of the right to listen.
__________________
silja is offline  
Old 07-15-2006, 01:37 PM   #238
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Should an amendment banning gay marriage ever reach the ballot, I hope all fair-minded people will vote decisively against it. I would hope that even people who are opposed to homosexual behavior on moral or religious grounds will be able to coexist with people who differ from them, as people morally opposed to drinking have learned to tolerate the legal sale of alcohol and people disgusted by rap music manage to keep their distance from it without depriving others of the right to listen.
Right on!
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 07:47 PM   #239
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
[Q]If the application of Scripture with respect to divorce has changed, has it changed for the better? (And I realize the sensitive nature of this topic, having very close friends and a mentor with divorce in their backgrounds).[/Q]

My point is not to debate divorce...

However...

If it has applied to divorce.....Why not Gay marriage?
In that case, I think we would be arriving at the same practical personal application on the issue of homosexuality, even though we may differ on the authority of Scripture on the specific subject.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 04:02 PM   #240
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:22 AM
now that the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled in much the same way as the NY State Supreme Court, that there's a "rational basis" to keep the ban on same-sex marriage due to the great peril to children posed by unregulated heterosexuality, this article feels wonderfully relevant and hits the nail on the head:

[q] ... Until you hit upon the solution: Shift the blame. Make the legislature the bad guys. Find a way to frame the ban on gay marriage that makes it impossible to strike down. Rule that unless the ban is utterly insane, it's constitutional. Suggest that as long as the legislature passed it, it must be rational. Use the word "deferential" six times.

The key to appearing reasonable will be to vilify the dissenters. You'll want to use your majority opinion to emphasize that judges who vote their "personal views" are behaving like "legislators." Quote liberal lion Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens for that proposition. Then condemn—without quite using the words "judicial activist"—the dissenters for having been "uncharacteristically … led to depart significantly from the court's limited role when deciding constitutional challenges."

Be sure to tell your "readers unfamiliar with appellate court review" that your state's decision to ban gay marriage is solely the fault of the legislature. Because you yourself, of course, still love everyone.

Easy? Not really. Because even if you find that there is no "fundamental right" for gays to marry; even if you find that they are not a protected class deserving of special constitutional scrutiny; even if you find that the ban did not violate the state "privileges and immunities" clause, all that constitutional high-stepping still leaves you where the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was only starting its own constitutional analysis—when it faced the same basic question about same-sex marriage in 2003: You still need to do the hard work of analyzing whether there is any rational reason for banning gay marriage.

That is, after all, why you became a judge. You are there to sort out whether the state's articulated goals fit the law they've enacted. You'll need to be wily: You can start by insisting that any law is "rational" so long as it contains some nouns and verbs. You can quote the U.S. Supreme Court for the proposition that: "In the ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest, even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous."

Still, much depends on how you frame that same rationality question. You can borrow from the Massachusetts court, which asked whether "government action that bars same-sex couples from civil marriage constitutes a legitimate exercise of the state's authority to regulate conduct." Or, you can turn it upside down like the New York State Court of Appeals and ask "whether a rational legislature could decide that these benefits should be given to members of opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples."

But the core question for judges—judges, not legislators—is still whether there is a rational reason for this ban. That's not a matter of personal morality, or religious preference, or taste. It's a factual legal inquiry, albeit broad-based.

The Massachusetts legislature offered three reasons for banning gay marriage: 1) "providing a favorable setting for procreation"; 2) "ensuring the optimal setting for child rearing"; and 3) "preserving scarce state and financial resources." The New York legislature offered substantially similar state objectives: 1) whether, for "the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships" by providing an "inducement" for those heterosexual parents to marry; and 2) whether "it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father."

Both courts thus asked about the same question: Did the ban on gay marriage rationally achieve the legislatures' stated goals of promoting procreation and optimal families?

The Massachusetts court found they were not. First it held that procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage ("people who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry"). Then it found that a state interest in "optimal child rearing" arrangements cannot rationally be met if the children of gay parents are precluded from the protection of marriage laws.

New York's highest court went the other way. The majority of the judges felt that a legislature could reasonably find that "unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more." They also found that "a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like."

As the Washington State Supreme Court proved today, it almost doesn't matter, in the end. Because once you concede that only patently moronic bans may be struck down, you'll arrive at the same result.

To do this, the majority first points out that the "court may assume the existence of any conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification"; that "empirical evidence" is not necessary; and that a statute can be rational even if it is over- or underinclusive, and even when it creates some "inequity."

Read: Only if the ban was enacted by insane people can it fail constitutional review.

The Washington court goes on to find that state legislators may reasonably seek to use marriage as a carrot for randy heterosexual couples who—for complex biological reasons—get knocked up inadvertently: "The legislature could have found that encouraging marriage for opposite-sex couples who may have relationships that result in children is preferable to having children raised by unmarried parents." This logic holds even though gay couples have children, and heterosexual couples are childless, because "[s]uch over-or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis" for the law.

Next, the Washington majority finds that the stated interest in rearing children in a home headed by "opposite-sex parents" is legitimate. Why? Marriage must be limited to straight couples because "children tend to thrive in families consisting of a father, mother, and their biological children." Children also "tend to thrive" in Cleveland. Oh wait, that one is irrelevant.

The court refuses to take seriously its obligation to engage in rational review by repeating, as if sinking deeper and deeper into a state of yogic meditation, that, "at the risk of sounding monotonous, we repeat that the rational basis standard is extremely deferential."

Even the most deferential review should grapple with whether banning gay marriage really encourages straight marriage; whether there is something about marriage that magically lures heterosexual parents into its grasp—something that would evaporate if it were also extended to gay parents. Even deferential review that was also deaf, dumb, and blind would do more than just assert that gay marriage is illegal because kids "thrive" in straight homes. That claim is not just slightly over- or underinclusive, as the majority would have it. It's nonresponsive. Or, as the dissenters put it, better than I have: "denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests."


http://www.slate.com/id/2146580/

[/q]
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com