|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:26 pm
Priestley Lethkhar Priestley Also unfounded is that we are encouraging discrimination. You are accusing us of having a mindset of hate towards gay people and of promoting hate towards them. We are not doing that at all. I personally believe that any hate shown towards people is unacceptable, especially when it leads to the harm of any person regardless of leaning. That may be so. But denying rights to a group of people is, in fact, discriminating against them whether you mean to or not. Considering them in any way inferior in the eyes of the law promotes hatred and the isolation of that group from the rest of the society, even if that wasn't the original intention. You believe that their marriages are "void" and that they are incapable of being a "family unit"...How on earth is that not considering them to be inferior? Quote: Lethkhar Priestley I understand you feel very strongly about this issue, but it does not grant you the right to throw unfounded accusations around. We are certainly not dehumanising (3rd stage of Genocide, according to Genocide Watch) gay people. Priestley If you allow for gay marriage, you should have no problems with people marrying animals. That, my friend, is called "dehumanization". Conciously or not, you are being extremely discriminatory towards homosexuals in considering them equal to animals in terms of marriage rights.
In terms of sin, the practice of homosexuality is equal to all other sinful behaviour, which includes sex with animals. If you want to disagree with that, you'll have to take it up with God.Bullshit. If I say that being Jewish is immoral, am I immediately not discriminating against Jews if I claim that God told me to say what I'm saying? "I don't hate Jews. I just hate the fact that they're Jewish!" No, that's clearly ludicrous.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:28 pm
masumi5 Oh wait... that's right....calling homosexuality immoral is hate speech.... Much in the same way that calling brown skin immoral is also hate speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:50 pm
Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Priestley First of all, if I had the right to marry two gay people, I would also assume that I have a right to refuse to do it, which I would exercise. Fortunately, I don't have to make that choice. As far as gay marriage is concerned, it's already happening, so how is what we are saying denying them their rights? Same-sex marriage is recognized in a grand total of two states in the U.S. As for the other 48...Well, that's called "denying people their rights as U.S. citizens".
Again, I ask, how are we personally denying gay people the right to marry by saying that we disagree with the idea of same-gender marriages? You never answered.Ah...That would be the problem. I wasn't sure if you were the English one or not... Here in U.S. we unfortunately have a large movement toward preventing gay couples from marrying. This movement, of course, is denying gay people with the right to marry. Therefore, if you are part of or support this movement you are denying gay people the right to marry. I don't know what it's like in the UK. Those who support it are defending their beliefs. Those who are against it are defending their beliefs as well. I'm curious to why people that are promoting the movement should be silenced. If the court approves gay marriage wouldn't they also be promoting one's beliefs while turning another's beliefs away? Quote: Priestley Lethkhar Priestley According to science, people are animals. Just because we are sentient doesn't mean to say consent (or lack thereof) is any different from an animal allowing or disallowing a course of action to take place. Animals cannot express true consent which can then be testified for in court. Therefore, animals cannot give consent to marriage and/or sex whereas homosexual adults can. Unfortunately, "God says so" is not a rational argument in a court of law. Would it be society be rational then? who judges what's moral and immoral? Quote: Priestley Lethkhar Priestley Marriage in this case has ceased to be the union of man with woman in order to set up an environment for reproduction. Marriage is a legal union between two citizens. Nothing more, really.
I would argue that the US State in general doesn't recognise same-gender unions/marriages to be valid family units and, therefore, they are not protected under Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or awarded the rights contained therein.
Sorry.I would argue that 2 US states do recognize same-gender unions/marriages to be valid family units, and according to the "Each State to Honor all others" clause in Article IV of the US Constitution every other state must give "Full Faith and Credit" to those states. Considering that gay marriage is unrecognized only in the absence of law, not the existence of it, in the other states, this would imply that the US as a whole actually recognizes same-gender unions/marriages to be valid family units. mar·riage 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Quote: Priestley Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar That's your opinion. Nonetheless, if you're going to appeal to a power higher than that of U.S. law then there's really no reason for you to worry about U.S. law. After all, according to your book, God is really the only one with the right to judge people. You really have no right to impose anything on anyone based on a possibly fallable interpretation of a book. I don't deny that you have every right to say whatever you want. You can argue all you want. All I'm saying is that you really shouldn't feel compelled to appeal U.S. law if you're going to appeal to a higher authority anyway.
I was actually coming to the defence of Darkx_xAngelx_x237, whom you accused of judging gay people by quoting Scripture. If you have a problem with what God says about the practice of homosexuality, take it up with Him. Don't accuse people in this guild. Explain to me how she was not judging gay people. Granted, she was judging people using someone else's opinions, but she was judging gay people nonetheless. And I also was talking to her. She was appealing to US law. How was I judging gays from text? If I was it wasn't my objective. If you did not see my post before, I was saying that they are individuals like us all. I'm merely stating what my moral beliefs are. I judge the sin not the person committing it. If I were judging the people then why would I have friends who are gay? Priestley, I thank you very much for coming to my defense. I appreciate it so much
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:11 pm
Darkx_xAngelx_x237 mar·riage 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. So then how does this apply when we're later told in the Bible that there is no male nor female, slave nor free? That once we are in Christ, we are nothing and everything? Can a gay Christian couple be together because they're essentially neither male nor female, but one in Christ? *ponders* I hadn't even thought of that until just now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:55 pm
ryuu_chan Darkx_xAngelx_x237 mar·riage 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. So then how does this apply when we're later told in the Bible that there is no male nor female, slave nor free? That once we are in Christ, we are nothing and everything? Can a gay Christian couple be together because they're essentially neither male nor female, but one in Christ? *ponders* I hadn't even thought of that until just now.
Not really saying it does or doesn't. It's just something that popped into my mind and might be food for thought... confused
And as long as I found opening, I suppose i should/could put in my two cents.
I don't believe that gay marriage is right or natural. But neither do I see the point, or even that it is our place, to deny them the right to have a ceremony to proclaim and pledge their love for each other, if that is what they choose to do. I don't think that they should be denied the same financial benefits any married couple would get if they choose to live their lives together in that context. I don't agree with it, but I also don't agree with trying to force my morals ro my way of life on anyone else.
I also want to say that disagreeing with a person's lifestyle does not in any way make me a bigot nor does it mean I see them as any less a person than I.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 4:39 pm
I had an interesting thought last night (quite possibly as a result of the codeine-infused cough syrup I'd taken last night- don't worry, it's prescribed to me). Jesus was fully human, meaning that He probably wanted to be in a God-centered relationship Himself (The DaVinci code aside). It's quite possible the Jesus had a thing for Mary Magdalene. Society would have had no problem with Him getting married, having a family. God had a problem with it. There are plenty of good reasons why, and perhaps that made it easier for Jesus to accept remaining single and celibate, but the only reason that should have mattered was that God said so. It's not explicitly stated in the Bible, but we know that Jesus never married (unless you're a Gnostic or hard-core skeptic, but that's another discussion altogether), because His purpose was better served single. Would there have been anything wrong with it? No, probably not. He probably would have honored God greatly with His marriage- if that was what God had wanted for Him. He would have been loving, toward His wife, His children, His grandchildren (well, we all know He wouldn't have made it to see His grandchildren, what with being crucified and resurrected and all). Perhaps we're looking at this backwards. Perhaps the constant admonitions against homosexuality aren't a "no, you can't do this" kind of thing- maybe it's a "I want you to serve me in this better way" instead. Like the Levites- they get no portion in claiming the land. They aren't being barred because God is saying, "No, you can't has D:"; they're being barred because they already have their portion, because God is calling them to serve in a much different and better way. Did the Levites want to be included in the divvying up of the land? Probably. Did Jesus want to get married? Probably. Would it have necessarily hurt anyone? Probably not. But the point is that God has other, better plans, and that is what we should be focusing on. Rather than trying to figure out "why not?", we should be trying to figure out "why this way instead?".
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 11:26 pm
Quote: Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Priestley First of all, if I had the right to marry two gay people, I would also assume that I have a right to refuse to do it, which I would exercise. Fortunately, I don't have to make that choice. As far as gay marriage is concerned, it's already happening, so how is what we are saying denying them their rights? Same-sex marriage is recognized in a grand total of two states in the U.S. As for the other 48...Well, that's called "denying people their rights as U.S. citizens".
Again, I ask, how are we personally denying gay people the right to marry by saying that we disagree with the idea of same-gender marriages? You never answered.Ah...That would be the problem. I wasn't sure if you were the English one or not... Here in U.S. we unfortunately have a large movement toward preventing gay couples from marrying. This movement, of course, is denying gay people with the right to marry. Therefore, if you are part of or support this movement you are denying gay people the right to marry. I don't know what it's like in the UK. Those who support it are defending their beliefs. Those who are against it are defending their beliefs as well. I'm curious to why people that are promoting the movement should be silenced. If the court approves gay marriage wouldn't they also be promoting one's beliefs while turning another's beliefs away? We all have beliefs. The Zodiac killer believed that he was demon who would enslave all of the people he killed in the afterlife. Another serial killer whose name escapes me believed that God was telling him to kill the 30-some-odd infants he ended up murdering. I don't think the court system should operate based on an individual's beliefs. It should operate on what it percieves to be justice. Granted, that's all subjective, but it's my opinion that you can't come up with one rational argument as to why a court should not allow gay marriage. Darkx_xAngelx_x237 Quote: Priestley Lethkhar Priestley According to science, people are animals. Just because we are sentient doesn't mean to say consent (or lack thereof) is any different from an animal allowing or disallowing a course of action to take place. Animals cannot express true consent which can then be testified for in court. Therefore, animals cannot give consent to marriage and/or sex whereas homosexual adults can. Unfortunately, "God says so" is not a rational argument in a court of law. Would it be society be rational then? who judges what's moral and immoral? What's that first question? We all judge what's "moral" and "immoral" on a personal basis. It's subjective, really. The court system is really just a means of defining some universally accepted "morals" with feasible consequences for the stability of society. Quote: Quote: Priestley Lethkhar Priestley Marriage in this case has ceased to be the union of man with woman in order to set up an environment for reproduction. Marriage is a legal union between two citizens. Nothing more, really.
I would argue that the US State in general doesn't recognise same-gender unions/marriages to be valid family units and, therefore, they are not protected under Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or awarded the rights contained therein.
Sorry.I would argue that 2 US states do recognize same-gender unions/marriages to be valid family units, and according to the "Each State to Honor all others" clause in Article IV of the US Constitution every other state must give "Full Faith and Credit" to those states. Considering that gay marriage is unrecognized only in the absence of law, not the existence of it, in the other states, this would imply that the US as a whole actually recognizes same-gender unions/marriages to be valid family units. mar·riage 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Cool...I'm guessing you found a dictionary that agrees with me. I could recommend a few more if you like. Quote: Quote: Priestley Lethkhar Priestley Fortunately, there are still the human rights of freedom of speech, religion and protest. Who is imposing? We are exercising our rights. I don't deny that you have every right to say whatever you want. You can argue all you want. All I'm saying is that you really shouldn't feel compelled to appeal U.S. law if you're going to appeal to a higher authority anyway.
I was actually coming to the defence of Darkx_xAngelx_x237, whom you accused of judging gay people by quoting Scripture. If you have a problem with what God says about the practice of homosexuality, take it up with Him. Don't accuse people in this guild. Explain to me how she was not judging gay people. Granted, she was judging people using someone else's opinions, but she was judging gay people nonetheless. And I also was talking to her. She was appealing to US law. How was I judging gays from text? *Ahem* Darkx_xAngelx_x237 It shouldn't really matter about what the people want, it should be what God requires. Homosexuality is immoral as is to a lot of other practices. In more than one place does it talk of sexually immoral practices. Homosexuality being one of them. Ex. Leviticus 18 & Romans 1 Lev 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. Rom 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Rom 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Rom 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. Besides if we had to grant equal rights of marriage to homosexuals, then how is that different from saying the same to other people that practice such immorality like marrying direct family members, animals, or even having multiple wives? Marriage or relationship, it's still immoral in God's eyes. We still need to keep that in mind. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Main Entry: judg·ment Variant(s): or judge·ment ˈjəj-mənt Function: noun Date: 13th century 1 a: a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion b: an opinion so pronounced 2 a: a formal decision given by a court b (1): an obligation (as a debt) created by the decree of a court (2): a certificate evidencing such a decree 3 acapitalized : the final judging of humankind by God b: a divine sentence or decision; specifically : a calamity held to be sent by God 4 a: the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing b: an opinion or estimate so formed 5 a: the capacity for judging : discernment b: the exercise of this capacity 6: a proposition stating something believed or asserted Quote: If I was it wasn't my objective. If you did not see my post before, I was saying that they are individuals like us all. I'm merely stating what my moral beliefs are. I judge the sin not the person committing it. In judging one's actions you inevitably judge them. If you don't like homosexuality, then you can't like at least that part of homosexual people. Quote: If I were judging the people then why would I have friends who are gay? You can judge someone and still be their friend. Point in case: You can have a friend who you believe is incredibly ugly, but you can still love them. You're still judging them, and it's horrible. None of us are perfect; live with the fact that you discriminate and you'll find yourself doing it less, because you're finally concious of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 8:13 pm
Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 If I was it wasn't my objective. If you did not see my post before, I was saying that they are individuals like us all. I'm merely stating what my moral beliefs are. I judge the sin not the person committing it. In judging one's actions you inevitably judge them. If you don't like homosexuality, then you can't like at least that part of homosexual people. I don't like that part, it's against my beliefs, but it's not like I despise them. Lethkhar Darkx_xAngelx_x237 If I were judging the people then why would I have friends who are gay? You can judge someone and still be their friend. Point in case: You can have a friend who you believe is incredibly ugly, but you can still love them. You're still judging them, and it's horrible. None of us are perfect; live with the fact that you discriminate and you'll find yourself doing it less, because you're finally concious of it. Ok, fine I judge people, I admit it, but who doesn't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 9:52 am
Fushigi na Butterfly I had an interesting thought last night (quite possibly as a result of the codeine-infused cough syrup I'd taken last night- don't worry, it's prescribed to me). Jesus was fully human, meaning that He probably wanted to be in a God-centered relationship Himself (The DaVinci code aside). It's quite possible the Jesus had a thing for Mary Magdalene. Society would have had no problem with Him getting married, having a family. God had a problem with it. There are plenty of good reasons why, and perhaps that made it easier for Jesus to accept remaining single and celibate, but the only reason that should have mattered was that God said so. It's not explicitly stated in the Bible, but we know that Jesus never married (unless you're a Gnostic or hard-core skeptic, but that's another discussion altogether), because His purpose was better served single. Would there have been anything wrong with it? No, probably not. He probably would have honored God greatly with His marriage- if that was what God had wanted for Him. He would have been loving, toward His wife, His children, His grandchildren (well, we all know He wouldn't have made it to see His grandchildren, what with being crucified and resurrected and all). Perhaps we're looking at this backwards. Perhaps the constant admonitions against homosexuality aren't a "no, you can't do this" kind of thing- maybe it's a "I want you to serve me in this better way" instead. Like the Levites- they get no portion in claiming the land. They aren't being barred because God is saying, "No, you can't has D:"; they're being barred because they already have their portion, because God is calling them to serve in a much different and better way. Did the Levites want to be included in the divvying up of the land? Probably. Did Jesus want to get married? Probably. Would it have necessarily hurt anyone? Probably not. But the point is that God has other, better plans, and that is what we should be focusing on. Rather than trying to figure out "why not?", we should be trying to figure out "why this way instead?". Excellent point. Aside from the fact that it's probably a bad idea to have any humans wandering around with divine blood in their veins, Jesus would've had an even HARDER time doing his duty to God if there was a wife and children to take into consideration. There are some people called to be single, some married, some pastors, some stay-at-home dads, some the old lady down the street who gives out homemade caramel apples at Halloween. Why all so different? It's the place that was made for us. Everyone has a place, and a way to serve. All we need to do is listen for what that place and way might be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 12:45 pm
Lethkhar masumi5 Oh wait... that's right....calling homosexuality immoral is hate speech.... Much in the same way that calling brown skin immoral is also hate speech.
Technically, hate speech is calling someone terrible names, or something, not stating your opinion that something is unethical....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 2:56 pm
Lethkhar Ah...That would be the problem. I wasn't sure if you were the English one or not... Here in U.S. we unfortunately have a large movement toward preventing gay couples from marrying. This movement, of course, is denying gay people with the right to marry. Therefore, if you are part of or support this movement you are denying gay people the right to marry. I don't know what it's like in the UK.
Of course, there are people who enter into a civil partnership who have neither romantic nor sexual interest in one another. In this case, the interest is usually financial and many individuals enter into this partnership as added legal protection on top of current company partnership laws.
I am inclined to find this a much more acceptable compromise than removing the condition of opposite genders from the definition of 'marriage', considering the temporary status of even marriage according to Jesus' definition.Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Lot was a "righteous man". He had sex with both of his daughter and had children with them. Considering how God treats the subject of rape in the Bible...Yeah. Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Animals cannot express true consent which can then be testified for in court. Therefore, animals cannot give consent to marriage and/or sex whereas homosexual adults can. Unfortunately, "God says so" is not a rational argument in a court of law. Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Priestley Just because an animal doesn't know what marriage is, suffice to say it's well aware of the living thing with which it gets freaky. If you allow for gay marriage, you should have no problems with people marrying animals. I do. Gay people are able to consent to a marriage. Dogs, on the other hand, are incapable of marrying for several reasons: 1. They are not technically a citizen of any nation. They have no paperwork, so to speak, that actually would make legal marriage even possible. 2. They cannot give consent, either in written or spoken form. 3. They cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that they even understand what marriage is, and therefore cannot actually be expected to be able to consent to marriage. I didn't realise animals were subject to US Law. Of course they are. If an animal is in the US, they are subject to every law that is relevant to them. Animal rights, etc. Lethkhar I would argue that 2 US states do recognize same-gender unions/marriages to be valid family units, and according to the "Each State to Honor all others" clause in Article IV of the US Constitution every other state must give "Full Faith and Credit" to those states. Considering that gay marriage is unrecognized only in the absence of law, not the existence of it, in the other states, this would imply that the US as a whole actually recognizes same-gender unions/marriages to be valid family units. Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Quite frankly, I don't really have an issue with polygamy. As long as everyone is consenting, I don't see why it's a big deal. I don't really agree with it, but I recognize their right to do what they want in that respect. They're not hurting anyone. Prove to me that all polygamists hate their spouses and you might be on to something. I suppose I misunderstood, then. What did you mean when you said that polygamy generates,"more negative feelings towards one another than positive ones, encouraging discord between people..."? Lethkhar Explain to me how she was not judging gay people. Granted, she was judging people using someone else's opinions, but she was judging gay people nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 3:39 pm
Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Priestley Also unfounded is that we are encouraging discrimination. You are accusing us of having a mindset of hate towards gay people and of promoting hate towards them. We are not doing that at all. I personally believe that any hate shown towards people is unacceptable, especially when it leads to the harm of any person regardless of leaning. That may be so. But denying rights to a group of people is, in fact, discriminating against them whether you mean to or not. Considering them in any way inferior in the eyes of the law promotes hatred and the isolation of that group from the rest of the society, even if that wasn't the original intention. You believe that their marriages are "void" and that they are incapable of being a "family unit"...How on earth is that not considering them to be inferior?
Lethkhar, it is one thing not to agree with my definition of marriage, but another thing entirely to use it as a basis to claim that I regard anyone as inferior. You're crossing the line.Lethkhar Priestley Lethkhar Priestley I understand you feel very strongly about this issue, but it does not grant you the right to throw unfounded accusations around. We are certainly not dehumanising (3rd stage of Genocide, according to Genocide Watch) gay people. Priestley If you allow for gay marriage, you should have no problems with people marrying animals. That, my friend, is called "dehumanization". Conciously or not, you are being extremely discriminatory towards homosexuals in considering them equal to animals in terms of marriage rights.
In terms of sin, the practice of homosexuality is equal to all other sinful behaviour, which includes sex with animals. If you want to disagree with that, you'll have to take it up with God.Bullshit. If I say that being Jewish is immoral, am I immediately not discriminating against Jews if I claim that God told me to say what I'm saying? "I don't hate Jews. I just hate the fact that they're Jewish!" No, that's clearly ludicrous.
Secondly, I am not claiming that God told me to say what I'm saying. I have chosen to express myself with love in good faith. Nothing I have said here has been out of hate for anyone. If I choose to use the Bible as a reference upon which I base my definition and function of marriage, that is my choice.
Lastly, if you said that being Jewish is immoral, I'd know you're just arguing for arguing's sake. We've shown you what God thinks of the practice of homosexuality alongside some other practices that He regards as sinful using Scripture and yet you still want to argue with us. We are not discriminating; we're responding to your arguments, which are mostly to do with homosexuality. There is a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 3:47 pm
Lethkhar masumi5 Oh wait... that's right....calling homosexuality immoral is hate speech.... Much in the same way that calling brown skin immoral is also hate speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 3:51 pm
ryuu_chan Fushigi na Butterfly I had an interesting thought last night (quite possibly as a result of the codeine-infused cough syrup I'd taken last night- don't worry, it's prescribed to me). Jesus was fully human, meaning that He probably wanted to be in a God-centered relationship Himself (The DaVinci code aside). It's quite possible the Jesus had a thing for Mary Magdalene. Society would have had no problem with Him getting married, having a family. God had a problem with it. There are plenty of good reasons why, and perhaps that made it easier for Jesus to accept remaining single and celibate, but the only reason that should have mattered was that God said so. It's not explicitly stated in the Bible, but we know that Jesus never married (unless you're a Gnostic or hard-core skeptic, but that's another discussion altogether), because His purpose was better served single. Would there have been anything wrong with it? No, probably not. He probably would have honored God greatly with His marriage- if that was what God had wanted for Him. He would have been loving, toward His wife, His children, His grandchildren (well, we all know He wouldn't have made it to see His grandchildren, what with being crucified and resurrected and all). Perhaps we're looking at this backwards. Perhaps the constant admonitions against homosexuality aren't a "no, you can't do this" kind of thing- maybe it's a "I want you to serve me in this better way" instead. Like the Levites- they get no portion in claiming the land. They aren't being barred because God is saying, "No, you can't has D:"; they're being barred because they already have their portion, because God is calling them to serve in a much different and better way. Did the Levites want to be included in the divvying up of the land? Probably. Did Jesus want to get married? Probably. Would it have necessarily hurt anyone? Probably not. But the point is that God has other, better plans, and that is what we should be focusing on. Rather than trying to figure out "why not?", we should be trying to figure out "why this way instead?". Excellent point. Aside from the fact that it's probably a bad idea to have any humans wandering around with divine blood in their veins, Jesus would've had an even HARDER time doing his duty to God if there was a wife and children to take into consideration. There are some people called to be single, some married, some pastors, some stay-at-home dads, some the old lady down the street who gives out homemade caramel apples at Halloween. Why all so different? It's the place that was made for us. Everyone has a place, and a way to serve. All we need to do is listen for what that place and way might be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 4:18 pm
ryuu_chan Darkx_xAngelx_x237 mar·riage 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. So then how does this apply when we're later told in the Bible that there is no male nor female, slave nor free? That once we are in Christ, we are nothing and everything? Can a gay Christian couple be together because they're essentially neither male nor female, but one in Christ? *ponders* I hadn't even thought of that until just now. Galatians 3:28 NIV There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
I'd also like to point you to Matthew 22:23-33 and Mark 12:18-27, especially:Matthew 22:30 NIV At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Mark 12:25 NIV When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
