Let me make something clear. When I said that I would advocate LDS marriage for all people, I didn’t mean that I wanted to legislate it or force it upon everyone. Marriage for time and eternity would be the ideal, but I realize it’s not wise to try to force one’s religious views on the public. Yes, I’ve heard of the first amendment and am a supporter of it. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
Phil wrote:
I most certainly wish and hope that I am incorrect, Phil. Believe me, no one would be happier to be wrong about any issue than I would about this one.
Durnovarianus: That’s not how my dictionary reads. You’re welcome to think of “marriage” any way you want to, but AFAICS the word is not defined as a strictly religious one in the English language.
Geez. I delurk on the thread just to nitpick. Sorry. But I do think it’s important not to lose sight of the difference between secular marriage and religious. Just because the gummint says two people are married does not mean that churches and churchmembers have to agree.
I’d be the first to defend religious freedom. That would include the prophethood of Gordon Hinckley (in which I do not believe) and the theological definition any church may put on the sacrament/ordinance/ whatchamacallit of marriage.
However, regardless of what any given church may define it, “marriage” is also a civil event in that it changes one’s secular status. No church would suggest that an atheist man and an athiest woman going before a judge and reciting marital vows are undergoing a religious ceremony. But if both encountered God and began attending church, they would certainly be considered a married couple.
I dislike all attempts to define marriage theologically. Part of the reason is that you can create reductio ad absurdam scenarios in which they fall to pieces. Most obvious candidate here is the “marriage is for procreation” one: a man married to a woman who has had to have a hysterectomy is therefore required to divorce her? Give me a break!
On the theological bent, some persons are not eligible for marriage because God has given them the gift of celibacy. I.e., their sexuality, not repressed, is nonetheless not to be expressed because the particular role in which they are to function is incompatible with a natural sex life; he therefore equips them to healthily abstain from interpersonal sexual relations. It is not a rare but neither an overly common gift.
I think I would concur with you, Gaudere, in your wish for Bill’s future happiness. And I would note that such a relationship would not necessarily have to be sexual in nature if Bill still feels at that point that homosexual relations are ipso facto sinful. But to find someone with whom he can share love would be a wonderful thing for him. And blessed by any God worth the name, IMHO.
Not only is it non-negotiable, but to save time, many of the denizens are now being born without any virginity at all.
Note to any who may be reading this: I have nothing against anyone who is from TN, nor their forefathers who may be from TN. This started out as a smart-assed remark, nothing more.
Granted this thread is now circling over Jose Marti International Airport, is it possible to get it back on track?
I know of three Biblical passages in which homosexual behavior is dealt with. 1. In Leviticus, it is condemned as an “abomination.” Theologian Daniel Helminiak reviews the background on this one, however, to demonstrate that it is among Canaanite practices forbidden to the Children of Israel. (There is some strong evidence for temple prostitutes of both sexes as a part of Baal/Astarte worship.) At least the surrounding commandments appear to relate to other activities known to be related to Baal worship.
In Romans, God punishes “trendy” thrill-seeking behavior by instilling homosexual desire in both sexes. (Rom. 1:17ff) Members of the Roman church included those who had put their hush puppies on, realizing they were not cut out for glitter rock-and-roll. (Rom. 2:1) It was not something to be punished but was itself a punishment. (This incidentally appears to be the only Biblical reference to lesbianism.)
The other reference of any significance is in I Samuel, where two men fall in love. Interestingly, they are not portrayed as having a sexual relationship, but the love relationship, far from being condemned, is held up as an example. This is of course David and Jonathan.
I find it ironic that two happily married men, Phil and myself, are defending gay marriage to a person who has indicated he himself is gay but finds homosexuality sinful.
As a final point, “God’s judgment” being something to be feared is a strictly Christian viewpoint. (This may say something about Christians! :)) The Jewish view, as shown in both Old and New Testaments, was that they longed for God to come to judge and condemn the wrongs committed against them.
I dunno about this, Poly, I remember going through this with cmkeller some time back, and his take on it was that homosexuality is a bad thing. I didn’t care for his analogies, but I think that was the point he was trying to get across.
Oh, and. . .just what in hell was the topic again?
Poly:
I, personally, think that Snark is full of hooey when he makes statements such as the one in question. That said, I think that anyone is full of hooey when they make statements to that affect. I apologize for reading more into your first post than was there.
I don’t think that there should be an issue inre gay marriage. It should be allowed. If it will only make the cut as a civil ceremony, then so be it. Something is better than nothing.
The basis for my remark about God’s judgments coming down on our heads if we as a people approve gay marriage comes from The Family: A Proclamation to the World. To quote part of it:
I think it’s safe for me to say that the LDS church views same-sex marriage as a threat to the institution of the family.
