posted
Well then, for the record, I'm more offended by Britney than I am by gay marriages. Just not all that surprised, I suppose.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The one letter that was headed, "An Insult To Real Marriages" made me laugh. Britany Spear's marriage was somehow more 'real' than two fellows who went to Canada for a privaledge denied them in the U.S.? *snort* I'm more insulted by the popularity of "Whoops!" marriages than by two committed individuals who probably got death threats over their announcement.
Though I thought that letter really could have been worded better, no matter what side she supported, she never even mentioned the Britney Spears thing, and I think you're assuming too much by believing that she was okay with that. She may very well think that was also a sham.
posted
Olivet: fortunately I am in a loving and committed relationship and can therefore accept your post in the platonic and sisterly manner is was intended.
Say, who likes cold showers? I sure do.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Da, my piont was, as Chris pointed out, that Britney's marriage was a 'real' marriage-- as in a legal one.
It's an example of abuse of privaledge, like, say, abusing your children, when there are so many infertile couples who would give up a limb to just be able to have one.
One of the major arguments against legal, civil unions for gays is that it will somehow devalue marriage. My point is that straights are doing a fine job of it all on their own.
Chris, of course it was sisterly. I just got carried away. So happy that somebody understood what I was getting at, and stated it so eloquently. I thank you. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I think gay marriage is a pretty silly thing to have a contraversy over. Call me when someone is getting killed or cheated or something...
posted
Maybe this is a stupid question, but I am serious in my curiosity. Why would anyone non-religious bother to get married? Marriage is hard work. As a Christian, I believe marriage is binding yourself to another person so that individual desires are no longer important. Your focus is now on providing for the both of you. Personal ambition is less important than maintaining a healthy relationship. Individual goals have to be discarded if they interfer with the relationship. What is best for the both of you as one is the only thing that matters. The only reason I believe this is possible is because God is there to help. Two people alone can not possibly make a marriage work. So why would anyone who does not believe in a personally beneficial diety bother? So my real question is, why is society so anxious to usurp what is essentially a relgious ceremony? Let's create civil unions not just for gays but for anyone who does not believe God is involved in their commitment to another person. Marriage is just too hard to work without God. So why are so many people so anxious to fail?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to even go here, but I have to point out that divorce rates are actually a little higher among members of the church than among those who don't consider themselves religious.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You ever talk to your average churchgoer? They don't know much more about Christianity than your rabid God-haters. It's easy to call yourself Christian, it's a lot harder to BE Christian. So they know it should work, but it doesn't work for them. Frankly, I'm surprised the divorce rate isn't substantailly higher.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, according to your logic, even the slightest help from God (even if you're a cursory Christian) should put you well beyond the hapless non-Christians out there. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian to the best of my ability, and I'm pretty orthodox. I agree that marriage is actually a religious institution and should be saved (and therefore easier) for a religious person. But you make non-religious people sound like morons. The statistics should make it obvious that people who aren't religious have at least as much luck making their marriage work as Christians today. I think it's more societal than anything. Society says divorcing is bad, many people don't do it. Society says divorce is cool, many people will take that road. Yes, Christians should know better. But everyone else out there has a better rate than if you average your cursory Christians with the really good ones. That's saying something.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a rabid God-hater. Neither am I a churchgoer.
Yet my marriage holds a place of importance in my heart and mind that is unequalled by anything else. Marriage is sometimes hard work. I also agree that:
quote: I believe marriage is binding yourself to another person so that individual desires are no longer important. Your focus is now on providing for the both of you. Personal ambition is less important than maintaining a healthy relationship. Individual goals have to be discarded if they interfer with the relationship. What is best for the both of you as one is the only thing that matters.
It may be true that this is not possible without supernatural help. In that case, I think my beloved and I have had that help. Our marriage is one of the most successful that I know of. We don't even watch movies that portray adultery in a positive light. We protect our committment and love for each other with constant nurturing and vigilence.
We are more or less agnostic, though I do believe in God. My beloved admits there may be a God, though he doesn't see how it's really relevant to how we live and make our choices. I tend to pray... but I can't say I'm sure why.
Marriage may be religious institution, but I don't think it's a Christian one exclusively. I mean, I think it existed before Christianity, and in non-Christian cultures.
So while I can understand your curiosity, coming from your cultural perspective and all, I don't reaaly understand the relevance of the question. I admit that that may just be my own cultural biases coming through.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think homosexuality is a sin and I don't support homosexual marriage. But I don't see anything wrong with publishing them in the newspaper. If you are getting your ideas on morality from the newspaper, you're already going to be reading about homosexuality a lot. If your 14 year old son is reading the wedding announcements, I think you're too late
I think the higher rate of divorce among church goers reflects that more of them are married to begin with.
Do heterosexual cohabitants have any greater rights than gays in end of life directives and so forth? If so I think it is wrong.
Oh, and I also think Hollywood marriages breaking up are disgusting.
Olivet: Mormons view civil marriage as equally binding as temple marriage. It just ends at death is all. The couple I respect most were those ones who were married 84 years. I doubt they were LDS. And you'll be interested to know Mormons generally divorce at the same rate as the culture they are in, and Mormons married in the temple do as well.
posted
I actually admire the Mormon view of marriage, because in my religious culture we are taught to put 'God's work' first, even above family. If I am not mistaken, the Mormon view is that the marriage and family IS 'God's work' and therefore keeping them strong and healthy is of greater importance than, say church calling. Or at least that they are equal.
I dated a few pre-seminary fellows in college, and a few more deeply religious Protestant guys, too. In general, they treated me with much less care and attention than the religiously indifferent ones (and yeah, the crazies, but that is a differnt story ).
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a good way of putting it. I don't think I've seen it in this thread, but there is an irony in viewing marriage as a Christian tradition since the majority of Christians don't think Christ was married and worship under a hierarchy of celibates.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only celibate I worship under IS Jesus.
Plus you have to remember, we Christians think Christianity, or at least Judaism, did invent marriage. At least, our God did it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think marriage is a deeply spiritual thing, but not strictly a religious thing. There's a difference.
It's also an economic thing, and a bonding thing, and a relationship thing, and a family-making thing. Someone who believes that God is in all things will certainly see it in religious terms, but a long-happily-married agnostic like me sees no reason why God is necessary for a successful marriage. Our marriage ceremony did not mention God, it spoke of our love and our commitment and our dedication to each other, and of our delight in announcing our relationship to the world.
18 years later, it seems to be holding together pretty well...
[ January 31, 2004, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Plus you have to remember, we Christians think Christianity, or at least Judaism, did invent marriage."
Um....Really? The institution of marriage predates Judaism by some time -- even in scripture. Abraham, who you might consider the first Jew, was already married when he met God. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
And many Christian preachers worked to oppose it. Slavery was certainly not a case of "Christian v. society" so much as a society perverting Christianity for monetary gain.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christian preachers used to support slavery --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And many Christian preachers worked to oppose it. Slavery was certainly not a case of "Christian v. society" so much as a society perverting Christianity for monetary gain.
While no doubt many preachers supported slavery because it was popular for its potential monetary gain, the first and foremost behind Christian advocation of the innate inferiority of colored people was racism. Black people didn't get official recognition of equality until a century after the Civil War, and arguably have yet to see any real equality in terms of political and justice systems.
Please don't pretend Christianity's been a squeaky-clean religion all these years, only run by corrupt people. Fifty years ago, Christians invoked God to deny equal rights to colored people; today Christians invoke God to deny equal rights to homosexual people. Neither brand of bigot will be respected fifty years from today, I hope.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:pooka said That is a good way of putting it. I don't think I've seen it in this thread, but there is an irony in viewing marriage as a Christian tradition since the majority of Christians don't think Christ was married and worship under a hierarchy of celibates.
The irony only arises among people who don’t understand the Catholic sacrament of marriage. It is a vocational sacrament, meaning it is considered the alternative to holy orders.
And Catholics don’t “worship under a hierarchy of celibates.” There is a hierarchy to the priesthood, yes. But Catholics don’t worship “under” priests.
And Christ had some very pointed words to say about the importance of marriage.
quote:Lalo said: While no doubt many preachers supported slavery because it was popular for its potential monetary gain, the first and foremost behind Christian advocation of the innate inferiority of colored people was racism.
Wrong. Racism was used to justify slavery. The reason slavery needed a justification was because of its monetary gains. Anytime someone who purports to hold any religious beliefs does something so publicly, they will use their religious beliefs to justify it.
Most slaves in the history of the world have been owned by non-Christians. It’s not peculiar to any one religion – it’s a mercenary practice justified by various sophisms and perversions of the prevailing belief systems surrounding slaveholder.
quote:Lalo said: Black people didn't get official recognition of equality until a century after the Civil War, and arguably have yet to see any real equality in terms of political and justice systems.
True. Relevant to Christianity, how?
quote:Lalo said: Please don't pretend Christianity's been a squeaky-clean religion all these years, only run by corrupt people. Fifty years ago, Christians invoked God to deny equal rights to colored people; today Christians invoke God to deny equal rights to homosexual people. Neither brand of bigot will be respected fifty years from today, I hope.
And while those Christians were doing that, other Christians were opposing them.
50 years from now, most Christians will still consider homosexual actions to be sinful. Hopefully, the dichotomy of “civil union” and “marriage” will be fully ensconced by then, so this discussion won’t even have to occur.
The civil benefits of what we today call marriage should be available to any two consenting adults. But thinking homosexual actions are sinful does not make someone a bigot.
quote:The civil benefits of what we today call marriage should be available to any two consenting adults. But thinking homosexual actions are sinful does not make someone a bigot.
Actually, yes, it does.
I think people should just come clean and embrace their essentially bigotry though. I mean really, is it that important to you to NOT be a bigot that you would change the entire definition of a perfectly descriptive word?
We're all bigots. And branding someone else's actions a sin is one of the most popular forms of bigotry.
quote:Bigot against murderers, rapists, and thieves.
Ha...yep, some things ARE sins. See, this is how religious bigotry works. By making a comparison between one thing that you don't particularly care for with something that EVERYONE can agree to is a very very bad thing.
Sinners!!!
By the way, I haven't robbed the word bigot of its meaning by claiming everyone is a bigot. Any more than you would rob the word "sinner" of it's meaning and power by the universal Christian claim that we are all sinners.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and by the way, how you ACT on your particular bigotry is what makes you intolerant or not.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
According to your religion, your beliefs, and your deep personal faith, the marriage of homosexuals is an attack on the sanctity of the marriage sacraments.
However, according to my religion, my beliefs, and my deep, personal faith, denying the marriage of homosexuals is an attack on the sanctity of marriage.
I believe in God. I believe in a just and loving God. I do not believe that God would condemn anyone for whom they fall in love with, but for how they fall in love.
By how, I am not refering to the mechanics of the act, but to the dedication, self-sacrifice, and love that they put into thier relationship.
I beleive that God's first and only commandment is to love. Love God. Love your family. Love each other. To deny the romantic love of two committed individuals is a far greater sin than any homosexual act those two may commit.
I believe that helping two people remain in a commited relationship, building together something stronger than two what began as two separate people is a sanctified obligation. Building walls to keep them apart is a sin.
I believe that God has created billions of individual souls, not so that they can each find the one mass path to enlightenment, understanding, and salvation, but so they can each live the path that God has ordained for them, each in their own way. If not, why make individual souls in the first place?
But the important thing is, these are my beliefs and my religion. This is my faith and it is as deep and as strong as any one elses, Christian, Muslim, or what ever. You can argue and bring in logic and quote biblical passages all you wish.
That won't change my faith any more than it will change yours.
So gay marriage delutes the value of Christian marriages. The answer is simple. Don't let them get married in a Christian church.
But what you are doing is devalueing the sanctity with which I hold marriage by limiting it to man and woman only.
You are attacking my faith with this law.
That is why this is so upsetting to me.
You do not agree with my religion. Fine. Yet you have no right to stop me from practicing it. Nor do I have a right to stop you from performing marriages, christening children, or spreading your ideas to others.
You can argue with me, boycott my works, protest my existance, but as long as we claim to have freedom of religion in this country, you cannot make it illegal.
My religion is love, faith, and God, not defined by sexual orientation, race, or nationality. My religion is freedom, exploration, and contemplation not restricted to one book or one teacher. My religion is mine. I do not ask you to share it, but I demand you do not illegalize it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
You missed the point of my murderers, etc. aside. I was pointing out that I am intolerant of murderers, etc. in the sense that I beleive we should not tolerate their presence unopposed in society.
I am not intolerant of homosexuals, even though I think homosexual actions are sinful.
The word bigot certainly contains an element of intolerance. Applying it where someone is not intolerant is a misapplication of the word.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lalo said: While no doubt many preachers supported slavery because it was popular for its potential monetary gain, the first and foremost behind Christian advocation of the innate inferiority of colored people was racism. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. Racism was used to justify slavery. The reason slavery needed a justification was because of its monetary gains. Anytime someone who purports to hold any religious beliefs does something so publicly, they will use their religious beliefs to justify it.
You're making a chicken-and-egg argument, Dagonee. I could just as easily say slavery arose as a result of racism. Because fact is, Negroes were quaint houseservants in Europe long before they were slaves in America -- and Africans were never considered as equals to the superior European man, even before slavery was put in place.
But it's incredibly ironic that you (presumably) condemn racists for justifying their bigotry by the Bible and don't recognize that the exact same process goes on with modern-day homophobes.
quote:Most slaves in the history of the world have been owned by non-Christians. It’s not peculiar to any one religion – it’s a mercenary practice justified by various sophisms and perversions of the prevailing belief systems surrounding slaveholder.
You're misunderstanding me if you think I'm declaring slavery or racism as exclusive to Christianity. Think of it as an including-but-not-limited-to concept.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lalo said: Black people didn't get official recognition of equality until a century after the Civil War, and arguably have yet to see any real equality in terms of political and justice systems. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True. Relevant to Christianity, how?
Heh.
Dagonee, your argument was that Christians supported slavery for monetary reasons. ("Slavery was certainly not a case of "Christian v. society" so much as a society perverting Christianity for monetary gain.") Yet, for over a century after the monetary benefit was removed from racism, it prevailed among white Christians -- why? Why were interracial marriages and black civil rights so condemned by Christ even after the Civil War?
Perhaps the standard of racism wasn't carried by Christians for solely monetary reasons?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lalo said: Please don't pretend Christianity's been a squeaky-clean religion all these years, only run by corrupt people. Fifty years ago, Christians invoked God to deny equal rights to colored people; today Christians invoke God to deny equal rights to homosexual people. Neither brand of bigot will be respected fifty years from today, I hope. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And while those Christians were doing that, other Christians were opposing them.
I can come up with Christians right now that believe Jesus is an alien, or, more easily, Christians who believe interracial marriage is a sin against God. The first is an extreme minority (among Protestant/Catholic circles, to addendum), and while the second isn't small, I like to believe it doesn't represent most Christians. From here on out, let's assume when we talk about Christian sentiment, we're talking about the prevailing attitude -- what actually happened, in other words.
While it's true that there were a select few -- very few -- Christian households that, for example, operated as abolitionist strongholds for the Underground Railroad, please don't blind yourself to the fact that they were extraordinary minorities in a sea of righteous Christian hatred. They aren't representative of the era's version of Christianity, and to claim thus is disingenuous.
quote:50 years from now, most Christians will still consider homosexual actions to be sinful. Hopefully, the dichotomy of “civil union” and “marriage” will be fully ensconced by then, so this discussion won’t even have to occur.
Ugh. I hope not. I like to have a little more faith in the goodness of humankind.
It was only fifty years ago that people followed Christianity's teachings against the interbreeding of races or the rights of women. Some people still follow those teachings -- however, I like to believe that the greater mass of Americans now believe women have equal rights as men, and shouldn't, say, be submissive to their husbands. Shouldn't wear veils or be prohibited from teaching men.
In fifty years, I hope most people will recognize homophobia -- even self-righteous homophobia -- for what it is. I hope they won't settle for a seperate-but-equal status, which is exactly what you offer them in these "civil unions" -- we'll give them the benefits, just so long as they recognize that they're not entitled to real love like us heterosexuals are capable of. Above all, though, I hope people in fifty years will be as ashamed of modern-day homophobes as we are today of the KKK or other white supremacists.
That you believe in heterosexual supremacism even as you condemn white supremacism only proves my point that Christianity (or, more accurately, self-righteous people in general) moves from convenient bigotry to convenient bigotry. Someday, I hope homophobia won't be convenient for popular religious hatred, and this senseless persecution against homosexuals can end.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lalo said In fifty years, I hope most people will recognize homophobia -- even self-righteous homophobia -- for what it is.
So now believing in traditional Christian chastity is homophobia?
quote:Lalo said: I hope they won't settle for a seperate-but-equal status, which is exactly what you offer them in these "civil unions" -- we'll give them the benefits, just so long as they recognize that they're not entitled to real love like us heterosexuals are capable of.
So now the prohibition against separate but equal applies not just to civil rights but to private beliefs. If civil unions provide all the civil benefits of marriage today, how is that separate?
quote:Lalo said: That you believe in heterosexual supremacism even as you condemn white supremacism only proves my point that Christianity (or, more accurately, self-righteous people in general) moves from convenient bigotry to convenient bigotry. Someday, I hope homophobia won't be convenient for popular religious hatred, and this senseless persecution against homosexuals can end.
As opposed to your self-righteousness about what I believe my faith to be? Do you read what you write before you post it?
I also believe heterosexual sex outside marriage is sinful. Does that make me a promiscuphobe?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I thank you. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
