|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Evangelicals / Catholics Theological Method and Gender / Sexuality
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
The Catholic tradition also has always had options without suspicion for those not called to marriage, and religious ways of life that enable people to form companionships. I cannot easily think of the equivalent within Reformed thought.
Missionaries ![[Biased]](wink.gif) They are our saints and monks and nuns and heroes of the faith.
Most of the early Methodist circuit riders were celibate not because of a church rule, but because it's very hard to keep a family while you're spending almost your entire life on horseback. In a way, they kept a very monastic lifestyle, albeit one rooted in a discipline rather than in a space.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
"Indirect discrimination is often less obvious. Sometimes, a policy, rule or practice seems fair because it applies to everyone equally, but a closer look shows that some people are being treated unfairly. This is because some people or groups of people, are unable or less able to comply with the rule or are disadvantaged because of it. If this policy or practice is 'not reasonable', it may be indirect discrimination."
- From the website of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
In Canada, best remembered as the "Jason Kenney" argument - everyone has equal rights to marriage to a person of the opposite sex.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes. And I'm amazed how often the Jason Kenney argument gets presented to me.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Because "fornication" is understood as "illicit sex" - and it's become obvious that it doesn't apply to gay married couples any more than it applies to straight married ones. I would think that's fairly obvious.
That, of course, requires that you believe marriage can be legitimately redefined as "two adults who love each other" rather than "one man, one woman..." I don't believe humanity defined marriage in the first place; that was God, at least according to Jesus: And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Bearing that in mind, I am really uncomfortable with the idea of re-defining something God defined (and the consequences of doing so are literally frightening to me).
Obviously same-sex attracted Christians may choose to do whatever they want and it's between them and God; I can understand that God might provide some insight into those dynamics which He doesn't provide to me (as a straight albeit celibate-because-I-am-unmarried woman), but He has yet to provide that insight to the Church as a whole.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But 38 years after the Roe v. Wade decision, we routinely slaughter children and, when you consider fetal stem cell research, "exploit the vulnerable" - and many of the people who support both those positions are Christians. And most pedophiles are convinced they're not hurting the child; they love the child. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm entirely against it and I see a big difference between consenting adults doing *whatever* and the power dynamic between a manipulative adult and a child - I'm just aware that the "it's not fair" argument for homosexuality can be applied to pedophilia, too. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But everybody agrees that pedophiles are hurting children. You know, since children are, by the definition of the act itself, being exploited and hurt. So who the hell cares what pedophiles think?
In the early 1970s the DSM viewed homosexuality as pathology; those same doctors who saw the initial diagnostic changes would be quite amazed by where we stand 40 years later. So forty, fifty years ago somebody would have been saying, "who the hell cares what homosexuals think?"
The truth is, you have no idea where this road leads. No society on earth has ever pretended that a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship are the same thing. There have been societies which viewed homosexual relationships as superior (much of ancient Greek society, a sizable portion of Roman society and I'm sure there are others of which I am ignorant) but they didn't 'marry'. Marriage was much less about "love" and much more about procreation and the future of the society. As we've become increasingly sentimental in our view of things, marriage is exalted when it's about "love" and considered "selling out" when it's about procreation and stability - but that doesn't make our view the enlightened one, just the current one.
Please define for me your terms: what is "anti-gay"? Am I "anti-gay" because I don't think it's the same thing as straight? Am I "anti-gay" because I believe God created male and female and actually designed our sexual organs to work together, ordained marriage as the safe and appropriate outlet for sexual behavior?
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
A drive-by observation from me (I really don't want to get embroiled in another one of these discussions): The argument that involuntary celibacy by virtue of one's adherence to church's teaching is somehow more spiritually noble than a mutually loving/respectful/kenotic committed same-sex relationship is an idea I find offensive, hurtful and insulting...and emotionally/spiritually unhealthy. To me that's like engaging in a self-amputation and then offering up one's suffering and difficulties to Jesus.
I grew up believing this; I have become convinced otherwise. Obviously mileage varies. I've had gay and lesbian friends all my life; I had an uncle die of AIDS. I've railed at God and asked, "why would You care who has sex with who?" and He's given me enough feedback to convince me that, whether it makes sense to me or not, He does care and He has a right to care and a right to define what is the appropriate use of our sexuality. I may be entirely wrong and completely misunderstood Him and His word, in which case I've missed out on a lot of good sex and it irritates me because I like sex and I miss it. But I'm far more interested in what is true than in whether my choices have been made for worthy spiritual reasons or whether I have indulged in a twisted self-amputation. I don't believe I have; I am sure you disagree. There we stand, hopefully with some sense of mutual confused respect.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
That, of course, requires that you believe marriage can be legitimately redefined as "two adults who love each other" rather than "one man, one woman..." I don't believe humanity defined marriage in the first place; that was God, at least according to Jesus: And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Bearing that in mind, I am really uncomfortable with the idea of re-defining something God defined (and the consequences of doing so are literally frightening to me).
As a matter of interest when during the evolution of Homo sapiens did God decide on this definition, and how did he convey the news to the first married couple?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
In the early 1970s the DSM viewed homosexuality as pathology; those same doctors who saw the initial diagnostic changes would be quite amazed by where we stand 40 years later. So forty, fifty years ago somebody would have been saying, "who the hell cares what homosexuals think?"
The truth is, you have no idea where this road leads. No society on earth has ever pretended that a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship are the same thing. There have been societies which viewed homosexual relationships as superior (much of ancient Greek society, a sizable portion of Roman society and I'm sure there are others of which I am ignorant) but they didn't 'marry'. Marriage was much less about "love" and much more about procreation and the future of the society. As we've become increasingly sentimental in our view of things, marriage is exalted when it's about "love" and considered "selling out" when it's about procreation and stability - but that doesn't make our view the enlightened one, just the current one.
As I said above: I think this line of discussion indicates a real problem with the thinking that underlies it.
You are trying to make an equivalence between two things - adult homosexual partnerships (note the word) and the sexual exploitation of children - that have almost nothing in common, by pointing to a single superficial shared feature - to wit, their inclusion in the DSM in the 1970s.
Most people, though, can see that there is in fact a great deal of difference between the two things (which is why homosexuality is no longer included in the DSM). We look at healthy gay partnerships and see the same sorts of things we see in healthy heterosexual ones: personal and financial support of one partner for another; mutual respect; intellectual and emotional compatibility and the creativity this can release; the putting of the welfare of the other before that of the self; etc.
We look at pedophilia and see instead exploitation of the weak by the strong; coercion; self-absorption; fear; destruction of the personality; etc.
If you want to continue to point to one once-shared commonality, all the while ignoring the other facts of the case - help yourself. I think this indicates some real problem in your thinking on this topic, but it's no skin off my nose.
I do think it's up to you, not me, to make the argument as to "where this road leads." If you can make a good case against approving of homosexual partnerships and sell it to others, and get homosexuality put back in the DSM, I'd be interested to read it. I don't think you can, since you won't acknowledge the facts of the case, but give it a go.
(BTW, it was once widely believed the earth was the center of the universe about which everything else turned, and that you could turn lead to gold.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
BTW, I don't think anybody here is arguing "that a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship are the same thing." They are clearly not, by definition.
By way of analogy: nobody would argue that a white person is the same thing as a black person, or that a man is the same thing as a woman. We would claim, though, and do, that these different kinds of people should be treated equally under the law - that the law ought to be blind to their differences.
Of course, you may be arguing your view of the worth of the two kinds of relationships, I'm not sure. The analogy for this might be that because men are stronger on average than women, they are worth more and should therefore have rights that women don't. I haven't heard anybody make this argument lately, though, because I think most people would disagree with it. Men and women are different, definitely - but even if you personally believe that one is "worth more" than the other, they ought to have equal rights under the law.
Another, closer analogy might be to fertile vs. infertile heterosexual couples. Is the former "worth more" than the latter? That is not, in our society anyway, a matter on which the law is to comment; the two different kinds of couples have equal marital rights and have had, long before it became possible to do change the facts of infertility.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...By way of analogy: nobody would argue that a white person is the same thing as a black person, or that a man is the same thing as a woman. ...
The difference between a black man and a white man is the same as the difference between a tall man and a short man, a blond man and a black-haired man, or a man with large feet compared to a man with small feet. That is, no substantive difference at all; simply a difference in appearance.
On the other hand, the difference between a man and a woman is significant.
So, you are wrong. A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. Skin colour is irrelevant; gender is not.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Why? Because you say so? Who gets to decide which differences are "substantive"? How is a difference in shape or format of genitals less cosmetic/superficial than their colour? Simply "reasserting" (!) the assumptions underpinning the traditional view gives no reason for accepting them to those who don't share that view already. Whether there is a qualitatively distinct maleness and femaleness is what the same-sex debate is about, so it's rather like arguing against abortion on the grounds that life begins at conception - rock solid if you already accept the premise but useless once you try to argue it outside of your ideological clique.
[ 25. January 2011, 17:32: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...By way of analogy: nobody would argue that a white person is the same thing as a black person, or that a man is the same thing as a woman. ...
The difference between a black man and a white man is the same as the difference between a tall man and a short man, a blond man and a black-haired man, or a man with large feet compared to a man with small feet. That is, no substantive difference at all; simply a difference in appearance.
On the other hand, the difference between a man and a woman is significant.
So, you are wrong. A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. Skin colour is irrelevant; gender is not.
OK. Canadians might not understand the resonances here, but a great deal of time and effort was spent, in various parts of the United States, in arguing that black people and white people were and are very different. The Fourteenth Amendment was the corrective to this, and that's what I'm referring to.
But go ahead and use the male/female analogy, if that's better. Men and women ought to have the same rights under the law, too.
[ 25. January 2011, 17:49: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
That, of course, requires that you believe marriage can be legitimately redefined as "two adults who love each other" rather than "one man, one woman..." I don't believe humanity defined marriage in the first place; that was God, at least according to Jesus: And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Bearing that in mind, I am really uncomfortable with the idea of re-defining something God defined (and the consequences of doing so are literally frightening to me).
As a matter of interest when during the evolution of Homo sapiens did God decide on this definition, and how did he convey the news to the first married couple?
And more to the point, how then do you account for the civil institution's predating the ecclesiastical one (the Church being quite late in the game delving into the marriage business). If the "divine" definition isn't chronologically antecedent, then why is it morally so?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...By way of analogy: nobody would argue that a white person is the same thing as a black person, or that a man is the same thing as a woman. ...
The difference between a black man and a white man is the same as the difference between a tall man and a short man, a blond man and a black-haired man, or a man with large feet compared to a man with small feet. That is, no substantive difference at all; simply a difference in appearance.
On the other hand, the difference between a man and a woman is significant.
So, you are wrong. A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. Skin colour is irrelevant; gender is not.
But similarly, you are wrong if you think the affection a man has for someone is any different to the affection that a woman has for someone.
You are also wrong if you think that the gender of the object of affection makes any difference to the nature of the affection.
There are meaningful differences between men and women. This is not one of them.
[ 25. January 2011, 20:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
...What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Bearing that in mind, I am really uncomfortable with the idea of re-defining something God defined (and the consequences of doing so are literally frightening to me).
As a matter of interest when during the evolution of Homo sapiens did God decide on this definition, and how did he convey the news to the first married couple?
Jesus didn't tell us that and I don't presume to know.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The difference between a black man and a white man is the same as the difference between a tall man and a short man, a blond man and a black-haired man, or a man with large feet compared to a man with small feet. That is, no substantive difference at all; simply a difference in appearance.
On the other hand, the difference between a man and a woman is significant.
So, you are wrong. A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. Skin colour is irrelevant; gender is not.
But similarly, you are wrong if you think the affection a man has for someone is any different to the affection that a woman has for someone.
You are also wrong if you think that the gender of the object of affection makes any difference to the nature of the affection.
There are meaningful differences between men and women. This is not one of them.
I don't doubt that you believe this but I have no idea if it's actually true or not.
For me it's rather simple: when Jesus has made a statement, the statement is true. I don't have to try and qualify it or prove it; I need to try and come into alignment with it. That's my approach to my faith and my relationship with Christ. YMMV and that's between you and Him and I hope it is a rich and truly blessed relationship. It really doesn't matter to me whether we agree or not (although I do find it interesting how folks get to where they get; that's probably a lot more interesting than how I get to where I get because it's pretty basic).
LQ, I don't think the ecclesiastic institution of marriage lines up with God's institution of it (which, per Jesus, goes back to creation), so it doesn't fret me that the church was late coming to the game, as it were.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...Canadians might not understand the resonances here, but a great deal of time and effort was spent, in various parts of the United States, in arguing that black people and white people were and are very different.
In my understanding, to insist there is a difference between people based on skin colour is racist.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Men and women ought to have the same rights under the law, too.
I didn't say anything about rights. I do believe men and women have the same rights - that doesn't make them the same.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Oh come on, Lynn, human beings have been redefining marriage for centuries now. Don't kid yourself that it's been static all this time and that gay marriage is first ever innovation.
I mean, well before Jesus' time polygamy was all the rage.
I have no problem with the idea that God has instituted marriage, so long as you accept that there have been an awful lot of changes in what MAN regards as marriage since then. So there's no guarantee that your own marriage is a carbon copy of the original God institution just because it happens to be within the definition that man currently agrees with. If you were born in a different century they would have found your marriage unrecognisable. So which century had it right, in God's eyes? The one that was okay with polygamy? The one that reserved marriage for the nobility?
If man changes the definition again to include gay marriage, it obviously has no bearing on what God regards as marriage. But neither did any other change through the years.
And if God doesn't care about the current human form of earthly marriage... why do you?
Besides, I'm not sure I understand what you think Jesus said about marriage anyway. To me, the key passages on marriage say 'FOR THIS REASON a man will leave his father and mother and join his wife'. You can't say that marriage is purely a man-woman thing from that unless you examine the reason and see that it can only be a man-woman reason. If a man can, FOR THE SAME REASON, leave his father and mother and join his husband... how can you be so sure that's not within the boundaries of what God had in mind?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...Canadians might not understand the resonances here, but a great deal of time and effort was spent, in various parts of the United States, in arguing that black people and white people were and are very different.
In my understanding, to insist there is a difference between people based on skin colour is racist.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Men and women ought to have the same rights under the law, too.
I didn't say anything about rights. I do believe men and women have the same rights - that doesn't make them the same.
Yes, it was racist! That's exactly what I meant!
Yes, men and women are different! If you'd read what I wrote above you'd know I said exactly what you just said in those very words!
In other words we agree completely on every point! There's no reason to be having this conversation!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
In the passage in question above, Jesus was referring to, and answering a question about, divorce.
And that's really interesting. Because those who oppose gay marriage are not clamoring for divorce to made illegal again. Or for adultery to be made illegal - again. Both of which Jesus actually pronounced a verdict upon. But why not, if that's what Jesus has said?
So the basis for the objection is not in fact religious, but cultural. At base, the question is "where will our society end up if we allow gay marriage"? It's really not about "what Jesus said" much at all.
Because of course - anyone could ask the very same question about legalizing divorce and adultery. Or about birth control, even - the widespread use of which has had a much, much greater effect on the institution of marriage than "gay marriage" ever could in a million years. But of course, many of the people who object to "gay marriage" would never in a million years object to the use of birth control.
It's just really interesting to watch this all play out, to me. People completely gloss over things affect them directly - but become outraged about things that only affect somebody else!
[ 26. January 2011, 12:21: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You can't say that marriage is purely a man-woman thing from that unless you examine the reason and see that it can only be a man-woman reason. If a man can, FOR THE SAME REASON, leave his father and mother and join his husband... how can you be so sure that's not within the boundaries of what God had in mind?
Not to mention that Jesus himself explicitly anticipated that there would be anomalies ("not all can accept this teaching" ...
"eunuchs from birth") contrary to the frequent assertions that only heterosexual marriage is divinely approbated.
[ 26. January 2011, 13:24: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And that's really interesting. Because those who oppose gay marriage are not clamoring for divorce to made illegal again.
If they are Roman Catholics (and many of them are) then presumably they are clamouring for that.
And divorced men whose wife is living would not be allowed to become RC priests, and its priests & ordained ministers who are the "presenting issue" here.
Maybe its different in the USA but I don't see a vast amount of Christian approval of divorce round here these days. And Jesus in the NT doesn't rule out all divorce anyway, so for evangelicals (but not Catholics) there is a let out for adultery and sexual immorality.
quote:
Or for adultery to be made illegal - again.
Not sure when, if ever, adultery was illegal in this country. Certainly not a criminal offence in modern times. Against church law of course - but then it still is.
And, in the CofE at any rate, the fuss is over ordained ministers. Lots of churchgoers, even evangelicals, seem to tolerate gay men in church as long as they don't have to actually talk to them about sex. I'm not sure I can think of an evangelical congregation I have known that didn't have at least one gay man in it. In practice they work by "don't ask, don't tell" for the laity.
But when its someone in a position of authority or leadership, different rules apply. And from their point of view that is logically consistent - the church is full of sinners, we are all sinners, but we ought to be trying not to sin. And there is Biblical support for demanding higher standards from ordained ministers than for others. So as long as they see sexual behaviour outside marriage as a sin, then they will see no inconsistency in allowing people they see as unrepentant sinners to be in the congregation, but not to be ministers.
Lesbian women are even more off their cultural radar, and they also seem to find them less objectionable, in the weird way of these things, so "don't ask, don't tell" extends to the clergy as well. There are plenty of evangelical Anglican churches that would never dream of appointing a lesbian woman living with a partner to any position of authority, but whose congregation never bother to wonder what the curate or the vicar or the choir leader or the Sunday School teacher do on holiday. Or not out loud anyway.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
No, Catholics are not clamoring for divorce to be made illegal; nobody is. It's not even a hint of a thought anywhere; nobody would consider doing this. (Well, maybe the Christian Reconstructionists....)
Adultery is still illegal here in some states - it's still a felony in some places, I believe - although the laws are not enforced.
Divorce was only permitted in cases of cruelty or - you guessed it - adultery. This has only changed within the last 40 years or so.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I know quite a few in our evo congo who would like to see adultery outlawed! And my Exclusive Brethren in-laws were most reluctant to let a divorced man (moi) marry their daughter; I had to persuade them I was OK by pointing out my first wife had left me for another man and thus I fell within the exception of Matt 19. Even now I doubt whether they would let me break bread with them ie: be admitted to communion. And I don't know any evos, particularly those at the fundie end of the spectrum, who would be happy with a divorced-and-remarried minister/pastor (and, as Ken says, that's really where the issue becomes critical). So, people here may not agree with the stance, but there is at least consistency there.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(And, Ken: as I'm sure you know, there are two different Biblical takes on Jesus' pronouncement about divorce. One says that he forbids it entirely, no let-out at all.
In any case, nobody's clamoring to re-instate the divorce laws, even if only in the case of adultery. That's the point; the very same people who use Jesus' argument against divorce as the basis for their opposition to legalizing "gay marriage" completely ignore what he has to say against divorce itself!)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I know quite a few in our evo congo who would like to see adultery outlawed! And my Exclusive Brethren in-laws were most reluctant to let a divorced man (moi) marry their daughter; I had to persuade them I was OK by pointing out my first wife had left me for another man and thus I fell within the exception of Matt 19. Even now I doubt whether they would let me break bread with them ie: be admitted to communion. And I don't know any evos, particularly those at the fundie end of the spectrum, who would be happy with a divorced-and-remarried minister/pastor (and, as Ken says, that's really where the issue becomes critical). So, people here may not agree with the stance, but there is at least consistency there.
Maybe so - but are they using their opposition to adultery and/or divorce to enact laws against them?
Because that's what's happening here; people are enacting laws against allowing gay people to get married, here - and on the basis of their "religious beliefs," they claim.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(And, Ken: as I'm sure you know, there are two different Biblical takes on Jesus' pronouncement about divorce. One says that he forbids it entirely, no let-out at all.
One stance from people who put the Bible first, the other from those who read it with the Pope's spectacles.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(And, Ken: as I'm sure you know, there are two different Biblical takes on Jesus' pronouncement about divorce. One says that he forbids it entirely, no let-out at all.
One stance from people who put the Bible first, the other from those who read it with the Pope's spectacles.
Well, they're not "stances." They are different passages with two different versions; one version contains the adultery clause - the other flatly says that divorce IS adultery.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... people are enacting laws against allowing gay people to get married, ....
Really? Most places, people are simply trying to keep the legal status quo on marriage.
Here, most conservative Christians are resigned to the fact that same-sex marriages are legal, and are not actively trying to get the law changed - even the Prime Minister. They are only trying to not get coerced into approving of them.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... people are enacting laws against allowing gay people to get married, ....
Really? Most places, people are simply trying to keep the legal status quo on marriage.
Here, most conservative Christians are resigned to the fact that same-sex marriages are legal, and are not actively trying to get the law changed - even the Prime Minister. They are only trying to not get coerced into approving of them.
And here, 39 states (I think it's this number, but it could be more) have outlawed same-sex marriage.
[ 26. January 2011, 14:15: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I know quite a few in our evo congo who would like to see adultery outlawed! And my Exclusive Brethren in-laws were most reluctant to let a divorced man (moi) marry their daughter; I had to persuade them I was OK by pointing out my first wife had left me for another man and thus I fell within the exception of Matt 19. Even now I doubt whether they would let me break bread with them ie: be admitted to communion. And I don't know any evos, particularly those at the fundie end of the spectrum, who would be happy with a divorced-and-remarried minister/pastor (and, as Ken says, that's really where the issue becomes critical). So, people here may not agree with the stance, but there is at least consistency there.
Maybe so - but are they using their opposition to adultery and/or divorce to enact laws against them?
Because that's what's happening here; people are enacting laws against allowing gay people to get married, here - and on the basis of their "religious beliefs," they claim.
Right, my last post dealt largely with intra-church attitudes. As far as the attitude of conservative Christians towards goes towards the changing of the law, most I think accept that the battle has been fought and lost on divorce so hence the lack of clamour for a change there. The battle on gay marriage though is still very much live and, as Sharkshooter has pointed out, lies more in resisting changes to the existing law rather than campaigning for new laws.
[ 26. January 2011, 14:17: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Here, most conservative Christians are resigned to the fact that same-sex marriages are legal, and are not actively trying to get the law changed - even the Prime Minister. They are only trying to not get coerced into approving of them.
I thought the whole purpose of the British civil partnership laws was so that conservative Christians (and others with an axe to grind against homosexuals) could claim that gay partnerships aren't really marriage.
Creating a parallel legal structure for same-sex couples seems a lot more complicated than the Canadian model of simply allowing same-sex couples to marry under the same laws as opposite-sex couples, but I'm sure there seemed to be good reasons at the time.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
I assume then that sharkshooter lives "somewhere else" than the United States, where several jurisdictions have in fact passed new laws to prevent as-yet unrecognized unions from being so in the future.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
Yes, as many shipmates are aware, I am Canadian.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As far as the attitude of conservative Christians towards goes towards the changing of the law, most I think accept that the battle has been fought and lost on divorce so hence the lack of clamour for a change there. The battle on gay marriage though is still very much live and, as Sharkshooter has pointed out, lies more in resisting changes to the existing law rather than campaigning for new laws.
I'm sure you're right - but it comes across as rank hypocrisy when the Biblical passage against divorce is used, not to work to make divorce illegal, but to outlaw same-sex marriage.
People just don't believe the rationale given any longer, I'm afraid. And I don't think that's very good for conservative Christianity, to be honest.
In fact, the whole conservative Christian movement here has been on the warpath against homosexuality here for 30 years - first against the very fact itself, of course, since same-sex marriage wasn't even a glint in anybody's eye 30 years ago. The acceptance of homosexuality was going to be the downfall of the entire nation - and meanwhile, hardly a word was breathed against the skyrocketing divorce rate. Perhaps the same principle applies - that this was the period in which gay people first starting working for civil rights, so the churches felt the need to speak up against it especially at that point.
Still, it's problematic for your side, because the church got so mixed up in the culture that it didn't know which was which anymore. That's not good for Christianity as a whole, I don't think....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I suppose a better parallel would be the conservative Christian movements attitude towards the law relating to homosexual acts; for the same reason that it has given up the fight against repealing the divorce laws, it has also given up trying to repeal the laws prohibiting same-sex acts between consenting adults. That doesn't mean that it is accepting of either, though.
I suppose you could take a bit of comfort from the fact that, if conservative Christian opposition to same-sex marriage follows the same pathology, in another decade or two gay marriage will be a legislative non-issue for conservatives too...
[ 26. January 2011, 14:59: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I suppose a better parallel would be the conservative Christian movements attitude towards the law relating to homosexual acts; for the same reason that it has given up the fight against repealing the divorce laws, it has also given up trying to repeal the laws prohibiting same-sex acts between consenting adults.
Doesn't quite parse, Matt. I'm not aware of conservative Christians working to *repeal* laws *prohibiting* same-sex acts. Working to re-criminalize, is what I think you meant.
In any event, it would take a constitutional amendment at this point to re-criminalize due to "Lawrence v. Texas". It would take a solidly committed group of conservative religionists (not just Christians) plus a broad animus towards gay people amongst the general population to pull that off.
The polls on GLBT issues (marriage-equality, don't ask don't tell, etc.) show that the broad animus is rapidly shrinking. Even in the evangelical church, I'm hearing more and more voices with respect for gay people and don't view "gay Christian" as an oxymoron (Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Phil Yancey in addition to a swelling pew-sitting rank and file).
So for those reasons, I agree with you -- not likely to happen.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come on, Lynn, human beings have been redefining marriage for centuries now. Don't kid yourself that it's been static all this time and that gay marriage is first ever innovation.
I mean, well before Jesus' time polygamy was all the rage.
Polygamy is one man married to more than one woman at the same time - but the women aren't married to each other (they may or may not have input into who the man takes as a subsequent wife), so even in the case of polygamy you're talking about a man who is participating in several marriages simultaneously. Group marriages are a different kind of dynamic but, frankly, I don't know any group marriages among people that profess to be Christians or Jews and there is no legal recognition of group marriage.
The "redefinition" of marriage to which you refer has, over the years, been things like: what is the age of consent? Who gives consent, the married or the parents of the married? For a time in the USA and in Germany there were laws against miscegenation - but those laws weren't redefining marriage but placing legal restrictions upon who could and couldn't marry within the already marriageable population.
quote:
I have no problem with the idea that God has instituted marriage, so long as you accept that there have been an awful lot of changes in what MAN regards as marriage since then. So there's no guarantee that your own marriage is a carbon copy of the original God institution just because it happens to be within the definition that man currently agrees with. If you were born in a different century they would have found your marriage unrecognisable. So which century had it right, in God's eyes? The one that was okay with polygamy? The one that reserved marriage for the nobility?
If man changes the definition again to include gay marriage, it obviously has no bearing on what God regards as marriage. But neither did any other change through the years.
And if God doesn't care about the current human form of earthly marriage... why do you?
Besides, I'm not sure I understand what you think Jesus said about marriage anyway. To me, the key passages on marriage say 'FOR THIS REASON a man will leave his father and mother and join his wife'. You can't say that marriage is purely a man-woman thing from that unless you examine the reason and see that it can only be a man-woman reason. If a man can, FOR THE SAME REASON, leave his father and mother and join his husband... how can you be so sure that's not within the boundaries of what God had in mind?
I doubt if human marriage has ever met God's standard of perfection, at least since the departure from Eden. But I also don't see that as having anything to do with the argument; it's like saying, "people steal, so why hold to the 8th commandment?" or looking at the way taxes are imposed and seeing that as a redefinition of stealing and thereby arguing against the commandment not to steal.
Obviously a given society may do what it chooses to do, either by popular vote or through imposition by judges, etc. - but I cannot support it. So the river rushes by and I am a little bump in the creek bed; so be it. I do fear for this time and the nations that are so determined to rewrite or recast God's word; God is not mocked and His patience, which great, does ultimately end and judgment begins. I really hope my concerns are baseless, but I fear they are not.
I'm not sure where you get to the idea that God doesn't care about the current form of earthly marriage - why, because we fallen humans never get it right? I believe that marriage, like the tabernacle, is a model of a heavenly reality - and that makes it something in which He has a vested interest.
And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, (capitalization from Blue Letter Bible) - for that reason (the male-ness and the female-ness) a man leaves his parents and marries a wife. Inherently it is male/female; I don't see how you can turn that scripture into something which says, 'for this reason a man leaves his parents and cleaves unto his husband.'
Obviously you're arguing that is within the scope of the text; you're free to make that argument and it's ultimately God who defines the scope of the text, so I will leave that one for you to argue before the throne of grace.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In the passage in question above, Jesus was referring to, and answering a question about, divorce.
And that's really interesting. Because those who oppose gay marriage are not clamoring for divorce to made illegal again. Or for adultery to be made illegal - again. Both of which Jesus actually pronounced a verdict upon. But why not, if that's what Jesus has said?
Actually I do know a lot of people within the church who think the normalization of divorce is a great spiritual and social tragedy and argue to apply the standard Jesus references here.
quote:
So the basis for the objection is not in fact religious, but cultural. At base, the question is "where will our society end up if we allow gay marriage"? It's really not about "what Jesus said" much at all.
Again, it is religious and not cultural for me and for the people whose spiritual insights I respect. I don't make any arguments culturally (although I think the long term cultural changes will not be good, if we end up walking down this road. But it's not the basis on which I oppose it).
quote:
Because of course - anyone could ask the very same question about legalizing divorce and adultery. Or about birth control, even - the widespread use of which has had a much, much greater effect on the institution of marriage than "gay marriage" ever could in a million years. But of course, many of the people who object to "gay marriage" would never in a million years object to the use of birth control.
You're so certain that the people who object to same sex marriage don't object to divorce, adultery, or birth control - where do get this idea?
quote:
It's just really interesting to watch this all play out, to me. People completely gloss over things affect them directly - but become outraged about things that only affect somebody else!
There may be people who gloss over the things that affect them directly - but the standards Jesus set for marriage and divorce and the biblical standard for fornication most assuredly affects me. I am celibate against my inclination out of the desire to obey Christ-- "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." Perhaps you're arguing with some hypothetical church? Because I don't see anybody on the thread arguing what you say they're arguing.
LQ, that's why I brought the 'eunuch' passage up, in this post. Clearly Jesus knew that this would be a contentious teaching (kind of like the whole John 6, "unless you eat My body and drink My blood," thing) - but He still taught it. Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of mens' hearts but God permitted Moses to permit it. Malachi 2:16 says, "God hates divorce" --and He does-- but there are things He hates more and I daresay a man murdering his wife is more noxious to God than a man divorcing his wife without cause.
Jesus didn't allow the difficulty of a thing to keep Him from teaching the thing.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I know quite a few in our evo congo who would like to see adultery outlawed! And my Exclusive Brethren in-laws were most reluctant to let a divorced man (moi) marry their daughter; I had to persuade them I was OK by pointing out my first wife had left me for another man and thus I fell within the exception of Matt 19. Even now I doubt whether they would let me break bread with them ie: be admitted to communion. And I don't know any evos, particularly those at the fundie end of the spectrum, who would be happy with a divorced-and-remarried minister/pastor (and, as Ken says, that's really where the issue becomes critical). So, people here may not agree with the stance, but there is at least consistency there.
Maybe so - but are they using their opposition to adultery and/or divorce to enact laws against them?
Because that's what's happening here; people are enacting laws against allowing gay people to get married, here - and on the basis of their "religious beliefs," they claim.
Has it ever been legal for the same sex to marry? Because that's the legal change: pushing to make marriage between two adult humans rather than one man, one woman. Laws which have been enacted are to protect from the imposition of that particular change; please don't pretend the change isn't originating with the push to make same-sex marriage legal.
Would you please provide me with the scripture address which "flatly says that divorce IS adultery"? I know passages which say that a man who divorces his wife causes her to enter into adultery if she remarries but can think of nothing that says that divorce itself is adultery.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Yes, as many shipmates are aware, I am Canadian.
Here as well the Harper government's original intention of converting same-sex marriages into British-style civil partnerships was supported by the McVety gang.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Jesus didn't allow the difficulty of a thing to keep Him from teaching the thing.
But he doesn't say "some will find it especially difficult" - it's made pretty clear that marriage is a demanding vocation across the board. Rather, there are some who "cannot" accept "this" (man + woman leave-n-cleave) teaching - some even "from birth." And sin must surely presume the option of not sinning. How do we account for God willing damnation for noncompliance of laws by those who are not simply unwilling but incapable of compliance without adverting to fideism (i.e. it doesn't matter how arbitrary and unfair it is, the word of God came to one called Lynn and cannot be subject to human scrutiny - especially when I'm not the one who bears the cost).
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh come on, Lynn, human beings have been redefining marriage for centuries now. Don't kid yourself that it's been static all this time and that gay marriage is first ever innovation.
I mean, well before Jesus' time polygamy was all the rage.
Polygamy is one man married to more than one woman at the same time - but the women aren't married to each other (they may or may not have input into who the man takes as a subsequent wife), so even in the case of polygamy you're talking about a man who is participating in several marriages simultaneously. Group marriages are a different kind of dynamic but, frankly, I don't know any group marriages among people that profess to be Christians or Jews and there is no legal recognition of group marriage.
The "redefinition" of marriage to which you refer has, over the years, been things like: what is the age of consent? Who gives consent, the married or the parents of the married? For a time in the USA and in Germany there were laws against miscegenation - but those laws weren't redefining marriage but placing legal restrictions upon who could and couldn't marry within the already marriageable population.
Nice use of italics at the end there. But totally pointless. I'm already in the marriageable population.
Just so long as I choose the correct other member of the marriageable population!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
You're so certain that the people who object to same sex marriage don't object to divorce, adultery, or birth control - where do get this idea?
I didn't say they didn't object to it; I said there was no movement to make those things illegal - while there is, in the case of same-sex marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
There may be people who gloss over the things that affect them directly - but the standards Jesus set for marriage and divorce and the biblical standard for fornication most assuredly affects me. I am celibate against my inclination out of the desire to obey Christ-- "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." Perhaps you're arguing with some hypothetical church? Because I don't see anybody on the thread arguing what you say they're arguing.
But you are using a Biblical passage as an argument in a matter of civil law!
So we're really not in church anymore, Toto; you're explicitly talking about the pernicious effects you believe legalization of SSM will have on society itself - because we "are re-defining something God defined." If this were really comparable to something like celibacy, you'd just go on about your business, following your own conscience, unconcerned about how others live their lives. This is what I meant when I said your problem with this issue is cultural, not religious.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Has it ever been legal for the same sex to marry? Because that's the legal change: pushing to make marriage between two adult humans rather than one man, one woman. Laws which have been enacted are to protect from the imposition of that particular change; please don't pretend the change isn't originating with the push to make same-sex marriage legal.
All I can say is that 42 states (that's the right number) have either amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage, or passed a law against it. That laws have been changed is beyond dispute.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Would you please provide me with the scripture address which "flatly says that divorce IS adultery"? I know passages which say that a man who divorces his wife causes her to enter into adultery if she remarries but can think of nothing that says that divorce itself is adultery.
Oops, you're right. Let me fix that statement. The passage "flatly says that divorce and remarriage IS adultery." Sorry 'bout that!
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
You're so certain that the people who object to same sex marriage don't object to divorce, adultery, or birth control - where do get this idea?
I didn't say they didn't object to it; I said there was no movement to make those things illegal - while there is, in the case of same-sex marriage.
But you've ignored my point, which is that the push to change the legal status of marriage hasn't come from the conservatives, it's come from the pro-same-sex crowd. And when redefinition hasn't been voted in, it's been imposed by judges - thus states (42, per you) have to act to preserve the status quo. You can say that status quo is insufficient or unfair or whatever argument you want to put forth, but the reason for the protective legislation has been the pro-same-sex marriage push. After all, when I was a child it would have been nonsensical to pass laws that defined marriage as one man, one woman; it had never occurred to the vast majority of Americans that it might ever need to be discussed, much less legislated.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
There may be people who gloss over the things that affect them directly - but the standards Jesus set for marriage and divorce and the biblical standard for fornication most assuredly affects me. I am celibate against my inclination out of the desire to obey Christ-- "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." Perhaps you're arguing with some hypothetical church? Because I don't see anybody on the thread arguing what you say they're arguing.
But you are using a Biblical passage as an argument in a matter of civil law!
No, I'm using the Biblical passage to explain my sense of obligation to Biblical standards of sexual morality; it has nothing to do with civil law. Because I believe God defined marriage (as opposed to civil unions) as 'one man, one woman, for life' means that I cannot support the political effort to redefine marriage. Our society is going to do what it's going to do and probably within a decade same-sex marriage will be a fait accompli; I have no power over that except for my one vote and my voice, in whatever small way, as a person who says, "uh, maybe this isn't such a good idea."
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Would you please provide me with the scripture address which "flatly says that divorce IS adultery"? I know passages which say that a man who divorces his wife causes her to enter into adultery if she remarries but can think of nothing that says that divorce itself is adultery.
Oops, you're right. Let me fix that statement. The passage "flatly says that divorce and remarriage IS adultery." Sorry 'bout that!
Okay, thanks - I thought maybe you were working with a really different translation.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
ken: quote:
Maybe its different in the USA but I don't see a vast amount of Christian approval of divorce round here these days.
Maybe not "Hooray - let's divorce" approval, but positive acceptance. I'm useless at finding these sorts of figures, but at this point a Shipmate often links to statistics showing the divorce rate among evangelicals is higher than that for the rest of the population, in both England and USA. Divorced people are welcome and active in all shades of church these days; the same cannot be said of gays.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I suppose a better parallel would be the conservative Christian movements attitude towards the law relating to homosexual acts; for the same reason that it has given up the fight against repealing the divorce laws, it has also given up trying to repeal the laws prohibiting same-sex acts between consenting adults.
Doesn't quite parse, Matt. I'm not aware of conservative Christians working to *repeal* laws *prohibiting* same-sex acts. Working to re-criminalize, is what I think you meant.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) D'oh! You're quite right - glad you knew what I meant!
quote:
In any event, it would take a constitutional amendment at this point to re-criminalize due to "Lawrence v. Texas". It would take a solidly committed group of conservative religionists (not just Christians) plus a broad animus towards gay people amongst the general population to pull that off.
That was kind of my point: that conservatives accept that they've lost that battle. Same with divorce.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
ken: quote:
Maybe its different in the USA but I don't see a vast amount of Christian approval of divorce round here these days.
Maybe not "Hooray - let's divorce" approval, but positive acceptance. I'm useless at finding these sorts of figures, but at this point a Shipmate often links to statistics showing the divorce rate among evangelicals is higher than that for the rest of the population, in both England and USA. Divorced people are welcome and active in all shades of church these days; the same cannot be said of gays.
Hmmm...obviously I missed the memo that said that the Catholic Church now admits divorced and remarried people to communion...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
Matt is correct.
The Catholic Church still doesn't recognise divorce as God-ordained.
(It's amusing, surely, that some churches do?)
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hmmm...obviously I missed the memo that said that the Catholic Church now admits divorced and remarried people to communion...
No they offer Annulment. Which despite all the accusations of its hypocrisy actually recognises that some unions are not fully sacramental marriages.
Strangely as an Anglican I am Divorced, which means certain limitations to my ministry. If I was Roman it is likely that I would be granted an Annulment.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Same here.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
After all, when I was a child it would have been nonsensical to pass laws that defined marriage as one man, one woman; it had never occurred to the vast majority of Americans that it might ever need to be discussed, much less legislated.
Not least because a combination of criminalisation and persecution of homosexuals for what they were kept them in their proper place. Oh, the good old days!
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
In any event, it would take a constitutional amendment at this point to re-criminalize due to "Lawrence v. Texas". It would take a solidly committed group of conservative religionists (not just Christians) plus a broad animus towards gay people amongst the general population to pull that off.
That was kind of my point: that conservatives accept that they've lost that battle. Same with divorce.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Same here. [With regard to being divorced.]
So, to give this a rather hellish turn, it is rather convenient to you as a conservative divorcee that the conservatives accept that they've lost the legal battle on divorce.
As already hinted by others on this thread, it does look like a case of divorce being a situation we could find ourselves in so relaxing the law is OK, but gayness is something we would never do so full rigour should be retained.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
I didn't ignore your point, Lynn - I was talking about mostly-unacknowledged irony that the religious right uses the Biblical prohibition against divorce to work to make same-sex marriage illegal - but hasn't tried to do anything similar about divorce itself. The second clause is the point of the thing, not the first.
It seems that you don't see, or believe, that your vote against SSM imposes your personal religious views upon me and other gay people. I'm not sure why that is; after all, nobody will force you to marry a woman - but I might want to! IOW, a vote against has no consequences for you.
I really don't think it's terrible to argue against "redefining marriage" from a cultural/political/societal point of view, BTW. It's true that we should think and talk about it openly. I just don't accept your particular argument (that we're "re-defining something that God has defined") as valid. It's a sectarian religious point of view with which I don't agree.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
In any event, it would take a constitutional amendment at this point to re-criminalize due to "Lawrence v. Texas". It would take a solidly committed group of conservative religionists (not just Christians) plus a broad animus towards gay people amongst the general population to pull that off.
That was kind of my point: that conservatives accept that they've lost that battle. Same with divorce.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Same here. [With regard to being divorced.]
So, to give this a rather hellish turn, it is rather convenient to you as a conservative divorcee that the conservatives accept that they've lost the legal battle on divorce.
Not really, as I woulld rather have not got divorced at all! But that decision wasn't mine to make...
quote:
As already hinted by others on this thread, it does look like a case of divorce being a situation we could find ourselves in so relaxing the law is OK, but gayness is something we would never do so full rigour should be retained.
Again, I can only speak for myself, but nothing could be further from the trutn.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
