homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Gay Marriage, and blurred boundaries (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  ...  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Gay Marriage, and blurred boundaries
Reepicheep
BANNED
# 60

 - Posted      Profile for Reepicheep         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was told that the reason that gays couldn't get married was because of the threefold commission of marriage - prevent fornication, provide companionship, and bear children. And if either party didn't want children it could be considered grounds for an anulment.

Nowadays, couples get married with no intention of having children. And some get married knowing that they can't have children. The intervention of medical science, and adoption mean that a gay couple could have a child as easily as an infertile straight couple. Now given that infertility is about as prevalent as homosexuality, we have to start thinking again. There have now been ectopic pregnancies that have carried to term, and a healthy child born. This means that theoretically a man could have an embryo implanted. Or a woman with no womb. And it could have genetic material of both parties, implanted into an empty egg.

Now, for me, this is seriously screwing up the boundaries. And I think the church needs a rethink.

I think it is a fair analogy - after all those who are gay, and those who are infertile are born that way. In fact being infertile can be more down to lifestyle choices that homosexuality. (consumption of alcohol, etc)

Love
Angel


Posts: 2199 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rewboss
Shipmate
# 566

 - Posted      Profile for rewboss   Author's homepage   Email rewboss   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angel:
prevent fornication
Hah! If we had no concept of marriage, we wouldn't have fornication, if you think about it.
quote:
There have now been ectopic pregnancies that have carried to term, and a healthy child born.
Er, are you sure about that? Ectopic pregancies are extremely dangerous, not to say fatal. My understanding is that the embryo has to attach itself to some good supply of blood and nourishment, and the best alternative to the womb is the large intestine.

Can you show us a report on this?

--------------------
The latest from the world of rewboss


Posts: 1334 | From: Lower Franconia, Germany | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
They are highly unusual but Angel is probably thinking of a case about 4 or 5 years ago when this did happen. Somehow the baby survived though the placenta was attached somewhere horrific (sorry can't remember) and it wasn't noticed at first. It was regarded as quite a miracle though.

I do think we can no longer deny homosexuals relationships because they can't have kids, yet have a society which puts vast amounts of money into helping infertile couples do just that.

Tricky ground...

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A baby's placenta, attached to some other tissue in the woman's body, or a man's, will detach very easily, and the resulting tear in the tissue will likely be fatal for the adult.

But not necessarily. Women have survived ectopic pregnancies. They have to remain immobile (lying down), be constantly monitored, and the baby must be delivered as early as possible by caesarian section.

With proper care, complete immobility, drugs to combat rejection, and hormones to make the man's body behave more like a woman's, it is possible in principle for a man to bring a baby to term, and give birth.
But it would be very dangerous for the man and the baby.


Woo! This wasn't what I was looking for, but it should fuel further debate!

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
frin

Drinking coffee for Jesus
# 9

 - Posted      Profile for frin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Some liturgist will be able to confrim or decry what I am about to say. I think even in the BCP marriage service there is a proviso for removing certain words from the service if a woman is past child-bearing age.
If so, the church has blessed knowingly childless marriages for a long time.

'frin

--------------------
"Even the crocodile looks after her young" - Lamentations 4, remembering Erin.


Posts: 4496 | From: a library | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the reason behind most objections to gay marriage is that it puts the church's (or state's) blessing behind conduct that the Bible clearly opposes.

A secondary reason is it puts a gay relationship on the same level as traditional marriage.

I think the childrearing issue has become a non-issue for most, me included.

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.


Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
MarkthePunk,

Why aren't reasons one and two non-issues as well?

Is the Bible all that clear on this issue? If so, why do we see even among orthodox believers and fundamentalists so much interpretational division on so many other scriptural matters? For example, do you think speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit? Where do you stand on pre-millenialism? Does "day" mean a 24 hour period, or it is a broad indication of time as in "Day of Judgment"? There are many Bible-believing Christians who disagree with you on the issue of homosexuality.

Do you think the state should become a Christian theocracy, doing only those things that have explicit Biblical endorsement?
How does that square with the Constitution?
If you want to see theocracy in all its glory, check out Iran.

What is the "level" of traditional marriage? My view, reinforced by all current studies of marriage, is that its "level" is low and is sinking ever more rapidly. The thing I find surprising is that gays and lesbians want any part of an institution that has become such a disaster for so many people, including Christians, even those of the orthodox, fundamentalist, and evangelical wings. I'm not sure that recognizing gay and lesbian unions would make matters any worse. In fact, maybe heterosexuals would feel challenged enough to get serious about their own marriages!

Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'frin there is a proviso in the BCP (1662 England) for the non use of one of the collects for a woman past child bearing age (I won't type in out )but the opening exhortation at the start retains the idea that children is key to a marriage.

corgi greta said

quote:
Is the Bible all that clear on this issue?

the ideal expressed in the bible is man and woman living together for life although as we all know there are numerous stories in the bible where this does not happen.

There are also the divorce laws of the OT which many of us would find difficult but are re-interpretted by Jesus to give more rights to women ( a femininst interpretaion open to debate on Jesus's sayings on divorce)

There is no affirmation in the bible of same sex sexual relationships but please feel free to correct me here.

The only hints we have are to the negative ie paul and leviticus.

Marriasge is between a man and Woman a Gay marriage in my opinion is a contradiction in terms

Basically Corgicreta the Bible is quite clear but no doubt people will have other opinions

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp


Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Greta, the gymnastics in your writing impresses even this writer.

Yes, there are many areas where the Bible is not so clear. And you mention many of them. However, on the issue of homosexual conduct (as opposed to orientation), most Bible-believing Christians find the Bible quite clear.

Those that dispute that clarity engage mainly in one of two tactics: 1. interpretational gymnastics intending to make the Levitical or Pauline passages either extremely cultural or extremely narrow in meaning (e.g. saying Paul was only referring to temple prostitutes) or 2. simply refusing to except the Bible's authority in this area, which is becoming more open and common in the American mainline denominations.

As for a theocracy, I in no way advocate that. Government has to make decisions concerning morality. The question is whose morality?

In case someone finds me backward in this area, I do not think gay orientation is a sin. I think gay sexual conduct is a sin. I would say the same concerning hetero orientation and conduct except that it is blessed in marriage.

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.


Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
deep breath....

What about David and Jonathan?

I am seriously thinking of starting a thread called Other People's Genitals so I can see the message, We're taking you back to....

Or perhaps: A load of old Bollocks?

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gillashton said
quote:
What about David and Jonathan?

a great excample of friendship as we would understand it or one of cs Lewises Loves (Philo?). Like me and my best mate .

Could really can only be considered an excample of sexual love with some slightly dubious interpretation of the text (But we all do this I guess )

In some ways it is a little confusing to have various threads covering similar subjects from different angles

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp


Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
David and Jonathon had a great close non-sexual relationship.

At the risk of losing my Fundie credentials, I think homophobia (I used to HATE that word.) keeps many men from having close male friendships. I admit it makes things awkward for me sometimes.

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.


Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
frin

Drinking coffee for Jesus
# 9

 - Posted      Profile for frin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
David and Jonathon had a great close non-sexual relationship.

How do you know? Have I missed a verse in which the writer clearly states that David and Jonathon then went to seperate beds and dreamt nice heterosexual dreams?

I don't especially want or need that to be a gay relationship, I just wonder how you can be so categorical about it.

'frin

--------------------
"Even the crocodile looks after her young" - Lamentations 4, remembering Erin.


Posts: 4496 | From: a library | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'frin said
quote:
How do you know?

I assume you want an answer from myself or markthepunk the answer in my opinion is we don't know; The bible is silent as it is about the love which Jesus had for the disciple he loved.

It is silent on this issue but using Occams Razor (deep joy I have used it and not in the context of atheism ) the simplest hypothesis is to be preferred then the answer is he did not.

Naturally we can put a more complicated hypothesis on silence but if we did this on other biblical passages where would be... whoops suddenly I don't want to go there

Arguing from silence boils down to yes he did no he didn't which is fruitless.

Maybe Markthepunk has a better answer (it's late for me)

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp


Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nope, I don't have a better answer. Nightlamp says it more succinctly than I could: to take interpretive leaps such as reading sexuality into David and Jonathan's friendship takes some gymnastics that just aren't good exegesis. I could add something, but I would even bore myself.

By the way, us Yanks are about to celebrate our independence from you Brits by blowing up lots of stuff. Happy Fourth of July.

mark

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.


Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reason
Shipmate
# 648

 - Posted      Profile for Reason     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
To take interpretive leaps such as reading sexuality into David and Jonathan's friendship takes some gymnastics that just aren't good exegesis.

I would suggest that to read anything BUT a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan would require even greater gymnastics; a giant interpretive.

Those verses in Samuel do everything they can to indicate the nature of David and Jonathan's relationship:

1 Samuel 18:1,3
"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of
David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."

2 Samuel 1:26
[After Jonathan's death, David said,] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

.....And in the verses between, you'll find disrobing, and the kissing!!!


Posts: 129 | From: Heaven | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, my male relationships have been more fulfilling, too, 'cause girls are mean!

Are you going to get funny ideas about me? Hmmmm?

Off to watch true Americans blow up stuff.

mark
GSF member

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.


Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gabe
Shipmate
# 540

 - Posted      Profile for Gabe   Email Gabe   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I won't comment on British law, knowing nothing about it. But in the U.S. at least, banning civil marriages for homosexuals is unconstitutional. What is a marriage, in the eyes of government, but a contract? Marriage, speaking strictly legally, is nothing more than an agreement to share property. Marriage is simply financial. To deny homosexuals the right to marry is no different from denying them the right to buy a house.

But the church is no place for homosexual marriage. The Bible is clear as it can be -- homosexuality is a sin, David and Jonathan be damned -- it wouldn't have been David's first or last sin. Just because David did it doesn't make it right. If that's your model, you had best be a man after God's own heart. Homosexuality is a sin. If it's genetic, well, so is the urge to mate with many partners, kill without remorse, and defecate publicly (of course, the Bible doesn't say anything about that; it's just best to do it privately). Christ is our model, not genetics; the Bible is our path, not "nature."


Posts: 242 | From: NC, USA | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reason
Shipmate
# 648

 - Posted      Profile for Reason     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gabe:
Homosexuality is a sin.

An "abomination" to be exact; right up there with eating lobster and getting a tattoo.


Posts: 129 | From: Heaven | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Reason quoted from the bible
quote:
2 Samuel 1:26
[After Jonathan's death, David said,] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

So some one in there grief when over the top. but there is no reference to a sexual relationship, maybe there was guilt that he was not present to assist Jonathan. Certainly in the ancient world friendship was more highly thought of than today and indeed more so than any form of sexual relationship (complete opposite to today). In my opinion to find a sexual relationship here is an imposition of our cultural values upon events 3000 years ago.

Using the similar amount of evidence we could say that about Jesus and the disciple he loved.

Anyway kings samual chronicles (well may not chronicles and all the histories record things warts and all that does necessary make them right if it did then we would be in big trouble

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp


Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415

 - Posted      Profile for gbuchanan   Email gbuchanan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Seems to me the problem these days - not a specifically 'gay' issue - is the degree of variation in understanding what marriage is - that's where the 'blurred boundaries' are. It is the degree of ambiguity in society towards what marriage is which opens the way to comprehend, at least in a secular sense, 'gay marriage'.

Though I don't have negative views on homosexuality per se (though I do have on a number of practices prevalent amongst a number of gay communities), I don't think that the classical construct of a 'Christian Marriage' - i.e. including children etc., is open to gay people - leaving all debate over sexual ethics aside (i.e. gay/straight), a sexually exclusive gay couple can't have children naturally, ever.

Alongside this, there are huge problems arising in society due to the variation in expectations of marriage, which is at least part of the cause of the high divorce rate. (Long discussion - won't go into it now). Does the Church recognise this in some way or not?

I'm not altogether sure that the Church is wary of discussing marriage as a construct as it feels that society has an altogether different one (though I personally suspect that society has more than one).

Given that, having a debate which could reach a useful conclusion practically, pastorally and theologically is difficult.


Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
SteveWal
Shipmate
# 307

 - Posted      Profile for SteveWal   Email SteveWal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why on earth have we got yet another thread that retreads the same old arguements about homosexuality? I've heard them all, both sides, from the frankly weird to the perfectly rational. I've come down on the side of liberalism; but frankly I'm getting bored now. Can we change the subject? The Bible spends six verses on the whole subject, and in the end the case for the prosecution is, as they say in Scotland, "not proven."

As for David and Jonathan, of course it was a gay relationship. Whether they had sex or not: homosexuality isn't just about sex. It's about who you fall in love with. I also don't see anywhere in Chronicles that actually condemns the relationship, so the writer of Chronicles obviously didn't think there was anything wrong with it.

Now, can we get back to talking about something else?

--------------------
If they give you lined paper to write on, write across the lines. (Russian anarchist saying)


Posts: 208 | From: Manchester | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
steveWal said
quote:
As for David and Jonathan, of course it was a gay relationship

It is not an 'of course' it is that I understand it this way.

It is unlikely we are going to agree on the hermeneutics and we all come from different perspectives and to some extent we all read into the text what we want to read and bring our 21st century understanding to it. We forget that there is a 3000 year gap in time and a huge culteral gap.

Random thoughts
when does a male relationship become Gay?

I have spainsh relations the men exchange is this gay? In some african societies men hold hands...

The giving of Joanthans (royal?) robe and sword is proberly as the story of Jonathan and David moves on is a symbolic action that the true heir to Saul is David and not Jonathan.

As I reread Brueggemann and the bible on this story I see a potential for another thread which is completely unrelated to sex

Proberly I will be taking a holiday from threads about sex

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp


Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reepicheep
BANNED
# 60

 - Posted      Profile for Reepicheep         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I started it so we could tease out some of the threads in the homosexuality and marriage debate. What makes a marriage? Where does our concept of it come from? And why can't it be applied to gays?

Just having specific "gay" threads sends us round in circles. Tackling a specific issue, which takes on one of the specific presumptions about marriage informs the other marriage threads floating around.

If you set aside whether or not homosexuality is specifically condemned, and look at what are our perceptions of marriage, you have to look beyond the initial assumptions. If you look at what else makes a marriage, then we can go back and look at our initial assumptions in a new light.

Love
Angel


Posts: 2199 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Isn’t the model of marriage given in Genesis? That the man and women will leave their families and create a new family together. They will be bound sexually, spirituality and emotionally. They will provide support and help for each other and their first loyalties will be to each other. [Am quoting from memory so can’t give chapter and verse].

The Bible gives plenty of examples of marriage in the Bible – some good and some bad – but all of them involve a man and a woman.

All the examples of same sex relationships – such as David and Jonathon – are described as “deep friendships”. The Bible is silent about whether or not there was a sexual aspect to that relationship. I suspect that someone’s opinion on whether the deed was done will depend on what they’ve already decided about the whole homosexual issue. [ie: You can make the text do what you want as you’ll interpret the silence to back up what you’ve already decided].

Given what’s the Bible says about marriage and the models it presents, I don’t think it’s right that the church allows a formal marriage service for gays. But I don’t see why clergy shouldn’t be allowed to bless gay relationships if the couple were committed Christians and wanted to do that as a sign of their love for each other.

The Government could allow a civil marriage ceremony for gays which would work in the same way as marriage and would grant the same legal rights. [I think this is what Ken Livingstone is proposing to do in London]. I think that would be a good thing as it would ensure that people’s legal rights were protected. Eg: In situations where a gay couple has been together for years, one of them dies without a will and then the survivior suddenly finds themselves homeless.

quote:
If you set aside whether or not homosexuality is specifically condemned, and look at what are our perceptions of marriage, you have to look beyond the initial assumptions. If you look at what else makes a marriage, then we can go back and look at our initial assumptions in a new light.

I don’t think you can do one without bringing in the other. Someone’s attitudes to gay marriage will be dramatically influenced by whether or not they believe that it is an “abomination”.

Gay couples adopting children or having a baby with a third party seems, to me, a separate issue. [Think this has been covered in the thread about “should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children].

And what’s the rise of infertility got to do with our perceptions of marriage?! The majority of people who get married hope to start a family. They only know they’ve got a problem when it becomes a problem. [If you see what I mean]. The only people who are likely to have thought it through before marriage are those who are adamant they don’t want kids or who are aware of a specific family problem – such as Huntingtons or Turners. I can’t remember anything in the Bible that states that you can only get married if you’re going to have children. [Unless it’s buried in Leviticus] .

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am


Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Astro
Shipmate
# 84

 - Posted      Profile for Astro   Email Astro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is it just me or are these discusions on sexual orientation getting boring!

Astro

--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)


Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
MarkthePunk,

You say, "Government has to make decisions concerning morality. The question is whose morality?"

I generally subscribe to the view that a government that governs least governs best, and I think this is particurly so in regard to moral issues. Unless there is near universal agreement on some moral issue, e.g., that bank robbery should be punished, the state should be hesitant about legislating morality, and any enactments should be as neutral as possible.

We are fortunate in being Christians in a country with a Christian majority. That may not last forever. I would be very unhappy in a country where I might be stoned for eating ribs (Iran), or steak (India), or going for a drive on Saturday (Israel), or owning a Bible (China, still!).

I simply don't see any governmental interest in denying same-sex couples the secular benefits that flow from marriage.

At the same time (and this may anger lesbians and gays) in deference to tradition and the sensitivities of a great many people, I feel that the state should apply the term marriage only to heterosexual unions. Same-sex covenants should be registered with the state, and should be accorded the same rights and responsibilites as marriage. The covenant option should even be open to heterosexuals, many of whom are maritalphobic.

Greta

P.S. I appreciate the refinement of your original statement with regard to homosexual practice, but the fact that some Bible- believing Christians disagree with you suggests there may be a lack of Scriptural clarity on this issue. As a way-off-topic aside, I think that ambiguity argues FOR, rather than against, inerrancy and divine inspiration, in that a lack of clarity makes us exercise our faith. We can't just sit back and have it all laid out cleanly before us. God did not create us in the image of a puppet.


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think allowing blessing but not marriage is a real cop-out. So what are we doing blessing something if we don't agree with it?

quote:
I feel that the state should apply the term marriage only to heterosexual unions. Same-sex covenants should be registered with the state, and should be accorded the same rights and responsibilites as marriage.

So - it's down to semantics. And if that's ALL it is, and if gays WANT marriage, why can't they have it?

Yes, the discussions are getting boring (see my gay-free 'interest-bearing account' thread!) BUT it is actually at least relevant to the title of the htread, in this case!

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mark217
Apprentice
# 628

 - Posted      Profile for mark217   Author's homepage   Email mark217   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Yes, there are many areas where the Bible is not so clear. And you mention many of them. However, on the issue of homosexual conduct (as opposed to orientation), most Bible-believing Christians find the Bible quite clear.

Hi MarkthePunk,
Leviticus 20:13 spells out --"quite clearly"-- the death penalty for homosexual conduct. Doesn't this mean that Bible-believing Christians should go out and start killing homosexuals? I hope not! Profaning the Sabbath and dishonoring one's parents are also death penalty offenses. The Bible is quite clear about this. Aren't we being "unfaithful" to the Bible or "revisionist" by not killing offenders? The Bible is also "quite clear" that slavery, levirate marriage, polygamy, sex with slaves, treatment of women as property, and concubinage are ok. Pork, long hair on men, women with their heads uncovered, divorce and remarriage (except for adultery), and clothing made of mixed fabric are not ok. Have you had ham or bacon lately? When I hear discussions about homosexuality and fidelity to Scripture, I have to wonder about the gymnastics involved on these other Scriptural issues. The Bible is "quite clear" on these other matters, but we only seem to want to focus on homosexuals when we approach Scripture this way. This is a good discussion and these are things to really think about. Peace be with you!


Posts: 6 | From: Nashville, but I wanna move to Atlanta soon | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reepicheep
BANNED
# 60

 - Posted      Profile for Reepicheep         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Stoning to death is only permissible if 2 people told the offender just before they were about to commit the act, that the act was wrong, and then these 2 should be the first to cast the stones.
This is under Jewish law, as explained by Kaet, a friend of mine.

Love
Angel


Posts: 2199 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mark 217, your post is appreciated but it misses two important distinctions.

1. We are no longer under the Law. So no, the Bible doesn't teach we should stone those caught in the act.

2. (And this is a common problem on this board, I've noticed.) We should distinguish between moral laws of the Torah and ceremonial and dietary laws.

Without going into all the theology, the moral aspects of the Law still apply. It is still wrong to kill, steal, lie, etc. Fortunately for rebellious sons, the penalties no longer apply.

Although the ceremonial and dietary laws still have much to teach us (Albeit, the "pots and pans" section is a bit turgid ), we are no longer under those as shown in the NT.

Man, I shouldn't think about such things so early in the morning.

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.


Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
2. (And this is a common problem on this board, I've noticed.) We
should distinguish between moral laws of the Torah and ceremonial
and dietary laws.

why? and if we should, why should we include hommosexuality with the things to still be abominated and the others not to?

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!


Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How the laws of torah still apply to us today is one of those major problems which in my opinion is one of the issue Paul was dealing with and indeed it is a theme that pops up quite a bit in Acts.

We still are dealing with this issue today in this case over sexuality. On balance Paul in Romans I seems to me to imply that the Laws with regards to sexuality still apply.
(I am well aware of the hermeneutical issues with regards to Romans )

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp


Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rewboss
Shipmate
# 566

 - Posted      Profile for rewboss   Author's homepage   Email rewboss   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We could of course say that, while the Word of God doesn't change, human society does. Jesus says the most important commandments are to love God, and to love your neighbour as yourself -- everything else follows on naturally from that.

Let's look at the society which received the Torah. It was a bunch of nomadic tribes wandering around the desert. Dietary laws were a matter of life-or-death in such a hot and difficult situation. The males were the ones who protected the tribes and who fought all the battles, which may offer us a clue here.

First of all, this meant that there were far fewer men than women, because it was the men who were getting killed in battle. That was their lot. Hence the prohibition on women having more than one husband, while men could have several wives and concubines.

Secondly, this meant that the survival of the tribes in the future depended on the production of as many children as possible. Hence the ban on homosexuality: virile men, who should be impregnating women... weren't. If it got out of hand, this could endanger the long-term survival of the tribe.

This is conjecture, of course. There is the objection that homosexuals were executed anyway, but of course they were killed as a deterrent to others. It also makes sense of why Onan was condemned for "spilling his seed on the ground".

--------------------
The latest from the world of rewboss


Posts: 1334 | From: Lower Franconia, Germany | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rob
Apprentice
# 171

 - Posted      Profile for Rob   Email Rob   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I have read through discussion on this thread topic I am both encouraged and disappointed. Encouraged that their those of you out there that have the courage to take a stand that homosexuality is not sinful and that it is not about sex but rather love. That many of you are enlightened that the bible reflects it's time and culture on this issue just like it does on women an other issues that we now no longer believe or follow. It concerns me that any one would use the bible to tell others that by nature they are sinners and then pretent to be loving. To give the bible that much authority is dangerous and incosistent as some one else on this board pointed out we dont't do it with other issues.
However< I do believem it is through dialogue such as this thatwe might change and grow.
By-the-by there are those scholars who believe that Paul's thotn in the flesh was his homoseuality.

--------------------
booga booga

Posts: 29 | From: Kokomo,IN | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
It also makes sense of why Onan was condemned for "spilling his seed on the ground".

I always thought the sin there was the refusal to father children who would have taken precedence over his own? (They would have been considered as his brother's, wouldn't they?)

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Rob said
quote:
By-the-by there are those scholars who believe that Paul's thotn in the flesh was his homoseuality.

Ah, Yes, John Spong that most unbiased of Biblical Scholars

Rob also said

quote:
It concerns me that any one would use the bible to tell others that by nature they are sinners and then pretent to be loving. To give the bible that much authority

And how much authority would you give the
bible?

Is 'love your neighbour as yourself' something we must look at it's context of a agrarian society which did not understand the need to accumulate wealth and the need to dump on our neighbour as we climb higher up the greasy pole? (rich with irony but with a serious point :rolleyes

Ok Basically how much authority does the bible have over sexual mores? maybe another thread but that would be boring to have another one about sex .

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp


Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Sebastian

Staggering ever onward
# 312

 - Posted      Profile for St. Sebastian   Email St. Sebastian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It would be nice if we could ever get past the idea that any expression of one's homosexuality (you know, for the gay person) is a sin, and move on to helping gay people express their sexuality within a context of commitment, love, etc., and support that, the way we do with straight people. I'm a gay Christian, and I'm pretty bored with the topic too (but can't stop reading the threads, of course ), mostly because I don't think anybody is likely to change their minds based on the content of the threads. However, it's less boring when people are really wrestling with the issues, prayerfully and respectfully, rather than ranting at each other. I mentioned to another shipmate offline that this subject does, indeed, seem to come up alot. She suggested that perhaps it's because the Holy Spirit is moving people to deal with it (or their beliefs about it). That's an interesting thought.

--------------------
St. Seb

In Spite of Everything: Yes.

Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Uh, Rob, we ARE ALL by nature sinners apart from Christ. "There is no one righteous, no not one." (Am I showing my Calvinist tendencies? )

In an indirect way, you bring up what is often the underlying issue in these matters -- the authority of the Bible. Personally, I'll stick with the authority of God's Word over man's authority or cultural trends.

Sebastian, I too appreciate the tone of this board. Appreciate the tone of your post, too, although I imagine we do indeed disagree on this issue.

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.


Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Punk the Pious

Biblical™ Punk
# 683

 - Posted      Profile for St. Punk the Pious   Author's homepage   Email St. Punk the Pious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Incidentally, is Salt Lake City a difficult place to be gay?

--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.

Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Sebastian

Staggering ever onward
# 312

 - Posted      Profile for St. Sebastian   Email St. Sebastian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, not so bad. I came from the Bible Belt, so the difference is minimial. Mormons tend to ignore non-mormons--at least, gay non-mormons! (God help you if you're a gay mormon, though. But I'm not involved in the gay community, so I don't know what it's really like. Hasn't been a problem for me, though.

--------------------
St. Seb

In Spite of Everything: Yes.

Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rewboss
Shipmate
# 566

 - Posted      Profile for rewboss   Author's homepage   Email rewboss   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
I always thought the sin there was the refusal to father children who would have taken precedence over his own? (They would have been considered as his brother's, wouldn't they?)
Well yes, that was the reasoning behind Onan's actions. But why was it a sin? It was a sin because, basically, he was failing to produce offspring and threatening the long-term survival of the clan.

--------------------
The latest from the world of rewboss

Posts: 1334 | From: Lower Franconia, Germany | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And that would explain the awful treatment of infertile women...

But we're nice to them now!

[humorously appropriate typo edited out -- such a shame...]

[ 07 July 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443

 - Posted      Profile for CorgiGreta         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
MarkthePunk,

You have stated: "In an indirect way, you bring up what is often the underlying issue in these matters -- the authority of the Bible."

This is the issue for most fundamentalists, but I think it misperceives the issue. I have not attacked Scriptural authority, and I can't detect such an attack in any of the other posts. Instead what we are discussing is the authority of PARTICULAR INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE. I realize that most fundamentalists have a tough time seeing this, and generally refuse to acknowledge that they engage in any manner of interpretation, but as I read the posts, I see interpretational leaps on both sides and in middle. Moreover, I don't equate interpratetion with apostacy. When someone crosses that line, it's major and obvious.

My view is that while the Bible is divinely inspired and is authorative in all matters of faith, it must be read carefully and prayerfully, always recognizing that other Christians can often wind up with different interpretations of the same passage.

You slso stated: "Personally, I'll stick with the authority of God's Word over man's authority or cultural trends."

How can any Christian disagree with that? That's the conclusion, not the issue.


Greta


Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Typo unintentional. please edit!!!! )

--------------------
Still hanging in there...

Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It amuses me that Bob R's sanctimonious, homophobic rant against the excessive number of topics on homosexuality doubled the number from 1:25 on screen to 2:25 - a massive percenatge increase of 200%! From 4% to 8%.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Personally, I'll stick with the authority of God's Word over man's authority or cultural trends.

Sorry for the following theological pedantry.

God's Word (the Logos) is the Christ. The Bible is not the Logos. Christians worship the Christ. Christians do not worship the Bible. Somehow this issue gets confused quite a lot. A little dip into the famous first lines of John:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God... And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we behold his Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of Grace and Truth."

Note that the Word did not become a book that was printed among us. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Bible worship is idolatrous.

Nor do Christians believe (as Muslims, for example, do) that God dictated the text of our book.

I am not denying that some people may in fact believe that the Bible is the Word, or that some people deny that Christ was the Logos. I'm just trying to pin down what's really under discussion here, because there seem to be four overlapping but competing issues:

1. The ethical treatment of homosexuals in society (which treatment may be informed by Christian ethics)

2. How the Christian church should deal with homosexuality (which may be influenced by social ethics)

3. what the Bible says about homosexuality (which is really a veiled way of grappling with questions of Biblical inerrancy)

4. How the Christian church should deal with homosexual people (in relation to marriage and ordination. This debate is obviously influenced by one's reaction to the preceeding 3 issues).

I think the core of interest in this discussion is the last one, but it often gets side-tracked by the first three, some of which lead to debates that are clearly unresolvable.

HT


Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Sebastian

Staggering ever onward
# 312

 - Posted      Profile for St. Sebastian   Email St. Sebastian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Very well said, Hooker!

--------------------
St. Seb

In Spite of Everything: Yes.

Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
*Thinks* What happened to St Seb being offline till Monday?!"

I agree Hooker. I was once in a church which SEEMED okay but there was something which niggled me. In the end I realized they were preaching faith not in God but in the WORD of God. (The Bible, not Jesus.)

It can be SO subtle!

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266

 - Posted      Profile for Nightlamp   Email Nightlamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hooker's Trick said

quote:
The Bible is not the Logos
ect ect

An intresting non-arguement at the start since nobody said it was so why say it?

Proberly most christians when they refer to the bible as the word of God are actually implictly shaped by Barth's doctrine of the Bible as the word of God as the Bible 'as god speaking to us now or that it containt the revelation of the Logos for us here and now' (ghastly precis but K Barths stuff is long winded and I have only really ever dipped my toes in it and no I don't have all 14 volumes of dogmatics!

The list that Hooker's trick used is useful (and an improvement upon something I wrote on another thread) but I think should have included

5)Biblical approach to sexuality and relationships in general.


--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp


Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  ...  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools