I don't just try and post articles for the sake of it or to clock up my posting stats.
It's a genuine attempt to show what others are saying and also to inform. I don't expect for a minute that there will be any road to Damascus like conversions by my doing so, nor that everyone will read them.
Published sources are sometimes a good way of counterracting some opinions that are expressed.
I could have posted much much more, but I try to be selective in ensuring that the same ground is not continuously covered.
If I just posted articles and never wrote a dickie bird myself then I could be accused of being afraid or unable to express myself, this as you are no doubt aware, is not the case! ;)-->
As Garth said, the points raised by Mr Card have already been dealt with elsewhere and I can tell you that every point he makes have been made at LDS semi-annual general conferences in Salt Lake City. Mr Card couches the arguments in secular language in his article for public consumption.
I was not constructing a straw man nor attacking him personally for his religious beliefs, I was making some points about his church and their teaching and practices upon the issues, It is a fact that Mormons in good standing are expected to follow the counsel of their leaders no matter whether or not they agree with them.
I have Mormon friends, I have been to Mormon services (and enjoyed them) and I will confess that I think that their missionaries are cute. I have a great admiration for their commitment and tenacity.
But the LDS leadership is very theocratic - what matters is not what was taught or happened in the past, but in what their current prophet says which changes and outweighs anything a previous prophet has said. The current prophet (the nonegarian Gordon B Hinckley) has decided to make a big issue out of marriage, even publishing a declaration about it which many will henceforth consider to be scripture.
Privately many Mormons will not take such a view but publically they must appear as enthusiastic about it as every single Iraqi was about the glorious and inspired leadership of Saddam Hussein. Even the Pope does not excommunicate those who disagree with him, the LDS do. Not unlike TWI really....
Trefor: No matter how you may try to justify it, what you've done is just as bigoted and prejudiced as those who think all homosexuals are automatic pedophiles. Card is no idiot, and he's certainly not a mouthpiece for the LDS church. Neither is he a Republican (surprise!)
Post links, folks. Not only do these full articles cover the page with seemingly endless lines of text and make discussion difficult, posting them violates copyrights.
Most of the quoted articles are not accompanied by even a line of commentary about their content. Proper (fair) use would involve selective quoting, accompanied by commentary from the poster.
Uhhh, yes it has been covered. I believe the phrase 'equal protection under the law' (in relation to marital laws in this case) was used at least twice on my account.
As I said in my previous post, "I'm not asking for a repeat of the "equal rights" mantra." Granted, that particular time I didn't say "equal protection of the laws" (that's what the Constitution says, not "equal protection under the law") but that's been included in what I called the "equal rights" mantra. I have written fairly extensively about the "equal protection" clause of Amendment 14 of the Constitution previously in this thread. I'll quote a paragraph from THIS POST.
"In every State, exactly the same conditions for marriage apply to every person, without regard to sexual attraction/preference/orientation. Any legally responsible single person who is free from certain diseases may marry any legally responsible single person of the opposite gender who is free from the same diseases, unless that person is within a certain degree of consanguinity (relationship). Sexual orientation/preference/attraction is not even a consideration. The laws apply equally to every person, so no State is denying any person in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If a State were to exclude a person from marriage because of homosexuality (orientation/preference), then that State would be denying that person the equal protection of the laws. No State does that. Not only can homosexuals marry, many do."
quote:...why looky, here's that phrase again, 'equal protection under the law'?
Your smart-alec "oh looky, see what you've missed, don't I impress you" remarks serve only to denigrate yourself. I've cited that clause (correctly, unlike you) and discussed it pretty thoroughly (unlike you) in this thread.
quote:And since your usual brother-sister, mother-son, father-daughter, brother-brother, father-son relationships aren't involving marriages, that is more or less a moot point.
I didn't make a point regarding them. I posed some questions, aimed at thinking people.
quote:And since I know where you're going with this...
You don't know half of what you think you know. I wasn't going anywhere with this. I wasn't setting up an argument. I simply invited people to state what changes they think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships, present arguments to support their positions, and consider possible ramifications of any changes they propose. None have as of yet.
The claim that marriage laws deny homosexuals the equal protection of the laws has been made and refuted in this thread several times. Even if you believe that claim, constantly repeating it accomplishes nothing. No one has offered a considered argument not based on that claim to support same-sex civil marriage or any same-sex civil instititution. I'm interested in real discussion, involving real thought, that considers how current marriage law came to be, the purpose for it, the state's interest in marriage, proposed changes, reasons for those changes, and possible implications of those changes. I am willing to redress any grievances that homosexuals or any other people may have, whether concerning equal protection/rights or something else. All I ask is that they give good reason to do so, and consider all aspects of any manner of redress they propose.
Again, no one here has straightforwardly stated what changes he/she thinks should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships or presented a reasonable argument to support adopting those changes.
quote:Marriage exists as a civil institution because society views it as a preferred state, worthy of special legal status because of its benefit to society. Same-sex domestic relationships, whether formalized by a ceremony or not, are already legal. They simply aren't recognized by the state as civil marriages. If you think they should be, then offer some reasons, particularly benefits to society.
The rehash of the same old illogical argument regarding the right to marry the opposite sex. It does not address the question in hand about the right to marry the same sex. When it comes to prohibitions, the onus should be on those who support the prohibition to clearly demonstrate WHY it should be prohibited, after all in a court a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Arguments on the basis of tradition or reproduction have already been demonstrated to be flawed. Garth has pointed out that equal protection is not a matter of something have to justify itself to others. It should be the automatic default when there are no good valid solid and obvious reasons why it should be otherwise.
First of all, I did not present an argument, I invited others, including you, to present one. Secondly, what you quoted was not regarding the right to marry the opposite sex. It was regarding same-sex relationships, as they are under current law, and as someone responding to my invitation might want them to be. Thirdly, these same-sex relationships, by any name, are not prohibited now. They are simply not recognized as civil marriages or, in most States, any other civil institution. Fourthly, the equal protection of the laws is the default, and the current state. Even if you disagree with that last statement, repeatedly claiming otherwise accomplishes nothing. I'm asking you (or others) to straightforwardly state what changes you think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships and to present a reasonable argument, based on something other than that claim, to support adopting those changes.
I really don't understand why neither you nor Garth seem to recognize the difference between an argument and an invitation to present one. All I asked was for you to state your position clearly (what changes you think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships) and to explain why you think those changes are a good idea (present an argument to support adopting those changes) and to consider possible implications of those changes. I'm asking you to clearly state your position and your thoughts, not someone else's.
The questions I posed were part of my invitation for people to straightforwardly state what changes they think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships, offer reasons to adopt their proposed changes, and consider possible implications. I wasn't asking for information regarding current laws regarding incest or marriage to near relatives, but for consideration of how any changes proposed and the justification for those changes might affect the basis for other laws, the reasoning behind them. The near-relative marriage questions are only one possible consideration. No matter what changes or what reasons for them might be proposed, there will be considerations. Whether or not they would influence a decision regarding the proposed changes couldn't be known until after considering them.
Should anyone wish to respond to my invitation, I would be interested in your thoughts regarding whether and why marriage should even exist as a civil institution. Since implicit questions seem to confuse some folks, I'll pose these explicitly.
Why does marriage exist as a civil institution?
What interest of the state (if any) justifies the existence of civil marriage?
Do current marriage laws help to further that interest?
If so, could changes to those laws help to better further that interest?
Why won't anybody answer my question about there "being no male nor female in heaven". And why it is so important to us here on earth?
I have asked this repeatedly throughout this thread and have not received any kind of response to it. I am especially interested in the views of those who are the right wing conservatives who are including the bible verses with their viewpoint. I am not trying to be argumentative, only asking an honest question.
Fog, I've answered you. While it is not an authorative answer, I DID answer you and did validate your question.
--------------
Here's a letter in the Arizona Republic... because it's a letter, the items claimed as fact have not been checked... anyone able to check it?
Gay marriages already plentiful
Mar. 4, 2004 12:00 AM
To those who fear the world will meet its biblical end if gay marriage is recognized in the United States, you need not worry. We won't be the first country to tempt fate. In fact, at the rate we're going, we may be among the last.
On Jan. 29, the United Nations announced that it will grant benefits to same-sex spouses and domestic partners of its employees who hail from countries that recognize such relationships.
To date, same-sex marriages and/or civil unions are legal in Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and some Canadian provinces. Gays are granted certain non-marital benefits in Australia, Austria, Hungary, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
However, if you still live in fear of WMD (weddings of mass destruction), grab your Bible and the duct tape.
"However, if you still live in fear of WMD (weddings of mass destruction), grab your Bible and the duct tape."
LMAO. Rocky, you crack me up. Yes you have answered and I do apppreciate it. The far right wing conservatives have yet to answer this question. I am being sincerely honest by the way.
I can only speculate... but I would guess that's because the fear of homosexuals is based primarily on superstition and not on biblical scholarship or godly reflection. btw, I am not the author of the letter I copied above.
Perhaps nobody answered your questions because the answers are obvious, but irrelevant to the thread. Since you persist, I'll answer several of your unanswered questions.
You asked why women labor in childbirth. Because pushing something the size of a baby through something the size of a birth canal is hard work. The Biblical answer would be that it's punishment for (or a consequence of, if you don't like "punishment") Eve's transgression.
You asked about the purpose of reproduction. Well, without it, we wouldn't be here. The Biblical answer would be that God wanted people to multiply.
You asked about why there are neither male nor female in heaven. The Bible doesn't say why, but if you believe the Bible, you should anticipate no sexual reproduction in heaven.
You asked why we're so concerned about male and female here. Aside from other niceties, the answer would be reproduction. A short Biblical answer would be "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply..." There's also the "help meet for him" aspect, which is included in "the other niceties."
I'm not a Bible believer, but I can't see how there being neither male nor female in heaven has anything to do with current earthly life, where there are both male and female, one of each required in order to "be fruitful and multiply."
The Netherlands is currently the only country with same-sex civil marriage. Belgium has passed a law adopting it, but the law won't go into effect until about mid-June. Canada appears ready to adopt same-sex civil marriage. The other countries listed either have no formal same-sex civil unions or formal civil unions with varying degrees of similarity to civil marriage, some being virtually identical to civil marriage, except for name. The United Nations, being the sort of organization that it is, would be expected to honor unions recognized by member nations, and grant benefits to employees accordingly.
Perhaps nobody answered your questions because the answers are obvious, but irrelevant to the thread."
I think that this question is very relevent and if you don't know the answer or have an opinion, don't just dismiss the question as irrelevant. It is relevent to me.
I am sorry but if we follow your line of logic regarding reproduction, then we are back to the old argument of old couples marrying, people marrying who do not want children yadah yadah yadah.
The answers might be obvious to you as you quote your bible verses. But you know, the only way homosexuals are born are by straight couples, some who revere their bibles.
Reproduction mandated to Adam and Eve I believe, was to bring forth the Christ child. If you believe he has been born and fulfilled the curse of the law, I believe the question about "neither male nor female" in heaven is relevant. It is a part of the curse of the law being lifted and equality for all.
Just for the record,I think you pose some very well-put questions,although to answer each,I think would require about a 500 page dissertation...Which may be why nobody's jumping at your invite...
I've thought that maybe the gov't should just stay out of marriage altogether and let it be a religious rite,or sacrament,or whatever it is called...I remember a time when hetero friends my age were referring to getting married as "making it legal"...Evidently fornicatin'was illegal,at least in some local gov'ts..I think the gov't has done a good progressive job of staying out of the bedroom,but if we're becoming an anything goes society,at least sexually,then why special sanctions,or rights,or priveleges or benefits to people who choose the traditional,biblical hetero marriage model over any other sexual arrangement(s)?...
As has already been pointed out numerous times,the gov'ts only interest should be the perpetuation of it's society through the reproduction and best possible care for children....If I live to be 80,I'd like to know that if I called a cop,or went to the doctor,or voted for the next president,that all these people weren't also 80-something because people quit producing children....
It's pretty common that now children are produced and raised without married parents...I don't know if that's an overall good thing...I suppose if a married couple raising children is the best scenario,that institution will ultimately survive...So how much involvement,if any,should the gov't have in preferring one means of rearing children over another?...I've thought that many of the marital benefits our country provides were written in the days of stay-at-home moms,whose full time job was to raise the kids while Mr. Cleaver went to the office...Couples that had no children also benefitted...I think it would be good to separate the "rights" from "benefits" as regards to the whole marriage issue...
As much as i appreciate LG's insights, I also believe Fog's question is relevant.
From a civil perspective, I can see no problem with allowing same-sex marriage. Of course there are logistics, such as insurance and social security survivor benefits issues, but those are hardly justification to undermine the Constitution's equal protection clause or the Declaration of Independence's Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
so that brings us to the religious realm.
And for Christians, many have accepted the notion that they should not hate homosexual individuals, but still have a difficult time with various social/cultural implications.
And granted that if we accept the Bible as God's will, then there appears to be enough written to suggest God doesn't like homosexuality.
However, God also, if I read the bible (and I think I have done so before), seriously dislikes lots of other things that are tolerated in our society, cultures and even churches.
And frankly, i think Paul spelling out the admonition in Galatians that from God's viewpoint, there is neither male nor female, etc. is very relevant to people getting past their fear in considering people a little more according to how God does -- by looking at the heart.
So, while opponents of same-sex marriage will not be persuaded by me or these points, I believe same-sex marriage as an accepted cultural institution is inevitable, and is not something that is cause for such fear and gnashing of teeth.
I meant no insult. You persisted in asking, and suggested that no one could answer, so I answered. If you think that the notion that there is neither male nor female in heaven has something to do with the fact that there are both here on earth, where we currently live, that's fine by me. If you think that reproduction is not important or that society's interest in reproduction and the nurture of children has nothing to do with the basis for civil marriage, that's fine by me too. Personally, I rather like the idea that there will be somebody around to take care of me when I am old, and to continue on after I am gone.
I really don't expect anyone to "jump at my invite." I am more interested in provoking thought than anything else. (That includes provoking myself to think.)
"I've thought that maybe the gov't should just stay out of marriage altogether..."
That's why I posed the questions about the state's interest in marriage. I think that the interest is legitimate, but if civil marriage no longer serves that interest well, or if we remove that interest from being the basis for civil marriage, that calls into question the justification for the continued existence of the institution of civil marriage.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
Zixar
Geez, Radar, if you don't want to read them, then don't. Scroll on by. You're reading way too much into this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Radar:
I don't just try and post articles for the sake of it or to clock up my posting stats.
It's a genuine attempt to show what others are saying and also to inform. I don't expect for a minute that there will be any road to Damascus like conversions by my doing so, nor that everyone will read them.
Published sources are sometimes a good way of counterracting some opinions that are expressed.
I could have posted much much more, but I try to be selective in ensuring that the same ground is not continuously covered.
If I just posted articles and never wrote a dickie bird myself then I could be accused of being afraid or unable to express myself, this as you are no doubt aware, is not the case!
;)-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Zix:
As Garth said, the points raised by Mr Card have already been dealt with elsewhere and I can tell you that every point he makes have been made at LDS semi-annual general conferences in Salt Lake City. Mr Card couches the arguments in secular language in his article for public consumption.
I was not constructing a straw man nor attacking him personally for his religious beliefs, I was making some points about his church and their teaching and practices upon the issues, It is a fact that Mormons in good standing are expected to follow the counsel of their leaders no matter whether or not they agree with them.
I have Mormon friends, I have been to Mormon services (and enjoyed them) and I will confess that I think that their missionaries are cute. I have a great admiration for their commitment and tenacity.
But the LDS leadership is very theocratic - what matters is not what was taught or happened in the past, but in what their current prophet says which changes and outweighs anything a previous prophet has said. The current prophet (the nonegarian Gordon B Hinckley) has decided to make a big issue out of marriage, even publishing a declaration about it which many will henceforth consider to be scripture.
Privately many Mormons will not take such a view but publically they must appear as enthusiastic about it as every single Iraqi was about the glorious and inspired leadership of Saddam Hussein. Even the Pope does not excommunicate those who disagree with him, the LDS do. Not unlike TWI really....
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Trefor: No matter how you may try to justify it, what you've done is just as bigoted and prejudiced as those who think all homosexuals are automatic pedophiles. Card is no idiot, and he's certainly not a mouthpiece for the LDS church. Neither is he a Republican (surprise!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Suggestion:
Post links, folks. Not only do these full articles cover the page with seemingly endless lines of text and make discussion difficult, posting them violates copyrights.
Most of the quoted articles are not accompanied by even a line of commentary about their content. Proper (fair) use would involve selective quoting, accompanied by commentary from the poster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Garth,
As I said in my previous post, "I'm not asking for a repeat of the "equal rights" mantra." Granted, that particular time I didn't say "equal protection of the laws" (that's what the Constitution says, not "equal protection under the law") but that's been included in what I called the "equal rights" mantra. I have written fairly extensively about the "equal protection" clause of Amendment 14 of the Constitution previously in this thread. I'll quote a paragraph from THIS POST."In every State, exactly the same conditions for marriage apply to every person, without regard to sexual attraction/preference/orientation. Any legally responsible single person who is free from certain diseases may marry any legally responsible single person of the opposite gender who is free from the same diseases, unless that person is within a certain degree of consanguinity (relationship). Sexual orientation/preference/attraction is not even a consideration. The laws apply equally to every person, so no State is denying any person in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If a State were to exclude a person from marriage because of homosexuality (orientation/preference), then that State would be denying that person the equal protection of the laws. No State does that. Not only can homosexuals marry, many do."
Your smart-alec "oh looky, see what you've missed, don't I impress you" remarks serve only to denigrate yourself. I've cited that clause (correctly, unlike you) and discussed it pretty thoroughly (unlike you) in this thread. I didn't make a point regarding them. I posed some questions, aimed at thinking people. You don't know half of what you think you know. I wasn't going anywhere with this. I wasn't setting up an argument. I simply invited people to state what changes they think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships, present arguments to support their positions, and consider possible ramifications of any changes they propose. None have as of yet.The claim that marriage laws deny homosexuals the equal protection of the laws has been made and refuted in this thread several times. Even if you believe that claim, constantly repeating it accomplishes nothing. No one has offered a considered argument not based on that claim to support same-sex civil marriage or any same-sex civil instititution. I'm interested in real discussion, involving real thought, that considers how current marriage law came to be, the purpose for it, the state's interest in marriage, proposed changes, reasons for those changes, and possible implications of those changes. I am willing to redress any grievances that homosexuals or any other people may have, whether concerning equal protection/rights or something else. All I ask is that they give good reason to do so, and consider all aspects of any manner of redress they propose.
Again, no one here has straightforwardly stated what changes he/she thinks should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships or presented a reasonable argument to support adopting those changes.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I really don't understand why neither you nor Garth seem to recognize the difference between an argument and an invitation to present one. All I asked was for you to state your position clearly (what changes you think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships) and to explain why you think those changes are a good idea (present an argument to support adopting those changes) and to consider possible implications of those changes. I'm asking you to clearly state your position and your thoughts, not someone else's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Radar,
The questions I posed were part of my invitation for people to straightforwardly state what changes they think should be adopted regarding homosexual partnerships, offer reasons to adopt their proposed changes, and consider possible implications. I wasn't asking for information regarding current laws regarding incest or marriage to near relatives, but for consideration of how any changes proposed and the justification for those changes might affect the basis for other laws, the reasoning behind them. The near-relative marriage questions are only one possible consideration. No matter what changes or what reasons for them might be proposed, there will be considerations. Whether or not they would influence a decision regarding the proposed changes couldn't be known until after considering them.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Should anyone wish to respond to my invitation, I would be interested in your thoughts regarding whether and why marriage should even exist as a civil institution. Since implicit questions seem to confuse some folks, I'll pose these explicitly.
Why does marriage exist as a civil institution?
What interest of the state (if any) justifies the existence of civil marriage?
Do current marriage laws help to further that interest?
If so, could changes to those laws help to better further that interest?
If not, should civil marriage be abolished?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Aren't same sex folks getting married in Portland Oregon today?
She's the kind of a girl that makes the "News of the World" Yes you could say she was attractively built.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Radar/Long Gone: I replaced the article I posted with a hyperlink to it. Apologies for contributing unnecessarily to thread/bandwidth clutter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Why won't anybody answer my question about there "being no male nor female in heaven". And why it is so important to us here on earth?
I have asked this repeatedly throughout this thread and have not received any kind of response to it. I am especially interested in the views of those who are the right wing conservatives who are including the bible verses with their viewpoint. I am not trying to be argumentative, only asking an honest question.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Fog, I've answered you. While it is not an authorative answer, I DID answer you and did validate your question.
--------------
Here's a letter in the Arizona Republic... because it's a letter, the items claimed as fact have not been checked... anyone able to check it?
Gay marriages already plentiful
Mar. 4, 2004 12:00 AM
To those who fear the world will meet its biblical end if gay marriage is recognized in the United States, you need not worry. We won't be the first country to tempt fate. In fact, at the rate we're going, we may be among the last.
On Jan. 29, the United Nations announced that it will grant benefits to same-sex spouses and domestic partners of its employees who hail from countries that recognize such relationships.
To date, same-sex marriages and/or civil unions are legal in Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and some Canadian provinces. Gays are granted certain non-marital benefits in Australia, Austria, Hungary, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
However, if you still live in fear of WMD (weddings of mass destruction), grab your Bible and the duct tape.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Your last sentance; how clever...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
"However, if you still live in fear of WMD (weddings of mass destruction), grab your Bible and the duct tape."
LMAO. Rocky, you crack me up. Yes you have answered and I do apppreciate it. The far right wing conservatives have yet to answer this question. I am being sincerely honest by the way.
Love ya Rock,
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Rock, why do you think that haven't answered me.? Perhaps they don't have an answer!!
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I can only speculate... but I would guess that's because the fear of homosexuals is based primarily on superstition and not on biblical scholarship or godly reflection. btw, I am not the author of the letter I copied above.
:D--> You talkin to me?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
outofdafog,
Perhaps nobody answered your questions because the answers are obvious, but irrelevant to the thread. Since you persist, I'll answer several of your unanswered questions.
You asked why women labor in childbirth. Because pushing something the size of a baby through something the size of a birth canal is hard work. The Biblical answer would be that it's punishment for (or a consequence of, if you don't like "punishment") Eve's transgression.
You asked about the purpose of reproduction. Well, without it, we wouldn't be here. The Biblical answer would be that God wanted people to multiply.
You asked about why there are neither male nor female in heaven. The Bible doesn't say why, but if you believe the Bible, you should anticipate no sexual reproduction in heaven.
You asked why we're so concerned about male and female here. Aside from other niceties, the answer would be reproduction. A short Biblical answer would be "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply..." There's also the "help meet for him" aspect, which is included in "the other niceties."
I'm not a Bible believer, but I can't see how there being neither male nor female in heaven has anything to do with current earthly life, where there are both male and female, one of each required in order to "be fruitful and multiply."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Rocky,
The Netherlands is currently the only country with same-sex civil marriage. Belgium has passed a law adopting it, but the law won't go into effect until about mid-June. Canada appears ready to adopt same-sex civil marriage. The other countries listed either have no formal same-sex civil unions or formal civil unions with varying degrees of similarity to civil marriage, some being virtually identical to civil marriage, except for name. The United Nations, being the sort of organization that it is, would be expected to honor unions recognized by member nations, and grant benefits to employees accordingly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
"outofdafog,
Perhaps nobody answered your questions because the answers are obvious, but irrelevant to the thread."
I think that this question is very relevent and if you don't know the answer or have an opinion, don't just dismiss the question as irrelevant. It is relevent to me.
I am sorry but if we follow your line of logic regarding reproduction, then we are back to the old argument of old couples marrying, people marrying who do not want children yadah yadah yadah.
The answers might be obvious to you as you quote your bible verses. But you know, the only way homosexuals are born are by straight couples, some who revere their bibles.
Reproduction mandated to Adam and Eve I believe, was to bring forth the Christ child. If you believe he has been born and fulfilled the curse of the law, I believe the question about "neither male nor female" in heaven is relevant. It is a part of the curse of the law being lifted and equality for all.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
Long Gone,
Just for the record,I think you pose some very well-put questions,although to answer each,I think would require about a 500 page dissertation...Which may be why nobody's jumping at your invite...
I've thought that maybe the gov't should just stay out of marriage altogether and let it be a religious rite,or sacrament,or whatever it is called...I remember a time when hetero friends my age were referring to getting married as "making it legal"...Evidently fornicatin'was illegal,at least in some local gov'ts..I think the gov't has done a good progressive job of staying out of the bedroom,but if we're becoming an anything goes society,at least sexually,then why special sanctions,or rights,or priveleges or benefits to people who choose the traditional,biblical hetero marriage model over any other sexual arrangement(s)?...
As has already been pointed out numerous times,the gov'ts only interest should be the perpetuation of it's society through the reproduction and best possible care for children....If I live to be 80,I'd like to know that if I called a cop,or went to the doctor,or voted for the next president,that all these people weren't also 80-something because people quit producing children....
It's pretty common that now children are produced and raised without married parents...I don't know if that's an overall good thing...I suppose if a married couple raising children is the best scenario,that institution will ultimately survive...So how much involvement,if any,should the gov't have in preferring one means of rearing children over another?...I've thought that many of the marital benefits our country provides were written in the days of stay-at-home moms,whose full time job was to raise the kids while Mr. Cleaver went to the office...Couples that had no children also benefitted...I think it would be good to separate the "rights" from "benefits" as regards to the whole marriage issue...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
As much as i appreciate LG's insights, I also believe Fog's question is relevant.
From a civil perspective, I can see no problem with allowing same-sex marriage. Of course there are logistics, such as insurance and social security survivor benefits issues, but those are hardly justification to undermine the Constitution's equal protection clause or the Declaration of Independence's Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
so that brings us to the religious realm.
And for Christians, many have accepted the notion that they should not hate homosexual individuals, but still have a difficult time with various social/cultural implications.
And granted that if we accept the Bible as God's will, then there appears to be enough written to suggest God doesn't like homosexuality.
However, God also, if I read the bible (and I think I have done so before), seriously dislikes lots of other things that are tolerated in our society, cultures and even churches.
And frankly, i think Paul spelling out the admonition in Galatians that from God's viewpoint, there is neither male nor female, etc. is very relevant to people getting past their fear in considering people a little more according to how God does -- by looking at the heart.
So, while opponents of same-sex marriage will not be persuaded by me or these points, I believe same-sex marriage as an accepted cultural institution is inevitable, and is not something that is cause for such fear and gnashing of teeth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
outofdafog,
I meant no insult. You persisted in asking, and suggested that no one could answer, so I answered. If you think that the notion that there is neither male nor female in heaven has something to do with the fact that there are both here on earth, where we currently live, that's fine by me. If you think that reproduction is not important or that society's interest in reproduction and the nurture of children has nothing to do with the basis for civil marriage, that's fine by me too. Personally, I rather like the idea that there will be somebody around to take care of me when I am old, and to continue on after I am gone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Simon,
I really don't expect anyone to "jump at my invite." I am more interested in provoking thought than anything else. (That includes provoking myself to think.)
"I've thought that maybe the gov't should just stay out of marriage altogether..."
That's why I posed the questions about the state's interest in marriage. I think that the interest is legitimate, but if civil marriage no longer serves that interest well, or if we remove that interest from being the basis for civil marriage, that calls into question the justification for the continued existence of the institution of civil marriage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.