interesting new angle on the gay marriage debate

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BonoVoxSupastar said:


We'd still think the Earth is flat,

Actually, very few people actuallly thought this. It is simply part of the Columbus legend, or mythos. The Four Corners of the Earth was simply considered a figure of speech.
 
INDY500 said:

I don't see this as a conservative vs liberal debate in the church as much as one between contemporary and traditional believes. Should accumulated wisdom, tradition, time-tested interpretations and ultimately Biblical judgement itself be shoved aside so as to make room for modern relativism? An ethos which at it's core says truth comes from inside, not outside ourselves, that all experiences and expressions are equally valid--all life choices equally conventional.

Has any major church leader, Christian thinker, prophet or teacher argued in favor of same-sex marriage prior to this generation?

Same-sex marriage as a political/social issue decided democratically in a free society is one thing, let the best man win. But to "do what is right in our own eyes" is not an option for believing Christians. My eyes included.


:yes:
 
AEON said:

You nod your head because without this type of thinking you could never justify your views, but the truth is society and the church would be in a world of hurt if this type of thinking had been held throughout history.
 
AEON said:
BonoVoxSupastar said:
We'd still think the Earth is flat,

Actually, very few people actuallly thought this. It is simply part of the Columbus legend, or mythos. The Four Corners of the Earth was simply considered a figure of speech.

Actually, very few people actuallly thought this. It is simply part of the Columbus legend, or mythos. The Four Corners of the Earth was simply considered a figure of speech.

Disputing it could still give you a leading role at a rather large and not very festive barbeque.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


You nod your head because without this type of thinking you could never justify your views, but the truth is society and the church would be in a world of hurt if this type of thinking had been held throughout history.

Actually, some Christians feel the church, as a whole, is in a world of hurt. And many of those same people feel that trying to reflect the values of the "world" is central to the problem.


Place Your Life Before God

So here's what I want you to do, God helping you: Take your everyday, ordinary life—your sleeping, eating, going-to-work, and walking-around life—and place it before God as an offering. Embracing what God does for you is the best thing you can do for him. Don't become so well-adjusted to your culture that you fit into it without even thinking. Instead, fix your attention on God. You'll be changed from the inside out. Readily recognize what he wants from you, and quickly respond to it. Unlike the culture around you, always dragging you down to its level of immaturity, God brings the best out of you, develops well-formed maturity in you. (Romans 12:1-2 – The Message)

So, I trust the Lord on these issues, not the prevailing cultural wind.

You know, if I didn't know any better BVS - it seems you actually have hatred toward those whom you disagree with on this issue. I mean real hatred.

I know my views on this subject are not the majority in these parts (in other parts they are indeed the overwhelming majority – but I don’t learn as much), but I still enjoy the back and forth of these discussions. Believe or not, I have learned a thing or two here. But by golly - you rev up pretty hard and fast.
 
INDY500 said:

I don't see this as a conservative vs liberal debate in the church as much as one between contemporary and traditional believes. Should accumulated wisdom, tradition, time-tested interpretations and ultimately Biblical judgement itself be shoved aside so as to make room for modern relativism?

Reformation, anyone?
 
INDY500 said:

I don't see this as a conservative vs liberal debate in the church as much as one between contemporary and traditional believes. Should accumulated wisdom, tradition, time-tested interpretations and ultimately Biblical judgement itself be shoved aside so as to make room for modern relativism?

I disagree...the churches views on marriage has changed considerably.

Divorce
Women as Property
Women Cannot own property.
Interracial marriages

Shall we go back to this wisdom, tradition, and time tested interpretation as well?

[Q]So, I trust the Lord on these issues, not the prevailing cultural wind.[/Q]

Prevailing wind....:applaud:

Let's talk divorce...Shall we go back in time?
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:




tell me again about how the sun revolves around the earth?

So let me understand, because some misinterpreted the Bible in the past - EVERYTHING is now a misinterpretation? Or is it only in regards to homosexuality? Is it also murder? Gambling? Lying? Love thy neighbor?

Mistakes of interpretation have been made in the past. It means that people were wrong, not the Bible. Could I possibly be wrong about this issue? Of course. However, based on the interpretations of the original language that I’ve studied - from BOTH perspectives of the argument, the “conservative” interpretation seems cut and dry to me. Maybe to you it isn’t.

We can agree to disagree…
 
Last edited:
AEON said:


Actually, some Christians feel the church, as a whole, is in a world of hurt. And many of those same people feel that trying to reflect the values of the "world" is central to the problem.

So, I trust the Lord on these issues, not the prevailing cultural wind.


These same people are the folks that said mixing races, giving women equal rights, ending slavery etc were reflecting the world values rather than God's.

They trusted the Lord on those issues as well, in fact "they had" a lot of scripture to back their beliefs.

So I really find that to be a cop out.




AEON said:

You know, if I didn't know any better BVS - it seems you actually have hatred toward those whom you disagree with on this issue. I mean real hatred.

I know my views on this subject are not the majority in these parts (in other parts they are indeed the overwhelming majority – but I don’t learn as much), but I still enjoy the back and forth of these discussions. Believe or not, I have learned a thing or two here. But by golly - you rev up pretty hard and fast.

Oh this is quite comical coming from you. If you can show me anywhere where I've displayed hate, I would love to see it. Honestly, I haven't told anyone in here they are sinners or a downfall to society.

You mistaken passion for hate my friend. You might want to be careful about being so quick to judge, especially if you're going to be a pastor.
 
AEON said:


So let me understand, because some misinterpreted the Bible in the past - EVERYTHING is now a misinterpretation? Or is it only in regards to homosexuality? Is it also murder? Gambling? Lying? Love thy neighbor?

Well, if you view homosexuality as a choice like,,,,,

gambling, murder, lying....

Then no...it is not misinterpreted....

But if you see beyod it being equal to those things....lack of choice, something when the good book was written was not even a concept..Then

YES...100%
 
AEON, you also understand that marriage in Biblical times, "traditional"marriage, was one middle-aged man and many women? that Mary was probably 13 when she had Jesus? that in the 1960s we had very "traditional" marriages between one man and one woman that would be illegal today because the woman in question was 13 or 14 (think Jerry Lee Lewis and Loretta Lynn)?
 
INDY500 said:
I don't see this as a conservative vs liberal debate in the church as much as one between contemporary and traditional believes. Should accumulated wisdom, tradition, time-tested interpretations and ultimately Biblical judgement itself be shoved aside so as to make room for modern relativism?

Indy, a civil marriage is a contract, an economic agreement. Biblical judgement may mean all the world to someone personally, and that should be respected. But it has very little standing in a court of law.

No church needs to endorse *any* marriage, nor should they if that is their belief. The Catholic faith doesn't endorse divorce either... but those still happen too. :shrug:
 
Irvine511 said:
AEON, you also understand that marriage in Biblical times, "traditional"marriage, was one middle-aged man and many women? that Mary was probably 13 when she had Jesus?
I also think this is relevant, and have made the same point before. Marriage as the authors of (e.g.) Leviticus understood it was a contractual relationship usually entered into at Bar/Bat Mitzvah age (13/12, respectively) to a spouse of one's parents' choosing, with the expectation that work on producing and raising a family would begin immediately. (Polygamy was actually *not* as common as you suggest; however, it is true that a married man generally had the freedom to contract for subsequent wives himself--though this freedom did not, of course, apply to said women.) Romantic love, mutual personal fulfillment, and certainly any idea of who the prospective bride or groom would rather be intimate with were quite beside the question. This is not to say that something in some ways resembling our notion of romantic love did not exist; pretty clearly, it did (e.g. lucky Jacob and Rebekah, though who knows whether she also "loved" him after that one brief encounter)--but, as a hoped-for "bonus" that might develop with time and shared hardship, not as anyone's right to expect, let alone demand, of their parents as a precondition for marriage. Such a demand, as well as any other demand whose fulfillment might thwart the goals of marriage as conventionally understood (be fruitful and faithful, in the spirit of submission to the will of your parents and the greater good of Israel and its laws), would have been seen as at best laughably audacious, and at worst dangerously impious (how dare you put what pleases your own desires before your obligations to our customs?).

Happily for heterosexuals though, we've managed the trick of grafting a wholly foreign set of sensibilities about love, personal fulfillment, and individual autonomy onto this matrix which was never intended to accomodate it. And...3000 years and thousands of miles away from all that grim nose-to-grindstone stuff...doesn't it just feel oh, so right?
 
Irvine511 said:
AEON, you also understand that marriage in Biblical times, "traditional"marriage, was one middle-aged man and many women? that Mary was probably 13 when she had Jesus? that in the 1960s we had very "traditional" marriages between one man and one woman that would be illegal today because the woman in question was 13 or 14 (think Jerry Lee Lewis and Loretta Lynn)?

The New Testament doesn't define the age we should marry - only the nature of the roles between the husband and wife (Ephesians 5). Jesus himself makes it clear in passages already posted that marriage is between man and a woman. He doesn't specify age.

I understand traditions change. There is a lot room for error and adjustment when it comes to traditions. But the Bible makes it clear that marriage, at its core - is more than a tradition. It is a divine union between a man and a woman, and a very beautiful thing.

Now we can rename marriage into spaghetti and hand out licenses all day calling it spaghetti - but it doesn't change the fact that this divine union that God designed is between a man and a woman. The best that can be done is to try and imitate it, but it will never be the marriage that God describes.
 
Nice post Yolland. Thankfully for us the NT takes it a step further, and perhaps brings the ideal marriage into focus:

Relationships (Ephesians 5:21-33 - The Message)


Out of respect for Christ, be courteously reverent to one another.

Wives, understand and support your husbands in ways that show your support for Christ. The husband provides leadership to his wife the way Christ does to his church, not by domineering but by cherishing. So just as the church submits to Christ as he exercises such leadership, wives should likewise submit to their husbands.

Husbands, go all out in your love for your wives, exactly as Christ did for the church—a love marked by giving, not getting. Christ's love makes the church whole. His words evoke her beauty. Everything he does and says is designed to bring the best out of her, dressing her in dazzling white silk, radiant with holiness. And that is how husbands ought to love their wives. They're really doing themselves a favor—since they're already "one" in marriage.

No one abuses his own body, does he? No, he feeds and pampers it. That's how Christ treats us, the church, since we are part of his body. And this is why a man leaves father and mother and cherishes his wife. No longer two, they become "one flesh." This is a huge mystery, and I don't pretend to understand it all. What is clearest to me is the way Christ treats the church. And this provides a good picture of how each husband is to treat his wife, loving himself in loving her, and how each wife is to honor her husband.
 
AEON said:
So just as the church submits to Christ as he exercises such leadership, wives should likewise submit to their husbands.



how do you think most women would feel about this part? how does your wife feel about this part? does this not strike you as antiquated -- that you can get the overall message implied without adhering to the precise words?
 
AEON said:


But the Bible makes it clear that marriage, at its core - is more than a tradition. It is a divine union between a man and a woman, and a very beautiful thing.

Do you know what else the Bible says about Marriage? Paul says it is good not to marry, BUT if you must do so...

That puts an interesting spin on your procreation reasoning doesn't it? If all took Paul's advice we wouldn't be here. :hmm:

It also says that only a man can divorce his wife, his wife cannot divorce him.


But let me ask you this AEON, is it at all possible that the reason it says man and women is that in this day and age there were no open homosexual relationships? Is it at all possible that Jesus spoke to people in their terms, what they could understand. Such as when Jesus refered to Noah he told them it wasn't really the whole Earth, it was just a small part and it really wasn't EVERY animal just a few... They would have stoned him, they wouldn't have been able to wrap their minds around it.

There were a lot of things going on during the times of Jesus that he didn't talk about but we can all assume he didn't like, but he never specifically talked about. Yet he used parables like 'judge not lest ye be judged' and others to take care of these concerns. There was slavery, oppressed women, racism, all kinds of things. But he never addressed these things specifically because there were things 'because of tradition' that people wouldn't be able to wrap their minds around, so he gave them his teachings hoping they will someday come around.
 
Irvine511 said:




how do you think most women would feel about this part? how does your wife feel about this part? does this not strike you as antiquated -- that you can get the overall message implied without adhering to the precise words?

I think wife totally agrees with it, because it is dependent on my doing my part.

Also - everyone is supposed to be willing to submit to each other anyway. The passage says I am supposed to love my wife as Christ loved the church. How did Christ express that love? Be serving them and giving himself up for them.

Many Christians misunderstand this passage and use to dominate their wives. Even though it says it right there in the very passage that husbands should NOT be domineering, but cherishing.

If I tried to use this passage to dominate my wife – she would wallop me ;) and then re-read the FULL passage to me.
 
Last edited:
AEON said:


I think wife totally agrees with it, because it is dependent on my doing my part.

Also - everyone is supposed to be willing to submit to each other anyway. The passage says I am supposed to love my wife as Christ loved the church. How did Christ express that love? Be serving them and giving himself up for them.

Many Christian misunderstand this passage and use to dominate their wives. Even though it says it right there in the very passage that husbands should NOT be domineering, but cherishing.

If I tried to use this passage to dominate my wife – she would wallop me ;) and the re-read the FULL passage to me.



so you're essentially doing what i said -- you're taking the spirit of the message and not adhering to the actual words. it says "submit" but you're putting it into context, trying to understand the meaning of the passage rather than the meaning of the individual words, and then applying them into a very practical, lived-in context.
 
AEON said:
The New Testament doesn't define the age we should marry - only the nature of the roles between the husband and wife (Ephesians 5). Jesus himself makes it clear in passages already posted that marriage is between man and a woman. He doesn't specify age.
This strikes me as taking advantage of the Gospels' lack of explicit reference to what would most likely have been taken for granted. (As could be done by opponents of capital punishment, for example.) Jesus was a Jew, and the standard age of marriage (see my previous post) was not raised until the Talmudic compilation era, several centuries later. Similarly, why would he have presumed his audience to require explicit direction that marriage only be between a man and a woman, as you seem to be suggesting said passages show? Jewish law would not have recognized any other type anyway.
AEON said:
Thankfully for us the NT takes it a step further, and perhaps brings the ideal marriage into focus:............
Nice words for sure, and I could site dozens of similar discussions preserved in the the Talmud enumerating the various ways husbands should show compassion for their "woman of valor whose price is above rubies," and vice versa for the wife, etc. etc. However, this does nothing to change the fact that said husband and wife had no choice in the matter, and that these various acts of compassion were meant to facilitate and nurture feelings that did not exist at all at the time of marriage--not to build upon what was presumed to already exist. But again, doesn't it just feel so right to stand in the here and now, reading those passages from the vantage point of the freedom of choice we straight married folks enjoy today and thinking, "Yup. That's how we want our marriage to be, all right, and I chose exactly the right person to live this out with." Nope. Our self-indulgent "right person" nonsense wasn't part of what they envisioned at all.
 
Irvine511 said:




so you're essentially doing what i said -- you're taking the spirit of the message and not adhering to the actual words. it says "submit" but you're putting it into context, trying to understand the meaning of the passage rather than the meaning of the individual words, and then applying them into a very practical, lived-in context.

Sort of - 1 Peter 5 tells us that each of us are to submit to one another. So it is the "actual words" and the "spirit" of the passages are equally true.

This means that yes, my wife submits to me. But at the same time - I submit to her. Both of us are called to always have an attitude of serving one another.
 
yolland said:


But again, doesn't it just feel so right to stand in the here and now, reading those passages from the vantage point of the freedom of choice we straight married folks enjoy today and thinking, "Yup. That's how we want our marriage to be, all right, and I chose exactly the right person to live this out with." Nope. Our self-indulgent "right person" nonsense wasn't part of what they envisioned at all.

Yeah - I suppose I have to concede this point.

It seems to me that perhaps how marriages are brought together is not as important as how the two should treat each other once they are brought together. But I am reading into it.
 
[Q][TEVYE]
Tradition, tradition! Tradition!
Tradition, tradition! Tradition!

[TEVYE & PAPAS]
Who, day and night, must scramble for a living,
Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers?
And who has the right, as master of the house,
To have the final word at home?

The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.
The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.

[GOLDE & MAMAS]
Who must know the way to make a proper home,
A quiet home, a kosher home?
Who must raise the family and run the home,
So Papa's free to read the holy books?

The Mama, the Mama! Tradition!
The Mama, the Mama! Tradition!

[SONS]
At three, I started Hebrew school. At ten, I learned a trade.
I hear they've picked a bride for me. I hope she's pretty.

The son, the son! Tradition!
The son, the son! Tradition!

[DAUGHTERS]
And who does Mama teach to mend and tend and fix,
Preparing me to marry whoever Papa picks?

The daughter, the daughter! Tradition!
The daughter, the daughter! Tradition!

[MATCHMAKER]
Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match.
Find me a find, catch me a catch.
Matchmaker, matchmaker, look through your book
And make me a perfect match.

Matchmaker, matchmaker, I'll bring the veil.
You bring the groom, slender and pale.
Bring me a ring, for I'm longing to be
The envy of all I see.

For Papa, make him a scholar.
For Mama, make him rich as a king.
For me, well, I wouldn't holler
If her were as handsome as anything.

Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match.
Find me a find, catch me a catch.
Night after night, in the dark, I'm alone.
So, find me a match of my own.

[TSEITEL]
Hodel, oh Hodel, have I made a match for you.
He's handsome! He's young! All right, he's 62.
But he's a nice man, a good catch. True? True!
I promise you'll be happy. And even if you're not,
There's more to life than that. Don't ask me what!

Chava! I've found him! Will you be a lucky bride!
He's handsome. He's tall! That is, from side to side.
But he's a nice man, a good catch, Right? Right!
You've heard he has a temper. He'll beat you every night.
But only when he's sober- so you're all right!

Did you think you'd get a prince?
Well I do the best I can.
With no dowry, no money, no family background,
Be glad you got a man!

Matchmaker, matchmaker, you know that I'm
Still very young. Please, take your time.
Up to this minute, I've misunderstood
That I could get stuck for good.

Dear Yenta, see that he's gentle.
Remember, you were also a bride.
It's not that I'm sentimental.
It's just that I'm terrified!

Matchmaker, matchmaker, plan me no plans.
I'm in no rush. maybe I've learned
Playing with matches a girl can get burned.
So bring me no ring, groom me no groom,
Find me no find, catch me no catch.
Unless he's a matchless match![/Q]

Sanctity of Marriage!!!! Sanctity of Marriage!

Marriage HAS not changed!!!!!!!

Mwwwaaaahhhhhaaaaa
 
yolland said:

Similarly, why would he have presumed his audience to require explicit direction that marriage only be between a man and a woman, as you seem to be suggesting said passages show? Jewish law would not have recognized any other type anyway.


Excellent post. What I was trying to say earlier but worded much more eloquently...
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Excellent post. What I was trying to say earlier but worded much more eloquently...

I second that....

But now I am thinking of reworking a new version of Fiddler on The Roof...

Where TEVYE has three sons..... Hehe and one is Gay....How could we rework the song...
 
I'm thinking it's time for a Second Reformation. I'm quite disappointed in the results of the first.

Melon
 
Dreadsox said:


I disagree...the churches views on marriage has changed considerably.

Divorce
Women as Property
Women Cannot own property.
Interracial marriages

Shall we go back to this wisdom, tradition, and time tested interpretation as well?

[Q]So, I trust the Lord on these issues, not the prevailing cultural wind.[/Q]

Prevailing wind....:applaud:

Let's talk divorce...Shall we go back in time?

Ah, one day I will take you and my favourite FYMer (Mrs Dread) out for a beer.
:up:
 
Angela Harlem said:


Ah, one day I will take you and my favourite FYMer (Mrs Dread) out for a beer.
:up:

Maybe I can get you both drunk and...hehe....:ohmy:

Ummmm....Never mind...:wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom