Gay Marriage Video(s)

[waynepii]

I've already done that search, and I couldn't find anything saying God "defined" marriage. The majority of the references concern various people who are married.

IMO marriage is primarily secular, with clergy performing some marriages as agents of the state. Why do Christians believe marriage is a "Christian institution"?

Consider:

"20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:20-24; ESV)."

Did I miss it or does the word "marriage" (or "wed", or ... ) not appear in the verse? It sounds more like God is working on procreation.

[ageofknowledge]

I've already done that search, and I couldn't find anything saying God "defined" marriage. The majority of the references concern various people who are married.

IMO marriage is primarily secular, with clergy performing some marriages as agents of the state. Why do Christians believe marriage is a "Christian institution"?

Consider:

"20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:20-24; ESV)."

Did I miss it or does the word "marriage" (or "wed", or ... ) not appear in the verse? It sounds more like God is working on procreation.

Yes you missed a great deal and given your previous posts on scripture seems to be deliberate. I have these discussions regarding the Trinity with folks who take up the argument you have here but they are usually non-believers. It comes down to a choice Wayne. You can choose not to accept the reality of the Trinity because God's Word doesn't use the actual word Trinity just like you can choose not to accept the reality that God created woman to partner with man as his wife in a lifelong relationship because God's Word doesn't use the actual word marriage. But you'll be wrong if you do because God's Word places a premium on both concepts all through scripture revealing, describing, and defining them.

You see Wayne, as you already know, the absence of this word in no way invalidates the doctrine. Many important biblical concepts are conveyed by terms not actually contained in the Bible — for example, terms like Bible or canon. Surely nothing in the text prohibits the use of extrabiblical terms to express proper meaning. Although the words Marriage or Trinity don't actually appear, Scripture clearly reveals the doctrine which is derived directly from the content of Scripture.

Your argument is infantile and akin to saying since I can't find the word Wayne in the Bible you don't actually exist.

[cslewislover]

Thank you! That's what I have been trying to say! More coffee btw. It's hazelnut biscotti!

Thanks so much, I'd love some! One can never have too much hazelnut or biscotti, or hazelnut biscotti, or chocolate hazelnut, . . . or (some decaf might be in order eventually). ^_^ How about a chocolate mint latte with whipped cream and chocolate shavings?

You see Wayne, as you already know, the absence of this word in no way invalidates the doctrine. Many important biblical concepts are conveyed by terms not actually contained in the Bible — for example, terms like Bible or canon. Surely nothing in the text prohibits the use of extrabiblical terms to express proper meaning. Although the words Marriage or Trinity don't actually appear, Scripture clearly reveals the doctrine which is derived directly from the content of Scripture.

Yes, just because we have a word that describes a more complex concept or set of ideas or whatever, doesn't mean that the concept or ideas behind the word aren't real or valid. Lol.

This article is a little old, but worth some thought. (It is copyrighted and it said to ask permission to use it, yet they gave me the option of sharing it on facebook or at many other sites [I don't know, maybe none of the other sites have web crawlers . . . I'll ask for permission], or emailing it to someone, so since I'm not using it for profit, I think it's OK to share here. This isn't Twitter - what are you saying?)

COVER STORY ARTICLE | "Remaking the family" March 06, 2004
The Nordic track

COVER STORY: State approval of homosexual marriage in Scandinavia contributed to the virtual disappearance of real marriage | Gene Edward Veith

No matter what happens in the homosexual-marriage/civil-union controversies, marriage as an institution isn't going away, is it?

Yes, it is. Marriage has already all but disappeared in Scandinavia. Other Europeans are heading down that Nordic track. And, if gay marriage is legalized, so will we.

That is the conclusion of Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, whose article "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" was published in The Weekly Standard.

Sweden was the first country in Europe to legalize homosexual unions in 1989, and Denmark and Norway followed soon thereafter. Today, a majority of children in those countries are born out of wedlock. Although some older couples are getting married after having more than one child, younger couples are dispensing with marriage altogether. Southern Seminary president Al Mohler reports that in Sweden, the few young couples who do get married often do not like to admit it, since what they have done is so far out of the norm that they feel embarrassed.

Couples just live together for awhile. If the woman has a baby, the father-unlike in the United States-will typically stay around until the baby reaches a certain age. Until recently, if they had a second child together, they would typically get married, but this has changed for the new generation. Once the children are grown, the parents typically go their separate ways.

What role has gay marriage played in the disappearance of marriage in Scandinavia? "Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated," says Mr. Kurtz, "and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."

More direct causes Mr. Kurtz cites include the Scandinavian welfare state, which means that the family unit is no longer necessary for economic support. Plus, to support that welfare state, taxes are so high that both parents have to work. A vast state day-care system has taken over many of the child-care duties that once were the job of families. Also, the universities are even more radical than they are in the United States, with socialists, feminists, and other social revolutionaries-including those who denounce marriage as being intrinsically oppressive-having a huge influence in public policy.

Homosexual marriage has contributed to the dissolution of marriage as a significant institution in Scandinavian culture primarily by contributing to the notion that marriage need have nothing to do with having children.

Most instructive for Americans is what happened with Norway, traditionally the most conservative of the Scandinavian states. Sweden and Denmark have always been far more liberal, and in those nations the public wanted gay marriage. In Norway, though, the general public had gay marriage foisted upon it from above, by elite judges and lawmakers. The state Lutheran church opposed not only gay marriage but the growing trend of cohabitation and having children out of wedlock. The church also fought an internal battle over the ordination of those in homosexual unions.

The media covered the church's debates over these issues, taking every opportunity to attack and ridicule Christian teachings about sexuality and marriage. As a result, the church's traditionally strong influence on Norwegian society declined. When the dust settled, the liberal pro-gay and cohabitation theologians, who were once in a minority, took over the leadership of the church.

Another important finding about the Scandinavian experience with what Mr. Kurtz describes as "de facto" gay marriage-actually, they are "civil unions"-is how few homosexuals actually enter into them. A study published by Yale's William Eskridge in 2000 showed that after nine years, only 2,372 homosexual couples took advantage of the Danish law allowing gay unions. After four years, only 749 gay Swedes and only 674 gay Norwegians bothered to "get married."

Today's gay activists in Scandinavia, having gotten everything they wanted, now admit that their case for homosexual marriage-particularly that allowing gays to marry will encourage a monogamous lifestyle-was only a tactical argument. The goal, says Mr. Kurtz, citing two prominent gay thinkers, "was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality."

They achieved that goal, but now there is little social approval for marriage.

Copyright © 2009 WORLD Magazine

[waynepii]

Another opinion of the state of marriage in Scandinavia ... http://slate.msn.com/id/2100884/

[waynepii]

I've already done that search, and I couldn't find anything saying God "defined" marriage. The majority of the references concern various people who are married.

IMO marriage is primarily secular, with clergy performing some marriages as agents of the state. Why do Christians believe marriage is a "Christian institution"?

Consider:

"20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:20-24; ESV)."

Did I miss it or does the word "marriage" (or "wed", or ... ) not appear in the verse? It sounds more like God is working on procreation.

Yes you missed a great deal and given your previous posts on scripture seems to be deliberate. I have these discussions regarding the Trinity with folks who take up the argument you have here but they are usually non-believers. It comes down to a choice Wayne. You can choose not to accept the reality of the Trinity because God's Word doesn't use the actual word Trinity just like you can choose not to accept the reality that God created woman to partner with man as his wife in a lifelong relationship because God's Word doesn't use the actual word marriage. But you'll be wrong if you do because God's Word places a premium on both concepts all through scripture revealing, describing, and defining them.

You see Wayne, as you already know, the absence of this word in no way invalidates the doctrine. Many important biblical concepts are conveyed by terms not actually contained in the Bible — for example, terms like Bible or canon. Surely nothing in the text prohibits the use of extrabiblical terms to express proper meaning. Although the words Marriage or Trinity don't actually appear, Scripture clearly reveals the doctrine which is derived directly from the content of Scripture.

Your argument is infantile and akin to saying since I can't find the word Wayne in the Bible you don't actually exist.

OK My argument is infantile and I don't really exist.

My question is upon what do Christians base the belief that marriage is sacred and ordained by God? In effect, why do you feel you "own" the term?

[Imperial]

First off I answered your question. Second off it is our institution, for the last time stop trying to claim it as yours. Make your own and do with it as you please. We are not a hate group. We simply don't want non-participants in our traditions to spit upon what we call sacred. Get over it, make your own thing, and stop trying to tell us how we should view our instatutions already.

You answered my question with "because it goes against my beliefs". That is not a valid answer. No one's spitting on anything. Gay's just want to be able to marry, and you don't want them to. Get over it, stop the hate.

[ageofknowledge]

I've already done that search, and I couldn't find anything saying God "defined" marriage. The majority of the references concern various people who are married.

IMO marriage is primarily secular, with clergy performing some marriages as agents of the state. Why do Christians believe marriage is a "Christian institution"?

Consider:

"20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:20-24; ESV)."

Did I miss it or does the word "marriage" (or "wed", or ... ) not appear in the verse? It sounds more like God is working on procreation.

Yes you missed a great deal and given your previous posts on scripture seems to be deliberate. I have these discussions regarding the Trinity with folks who take up the argument you have here but they are usually non-believers. It comes down to a choice Wayne. You can choose not to accept the reality of the Trinity because God's Word doesn't use the actual word Trinity just like you can choose not to accept the reality that God created woman to partner with man as his wife in a lifelong relationship because God's Word doesn't use the actual word marriage. But you'll be wrong if you do because God's Word places a premium on both concepts all through scripture revealing, describing, and defining them.

You see Wayne, as you already know, the absence of this word in no way invalidates the doctrine. Many important biblical concepts are conveyed by terms not actually contained in the Bible — for example, terms like Bible or canon. Surely nothing in the text prohibits the use of extrabiblical terms to express proper meaning. Although the words Marriage or Trinity don't actually appear, Scripture clearly reveals the doctrine which is derived directly from the content of Scripture.

Your argument is infantile and akin to saying since I can't find the word Wayne in the Bible you don't actually exist.

OK My argument is infantile and I don't really exist.

My question is upon what do Christians base the belief that marriage is sacred and ordained by God? In effect, why do you feel you "own" the term?

Honestly Wayne I've already answered the question in this thread. Reread the entire thread.

[Gabrielman]

You answered my question with "because it goes against my beliefs". That is not a valid answer. No one's spitting on anything. Gay's just want to be able to marry, and you don't want them to. Get over it, stop the hate.

I am not hating, I have a gay friend that talks to me about this and he is perfectly fine with the idea of gays getting together under some other contract. That aside, yes my answer is valid. Time and again we make a valid point about our instatution and how you are more than welcome to make your own, why not do it?

Thanks so much, I'd love some! One can never have too much hazelnut or biscotti, or hazelnut biscotti, or chocolate hazelnut, . . . or (some decaf might be in order eventually). ^_^ How about a chocolate mint latte with whipped cream and chocolate shavings?

That would be some great coffee! Thanks! You should try some of the Irish ment coffee I had a while back, it was really good! Let's have a toast

[cslewislover]

That would be some great coffee! Thanks! You should try some of the Irish ment coffee I had a while back, it was really good! Let's have a toast

Ha ha, OK. Irish Mint sounds good - never had it that way!

[ageofknowledge]

Time and again we make a valid point about our instatution and how you are more than welcome to make your own, why not do it?

One reason would be that a good number of homosexuals are satanically driven to corrupt what God ordained as His design for humanity.



Ok ok consider that by definition the husband is the male member of a marriage. A husband's maleness defines his role as husband in a sexual way. It designates half of the sexual union and, consequently, dispenses with the idea that a marriage can have two husbands. The opposite of "husband" is "wife." So, from a sexual point of view, a man becomes a "husband" when he is joined in marriage with a woman, who becomes a "wife." God's charge to the first humans underscores the sexual role: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28). The male's relationship to the female is here distinguished from his relationship to the fish, birds, and beasts of the field. He "rules" over the animal kingdom, because he is their superior. His family headship, however, is different; it is a matter of position that begs for servant leadership.

[Gabrielman]

And now for a break in the action.





Now back to your regularly scheduled disscussion.

[cslewislover]

Another opinion of the state of marriage in Scandinavia ... http://slate.msn.com/id/2100884/

Whether our glass is half full or half empty, if we live for Christ - because he died for us - we look at it through Him, as best we're able. We're to "hate the sin, but love the sinner." Loving a sinner doesn't mean that we look the other way (just like we don't let our kids do anything they want to). Christ said to the adulteress, Go and sin no more, or Go, and give up a life of sinfulness. We're to try to live a sin-free life. I think we've stated pretty clearly that gays should be able have a legal union of some sort, because what they're doing is not God's intention for marriage and it's clearly sinful, yet we don't live in a theocracy. You seem to keep arguing for them in the sense that it doesn't matter that Christ went through all the suffering He did for their sins, and that it seems like we should just think it's OK to flaunt sins, or mock His work. This is the feeling I get. Christ is the Word, and Godly marriage is of Him. I'm not going to go against Him.

[Proinsias]

I still don't see how Christians/Jews can claim the institute of marriage as theirs, or even their God's. I don't see why mention in Genesis means it is necessarily a Jewish Christian institution when it is mentioned in texts from India and Babylon which are as old or older than Genesis and have little or nothing to with Judaism or Christianity. Even it was the original textual reference it's a big jump from that to it being correct that the Christian God made it, along with everything else.

I really don't think ownership of the term 'marriage' is a reasonable argument. If anyone owns it the legal system has a fair claim.

I did read somewhere that the teachings of Jesus were rather original in that they elevated marriage from a social contract situation to putting the emphasis on two becoming one forever, eternal, no divorce etc... but can't remember where and don't have the OT knowledge to know that it is a true claim.

I guess I'm just not convinced that the world should be bound by a biblical definition of marriage, which it's not. If you choose to hold a biblical view on marriage then that's fine, it's just one of innumerable legal, social and religious views on marriage. Personally I get the feeling that it will end up much like much like divorce, for another, without adultery in that it ends up with people being married and accepted as so in society but it not being very comfortable within the church, only time will tell I suppose.

[ageofknowledge]

You're apparently unable to comprehend most of what I've been saying and have fallen back on a the older text is the best fit for reality. That's a bad argument. Those same texts have all sorts of nonsense about the origin of the earth, the origin of humanity, etc... ascribing them to sea monsters, the moon, and all sorts of falsehood. The one true God had Moses write down the text of Genesis; however, it was a retelling that was known since the beginning. I would bet money you never reread the thread.

[Proinsias]

I have read over the thread.

I don't think I'm failing to comprehend what you have been saying, I just don't agree.

You may believe that the one true God had Moses write down Genesis and thus the institute of marriage is Abrahamic property, you may also believe that other older texts and traditions are nonsense. It does not follow from this, as you conclude, that one must adhere to the institute of marriage as defined in the Bible.

Those same texts have all sorts of nonsense about the origin of the earth, the origin of humanity, etc... ascribing them to sea monsters, the moon, and all sorts of falsehood.

Many claim the bible is full of nonsense, and monsters for that matter. The same argument you use to dismiss other traditions works just the same against your own. The texts I was referring to were Hammurabi's code, which is an early legal code, and the Rig Veda which refers to gods of marriage. The first seems to be more of a legal definition preceding the date of Genesis, with nothing in the way of creation stories, and the latter is a religious text involving marriage, possibly as old or older than Genesis.

But on the other hand, people that do not want to abide by the Judeo-Christian concept of "marriage" should settle for a different form of legal agreement.

They do. It's called marriage, the one they don't abide by is, as you say, Judeo-Christian marriage. Marriage already exists, if one chooses to recognise it or not, as a legal agreement. To include one of the world's religions into the legal marriage is a personal choice.