Not Engaged Yet

Institution of Marriage

2»

Re: Institution of Marriage

  • bajedivabajediva member
    500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Oh man, you gals are making so I beat myself up everytime I'm not around for a little bit, with hot topics like this!!

    I'm Christian and have my views on homosexuality, although they tend to be a little more liberal than the views of most Christian's I know. I don't think a Christian church should consent to it, but I have absolutely nothing against civil unions*.

    I'm the last person to judge - Christianity also teaches against fornication, eg., but let's just say, if it were all about deeds, that's one of the many things that would keep me off the 'good' list. I don't expect a pastor to bless my pre-marital sexual relations, but I fully understand it's not quite what he'd advise. But I can't get arrested for it, because the government does not dictate my personal moral choices. We should all be granted the equal rights that are afforded to us constitutionally.

    *EDIT: 'civil union' used to mean all the rights afforded to marriages by law.
  • bethsmilesbethsmiles Denver, CO member
    10000 Comments Sixth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_institution-of-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:d2e062bb-39bc-4200-9924-d1319be122f3Post:98b2eef1-3721-4e64-b106-c904bb7de0ca">Re: Institution of Marriage</a>:
    [QUOTE]My uncles have been together for 23 years.  The fact that until this year they could not visit each other in the hospital is just infuriating!   I agree with Martin Luther (the German reformer, not King, Jr.), who said that marriage is a completely civil affair and not a religious institution.  He believed that God wanted people to pair up (albeit to create babies) and that the Church had no right to dictate who could and who could not marry.  There is nothing in the Bible, both he and Zwingli argued, that supports religious marriage. Also, civil unions do not have the same rights as marriage, at least in our state, so until they are 100% the same as marriages I won't accept them as an "alternative" for Gays. Fun fact of the day: Martin Luther said that women were not meant to be virgins, they were designed to have sex and make babies!  He smuggled a dozen nuns out of a nunnery, and then married the only one he couldn't find a husband for within the year.
    Posted by nefariousmango[/QUOTE]

    Just wondering where you got this information on Martin Luther, because I don't believe it is entirely accurate.
  • zaneopalzaneopal member
    500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    I'm fairly certain, like nefarious, that civil unions in Virginia (and NJ, where my parents live) aren't afforded the same rights as legal marriage.

    Has anyone seen that clip where Ellen Degeneres talks about being married to Portia DeRossi, and she (Ellen) says the greatest pleasure in her life is just being able to call Portia her wife? Degeneres is one of the funniest women out there, and to see her nearly in tears because she was so happy about this one facet of her life--that to me has said a lot more about marriage than I'd seen or read in a long time.
  • edited December 2011

    Whomever started this thread, thank you, because this is one of the biggest causes that I believe in.

    (I apologize in advance, because I'm about to hop on my soapbox)

    1) There are two facets to marriage - the legal and the religious. You must have the legal aspect in order to recognized by the state and to be afforded all legal rights guaranteed to couples in a civil union (which is, essentially, all marriages). You can have the religious, or not have it, depending on your beliefs. In the end, however, you can have the legal without the religious, but you cannot have the religious without the legal. Therefore, there is literally no logical reason why civil unions should not be permissable between two legal, consenting adults, regardless of gender. If a church, which is a private institution, chooses to deny a couple the privelage of being married in their church/faith, they have (as a private institution) every right to do so. The state denying legal, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens the right to enter a civil union with one another is denying those citizens their basic civil rights accorded to them under the US Constitution and creating a second-class citizenship within this country.

    2) The people who justify banning same sex marriage/civil unions based on the concept that "then you can marry animals" or "then you can marry your sister" or "then you can marry a child"...

    a) marrying a child, your sibling, or animal violates a wide variety of federal laws that are designed to protect said parties (child abuse, sexual assault/molestation on a child, animal cruelty, incest, etc.). Until someone can come up with a logical reason (backed by sound evidence and research) that same sex marriage in any way, shape or form can prove to be a significant threat to society, your logic doesn't fly.
    b) Animals are incapable of entering a legally binding contract. Therefore, your point is, well, ridiculous.

    3) For those that justify their beliefs by saying that same sex marriage/civil union will ruin the sanctity of marriage...

    a) Can you explain to me how two people you don't know entering a civil union will ruin the sanctity of your marriage? If you are in a position where someone else's marriage can ruin your own, perhaps you shouldn't be married in the first place.
    b) In my eyes, the sanctity of marriage is more bruised by women marrying (and divorcing) 9 men in the span of a lifetime, women marrying men simply because it's a "guarantee" they won't leave them high and dry, people getting drunkenly hitched a drive-through Vegas chapel, only to have to annull it the next day. There are people in this country that view a condemned serial killer getting married more acceptable than two tax-paying, law-abiding men getting married. I'm sorry, but explain to me why it's more acceptable for Ted Bundy to be married than, say, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon?

    4) From a personal perspective...I've been very much entrenched in LGBT society since I was young. Throughout my years, I've had many friends who are gay and lesbian...in fact, one of my ex-boyfriends (now one of my closest friends) is gay. Growing up, I watched friends struggle with their sexuality and have to hide their true identity from their family and friends. I watched friends who chose to come out to their families be forced into "straight camp" or disowned by their families. I've watched friends get hecked on the street, called f*ggots and told that they were going to "burn in hell" and that they should just die. I've been told that I'm not a true Christian and that I was going to burn in hell and had things thrown at me for standing by them. I've watched couples in my life struggle to find a way to celebrate their relationship in the same way that I celebrate mine. I've watched them by told by the ones they love that they are less than, and it breaks my heart. To me, it's sickening that I live in a country where I am afforded all the rights in the world, but one of my best friends is denied them, simply because of who he chooses to love.

    I'm a Christian, a liberal Christian at that, and I tend to take a liberal look at what the Bible has to say concerning homosexuality. In the end, to me, whether or not God judges that as a sin, or whether or not He judges certain sins "higher" than others in the entire spectrum of life, is, frankly, not for me, or anyone else, to decide. That's between God and me, or whomever is standing in front of Him.  In the end, we won't know until we get there. However, what stands out more in mind than a singular Bible verse or a singular passage, is what God truly is supposed to be. God is supposed to be love. He's supposed to be patience and goodness and peace. He's supposed to be the embodiment of understanding and empathy. He's supposed to be the Father of All, the ultimate compassionate, the utmost healer. In my mind, a God of that kind would not turn His back on a single one of His children, regardless of his or her sins. Christianity is supposed to be about professing God's love, about caring for others, about putting forth goodness and happiness into society, not about judging one another or professing hate. Until people truly understand and embrace what Christianity (or, for that matter, any other faith) is supposed to be, I don't feel they have the right to use it as a justification for any action, particularly those rooted in ignorance or hate.

    I apologize if I offended anyone with any of the statements above, but that's just how I feel.

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic

    "Oceana swings from logical to anus punching." - Buttons

    Planning / Married / Blog

  • edited December 2011
    Beth:  This is the source on Luther, and I have a dozen or more primary and secondary sources for Zwingli's views, if you're interested.  I believe you can find this journal online.  Both reformers were really interested in being able to marry as priests, but in their studies decided that Christians could marry non-Christians etc because the Church had no role in the institution of marriage.

    Fudge, Thomas A. “Incest and Lust in Luther’s Marriage: Theology and Morality in Reform  Polemics.”  Sixteenth Century Journal. Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 319-345. 2003.

  • loopy82loopy82 member
    Ninth Anniversary 1000 Comments
    edited December 2011
    I started the thread.

    I like all of these very valid points brought up that I have not looked at before. I have my beliefs on this issue, but honestly never looked into these claims that support my beliefs.  
  • weddnoviceweddnovice member
    10 Comments
    edited December 2011
    I didn't really didn't see a problem with SSM either, BUT then I really took a step back at the hub-bub in California for Prop-8 and that changed my mind completely. 

    Polls showed overwhelmingly that the people of California would have passed a "Civil Union" initiative -  but the Lobby for the Gay & Lesbian Community wouldn't make any compromises.  If they cared so much for protecting family rights etc. that they say they want, then they should have taken it. 

    Instead they decided to ratchet up the hate and biggotry for their own political positioning.  They are going to save the debate for the 2012 races so that they can influence the next presidential race.  I don't hate gay people, I hate their activist lobbists that don't give two shiites about their "community."


  • edited December 2011
    Weddnovice- I'm confused: Doesn't Prop 8 flat-out ban SSM?  Where was the chance for compromise?  If anything, that debate made me extremely angry at Christians and the media overall for their scare tactics, NOT upset that gays and lesbians were fighting back in ways I don't necessarily agree with!  How can you defend your community against such baseless attacks?

    Like I already said, I'm anti-compromise when it comes to equal rights.  Saying that same-sex couples can have the same rights but we're going to call it something different is going back to "separate but equal," which we as a nation have already declared unconstitutional.  Separate/ different is never equal!  Let's just call all marriages, gay and straight, "civil unions" and let the religious folks have their weddings completely separate of government regulation.


  • mrs.rabmrs.rab member
    Fourth Anniversary 500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    The fact of the matter is they are PEOPLE. Human beings. Blood, skin, brain, heart, fingers and toes.

    Everyone has the right to be happy. 

    I think that it is horrible that people still look down at same sex couples getting married.
  • bethsmilesbethsmiles Denver, CO member
    10000 Comments Sixth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    edited December 2011
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_not-engaged-yet_institution-of-marriage?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:136Discussion:d2e062bb-39bc-4200-9924-d1319be122f3Post:c84e4bda-7170-42bb-93f1-dc96406fc65d">Re: Institution of Marriage</a>:
    [QUOTE]Beth:  This is the source on Luther, and I have a dozen or more primary and secondary sources for Zwingli's views, if you're interested.  I believe you can find this journal online.  Both reformers were really interested in being able to marry as priests, but in their studies decided that Christians could marry non-Christians etc because the Church had no role in the institution of marriage. Fudge, Thomas A. “Incest and Lust in Luther’s Marriage: Theology and Morality in Reform  Polemics.”  Sixteenth Century Journal . Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 319-345. 2003.
    Posted by nefariousmango[/QUOTE]

    Interesting. I went to a Lutheran school when I was younger (absolutly hated it), never heard anything about that. But in all honesty its been awhile since I had to do any sort of research on Luther. :)
  • edited December 2011
    Yeah, I was going to add that Lutherans don't follow exactly what Luther himself preached.  It's been 500 years, religions shift over time...
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards