By Christian view I assume they are referencing the Bible.
So does this Christian view of marriage include condoning and recognizing polygamous (or more accurately, polygyny) marriages, and where victims of rape are forced to marry their rapists, and where wives are often treated as property?
If not, why not? And if someone says, "society has changed since the Old Testament – polygamy, etc is no longer socially accepted" why can't this reasoning be also applied to same-sex marriages? Why is the only thing stopping same-sex marriages being legally recognised basically just Christian or religious views (aka intolerance)?
Obviously the Christian definition or view of marriage has changed throughout the years, and is largely based on changing social values rather than dogma. Even now, the current definition of marriage is hardly based upon Biblical values and is rather just a legal framework.
So why do Christians resist social change and oppose same-sex marriage, using excuses such as "it diminishes the christian view of marriage…"? Same-sex marriage is not detrimental to society, as has been observed in other nations where they have been legalized, and as a whole it only increases the rights and equality of an already marginalized and discriminated group.
(source of the quote, first answer: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AihBHrd7aVMpJZvPHIs.Rujsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090617195124AAfeZFg)
—————————–
Some examples of Biblical views of marriage:
"Deuteronomy 22:28-29 – If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
"1 Kings 20:3 – 'Your silver and gold are mine, and the best of your wives and children are mine.'"
"Genesis 4:19 – Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah."
"Judges 8:30 – He had seventy sons of his own, for he had many wives."
"1 Samuel 30:18 – David recovered everything the Amalekites had taken, including his two wives."
"1 Kings 11:3 – He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray."
"2 Samuel 12:8 – I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more."
I apologize for typing so much, but I felt it important to address all the issues I was thinking about.
The link I posted before is broken. Here is the working one:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AihBHrd7aVMpJZvPHIs.Rujsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090617195124AAfeZFg
Tags:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
It's not that is our view but rather what God has ordained for us all — "bilogically speaking" I can see His point !!! God Bless —
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
*Sniff sniff*
What's that?
I smell PWNAGE!!
—
But to answer your question, it's clear that most Christians select passages as are convenient for them. People also like to have an excuse for condemning others with no logical reason to do so.
????????????????????????????????????
?In the end, all actions are justified.
?No matter how heinous, there is always a reason
?for all that happens. And to feel anger over such things
?is as logical as being mad that apples fall to earth.
?I sought to understand everything…
?and even still, I've got a long way to go.
????????????????????????????????????
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
it just cant be condoned thats all….GODS FEELINGS ARE WHAT COUNTS not ours.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Yeah, yeah. Not sure how you can rebutt this unless you come up with some half-ass answer, "bilogically speaking."
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Polygamy is fine. As long as they are all adults. I don't agree with men marrying kids.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
From what I know, I think they still oppose it because homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament too.
Anyways, interesting question. Kudos.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Who claims that rewriting the definition of marriage has anything to do with the "Christian view of marriage?"
There are atheists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, Buddhists and more that have been vocal about not rewriting the definition of marriage.
Attempting to make it an issue of homosexuals versus Christians is hatemongering, and is full of religious bigotry.
Your perspective on this one is simply very jaundiced.
As for every single "Christian view" of marriage you've quoted, they're all from the Old Testament, which means they're part of the Jewish scriptures also. Why aren't you taking the Jews to task?
And if you're spending so much time quoting these passages, doesn't it trouble you in the slightest that you're taking snippets out of context (textually, culturally, and historically) to make a point? Are you not aware that they don't mean what you intend them to mean, and not all of them are directed at those you think they're directed to?
Ignorance, dude. It's ugly.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
interestingly enough there are lots of christians who turn a blind eye to divorce and they won't make a proposition against that but they will make one against gay marriage. how convenient.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Not my opinion but my Mum says that if you legalize same sex marriage then that will normalize it in the eyes of the children. Then more of our children will give into the sin of homsexuality more often.
I think it is just a natural response of the dominant society trying like hell to hold onto its fleeting power in any way possible.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Your right. They like to cherry pick what they use from their book of judgements. They forget Jebus's words in Matthew 7:1-5
"Don't criticize, and then you won't be criticized. For others will treat you as you treat them. And why worry about a speck in the eye of a brother when you have a board in your own? Should you say 'Friend, let me help you get that speck out of your eye,' when you can't even see because of the board in your own? Hypocrite! First get rid of the board. Then you can see to help your brother."
It's why I left the christian faith. I don't like what they have become.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
A more important question should be does it and should it matter what one religious group thinks about the rest of society? That's why I support the logical reasoning behind the separation between religion and government.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
I didn't read your whole question. The bottom line is that there are people who think that the government needs to control everybody in order to have morality in society. I don't think any level of government should be telling us who should marry whom–it wasn't too long ago that the primary reason for having a marriage license was to make sure white people didn't marry non-whites.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Cherry picking, the 2000 year old Christian pastime.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
the 'christian view of marriage' is undermined by same-sex unions, which are, according to the Bible, unlikely to produce the next messiah – which is urgently awaited upon by believers and zealots….
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhKa-NVWEg8
it's funny, watch it
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Christ is the new Testament. With the exception of old Testament prophets and David people knew little of the preaching and doctrine to come. You are right about the old testament marriage but Christ set things straight. He also released the LAW. People were so scared of Laws that they altered them in a sense. It did not make their lives easy at all. Look at the mess that David and Solomon got themselves into. The New Testament GOD/man Jesus taught Christian principles for future generation and the people of his day on earth. No excuse any more for being ignorant but he offers loving forgiveness for sin
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
To say "christian marriage" is ignoring the fact that the country is made up of people of varying religions and atheist views. To say only the "Christian marriage" is correct means anyone who marries in an Islam marriage, Hindu marriage or as civil non – religious ceremony, is therefore wrong. To base a law of marriage on Christian view of marriage altogether ignore the multitudes of people and their beliefs that live in many countries. That's why religion and politics shouldn't mix.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
The fact is we don't affect their marriages in the least.The sad fact is that they try to affect OURS not to mention OUR families.You know it's funny when Prop 8 was going on all I heard was this would affect their children their marriages their lives.Well they had that backwards from the very beginning because it never affected them it did on the other hand effect US and not in a good way.Anyone who actually believes same sex marriage will affect their marriages needs to think about that really hard because if it affects their marriages then it is not us that is the problem.It is THEIR marriages that are the issue because something is off in that relationship if they let other peoples marriages affect theirs.I will never understand how 2 people who love each other who just want to be given a fair chance at love and happiness in this world could ever affect anybody.It just doesn't make sense .
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
1) Is same-sex marriage a civil right?
2) Will the Separation of Church and State force churches to perform same-sex marriages?
3) How does a civil right (to marriage) and the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, work to support same-sex marriage or prevent it?
4) What are the parallels to the battle to legalize inter-racial marriage (legalized in 1967) and the battle to legalize same-sex marriage?
5) How will (or does) same-sex marriage impact, modify or harm mixed sex marriages?
My Answer:
The constitution is a marvelous and flexible document. As the Bill of Rights and various Supreme Court, decisions have further defined and modified the original content.
Originally, there is no right to privacy explicitly stated, but as the Supreme Court has defined, there cannot be a true democracy without privacy. It is not just the right to privacy in the voting booth, but also a right to privacy in our homes and elsewhere. Just think of "Big Brother" if you do not think we need privacy. Just think of the FBI spying on MLK in the Civil Rights Era.
The Supreme Court has decided that we have a right to control over our bodies, which was not explicitly defined in the Constitution. Just think what it would be like if the gov't forced you to be sterilized after you have had one child (as sometimes happens in China).
It is all about freedom and liberty, without the gov't interfering with your pursuit of happiness. Think Nazi Germany, Think Stalinist USSR, Think of Mao in Communist China, if you want to see the results of a lack of privacy and lack of control over your own life.
Lastly, the Separation of Church and State is as fundamental right as any other right in the Constitution. Bottom line, the gov't cannot fix an official religion. The gov't cannot implement any religion/church's theology as the law of the land. The gov't cannot outlaw any religion or dictate the theology of any religion.
So, how is it that being gay is only semi-legal… it is because some religions have been successful in implementing their theology into law. Now, we are in the process of removing that to make our laws more fully comply with the Constitution.
LGBT people have those same liberties, regardless of what the far right thinks or says. If you deprive one segment of the civil populace of its rights, you are on a slippery slope to totalitarianism.