Australia is about to have a postal survey on same-sex marriage. Public opinion is about 80% in favor, but the cowardly politicians here are afraid to take a parliamentary vote and have instead decided to spend about $100 million on this survey.
Predictably, those opposed to marriage equality are mostly arguing from a religious perspective. This article, written by a bible expert, dissects these arguments and finds that there is little if any basis for anti-gay sentiment in the bible. Interestingly, he suggests that the Sodom and Gomorrah story was intended to condemn sexual violence/gang rape, rather than gay sex.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I do not support marriage equality. I support marriage freedom. If two men, two women, three women, three men, or one woman with two husbands are consenting adults who am I to stand in their way.
Gay sex is in there with fornication and adultery in the Bible as something that can get you damned. It is pretty clear, especially when you factor in the traditional interpretation of both Jewish and Christian commentators. That being said, those opposed to same sex marriage should argue against it based off natural law morality and not the Bible since most people don't really care about it.
"Gay sex is in there with fornication and adultery in the Bible as something that can get you damned."
Along with eating pork, wearing clothing made of different materials, and having lunch with Egyptians. Ever done any of those things? My dental hygienist is Egyptian, but we've never shared a meal, so I think I'm ok.
There is a clear difference between what is merely disciplinary and what is intrinsically evil. Gay sex is the latter in the Bible.
Do you believe as your bible does that gay sex is evil?
Read the article. All of those things, including eating pork and having lunch with Egyptians, are called "abominations" (to'ebah). The exact same word is used.
I agree that Biblical verses shouldn't have any bearing in making laws. However, I'd challenge chimp3's support of marriage freedom. It does open for certain things to be allowed which are prohibited by natural law like brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, or people marrying themselves.
This idea of marriage freedom takes away from the importance of marriage to society.
Jon the Catholic: "importance of marriage to society"
The importance of marriage to society is stability. Married people with mortgages and little patches of grass to mow don't usually rob banks or start riots. They're happier. Society is happier. So why are Christians intent on barring marriage to a significant segment of society and pushing them into some kind of unstable subculture? Do you think gay people have a choice in what they are? I've known quite a few of them, and from my perspective it looks like a pretty hard road to hoe, even in the 21st century.
But let's be honest here. Would you agree that the most vociferous opponents of marriage equality or marriage freedom are repressed homosexuals trying to conceal their secret through militancy?
Notice I mentioned that I'm against the proposal of "marriage freedom" which chimp3 said would allow any variation of marriage; 3 people, 2 men, 2 women, man and woman but I simply said this opens up a bunch of possibilities like siblings, father-son, mother-son.
My only point here is we kinda have to go with the natural law (or some standard) to define what marriage is and is not.
Jon: "I agree that Biblical verses shouldn't have any bearing in making laws. However, I'd challenge chimp3's support of marriage freedom. It does open for certain things to be allowed which are prohibited by natural law like brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, or people marrying themselves."
Abraham and Sarah had the same father.
Jon: "This idea of marriage freedom takes away from the importance of marriage to society."
In what way does one woman with two husbands take away the importance of marriage?
The short answer is this:
Marriage must be defined with certain bounds (two people, for example). If any number of people or any iteration of people are allowed to marry, then what you have is basically a registry of friendships.
I can marry 5 of my friends so we can benefit from each other's life insurance (for example).
The only point I'm trying to make is, marriage needs some bounds.
You said marriage freedom takes away the importance of marriage. I ask you how and you answer it needs some bounds. My question remains unanswered and your claim unsupported.
How does gay marriage or freedom of marriage lead to family members marring each other. That is a standard christian reply that has no ground to stand on. No one is asking to marry their sister, brother, mother, or father. Only your sick twisted mind going down that road. But, then again the bible is okay with incest.
How does it lead to family members marrying each other? It may not. I hope it won't. But would you be opposed to that if say two siblings wanted to marry each other?
I would oppose two siblings marring each other. Marriage equality or freedom has nothing to do with family marring family. But, the bible is okay with incest, just look at Adam and Eve's children, and noah's family after the flood.
Strangely; fathers marrying daughters is not forbidden by the Deuteronomic Code.
Who said I'm using the Bible as a reference? I'm simply talking about natural law. Would you be okay with the examples I gave?
Yes, it isn't my place to tell people who they can or can not have a religious ceremony with. Someone wants to marry a rock? Fine by me.
In biblical times people screwed anything and everyone.
The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was that they were not hospitable to strangers. It has nothing to do with their sexual activities. BTW, Sodom and its neighborhood will be rebuilt to all of its former glory so by some lots there while they are still cheap.
@Diotrephes: "The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah"
I read somewhere that their sin was cooking on open fires near natural gas vents.
Personally I don't mind who marries who, it's not my business...
Although having read about marrying family members etc, I'm curious to know the theistic position on these situations happening at the highest level, for example...
Charles V Holy Roman emperor married Isabella of Portugual, who was his 1st cousin.
Charles himself was from a long line of inbreeding within royalty that was not only considered to be ordained by god but fervently supported by the papacy.
The inbreeding was so bad that he himself developed what later become known as Habsburg jaw, a condition caused by inbreeding and which progressively got worse.
This isn't an attack on religion by the way, just a question in that if it's ok for one (at the highest level who is ordained by god and supported by the vicar of rome) surely it must be ok for all?!
That's interesting. Can you give me a link to that? Actually, some popes aren't really the best examples as they are still just human.
Church teaching still says that that would be wrong. Even if the pope supported it. There could be very very rare cases though where it's tolerated. A teacher of mine knows two cousins who married each other not knowing they were first cousins.
I'm not sure about the technicalities but I'm guessing they could get an annulment if they wished but they may choose to stay together.
By all means, a simple Google search on Spain's Charles V will I'm sure leave you with a vast array of information.
Especially if you look for a focus on his health and death, it was reported that the Habsburg jaw caused an untold amount of problems with eating.
The inbreeding proceeded him and continued after for sometime.
Anyone can marry anyone, (within consent/age laws.) I know there is some interesting tax law implications if it is more than 2 people marrying, but nothing unmanageable.
It is really not my business deciding who gets to marry who as long as there is clear consent from all adults involved. Even incestious relationships is not anyones right to deny, perhaps more careful examination of consent is warranted in these cases. If an incestous male and female choose to then reproduce, they need to be aware of inbreeding depression, but that is a separate issue from the marriage itself, and is somewhat similar to the issue of two deaf or two blind people choosing to reproduce.
The "importance of marriage to society," as Jon calls it, is merely a matter of a civil contract. At least that's the case for the societies with which I am most familiar. European and Egyptian royalty, for instance, frequently married for dynastic reasons and found love elsewhere. Additionally, even today, some societies use marriage as a mechanism to indicate the lineage of a child from the male (that baby is mine...).
Marriage is not necessarily love. Marriage is a contract. Love is love. Both will likely continue without dependence on the other.
The crux of the biscuit here, is that, in many countries, there are monetary benefits to entering into that civil contract. How dare anyone corner the market on those benefits to the exclusion of another! I find that exclusion particularly vile when it is based on personal prejudices embraced because of something said in a book.
Right! I'm in favor of removing all legal benefits from marriage. Then the theists can do whatever they want with it in their own churches.
Well, I agree that the removal of monetary *benefits* makes perfect sense. I would still, however, insist on a civil contract when cohabitation includes mingling of earnings, division of domestic labor, children, and property. This is just good sense.
The bible is a fiction. Sorry to the theists that just now have discovered this!!
Marriage is an outdated concept. Families or clans would have a more nuance to it.