Bible Question - Gays and Marriage

Post Reply New Topic

And this discredits my post...how?

It means you need to follow the Old Testament too, obviously...

All it states is that no law established will disappear until everything is 'accomplished'. This says absolutely nothing about the Old Testament or its teachings; after all, there were teachings in the New Testament, specifically the ones Jesus taught.

It's quite an ambiguous statement, and Jesus himself never said anything about gays and marriage.

Well, the issue is that "the law" is the term given to the rules of the Old Testament, because they were the laws of the day. Not only that, but you did not explain away "the prophets" as that is also a major part of the Old Testament. In this statement, Jesus basically claims that the Old Testament was still relevant to the religious practices of Christianity. In addition to that, Jesus also references events in the Old Testament a number of times, his disciples do the same, and mainstream Christianity maintains aspects of the Old Testament, and without a very difficult argument about how "traditional beliefs were corrupted at some point", this tradition does seem valid, and makes the statement harder to consider ambiguous.

I beg to differ, considering the fact that Old Testament laws weren't the laws of the day for everyone, and the prophets are not the disciples.
Tradition was also broken under the New Testament as well, so why not here?

Being the Bible, any cherry-picking Christians might do to defend their regretful position on gay marriage will be "open to interpretation".

More importantly, as was previously mentioned, DOMA is a direct affront to state's rights. Now, if the Christians want to come up with their own special "Christian Marriage", that wouldn't bother me at all. The title is arbitrary. What is important, however, is the various tax breaks and rights that go along with marriage, as well as a general acceptance that homosexuals have every right as human beings to choose a long-term mate and formalize said relationship.

For the ancient Jewish people? Yes, they were the laws for everyone. There is even evidence that these laws continued somewhat for the Jewish people during Roman times, so calling them "the law" would still be relatively valid, particularly in context. As for the prophets not being the disciples, that's irrelevant, as the claim pretty literally is expressing the idea that the teachings of the prophets is still important.

The issue is that the breakings in tradition in the New Testament have textual clues saying that these traditions have been broken and also a tradition saying that the older tradition has been broken. This does not seem to be the case with homosexuality given that there is not a text that can be taken to be permissive to homosexuality, there are even some texts that can be taken to be negative towards homosexuality, and the tradition appears to be anti-homosexual, which can be seen from the traditions of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, both being churches that put some weight upon the teachings of the church fathers.

Well, it is very possible that years from now they will just reinterpret the texts as they sometimes do.

They already did... it's called "Holy Matrimony"

Too bad they don't put as much weight on the teachings of Jesus.

The bible says a lot of things that I am glad that people do not do.... yet if their god is infallible, they can't just throw out some rules because they do not like them... like stoning people that work on the sabbath.

And abortion is no big deal apparently... according to the bible, babies don't have any value until they reach one year old, so extremists who follow this book literally wont have any issues with someone killing a innocent 5 month old.

The more I learn about the bible, it baffles me how a religion of 'love and peace' would associate itself with such a book.

You might see it that way, but there is a simple reason why DOMA was pushed for.

Under the full faith and credit clause, a marriage/divorce/adoption/etc. in one state is legally valid in all states.

The issue of gay marriage is NOT accepted in all states, but if Massachusetts starts allowing gays and lesbians to marry, then under federal law, all states much treat those marriages as legally binding.

This is a problem because you get one ultra-liberal state to vote for something 95% of Americans find repulsive and it becomes the law of the land.

DOMA simply allows a state to say "NO" to a gay marriage if thier own state does not allow gays and lesbians to legally marry.

I can assure you that getting legally married really offers no benefit of great value, but the gay rights movement openly disclosed that the strategy was to get gay marriage legalized in one state that was favorable to them then use the courts to force it upon the other remaining states.

That's not so. It also defines marriage as between one man and one woman for purposes of Federal rights and benefits.

Or just flat out rewrite it. The Ten Commandments aren't even the same across all Christian denominations.

How so? It confers economic benefits and makes a lot of things more convenient like custody rights (and the frequently cited "right to visit spouse in the hospital", etc.), allows for formally sharing property and money (and rights to that property when one spouse dies), and probably other things. Of course, it could also be a negative when income is computed for taxes and benefits, but I'm sure that some would find that the benefits outweigh the costs.

This is interesting:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/b ... ouple.html

BTW, straight marriage has not been a relationship of any kind as we know it until very recently in Western history. What it was for centuries was basically a man buying a woman from another man (why do you think a father 'gives away' the bride?). Or, as has been pointed out, a man buying several (or if he were rich, several hundred) women...or kidnapping them, or capturing them in war. It's hypocritical to claim marriage (or any other social custom) has always corresponded to someone's modern ideal, but it serves as a handy get-out clause for anyone who's resistant to further change.