[speechlesstx]

What exactly is the point of charging Christians with observing pagan holidays? I understand too many ignore the real meaning of these celebrations but do we celebrate Christ or do we celebrate some other god? Really, I find that whole argument silly and irrelevant.

[tomder55]

Doesn't it seem to complicate things unnecessarily?

What we have is a complex issue with 2 intractable positions . The attempt here (at least on my part) is to reach an equitable compromise.

[DrJ]

Again---the logical answer is this:

NO ONE can get "married" by the state. EVERYONE must get "civil unionized" in order for the state to recognize their relationship for legal purposes.

Once you are civil unionized, THEN you can go to your church and get "married". This way, every single church out there can ONLY marry who they think their god allows them to marry.

However, since all the legal aspects ONLY come from a civil union, everyone who was married in a church ONLY will either have to be grandfathered in, or have their marriage reaffirmed by a courthouse.

This would solve EVERY problem with the whole gay marriage issue. Church and state are separated, the church can't perform a LEGAL marriage, and the state can't perform a RELIGIOUS marriage.

There's no separate but equal about this--it's straight up equal.

So--MY question is this: Why are the really religious people against this: Is it because you're losing rights that you took for granted until someone pointed out that you were discriminating against homosexuality if you didn't allow them the same rights?

Or is the REAL problem the fact that you don't like that YOUR church wouldn't be the final say on whether or not someone could say they were "married"? I mean, really---if someone says they were married by the High Priest of the Cult of Nyarlathotep for their "marriage" after their civil unionization----who could say they couldn't CALL themselves married, since they got "married" in a church?

Doesn't it really just come down to that word--married? Isn't it really that you don't want gays to have the right, no matter HOW roundabout they got it, to use the word "married"?

Sounds kind of small minded, to me.

I wish I could give little greenie things in these topics...

This is one of the most intelligent posts I have read yet.

[Synnen]

What exactly is the point of charging Christians with observing pagan holidays? I understand too many ignore the real meaning of these celebrations but do we celebrate Christ or do we celebrate some other god? Really, I find that whole argument silly and irrelevant.

The point was that the argument against gay marriage that I hear from far too many people is that it changes the definition and historical aspects of what marriage IS.

Christians define the winter holiday, with all of its trimmings, as a CHRISTIAN holiday, to celebrate the birth of Christ, with traditions that they state are all Christian traditions. Easter is considered a holy day which celebrates the resurrection of Christ.

Yet all of the traditions from both of these holidays come from Pagan traditions. The Yule log, giving gifts, celebrating the birth of the "sun" and the freedom from darkness. The tree, the ornaments, the carols---every last one of these traditions stems from a few pagan traditions to celebrate the Solstice.

Easter is a fertility holiday in pagan tradition--the eggs, the bunnies, the baskets, all of these are pagan traditions. Yet there was no problem with swiping those traditions and giving them new definitions to fit a changing society.

So essentially my point was that if a religion can take aspects of something else, basically change their definition to make it fit a "new" order---well, why can't we change the definition of marriage to fit with the new order?

The pure definition of a word or tradition changes with time. There are very few words you can find in modern society that have NOT changed in the last 500 years... and sometimes now mean the exact opposite of what they originally did. The same thing happens with traditions---see my explanations of the holidays above, or ask a family to tell you their holiday traditions going back 6 generations. I bet you find that their traditions, in just one family, have changed to adjust for the changes in society. Go back a few hundred years, for example, and you will find almost no references to celebrating ANYONE'S birthday--with the exception of Christ, of course. Yet try to tell that to even a 6 year old now, and see what their definition of a birthday is.

The point was that society CHANGES to adjust to the things that stimulate society. Why can't the tradition of marriage change, or the definition of the word?

[margog85]

What we have is a complex issue with 2 intractable positions . The attempt here (at least on my part) is to reach an equitable compromise.

Right, I understand that- but doesn't it seem like we're kind of going around in circles and adding more steps with that solution, but in the end, the result is exactly the same?

I'm not saying I have answers or a better solution- it just seems like that to me, that's all.

And honestly, I don't think the issue is as complex as people are making it out to be. Gay people want the same rights as everyone else has- the ability to marry in their own churches or by a justice of the peace, and have it recognized the same way and have the same rights.

It just seems that would be accomplished by both methods- either by separating and re-naming civil marriage and requiring people get civil unionized and then married in their own religion, or by just saying that gays can get married in their own churches if their church is okay with doing so, and then the state recognizes them as married- So if the same thing is accomplished either way, why add the extra steps and complicate the process- why, if we have the same result, make the process of getting there so much more complex for everyone?

[classyT]

So essentially my point was that if a religion can take aspects of something else, basically change their definition to make it fit a "new" order---well, why can't we change the definition of marriage to fit with the new order?

Synnen,

I think I a can answer your question. The Bible doesn't really tell us to celebrate the birth of Christ... but we do it because it is our culture and tradition. The bible doesn't even tell us to celebrate EASTER (imagine THAT) we are to remember Christ in his death by taking the wine and the bread. But the Bible never directly says.. pick ONE day and celebrate the resurrection. We are told to remember his death until he comes. All of these celebrations are man made NOT GOD made.

GOD is the one that defined marriage. I didn't. I don't hate Gay people, I don't hate anyone and I am not out to get anyone. I just want to vote the way I believe that GOD wants me to. I can't change God's order. I don't have the authority.

[speechlesstx]

The point was that the argument against gay marriage that I hear from far too many people is that it changes the definition and historical aspects of what marriage IS.

As tom said earlier and which I've agreed with is why can't we "reach an equitable compromise?" Granting civil unions with all the associated rights and benefits to me should be an equitable compromise. Marriage is more than "historical aspects" just as Christmas and Easter are more than traditions.

So essentially my point was that if a religion can take aspects of something else, basically change their definition to make it fit a "new" order---well, why can't we change the definition of marriage to fit with the new order?

What new order? Typically, a man is still a man and a woman is still a woman whether they are gay or not.

The point was that society CHANGES to adjust to the things that stimulate society. Why can't the tradition of marriage change, or the definition of the word?

Why can't gays be happy with the compromise and they do their thing and we do ours? That my friend is the crux of my objection, it is we who are always asked to compromise and it's never enough. It makes one wonder if people really want to compromise or not, and the more they refuse the more I will dig my heels in. I have to take a stand somewhere or I would not be true to myself and my values.

[tomder55]

Like I said ;intractable positions. You see it as a right . But really it is not from the religious viewpoint.
Sacraments are considered gifts.No one is entitled to them.

[excon]

like I said ;intractable positions. You see it as a right . But really it is not from the religious viewpoint.
Sacraments are considered gifts.No one is entitled to them.

Hello again:

I don't know why this part continually gets glossed over, because it IS central to the argument. As long as the government bestows "rights" on the married, then getting married IS a right. It ISN'T a privilege. It isn't a sacrament. It's a RIGHT!

I don't care what you want to call it in your church. I don't care ANYTHING about your church. My argument has NOTHING to DO with religion. It has to do with the state granting "rights" to some of the people, but not to others.

THAT is ALL this is about.

excon

[classyT]

Hello again:

I dunno why this part continually gets glossed over, because it IS central to the argument. As long as the government bestows "rights" on the married, then getting married IS a right. It ISN'T a privilege. It isn't a sacrament. It's a RIGHT!

I don't care what you want to call it in your church. I don't care ANYTHING about your church. My argument has NOTHING to DO with religion. It has to do with the state granting "rights" to some of the people, but not to others.

THAT is ALL this is about.

excon

Ex.. you said it was UN-Christian like. We are responding as Christians (at least I was) and defending why it wasn't UN-Christian.. I gave you my Christian answer... hmmm? Did that even make sense?

[tomder55]

Ex what I have offered in my answers addresses your civil concerns.

[margog85]

like I said ;intractable positions. You see it as a right . But really it is not from the religious viewpoint.
Sacraments are considered gifts.No one is entitled to them.

Just out of curiosity then...

... why don't Christians get upset at atheists married by the justice of the peace calling what they have "marriage"? They clearly didn't enter into their marriage as part of any religious sacrament, nor do they view it as such.

And if some Christian churches, which see marriage as a sacrament, believe that gays can receive this gift as well, why should one church dictate what another church can do? And really, if sacraments are a gift from God, and certain churches or religions believe that their God offers this gift of marriage to everyone... how can a church dictate what another church believes their God can do?

[excon]

Hello margog:

You just make entirely too much sense.

excon

[margog85]

I think so too... lol

Thanks. :)

[speechlesstx]

Oh come on, it was a good question but it's not that difficult to understand why a Christian doesn't get upset that atheists get married by JP's. Do we really have to spell it out?

[margog85]

Yes, please.

[inthebox]

Hello again:

I dunno why this part continually gets glossed over, because it IS central to the argument. As long as the government bestows "rights" on the married, then getting married IS a right. It ISN'T a privilege. It isn't a sacrament. It's a RIGHT!

I don't care what you want to call it in your church. I don't care ANYTHING about your church. My argument has NOTHING to DO with religion. It has to do with the state granting "rights" to some of the people, but not to others.

THAT is ALL this is about.

excon

Many Obama supporters also backed Prop. 8

What "right" is deprived that can't be had by civil union?

Why your OP against right wingers and not Obama supporters, or blacks that favored a ban on gay marriage by 70%?

Gay-Marriage Ban Protesters Target Mormon Church : NPR

Why do they protest Mormons and not blacks or latinos?

[Galveston1]

I'd like to know where in the Bible God gave the definition of marriage, actually.

How about here?
Matt 19:4-5
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
(KJV)

[Galveston1]

Are you saying that I am defective because I am infertile? Seriously?

I'm not a lesbian, but I AM infertile----and that attitude is EXACTLY why infertile couples don't usually advertise WHY they don't have kids.

And by that token---are those couples that CHOOSE not to have children useless because they don't reproduce? Are they EVIL because they choose not to add to the growing population problem in the world?

Honestly, i think there are more Christian ideas that are "defective" than non-christian ideas. And again---anyone arguing that God says that marriage is a man and woman becoming one--and thank you for the quote--should NEVER get divorced, nor believe in divorce, because you're cleaving apart what GOD made to be put together.

If you're protesting gay marriages, you should ALSO be protesting divorced people being able to remarry in the church, because by the church's definition, they CAN'T divorce---GOD made them one, and only GOD can part them.

Actually, God permits divorce when either party breaks the marriage contract by infidelity.

[Galveston1]

In reading all these posts (or most, anyway) something comes to mind.

The same source, even the same passages, that we Christians believe condemns same sex unions also condemn adultry, fornication, incest, and bestiality.

So why is there so much push to change the very concept of marriage? Why not legalize and promote EVERY form of deviant sexual behavior?

Oh, well, I expect that will begin sometime next month.