Same Sex Marraige and Civil Unions

[immunodiffusion]

"...Among them women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and men too, giving up natural relations with women, burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males, and are paid in their own persons the fitting wage of such perversion" Romans 1:26-27, REB

This isn't about homosexual marriage, is it - surely its about prostitution, rather than marriage, given that payment is involved?

[Kibet]

[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 21:32, 19th Nov 2003:
"[i]...Among them women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and men too, giving up natural relations with women, burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males, and are paid in their own persons the fitting wage of such perversion" Romans 1:26-27, REB

This isn't about homosexual marriage, is it - surely its about prostitution, rather than marriage, given that payment is involved?
[/i]

i got this off a website as i don't have a bible. but i thought that the prostitution is the second verse and the first verse was about homosexuality.

but your right it isn't about marraige, it is about sex. i was just showing that the new testament does mention it.

what about the other refs though? that page never did any quotes out of it. but it said paul/saul was saying what would get passage into 'heaven' and what would not.

[The Bigot's Bigot]

Change is always good. Indeed.
What a selfish world we have when everything is boiled down to the level of the individual. ANY chioce is equally valid, there are no limits (unless you want to be anti-P.C., in which case you will feel the beating of so many brows). As long as it serves the person - The group can go tom hell.

[:/]

[s]LeopardSkinQueen wrote on 17:51, 19th Nov 2003:
The church isn't in agreement on this issue.

And as long as they are not in agreement...they are not in agreement. Fairly simple really. The church has not resolved the issue and until they do one way or the other then people won't know where they stand.

And when most people say "church" they usually mean one of the conventional ones as it those who are in charge of the whole organised religion thing. If everyone just made up their own religion then there would be more problem but most people follow a religion because they believe in the ideals of it - it's not something where you can really just pick what you like about it. If you are in disagreement with your own religion then stop following it.

[LeopardSkinQueen]

[s]Unregisted User :/ wrote on 18:29, 19th Nov 2003:
If you are in disagreement with your own religion then stop following it.


Not quite sure what the rest of your post is on about, but are you assuming here I'm a Christian? Because I'm not.

[hr]
[s]"Surely a young man like you has needs, Mister Kenobi. American Express can pay for them."

"Will it pay for dancing boys?"
http://www.siubhan.com/sithacademy/frame.html
[/s]

[lucycath]

I don't see any problem with same-sex marriages, as the people are obviously adult and therefore responsible for themselves and should be allowed to express their sexualities without being censured. My problem comes with gay couples who adopt a child-- as it seems to me this is a difficult situation-- even if the gay parents are great parents, the child was never able to experience the kind of family life that results from a mother and father who have had the child together...besides, from birth the child will have to get used to criticisms and the fact that, in the view of many people, he or she does not come from a 'normal' background.

[blinkey]

[s]Unregisted User :/ wrote on 15:34, 19th Nov 2003:
Until the church cancel homosexuality as being a sin ...


dot dot dot

I may be small and ignorant, but I wouldn't have a huge amount of respect for an institution that can just 'cancel' something as a sin.

Did the church 'cancel' its objections toward slaves after the American Civil War or other acts of liberation?

No. No booming voice came down with an 'errata' message about that bit. There was no 'Cancel that, we think slaves are equals now', written in stone tablets.

No, the Bible is written as it always has been, it is up to us to interpret it through the eyes and the understanding of our time.

If we are wise, we realize the world evolves and nothing can be forever, not even if written in stone. This does not mean we lose our virtue or our morality.

I am strongly on the side of homosexual couples being the same in the eyes of God as heterosexual couples; I think that they should be allowed every rite and every sacrament that is allowed to heterosexuals.

Because what is next? Will we forbid a youth from taking communion because he loves another man? Or is the church only tolerant of homosexuals when they are single? And would rather they pair up in a loveless relationship?

Something doesn't add up.

[Rex Mundi]

[s]EviLTwiN wrote on 20:55, 19th Nov 2003:
You said "I think it would be helpful though to call it a union and not a marriage, just to try and make a distinction between the two"

...isn't that your opinion...? i took it to be since you said 'i think' before saying it shouldn't be called marriage. Maybe i misunderstood your use of the word i.


[s]EviLTwiN wrote, 19th Nov 2003:
"Well since "marriage" isn't something that only belongs to christians, if you're cencerned about making the distinction, then you can make up a new name for a christian marriage. The cheek!"


Where there did I say marriage belongs to christians? Thats what I'm referring to.


[s]EviLTwiN wrote on 20:55, 19th Nov 2003:
AND my point is that it doesn't need to be changed. Everyone else is happy with the word marriage except religious people. If you want a distinction then you can change the word for a religious marriage. It doesn't matter how hard that would be, since there is no way you should be able to dictate that we can't call what we consider to be a marriage a marriage. THAT is the point... not how hard it would be to change but the fact that there is no obligation on us to change since we're quite happy with the word marriage.

...

So thanks for "the rest of your rant" about keeping new ideas seperate from the old, but how about religious people keeping their old ideas seperate from the current times.


Well the rest of your post was about the naming of marriage; which frankly is a pointless side arguement so I'm going to just let it drop.

What I was talking about originally was that we should separate and make distinct the difference between the legal marriage and a religious marriage. The reason I say that is because alot of the objection to homosexual marriage comes from religious quarters. I was trying to show that while I'm a christian I don't share that view, and think that one way to placate some of the more reasonable people objecting on religious grounds is to make a clear distinction - even if it were just a different name.

Why do I think this is important? Because George W Bush said:
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, Today's decision ... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
( http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/s ... index.html )

He is failing to make the distinction and thats not helpful is it?

[JP Patches]

[s]Kibet wrote on 20:58, 19th Nov 2003:

are you sure?
Romans
1 Corinthians & 1 Timothy
all in the new testament

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

however Matthew 19:10-12 does accept it.

contradiction as always in the bible. history is written by the victors as they say.


Matthew 19:10-12 doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality:
10 His disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
11 He answered, "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted.
12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

It just involves Christ (the "he" in the passage) telling his disciples that marriage isn't for everyone. If you’re interested in finding out what the references you post say, it is an easy thing to find a full-text Bible online.

[Guest]

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."


But, according to the Bible, lust is always wrong, whether its "men ... burned in their lust one toward another" (Romans 1:27) or "...a man looking at a woman with a lustful eye..." (Matthew 5:28)

The point is that marriage is founded on love rather than lust. And the Bible generally likes love, "...for God is love" (1 John 4:8). I believe that homosexual marriage based on love is an acceptable Christian concept.

[exnihilo]

Erm. OK, not sure I should open this can of worms. But as everyone is busily quoting the bible (and indirectly maybe, the Torah), I wonder how many actually have read it without the translators' baggage?

I won't dwell on too much here, but the Leviticus one does amuse me (given that I AM bound by 613 mikvot to the Christians' 10 commandments). I'd encourage you to look at that word "sin", because its not what it says in the OT, it says "abomination", itself a loose translation of a Hebrew word meaning "that which might lead astray".

Now, I'm no bible scholar, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. Viewed in an historical context, it might simply mean astray from the norm (marriage at a young age). Certainly the punishment for it is not listed as being stricter than using dodgy scales. In fact, the bible lists around a hundred such abominations. So, erm, don't be quoting Leviticus at me.

A lot of what I was going to say has already been covered, but the point that needs to be emphasised over and over is that marriage is not fundamentally a religious thing. And even if the word comes from Old French or wherever, the concept long predates both that and Christianity. And it was not a sacrament in concept - it was a way of securing property, inheritance etc etc.

So, that's all homosexual couples want. No problem for me, none whatever. And I fail utterly to understand any opposition to it. Even the opposition to the word is hugely counter productive. And, incidentally, the various churches can very easily decide what is and is not a sin, they've been doing precisely that for 2,000 years (and more for some non-christians). Why stop now, when Society is becoming more tolerant and more given to equality?

Welcoms to the modern world.

[:/]

[s]LeopardSkinQueen wrote on 22:55, 19th Nov 2003:
Not quite sure what the rest of your post is on about, but are you assuming here I'm a Christian? Because I'm not.


Obviously I wasn't as I was stating my opinion in general rather than talking about a person I have no knowledge of. However, I never used the word christian as I was referring to anyone in any religion who disagrees with some key belief of that religion. Not sure why the general assumption is that religion = christianity, slightly un-pc in itself.

And the rest of my post was simple. You said it yourself, the church is not in agreement. Until they are then the issue over whether homosexual people can be married in a religious ceremony cannot be resolved.

Divorced people have learned to live with it why can't other uneligible people? Getting married in a church is not the only way, far from it.

[Nick Mitchell]

The religious issue is a seperate one from the legal and human rights one. It comes down to the fact that most churches have an outdated attitude to homosexuality as compared to the rest of society, but that's an issue for those inside each denomination to argue among themselves.

The legal issue is entirely another matter. No-one should be deprived of their legal rights on the basis of their sexuality, and the right to marry is an important human right.

[Nick Mitchell]

The religious issue is a seperate one from the legal and human rights one. It comes down to the fact that most churches have an outdated attitude to homosexuality as compared to the rest of society, but that's an issue for those inside each denomination to argue among themselves.

The legal issue is entirely another matter. No-one should be deprived of their legal rights on the basis of their sexuality, and the right to marry is an important human right.

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]Nick Mitchell wrote on 00:13, 20th Nov 2003:
The religious issue is a seperate one from the legal and human rights one. It comes down to the fact that most churches have an outdated attitude to homosexuality as compared to the rest of society, but that's an issue for those inside each denomination to argue among themselves.

The legal issue is entirely another matter. No-one should be deprived of their legal rights on the basis of their sexuality, and the right to marry is an important human right.


I may be off base here, but I don't view marriage as a human right. What I do view as a human right is to not be disqualified from advantages under the law given to certain people, solely on the basis of one's sexuality.

[Nick Mitchell]

Marriage is a Human Right under the key text informing them, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16). It is similarly under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms.

The UDHR is a vastly important document which is regarded as representing customary international law beyond its treaty applications. However the problem in this issue is that the provisions have not yet been held by courts to represent a right to non-heterosexual marriage. Article 16(1) states that:

"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

I would argue that the such a lack of limitations should be read to include sexuality. The law of Human Rights is headed this way and courts have begun to read it into such documents. For example where a treaty excludes discrimination on the grounds of "sex", this has been held to include sexuality.

On the other hand, the rights of transgender individuals to marry within their original gender has recently been established by the European Court on Human Rights, so it seems odd to disallow homosexual marriage.

[Pilmour Boy]

What is the impact of the found a family part of that?

Does that mean that a government couldn't restrict the availability of artificial insemination?

[Nick Mitchell]

Hmm, good question. There's certainly an argument there.

Generally, the rights included are those which the government should respect by NOT getting involved, although things such as the right to fair trial require the government to do things in setting up the institution, as does the right to marriage. So there's an argument that the government must allow it, but not have to pay for it, perhaps?

I think that there's a certain level of leeway allowed in the interpretation, which is very clear in the case of the equivalent ECHR provision: "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right." The ECHR includes a general "margin of appreciation" beyond this.

Specifically I believe that it is to prevent Nazi-esque eugenics policies and forced sterilisation/abortions etc, in its purpose. In regard to that, China's "One Child" policy may well violate it, depending on what it involves.

[EviLTwiN]

[s]Rex Mundi wrote on 23:10, 19th Nov 2003:
Well the rest of your post was about the naming of marriage; which frankly is a pointless side arguement so I'm going to just let it drop.

What I was talking about originally was that we should separate and make distinct the difference between the legal marriage and a religious marriage. The reason I say that is because alot of the objection to homosexual marriage comes from religious quarters. I was trying to show that while I'm a christian I don't share that view, and think that one way to placate some of the more reasonable people objecting on religious grounds is to make a clear distinction - even if it were just a different name.

Why do I think this is important? Because George W Bush said:
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, Today's decision ... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
( http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/s ... index.html )

He is failing to make the distinction and thats not helpful is it?


ok, yeah i agree with you pretty much, the only point i was making was that it shouldn't be called a union, it should be called marriage, because that's what it is. The fact that people like bush don't make the distinction is bad, but creating a subclass of marriage in their eyes and (stigma-wise) the general populations eyes isnt an answer.
Call it all marriage, and let the religious people deal with any problems they have with regard to their feeling of control over marriage diminishing

PS. incidentally i never said that you said marriage belonged to christians. I said you said that 'marriage' in single sex cases should be called a union, which you did. When i subsequently talked about christians thinking they owned marriage i was giving a reason why it shouldn't be called a union, not saying that you held that belief (that they owned marriage) yourself.

AND its not a pointless side issue as the fact that single sex relationships would have the unfair stigma of it being called a union, simply because a different section of the population didn't like it, is important if we're going to give these marriages the same rights and respect that we currently enjoy in heterosexual marriage.


[hr]
IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinsaint.gif
[s]http://www.fotolog.net/flash_scotland[rar!]......[/s]

[EviLTwiN]

[s]EviLTwiN wrote on 02:32, 20th Nov 2003:
[s]Rex Mundi wrote on 23:10, 19th Nov 2003:[i]
Well the rest of your post was about the naming of marriage; which frankly is a pointless side arguement so I'm going to just let it drop.

What I was talking about originally was that we should separate and make distinct the difference between the legal marriage and a religious marriage. The reason I say that is because alot of the objection to homosexual marriage comes from religious quarters. I was trying to show that while I'm a christian I don't share that view, and think that one way to placate some of the more reasonable people objecting on religious grounds is to make a clear distinction - even if it were just a different name.

Why do I think this is important? Because George W Bush said:
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, Today's decision ... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
( http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/s ... index.html )

He is failing to make the distinction and thats not helpful is it?


ok, yeah i agree with you pretty much, the only point i was making was that it shouldn't be called a union, it should be called marriage, because that's what it is. The fact that people like bush don't make the distinction is bad, but creating a subclass of marriage in their eyes and (stigma-wise) the general populations eyes isnt an answer.
Call it all marriage, and let the religious people deal with any problems they have with regard to their feeling of control over marriage diminishing

PS. incidentally i never said that you said marriage belonged to christians. I said you said that 'marriage' in single sex cases should be called a union, which you did. When i subsequently talked about christians thinking they owned marriage i was giving a reason why it shouldn't be called a union, not saying that you held that belief (that they owned marriage) yourself.

AND its not a pointless side issue as the fact that single sex relationships would have the unfair stigma of it being called a union, simply because a different section of the population didn't like it, is important if we're going to give these marriages the same rights and respect that we currently enjoy in heterosexual marriage.

[hr]
IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinsaint.gif
[s]http://www.fotolog.net/flash_scotland[rar!]......[/s]
[/i]



[hr]
IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinsaint.gif
[s]http://www.fotolog.net/flash_scotland[rar!]......[/s]