A question for christians accepting of homosexuality

[KabeRinnaul]

One major issue that's been central for the last page or two of this thread is the difference between a civil union and a marriage. I think that really, the problem here is one of definitions. I'm going to go ahead and lay out exactly what Kheldarson means by the terms she's using.

Civil Union: A legal/social contract between two people that impacts taxation, inheritance, and legal family ties, etc. Essentially, a marriage by law.

Marriage: A religious ceremony and sacrament where two people swear their devotion to one another witnessed by their church and God. A marriage by the church.

What the fight has been about, really, hasn't been the definition of Marriage (though that is a major side point), but the definition of 'civil union'. Now, I'll go ahead and say that my beliefs are very similar to Kheldarson's, but the major difference is I wasn't raised Catholic like her, so I don't know all the existing dogma as well as she does. Instead, I try to work these things out for myself.

Now, as for the argument. Yes, a Law-Marriage as it stands has a great many benefits that a Civil Union does not. They are separate and horribly unequal, and that's fair to no one. But I don't favor a Civil Union being one thing and a Law-Marriage being another thing. I favor a Civil Union being the only form of legal "marriage" contract, and a Law-Marriage being nothing. I think the legal and religious sides ought to be entirely divorced (pun unintended) from one another.

If two people want to have a relationship right in the eyes of their God and in the name of tradition, they get married. Regardless of faith or sex.

If they want to be legally declared a couple and get special tax rules, medical power of attorney for one another, and a preferred place in inheritance, they get a civil union. Again, regardless of faith or sex.

And by that first point, I don't mean that anybody should get to be married in any church. Whether or not a church marries you is up to the rules of the church and the inclinations of the priest, etc. I just mean that the term "marriage" shouldn't be solely the domain of heterosexual Christians.

[Kheldarson]

Sure, why not? Seperate the two concepts entirely. Have a civil union ceremony with the justice of the peace one day, and a religious marital ceremony the next. Or same day just later and in a different place. Then we all know what we're talking about and not confusing political judgement and religious judgement.

[ladyneeva]

So only religious couples get to use the term married? Thats odd, I haven't seen a single thing about heterosexual non-Christian or even non-religious couples being forbidden to use that term.

[Kheldarson]

But the initial question of this thread was about Christians and accepting homosexuality. Ergo, this thread, from what I understood about it, was how Christians can or cannot accept homosexuality based on what is stated in the Bible in the Old Testament. Ergo, my religious beliefs are on the table in this discussion.

Because again. I agree. Allowing civil unions in state law has no effect on my religion as long as the state doesn't require my church, or any other church, to have to recognize said unions.

I have just been stating that according to the definition of marriage and the sacrament of matrimony in the Church, my chosen faith, there are issues with homosexual marriage.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

And finally, again, I do not believe that the state or the church should be able to make decisions about the other's realm (political vs. moral/social). But at the same time, it is wrong to say that the Church cannot be allowed to make declarations against certain things. Part of the problem is terminology. Marriage versus civil union. The other problem is the fact that any Catholic within an extramarital relationship is considered in a state of sin and not within communion with the Church body. And the Church, particularly in the United States and other first-world countries, is seeing an increasing problem on that side of things. So She speaks out against anything that would encourage it.

And again, you're religious beliefs aren't on the table here. If same-sex marriage is legalized, you aren't required to change your beliefs or practices in any way. There's a fine line between expressing an opinion, and actively seeking to effect lawmaking based on that opinion. When a church influences the passing or repealing of a law based on their dogma, they are forcing their beliefs on other people. Civil unions as of now are woefully inferior to marriage, and by the simple fact of being separate, the two will never be equal. In order to provide the same rights to same-sex couples, marriage as a legal contract must be available for them. Again, this is marriage as a legal contract and NOT marriage as a religious ceremony/belief.

By allowing the legal union of two persons (aka marriage) to include same sex couples, said couples are elevated to legal equality in the eyes of the law. To prevent or reverse this is to make them unequal. Since the religious definition of marriage is not effected, there is no valid religious basis for preventing such a law from being passed.

Your problem seems to be that you can't tell the difference between marriage, the legal contract, and marriage, the religious practice. While similar in many ways, the two are separate, individual constructs. Changing one doesn't change the other unless either:

A: A church decides to change their views to match the law.
or
B: A government chooses to legislate based on a church.

B is against the rules in the U.S.A. and A is against the rules in most religions. Therefore, doing either is a breech of their respective rules.

I urge you to read this one carefully, and point out any point on which you think I'm wrong specifically. The points are:

1: Legal and religious marriage are separate constructs.
2: A disparity or change in either construct does not mandate a change in the other.
3: Laws legalizing same-sex marriage change legal marriage ONLY.
4: If the above are true, religion has no right to affect said laws.

[Kheldarson]

Actually, my religious conviction is based on my research and study. So it's not blind faith or acceptance. But that's really neither here nor there since I doubt anybody here will take that one on blind faith either.


As to your first point, I believe I have said a couple of times I have no problem with same sex civil unions. None. Frankly the legal side of things is about taxes and I don't really care about tax law at all as long as it's fair for everybody. Including partner status.

Next point, while yes, it is easy to believe that people won't spend the rest of their lives together, I also do not understand this sudden disbelief in people being able to spend the rest of their lives together. The point of dating/courtship/betrothal is supposed to be finding out if you're compatible enough to spend the rest of your lives together. There's not supposed to be a rush to get married. Because, yeah, if you are in particular religious groups, there is an expectation that you will remain in the covenant of marriage and stick to your vows.

And finally, again, I do not believe that the state or the church should be able to make decisions about the other's realm (political vs. moral/social). But at the same time, it is wrong to say that the Church cannot be allowed to make declarations against certain things. Part of the problem is terminology. Marriage versus civil union. The other problem is the fact that any Catholic within an extramarital relationship is considered in a state of sin and not within communion with the Church body. And the Church, particularly in the United States and other first-world countries, is seeing an increasing problem on that side of things. So She speaks out against anything that would encourage it.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

First, I'm going to say that personally I believe that we should have a split between the sacrament of marriage and civil unions. I have no problem with the idea of the state saying that two people can legally join their assets and be legally tied together no matter what gender. I think that churches should determine what constitutes a sacramental marriage within their community. I'm Catholic, therefore, the tenants of the Church are what I adhere to. Can't be Catholic and disagree on major doctrine, ya know?

As for your other statements, one, the sacrament of marriage is the Church's business as it's a sacrament. This is a Big Deal thing. Marriage in Chuch Tradition is symbolic of the Holy Trinity.

Two, why is it hard to imagine people being willing to stay together for as long as they live anyway? It's called commitment. It's called compromise. God doesn't give up on you or your marriage covenant, why should you? On the other hand, there is the annulment process. But you have to prove that the basic tenants of marriage have been violated.

Three, I'm going to throw that one back to my first statement. I'm not a priest. I'm not the pope. And I'm not God. If a priest says that they're fine to marry in Catholic ceremony, then that's fine with me. I can only tell you my understanding of what I've read and been taught.

Which comes to your last point. I don't agree with legislation on moral topics as is, particularly at a federal level. I don't think it's right for the Church to tell the state who they can consider a couple for tax and legal purposes, but I don't think it's right for the state to tell the Church whom they have to unite in a religious ceremony.

Where to start? hmmmm...

Well, first of all, no one's saying there shouldn't be a split between what a church holds to be a sacrament (or equivalent) and what the law defines as a marriage/civil union etc. No one's trying to legislate your religion in the slightest, you can believe whatever you want (as a person, community or religion en masse). Same sex marriage simply means the extension of the legal term marriage to allow for same sex couples or the elevation of civil unions to exact equivalency to marriage. However, the second is somewhat tarred by the oft-proven 'separate = unequal' scenario, and thus the first method is far better. Still, this only effects the legal definition of marriage, not it's religious status.

Second, it's very easy to believe that people won't be able to live together for the rest of their lives. People make mistakes, people change, but most of all, people turn out to be far different than they at first seemed to be. In each case, to force either party to remain together despite incompatibility is nothing short of cruel. Compromise isn't always possible, nor does it always solve the problems it's applied to. As for unquestioning/blind commitment... it has little or no value to those for whom it isn't a virtue.

Okay, so you're not willing to make theological decisions for yourself, that's cool, if it works for you. Still, there's no reason why those religious decisions should impact other people's legal status/horizon. To do so (i.e. disallowing same-sex marriage for all because you don't like it) is, if anything, worse than any meddling with your religious views (Again, that's not what's happening at all. The only definition in dispute is a legal definition).

Lastly, for the four millionth time, we AREN'T telling your church what to do! Not one same-sex marriage law on the books anywhere forces any church in any way to do or not do anything. It simply allows individuals to enter into a legal contract. The involvement of a church is not in any way required for the legal process. When one is involved, it's because that church voluntarily chose to allow it based on their own creed, just like any other. The ceremony isn't touched, the bible isn't touched, you're beliefs aren't touched.

Moreover, there's hardly a legal dispute in history that can't be seen as a moral debate. Is it right or wrong to:

Tax rug makers?
Allow the registered purchase of automatic weapons?
Ban books about communism?
Arm police officers?

All of the above *could* be seen as a right/wrong decision. But the truth of it is that the grand majority of the time such values are tacked on afterward. Laws either expressly allow or expressly forbid certain actions. To allow is not necessarily to advocate, nor is to forbid necessarily to condemn. Morality remains individual, and those things proven to cause unacceptable threat to life, property, liberty or limb are avoided.

[Kheldarson]

Well, that's between the people in the marriage, isn't it? Why should it be the church's business if the couple has an "open" relagionship?


This kind of made sense when the church was founded and people only lived 40-50 years. Now that people live twice that long, it's even more horrible to force people to stay in an unhappy marriage their entire lives.


Are you saying that couples that have made the conscious choice not to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Granted, you're free to believe whatever you like in the privacy of your own mind. It's just when you or your church tries to legislate based on your beliefs and force them on the rest of the country that there's a problem.

First, I'm going to say that personally I believe that we should have a split between the sacrament of marriage and civil unions. I have no problem with the idea of the state saying that two people can legally join their assets and be legally tied together no matter what gender. I think that churches should determine what constitutes a sacramental marriage within their community. I'm Catholic, therefore, the tenants of the Church are what I adhere to. Can't be Catholic and disagree on major doctrine, ya know?

As for your other statements, one, the sacrament of marriage is the Church's business as it's a sacrament. This is a Big Deal thing. Marriage in Chuch Tradition is symbolic of the Holy Trinity.

Two, why is it hard to imagine people being willing to stay together for as long as they live anyway? It's called commitment. It's called compromise. God doesn't give up on you or your marriage covenant, why should you? On the other hand, there is the annulment process. But you have to prove that the basic tenants of marriage have been violated.

Three, I'm going to throw that one back to my first statement. I'm not a priest. I'm not the pope. And I'm not God. If a priest says that they're fine to marry in Catholic ceremony, then that's fine with me. I can only tell you my understanding of what I've read and been taught.

Which comes to your last point. I don't agree with legislation on moral topics as is, particularly at a federal level. I don't think it's right for the Church to tell the state who they can consider a couple for tax and legal purposes, but I don't think it's right for the state to tell the Church whom they have to unite in a religious ceremony.

[Ghel]

Well, for me that's the whole point of a marriage (to be faithful to each other), but the point of a church is to tell people what to do.

In general, I agree. In modern times, even the church doesn't require a dissolution of marriage because of a single case of infidelity, as far as I'm aware.

This thread has morphed from the original topic, and since we're talking more about marriage now, I'd like to throw out what I think is a general definition of marriage. I hope that it's a definition that we can all agree on.

Marriage is a legal and social contract between two consenting adults. Social and cultural aspects may vary greatly, but legal aspects include rights to visit one's spouse in the hospital, automatic parenthood of the other's children born or adopted during the marriage, and the right to be buried next to each other.

I think folks on both sides of the gay marriage debate need to understand a few things about marriage that I've included in the definition. Marriage is NOT inherently religious. It was included in the Old Testament because, at the time, church and state were the same thing. Legalizing same-sex marriage will not force any church to perform same-sex marriages. They have the right to refuse to marry any couple for any reason, and that will not change.

[Rapscallion]

Well, that's between the people in the marriage, isn't it? Why should it be the church's business if the couple has an "open" relagionship?

Well, for me that's the whole point of a marriage (to be faithful to each other), but the point of a church is to tell people what to do.

Different people have different opinions. As long as people aren't hurt, I'm fairly easy about it.

Rapscallion

[Ghel]

There are several things needed to have what the Catholic Church considers a marriage: fidelity...

Well, that's between the people in the marriage, isn't it? Why should it be the church's business if the couple has an "open" relagionship?

...indissolubility...

This kind of made sense when the church was founded and people only lived 40-50 years. Now that people live twice that long, it's even more horrible to force people to stay in an unhappy marriage their entire lives.

...and openness to children.

Are you saying that couples that have made the conscious choice not to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Granted, you're free to believe whatever you like in the privacy of your own mind. It's just when you or your church tries to legislate based on your beliefs and force them on the rest of the country that there's a problem.

[Fire_on_High]

It is still possible for God to bring forth a child from such a union should He desire as long as you as a couple are not doing anything to prevent Him. That's the difference.

No offense, but for a God who parted a sea, and all the other things in the Bible....is a thin layer of rubber particularly gonna PREVENT him if he decides you're gonna have a kid?

[Arcade Man D]

Since the topic has started to include this other topic, I suppose I should add my beliefs on sex outside of marriage. (Short background note: my religious leanings are American Baptist, a denomination that believes heavily in the idea that each individual is capable of interpreting scripture.)

First, my view of marriage is any long-term relationship where the partners have exchanged vows of some variety expressing their unceasing love for each other. I don't believe that it matters to God whether you got married in a Catholic church, a Baptist church, a Jewish ceremony, or a Wiccan handfasting, or any other ceremony that suits the particular couple. What matters is the expression of undying love, or to use the phrase from the most popular wedding vows, "until death do us part."

That said, I believe that sex is meant for such devoted couples to express their love for each other, whether or not they want a child, or even actively attempt to prevent conception.

My earlier statement on what I believe about homosexuality and whether or not it's a sin (for those that don't want to skim back, I believe it isn't) works perfectly in light of this, even though I do believe both extra-marital and pre-marital sex to be sins, because God is not limited by laws written by humans. Whether or not a gay couple can get a legally sanctioned marriage with all the rights that go along with it, God knows what is in their hearts, and whether they have devoted themselves to each other in the manner I've mentioned above.


As for my views on homosexuality, to expound on how I came to them, I have a very critical mind. I delved into finding sources about the translations (as I don't have knowledge of Ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic), and how certain words were picked. I coupled this with the scientific studies that have shown homosexuality to be an inborn trait, and not a choice, to come to my concusion. I believe that God gave humanity free will and minds to think with not so we could blindly obey Him, but so that we could use them.

Short version for those who want a summary:

Homosexuality is not a sin.
Sex outside of a devoted relationship like marriage is.
Whether or not sex is premarital/extramarital has no reliance on legal definitions of marriage, but on the actual commitment.

[Kheldarson]

I doubt anyone is using homosexuality as a form of birth control.

What about people who happen to be infertile and are glad they are, because they don't want to have children?

Also... is adoption a sin? Because it is basically the same as saying you didn't want the kid in the first place (at least, from the perspective of a culture that actually believes you can go to hell for using any form of birth control).

I wasn't saying they were using it as a form of birth control, just that according to Church reasoning, it puts it on par with it. No openness to naturally having a child = no marriage. As for the adoption thing, my understanding is that it's based on the circumstances. Like, yes, you want to have children, and are planning on having children, and are married, but something major has happened that would prevent you and your spouse from properly supporting a child. So in the best interest of you and the child, you give the child up. That's different from "Oh, I don't want to take responsibility". And the infertile and happy, well, that one, again according to what I understand from my reading and talks with priests and others, that's more on what would happen if they actually had a child. Can't determine it until then.

Also, it is technically possible to conceive a child without having sex. Are all these people absolved of sin, cuz they didn't have sex but still created a child?

And this would be getting into the Church's stance on in vitro and other artificial semination options...most of which are yes, considered a sin.

[smileyeagle1021]

Also I find it rather... interesting that you claim homosexuality is a sin because it's sex outside of marriage, when people with that belief are the ones on the leading edge of the drive to bar marriage between same sex partners.

this is the biggest point I've made to my christian counterparts, it wouldn't be sex outside of marriage if marriage were allowed... if that is their big complaint then it is also time to enforce that rule with the politicians who are fighting gay equality (yes, I'm looking at you Nevada governor Gibbons)