My fellow, outspoken Christians, not only on this site, but everywhere: this little phrase has made me abandon association with any organized church.
Yes, it is true that the Bible condemns this as an atrocity--just like murder, lying, adultery, fornication, and whatever other evils. However, there is one difference with this one that makes it less a moral atrocity than the others: it doesn't hurt anyone. All your other sins involve a perpetrator and a victim.
Now, with the Catholic Church loudly decrying any talk of "gay marriage", I have to ask...why? Will you decry the lies that you teach, things that aren't found in the Bible anywhere? Why this? For one, marriage is a civil institution, with the State controlling it. The Church bases their arguments off of the spiritual foundation of marriage. So, if marriage is a spiritual matter, and if the State controls it...then...why...depriving gays of the right to do so can be considered an Establishment Clause debate, now, can it? So, stop basing your arguments off of the spiritual side of things, because marriage is a civil institution. You can say vows in a church all you want, but you aren't married until you get that license.
Now, since marriage is a civil institution, its very meaning can be changed by legislation. By men. Not by God. So, for you to say that marriage is only between one man and one woman, well...it is. Right now. By the laws of the land. Guess what! The laws of the land can be changed. By no means is your "definition" of marriage absolute. It can be changed.
I say then: let them marry. Society won't be harmed by that act alone.
there is no victim during fornication
I know, I know. I forgot to include that. Sorry. My mistake.
Amen
I personally feel that gay marriage (or civil union, or what ever you want to call it) should be legal, and be the equivalent of marriage between a man and a woman. However, I think it should be the church's decision as to whether or not they want to sanction the union. If the Catholic Church does not want gay marriage, then I don't care if they don't recognize it within the church or refuse to perform it in the church, but I totally agree with you and I think that it should be left to the state...and legalized.
That it should be. They can always not sanction it. They can't claim that it's a set definition legally, though.
Religion should stop. Just fricken stop. Its a dying foundation. For you that havent visited Zeitgeistmovie.com should. It puts a stop to belivers in contact. But anyways religion has been picking on everyone..Gays, War, Abortions, Sex, other religions..Religion is a big bully!
You're statement is too broad. You're saying all religion is bad and against everyone in general. You're saying Buddhism (just one religion for example) is against everyone? That they pick on all people? Religion can be enlightening and create peace for many people if done correctly. Some people take certain religions and twist the meanings of those religions for their own purpose. So I'm going to have to say I disagree with you.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Or, it could be said that everyone is picking on religion, if you're going for general, broad, illogical statements.
Can't really agree with you on this one. Though marriage is a civil institution, it is also a spiritual matter (not so much a religious matter.) Marriage is a covenant.
Marriage by definition is the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments. I believe it should remain that way.
-Amanda-
exactly
Legally speaking, it is nothing but a contract. If your church disagrees, it doesn't have to marry homosexuals.
The government, however, which deals only with the legal issue, does have to marry homosexuals.
"Marriage by definition is the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments. I believe it should remain that way."
Marriage, legally speaking, in this country is a contract that grants two people recognition by the government and makes certain rights available to them.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Of course. Just like the contracts for language learning that I sell. A covenant between two people doesn't have to be spiritual.
I know you didn't mean it as religion, but what if two people who believe we are nothing but meat, devoid of spirit, get married. Is it still a spiritual covenant?
Either way, I hope it ceases to be an issue soon. There are other, more important things we can spend energy debating.
That definition is only there because of the repercussions that would come from putting anything else by, you know, the outspoken homophobes that wander this country.
I don't know anyone who says, "Dictionary.com said this, therefor it must be true and I must live my life by it!"
The bible does that just fine apparently.
It seems logical to me to assess the original statement before I comment on the replies to it. So I'm going to talk about the original argument/statement.
You're right about government having control over who can marry. I have nothing to comment on that. However, you're statement about the Christian population, (and perhaps the Catholics in more narrow a scope) can't say "homosexuals can't get married" is not on the dot. I'll use the Roman Catholics for example. This is a multi-national religion. The Roman Catholics can say that within their religion that they will not wed homosexuals. That becomes law within the Roman Catholic church. It is their right as a multi-national religion to do so. However, if the state decided to legalize homosexual marriage, the Roman Catholic church would not be able to stop the union of homosexuals besides within its churches. It's outside of their jurisdiction unless it's two members of the Roman Catholic church. In that case then those two members either decided to give up Roman Catholicism or decided not to get married. And just as someone said earlier they can say they won't sanction the marriage, but they can't change the legality of what the state decides. For now I'll leave it at that unless you want to discuss it further.
As for fornication having no victims I also have to say that's slightly of course. In the event that two married people (whom are not married to each other) fornicate then the victims are their spouses. It's a physical violation of their trust and emotions. Thus they are victimized. Even in the event (which this one is a little more far fetched) that they are single people fornicating, their future spouses may be hurt by it. The fact that they gave their virginity to someone else and/or just had sex with someone else might hurt them.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
your first example by definition is adultry...
your second example offers up an interesting thought though...
I don't mean to sound redundant but doesn't that mean adultery by definition is fortification with someone other than your spouse? And thank you for saying the other thought is interesting.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Now we're arguing semantics. This is great!
I believed it necassary in this discussion. In fact I believe it's necassary in every discussion on this website. Without clear definition, how would we know what the other person is trying to convey?
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas