Something I want answered once and for all

Originally posted by Suzianne
I just want to know exactly where in the Bible is this "biblical definition of a family" that Mr. Cathy and all these other folks from the religious right keep referring to. I don't recall any passages in the Bible actually "defining marriage". Anyone care to help me out?

The fundies would say he defined it by joining Adam and Eve. And they'd quote the predictable 'clobber passages' as RBHILL probably did.

Originally posted by Suzianne
wow, stereotype much?

I know you're used to dealing with folks like RJH, but I'm not him. Yes, I have a brain and can (and do) think for myself.

What I'm talking about is all these blowhard religious right folks going on and on ad nauseam about "the biblical definition of marriage" etc. Well, I say put up or shut up. Show me this "biblical definition".

I would agree. Why are Christians talking about Biblical law in a secular state?

Having said that, I'm sure many of you know my stance. I simply reject the notion that governemnt should be involved in marriage at all. We should all have "equal" rights regardless of our sexual arrangements and the state need not sanction certain sexual arrangements above others, nor should it thumb its nose at those who choose not to be sexually active.

The entire debate is mindless and pathetic. I sit here watching gay people flock to Chik-fila-a to kiss and others go there to eat what they otherwise woudl not eat just to support or protest gay marriage. I guess retards need a hobby.

Originally posted by whodey
The entire debate is mindless and pathetic. I sit here watching gay people flock to Chik-fila-a to kiss and others go there to eat what they otherwise woudl not eat just to support or protest gay marriage. I guess retards need a hobby.

I think, for example, in the country where I live, women - or many of them, especially the economically vulnerable ones, which is a lot of them - benefit hugely from the government recognizing their marriages and their status as married women. You say the "debate is mindless and pathetic" and that "retards need a hobby". Aside from playing chess here, you seem to like contributing to this "debate" a lot.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am surprised that a professed Christian must ask this question, never the less, the
answer is simple, I will illustrate with scripture.

(Genesis 2:18-25) . . .And Jehovah God went on to say: “It is not good for the man
to continue by himself. [b]I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of
him.” . . . . . .And Jehovah God pr ...[text shortened]... ristianity is a privilege, not a right, for those who are willing to uphold its
standards.[/b]

I believe I said much the same thing as my understanding of Biblical precedents/reasons for opposing SS marriage.

According to some people one of Abraham's wives was his sister and of course there are Solomon's many wives and concubines. Are these generally allowable in a "Biblically correct" marriage or is their understanding in need of correction? Of course there can be and are stricter secular laws on many places, but what would be OK by the Bible?

Originally posted by whodey
I would agree. Why are Christians talking about Biblical law in a secular state?

Having said that, I'm sure many of you know my stance. I simply reject the notion that governemnt should be involved in marriage at all. We should all have "equal" rights regardless of our sexual arrangements and the state need not sanction certain sexual arrangements above ...[text shortened]... herwise woudl not eat just to support or protest gay marriage. I guess retards need a hobby.

"I simply reject the notion that governemnt should be involved in marriage at all. "

I believe that for the US at least, that involvement is traceable to the preamble to the US Constitution, which is a secular document if we can keep it that way.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

At least, the opponents of SS marriage argue that it is an appropriate role of government to define and establish social institutions that promote the general welfare.

The question in my mind is whether the restrictions of bans on SS marriage on the blessings of liberty are actually on net, promoting the general welfare. But perhaps this aspect of the discussion belongs in debates. My main point here is that there is by some readings, secular justification for restrictions on marriage.

Originally posted by JS357
"I simply reject the notion that governemnt should be involved in marriage at all. "

I believe that for the US at least, that involvement is traceable to the preamble to the US Constitution, which is a secular document if we can keep it that way.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domesti ...[text shortened]... here is that there is by some readings, secular justification for restrictions on marriage.

What seriously offends me is passing a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

To my way of thinking, the Constitution is about securing the rights of Americans, not preventing certain groups from enjoying the same rights everyone else enjoys.

In short, the Constitution is about securing rights, not restricting them. This is an extremely slippery slope, and one that a large number of people who consider the Constitution as sacred should not even be considering. It changes the direction of our Constitution, and not in a good direction. It is a document "of the people, by the people and for the people", NOT "of the people, by the people and against the people".

Originally posted by Suzianne
What seriously offends me is passing a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

To my way of thinking, the Constitution is about securing the rights of Americans, not preventing certain groups from enjoying the same rights everyone else enjoys.

In short, the Constitution is about securing rights, not restricting them. This is an extremely ...[text shortened]... y the people and for the people", NOT "of the people, by the people and against the people".

I answered your question, yet you have nothing to say in reply?

Originally posted by Suzianne
What seriously offends me is passing a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

To my way of thinking, the Constitution is about securing the rights of Americans, not preventing certain groups from enjoying the same rights everyone else enjoys.

In short, the Constitution is about securing rights, not restricting them. This is an extremely ...[text shortened]... y the people and for the people", NOT "of the people, by the people and against the people".

I believe that democracy should never be used when restricting rights. This is why a constitution is necessary as it overrides democratic decisions that affect peoples rights. Of course the problem remains as to where the constitution comes from.

But to give an example of a problem that I have issues with - immigration. In general, the citizens of a country make decisions about the non-citizens in that country and even when they do so it a democratic way, I see that as discrimination and a violation of rights.

Originally posted by JS357
I believe I said much the same thing as my understanding of Biblical precedents/reasons for opposing SS marriage.

According to some people one of Abraham's wives was his sister and of course there are Solomon's many wives and concubines. Are these generally allowable in a "Biblically correct" marriage or is their understanding in need of correction? Of cour ...[text shortened]... here can be and are stricter secular laws on many places, but what would be OK by the Bible?

Actually God never gave any mandate for having more than one wife, in fact, he
warned Solomon against it. Christ established the criteria when he stated that its one
man and one woman, as in the beginning and although God overlooked the eastern
custom of maintaining more than one wife, such was not the case in the beginning.

(Deuteronomy 17:17) . . .He should also not multiply wives for himself, that his heart may not turn aside. . .

It also seems that there was no stigma attached to marriage to sisters or half
sisters. Abraham married Sarah his half sister. (Ge 20:2, 12) although the Mosaic
Law, some 430 years later, however, forbade such unions as incestuous. (Le
18:9, 11; 20:17)

Originally posted by JS357
I believe I said much the same thing as my understanding of Biblical precedents/reasons for opposing SS marriage.

According to some people one of Abraham's wives was his sister and of course there are Solomon's many wives and concubines. Are these generally allowable in a "Biblically correct" marriage or is their understanding in need of correction? Of cour ...[text shortened]... here can be and are stricter secular laws on many places, but what would be OK by the Bible?

Solomon's 600 wives and 300 girfriends is just mentioned as what Solomon did. It is not what the Law of God prescribed or taught.

In fact the warning against having a greedy king was that he would multiply wives - "You must set a king over you whom Jehovah your God will choose ... And he shall not amass wives to himself, so that his heart does not turn aside, ..." (See Deut. 17:14-20)

What the Bible records as having happened is not always what the Bible teaches in terms of how one ought to behave.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually God never gave any mandate for having more than one wife, in fact, he
warned Solomon against it. Christ established the criteria when he stated that its one
man and one woman, as in the beginning and although God overlooked the eastern
custom of maintaining more than one wife, such was not the case in the beginning.

(Deuteronomy 17 ...[text shortened]...
Law, some 430 years later, however, forbade such unions as incestuous. (Le
18:9, 11; 20:17)

Thanks. A follow-up: Is Mosaic Law Biblical, that is, is it God-given moral law that is fully applicable today? (I hope my terminology like "God-given" and "moral law" and "applicable" is OK, if not, please correct.)

Edit: this question is for anyone who wants to answer.

Originally posted by JS357
Thanks. A follow-up: Is Mosaic Law Biblical, that is, is it God-given moral law that is fully applicable today? (I hope my terminology like "God-given" and "moral law" and "applicable" is OK, if not, please correct.)

Edit: this question is for anyone who wants to answer.

The Bible has concluded that all people are under condemnation and need to be saved through Jesus Christ.

That is every heterosexual, every homosexual, every conservative, every liberal, every religious person, every non-religious person, every one - "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

The first thing to consider about the law of God is that it has included all mankind under condemnation. All are in need of justification by faith in Christ. All are in need of reconciliation to God through Christ's redemption.

Originally posted by jaywill
The Bible has concluded that all people are under condemnation and need to be saved through Jesus Christ.

That is every heterosexual, every homosexual, every conservative, every liberal, every religious person, every non-religious person, every one - [b]"all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

The first thing to consider about the l ...[text shortened]... ion by faith in Christ. All are in need of reconciliation to God through Christ's redemption.[/b]

I'm trying to find an answer to my specific question about Mosaic law in what you say here, but I can't find it. My question was, is Mosaic Law Biblical, that is, is it God-given moral law that is fully applicable today?

Originally posted by jaywill
The Bible has concluded that all people are under condemnation and need to be saved through Jesus Christ.

Jesus died for my rightousness too.

Isa. 64:6

Originally posted by JS357
I'm trying to find an answer to my specific question about Mosaic law in what you say here, but I can't find it. My question was, is Mosaic Law Biblical, that is, is it God-given moral law that is fully applicable today?

some people in the middle east still live as they did 4000 years ago.

Wikipedia has a list of all 613 laws or just google them.