Forgive me if I’m wrong, but didn’t God demonstrate that he could create people out of anything from dirt to shortribs? Why not just presto-zappo create some unrelated females for perpetuating the species?
Currently we (gays) are asking for a special case, not changing the rules. (Changing the rules would be saying “a man and woman CAN’T marry” or “a man MUST marry a woman from his hometown”.) Again, you’re admitting that even God changes the rules of marriage- it’s not a static institution. Since “God” has been silent on the issue for a few thousand years, I say we play by our own rules and use logic/ration/reason instead.
I agree, many Christians are way too quick to toss out the embarrassing rules of the OT, but nevertheless they do.
I neither like nor dislike it; I just see it as what it is- a quote from the Gospels. But I’ll cut off here for now and just say this:
Yessir, Jesus sure nuff said that. What else did He say, reckon?
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Straight Dope Message Boards is proud to introduce the Light of the World, the Redeemer with the Mostest, the Elvis of the New Testament, in His continuation of the verses quoted by Twin:
What’s that? Jesus himself explicitly condemns remarriage except when there’s adultery? Why then I guess that’s why the same people crowding every statehouse on Gay Marriage Ban day are lobbying just as hard to have remarriage outlawed.
What’s that? They’re not? What’s that- DOMA sponsor Bob Barr himself remarried even though HE was the one who committed adultery? Well at least he’s the only one. What’s that-- there are OTHER remarried divorcees who are in Congress who are sponsoring this bill as well? Why that don’t seem hardly right…
So Jesus not only thinks that marriage is purely an Earthly measure, but should if possible be avoided altogether? THIS must be why so many conservative politicians tout celibacy as the ideal form of life.
What’s that? They don’t? They claim that marriage is the moral BEDROCK of society? But doesn’t that contradict Jesus?
So let’s get this…ahem…straight. Jesus himself says that remarriage is a sin unless the divorce was adultery, and that it is better not to remarry at all, and Jesus also admits that God himself has changed the rules about marriage to suit the norms and mores of the times. But conservative politicans, using the Word of God™ as their basis, argue that marriage is a holy institution that is the basis of society, and they “labor like Aquinas” to ban gays from marrying even though God and Jesus were both harder by far on adultery and divorce than they were on gays? Then why isn’t the emphasis on moves to ban divorce, jail adulterers, and forbid remarriage (unless it can be proven the wife committed adultery) instead of trying to forbid recognition of Rosie O’Donnell’s marriage? Will Britney Spears and Jared Leto be called “Whore! Blasphemer!” long and loud in every city if they try to remarry other spouses? Will remarried men (whose wives did not commit adultery) be denied the right to hold office?
Again, not that it particularly marries other than in the here and now, because in spite of all the promises by ministers through the centuries that we’ll all be reunited in heaven, it really is, according to Jesus, til death us do part, after which contract’s over- play ball.
Then why didn’t it make the short-list (the Big Ten)? What’s the significance of the Ten Commandments- was it just a prologue?
And again, why do we recognize some of God’s “laws” as sin in the imagined “religious basis” of our morality and legal code but not others? Why don’t adulterers go to jail? Why was slavery illegalized when the Bible never explicity condemns it? Why do women become ministers when Paul clearly says for them to shut their pita-holes in church? Why do fools fall in love? Why do birds sing… oh why…
Cite?
Here’s one of mine- Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli, considered by some historians (though not by others- it devolves into semantics) the first treaty entered into by the United States, read before and ratified by the Senate on 7 June 1797 and signed by President John Adams on 10 June 1797. (Context: the fledgeling nation was entering a treaty with an Islamic potentate and wished to assure him that they would not go back on their word due to religious differences- some European powers did not consider themselves bound by contracts with non-Christians.)
And even within our “Christian” nation, laws have changed many times. Miscegenation was once the rule of the land but now it’s not (in Alabama in 2000 it was decriminalized by a whopping 51% majority) and, surprise surprise, it turns out not it really wasn’t the goal of every black folk to marry a white person (though some did, and it didn’t seem to cripple same-race marriages). I won’t go into polygamy since it never was the norm, but first-cousin marriage was practiced everywhere in the nation at one point yet it is now illegal in many states. Divorce and remarriage were both very difficult in the nation, requiring trials (sometimes by jury) for every instance, yet now divorce is automatically granted in almost every state and the only real province of the courts is in settling disputes over money and custody. Things change. They’re changing again.
Cite? He hasn’t said much of anything in 2,000 years- how do you know?
There was a very bad typo that completely changed the meaning of what I intended to say in one portion- that I acknowledge- but as for the errors, I honestly don’t think so. There were errors in your postings that I pointed out. Dopers aren’t notoriously shy creatures so I hope they’ll give opinions as to who is/n’t right.
And it is a mistake to try to use the Bible to support same-sex marrige.
Agreed. But I think it’s a mistake to try to use the Bible to support any form of legislation, and the First Amendment would seem to agree with me.
First, it’s not my claim that the bible is the factual truth, it’s yours.
Second, the example you keep beating into the ground is totally inaccurate. I direct your attention to Genesis, Chapter 1, v23-25, KJV:
Since cats are beasts of the earth, I would suggest they are covered by those verses. Would you care to try again?
Adam is speaking in verse 23. It is not clear if he is speaking verse 24, but let’s assume you are right. Jesus validates these words in Matthew. Jesus is God. Therefore, God is in agreement with this statement.
As concerning the posting about Jacob and Shechem, you are correct that I was mistaken in saying Jacob had a part in it.
I think Adam was blaming his sin on Eve. It’s easy for us to shift the blame to others, but he was ultimately responsible for his own decision. As for the question, should a woman be submissive to her husband? That’s a touchy issue. I would say that in some issues the husband has to take the lead, but the wife should always be consulted (us guys just aren’t that smart). Women can definitely take painkillers during childbirth. Even when medicated, I can only imagine childbirth is no picnic.
Referring to Abram and Sarai’s marriage:
I don’t beleive God is inconsistent in that he allowed a marriage necessary for the population of the species and by then disallowing this type of marriage later. In my opinion, it is irrelevent as all marriages in the Bible mentioned are between a man and a woman.
You’re right. My bad.
I honestly wasn’t trying to condescend. It’s hard to convey emotion with text, and I think you’re looking for something that isn’t there. Sorry for the offense.
Quoting Genesis 2:24 again
It is believable that the words were preserved, as God promised to preserve His word. And as I mentioned above, Jesus himself validated the words (they must have traveled all the way down to His time), so they can be taken as approved.
Regarding Cain and Abel marrying their sisters:
It’s possible God did just that. The Bible doesn’t clearly state. I’m just stating the most widely accepted theory I have heard.
But the argument can be made that you(gays) are asking for a rule change. God may have changed the rules as you claim (though I don’t believe he did, only adding special cases for the hardness of His people’s hearts.) But one rule he never changed was that marriage was between a man and a woman.
I don’t support divorce. I personally don’t believe that there is a valid reason for divorce. We have laws against divorce on our law books, but in God’s eyes, a promise has been made between the party and God. Divorce still exists because our hearts are hardened to this rule. And anyone who divorces and remarries is committing adultery in God’s eyes. People aren’t fighting this issue for reasons I will list below.
Jesus did not call marriage an Earthly measure, did He? He called the need for divorce a necessity because of our hard hearts.
I don’t see the rule change here. I see God adding for a special case, called divorce. That still doesn’t change the marriage rule. The rule of marriage between a man and a woman has not been touched, nor will it be touched. As for heaven, husbands and wives will be reunited in heaven. Just not as husband and wife.
On homosexualtiy in the Bible:
There are a lot more murderers, liars, thiefs, people who dishonor their fathers and mothers, idol-worshippers, coveters, etc. than there are homosexuals. The Ten Commandments had the broadest scope and dealt with fundamental laws that should be obeyed in our daily lives.
As promised, here is why the issue of divorce is not being fought. Some laws aren’t recognized because our modern society has deemed them unpalatable. Men are not perfect, and men choose which laws to enforce and which laws not to. As I mentioned, just because we aren’t enforcing the rule doesn’t mean God doesn’t disapprove, as there is nothing in Scripture which would assume He is happy about the pitifully high divorce rate.
I’ve already partially retracted/corrected this statement in an earlier post.
On God not changing His mind on the subject of same-sex marriage.
What evidence would I have to consider that He has? All He has left for us is His Bible, which He has instructed us to study so that we can learn more about Him. This is all I have to go on.
And (hope you’re sitting down) I agree with you on this point. I don’t believe the government should be interfering in any way with the issue of marriage.
In conclusion, I’d like to apologize for the original post that I put. After review, I was snarky in some places I could have been showing the love God has commanded me to show. I think I may go back into lurk mode for awhile (hey, when you have barely over 100 posts in over 4 years, you are a professional lurker). I would like to say that I (at least partially) understand your frustration at the hypocrisy of the lawmakers holding to one tenet of marriage while abandoning inconvenient ones (divorce), especially when thumping the Bible while doing it.
I was a snarky smartass in some posts also and I apologize for that. This is a bit of a tetchy issue with us both. (Isn’t it a shame everybody can’t be as right as we are )
)