Posted on 03/25/2013 7:39:25 PM PDT by lonestar67
4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Jesus’ words in Matthew 19 constitute the awkward rhetorical cornerstone of why gay marriage cannot be legal. A popular aphorism among anti-conservatives is: “What does Jesus say about homosexuality?” The unspoken argument warrant is the idea that Jesus says nothing about homosexuality and therefore Jesus’ followers should follow his lead of silence on the matter. I like to ask what did Jesus say about ‘heterosexuality’? It is at this point that it becomes possible to realize that the entire essentializing system of psychology surrounding human sexuality is highly suspect. This is a rhetorical system that is designed to reify sexual behavior and offer it as the cornerstone of human identity. This reification is highly unstable even in activist communities identifying as homosexual. Jesus’ words go to the heart of the theological matter by harkening back to God’s original suggestions in Genesis. God made humanity in forms of male and female. That peculiar difference is the heart of the matter that makes marriage necessary. Men and women are different and find one another relatively incomprehensible. Marriage is the religious sacrament that provides the potential for keeping this incomprehensible pair together. The lack of diversity in same sex relationships is perplexing to the proposal of founding marriage upon this. Almost every human being is presently involved in a same sex relationship. Many people go decades avoiding relationships with the opposite sex. In fact, same sex relationships make the long term avoidance of the opposite sex within the confines of a limiting relationship such as marriage entirely possible. The insistence that same-sex marriages are a statement in favor of diversity is plainly untrue. These relationships are profound statements of sameness. Jesus’ statement defends God’s purpose in maintaining diversity. It is not a statement about the psycho-sexual categories invented by thinkers such as Sigmund Freud. In fact, the normativity of same sex relationships is apparent throughout human history. The greeks were apparently quite comfortable about this practice. The practice of same sex sexual relationship is apparent in almost any time period and most cultures. This exposes another peculiar argument fixation about same sex relationships and marriage. These relationships are exotic and peculiar. This exotic notion is its own form of heteronormativity. Presently, American soldiers are advised not to comment on the prevalence of same sex relationships among Taliban commanders and militants. Societies like the Taliban utilize same sex relations as a social vessel for sexual activity and then use different sex relationships for procreative goals. These societies exist throughout the world and history. Honest intellectual brokers of sexual history such as Michel Foucault acknowledge this but the complicated reality of global sex is hidden from Western and American audiences in order to play an irony against the normativity of “heterosexual sex.” Many of America’s sexual fundamentalists know better but play coy [a sexual fundamentalist is someone who essentializes human identity from sexual practice]. The emergence of long term monogamous different sex marriage is a peculiar and distinctive social practice that exists against global norms. Its emergence is undoubtedly predicated on statements like those offered by Jesus. The challenges are immense since biology demonstrates a history of difficulty with monogamy. The peculiar observation that same sex marriages might be more stable and long lasting is missing the rather obvious point that Jesus highlights-- male/ female marriage involves the management of profound difference. By now it is possible that any lingering readers opposed to this thesis have moved on to the notion that the separation of church and state does not allow the government to limit marriage on the basis of religious warrants like those offered by Jesus. Here again the gay marriage advocates are being profoundly ironic. Stop and look at the text of the first amendment in its first clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Anti-conservatives are generally delighted to invoke the religion clauses to protect the state from the influence of the church. They seem incapable of recognizing when the state threatens the church. Here is a perfect case. Marriage is an establishment of religion. It is sometimes difficult to imagine what might be an establishment of marriage. Surely marriage is an establishment of marriage. Regardless of how the government might interpret or modify marriage, it is unconstitutional to do so and such actions constitute a violation of civil rights for the religious communities that derive these customs. This is why both the Defense of Marriage Act and various rulings for gay marriage are both unconstitutional. Could the state make other rules modifying religious customs with which it disagrees? Might the state conclude that communion ought to be more broadly understood as honoring not just the body of Christ-- but Buddha and Mohammed as well? If the convention of marriage is to change, only religious bodies could do this. For the state to do this would violate the ‘separation of church and state.’ While that metaphor is rather rough and possibly counter productive-- if it is to have meaning it must apply as much to a hostile state as a hostile church. Gay marriage instituted by Courts and legislative bodies violates the expectations of the religion clauses. Like most young people, when I graduated from college, I thought gay marriage should be legal. After watching literally thousands of people debate the matter and thinking through the competing views, it seems apparent that same sex marriage should not be mandated by the state.
Please try that again. It is unreadable and maybe worth reading.
gay marriage is neither
Personal thoughts
yep they can F off, this family will never accept it and as for the usual trolls which pretend to be republicans or conservatives who only thinkig taxes and debt is important then they too can F off.
Half baked idiots who shout the usual Govt out of it are pushing a communist agenda and should understand what they are pushing and who invented that agenda .
Kids do better with a mother and fatherm seriously a man likes to get off with another mans ass, have anal sex and push feces or a woman think she hates a guy so she wears a steap on to pretend she is a guy and act like a guy during sex
and they think that is normal and they shoud play family and raise children plus taking them to freak parades and no I;m sick of hearing the usual of “I know some and they are nice , they love each other and I do;t care”
Just because youknow someone does nto mean you give up on children , America, the future and your morals
4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Jesus’ words in Matthew 19 constitute the awkward rhetorical cornerstone of why gay marriage cannot be legal. A popular aphorism among anti-conservatives is: “What does Jesus say about homosexuality?” The unspoken argument warrant is the idea that Jesus says nothing about homosexuality and therefore Jesus’ followers should follow his lead of silence on the matter. I like to ask what did Jesus say about ‘heterosexuality’? It is at this point that it becomes possible to realize that the entire essentializing system of psychology surrounding human sexuality is highly suspect. This is a rhetorical system that is designed to reify sexual behavior and offer it as the cornerstone of human identity. This reification is highly unstable even in activist communities identifying as homosexual.
Jesus’ words go to the heart of the theological matter by harkening back to God’s original suggestions in Genesis. God made humanity in forms of male and female. That peculiar difference is the heart of the matter that makes marriage necessary. Men and women are different and find one another relatively incomprehensible. Marriage is the religious sacrament that provides the potential for keeping this incomprehensible pair together.
The lack of diversity in same sex relationships is perplexing to the proposal of founding marriage upon this. Almost every human being is presently involved in a same sex relationship. Many people go decades avoiding relationships with the opposite sex. In fact, same sex relationships make the long term avoidance of the opposite sex within the confines of a limiting relationship such as marriage entirely possible. The insistence that same-sex marriages are a statement in favor of diversity is plainly untrue. These relationships are profound statements of sameness. Jesus’ statement defends God’s purpose in maintaining diversity. It is not a statement about the psycho-sexual categories invented by thinkers such as Sigmund Freud.
In fact, the normativity of same sex relationships is apparent throughout human history. The greeks were apparently quite comfortable about this practice. The practice of same sex sexual relationship is apparent in almost any time period and most cultures. This exposes another peculiar argument fixation about same sex relationships and marriage. These relationships are exotic and peculiar. This exotic notion is its own form of heteronormativity. Presently, American soldiers are advised not to comment on the prevalence of same sex relationships among Taliban commanders and militants. Societies like the Taliban utilize same sex relations as a social vessel for sexual activity and then use different sex relationships for procreative goals. These societies exist throughout the world and history. Honest intellectual brokers of sexual history such as Michel Foucault acknowledge this but the complicated reality of global sex is hidden from Western and American audiences in order to play an irony against the normativity of “heterosexual sex.” Many of America’s sexual fundamentalists know better but play coy [a sexual fundamentalist is someone who essentializes human identity from sexual practice].
The emergence of long term monogamous different sex marriage is a peculiar and distinctive social practice that exists against global norms. Its emergence is undoubtedly predicated on statements like those offered by Jesus. The challenges are immense since biology demonstrates a history of difficulty with monogamy. The peculiar observation that same sex marriages might be more stable and long lasting is missing the rather obvious point that Jesus highlights— male/ female marriage involves the management of profound difference.
By now it is possible that any lingering readers opposed to this thesis have moved on to the notion that the separation of church and state does not allow the government to limit marriage on the basis of religious warrants like those offered by Jesus. Here again the gay marriage advocates are being profoundly ironic. Stop and look at the text of the first amendment in its first clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Anti-conservatives are generally delighted to invoke the religion clauses to protect the state from the influence of the church. They seem incapable of recognizing when the state threatens the church. Here is a perfect case. Marriage is an establishment of religion. It is sometimes difficult to imagine what might be an establishment of marriage. Surely marriage is an establishment of marriage. Regardless of how the government might interpret or modify marriage, it is unconstitutional to do so and such actions constitute a violation of civil rights for the religious communities that derive these customs. This is why both the Defense of Marriage Act and various rulings for gay marriage are both unconstitutional. Could the state make other rules modifying religious customs with which it disagrees? Might the state conclude that communion ought to be more broadly understood as honoring not just the body of Christ— but Buddha and Mohammed as well? If the convention of marriage is to change, only religious bodies could do this. For the state to do this would violate the ‘separation of church and state.’ While that metaphor is rather rough and possibly counter productive— if it is to have meaning it must apply as much to a hostile state as a hostile church. Gay marriage instituted by Courts and legislative bodies violates the expectations of the religion clauses.
Like most young people, when I graduated from college, I thought gay marriage should be legal. After watching literally thousands of people debate the matter and thinking through the competing views, it seems apparent that same sex marriage should not be mandated by the state.
I re paginated and welcome mods fixing my original post.
Sorry about that. Original paste job dropped returns.
That'll make some heads explode, lol.
Personal paragraphs?
Apart from anything about the biblical/scriptural aspect of gay marriage, it also entails a complete rewrite of the whole tax code, which is of course what the alinskyites want. As much societal chaos as possible.
I read it. Very good stuff, and you argue your points well. In fact, I can imagine it being argued in this way at the Supreme Court. Loved the part about altering communion.
Surely marriage is an establishment of marriage.
Should read:
Surely marriage is an establishment of religion.
If you think it’s wrong, don’t do it.
I’m doing my part.
Now I’m asking the state to do theirs.
The great thing about that which can even make libertarians happy— the state needs to do nothing!
It’s just common sense - marriage is between one man and one woman. It’s amazing to me that anyone would think otherwise. We already have domestic partnershps so the gay lobby can’t scream discrimination.
8 “When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you. 9 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.
Jesus referenced Sodom for a reason. He knew why it was incinerated and obviously agreed with it or he wouldn't have chosen it to point out the special hell, relative to the hell where the Sodomites deservedly are, that awaits those who chose to ignore his word.
Marriage is a religious institution and has been defined as such as the covenant-bond between a man and a woman for thousands of years. The attempts by the left to redefine marriage isn’t - at its hearet - about equal rights, it’s about destroying the religious foundation of society’s most fundamental unit: the family.
Destroy the uniqueness and sanctity of marriage and you destroy the family. Destroy the family and government fills the social vacuum left behind. And this is nothing more than replacing traditional religion with the state.
Want to know why??? The left can’t control religion, they can only try to destroy it. But if the state supersedes religion, then the left can control that and everyone affected by it. The left is nothing if not persistent in its attempts to destroy traditional American society and replace it with their godless utopia.
Well, can’t read it but the topic is correct.
I reposted it in post 5 to make it more readable. Sorry.
This is nonsense. Poorly written, not factually correct.
Actually.
No.
Your critique of the attack on marriage and the left’s discomfort with religion is sound, though your starting point is flawed.
Marriage is not a religious institution, nor is it a state institution, but a natural institution. Our Lord appealed to the order of nature in His reply to the question about divorce, not to religion. Marriage existed before God’s call to Abraham, it existed before the Law, it exists in all human societies known to history, irrespective of their religious beliefs. And, it existed before the state, before kings or governments of any sort, in tribal societies (like, for instance, those described in Genesis).
The Church blesses marriage because Our Lord sanctified it with His first miracle and because it is within marriage that the calls to chastity and fecundity (be fruitful and multiply) can be lived out simultaneously. The state, when it is not arrogating to itself the purported power to define marriage, has, in almost all societies since the advent of governments, regulated marriage as a socially desirable institution (or as a competing source of social support).
In the Christian context, oddly enough, civil marriage preceded sacramental marriage historically. The earliest form of Christian marriage was a Roman civil marriage undertaken with the blessing of the local bishop, following which the couple would receive the Holy Eucharist at the same liturgy — there was not separate sacramental rite of marriage. Within the Empire, it was only when Emperor Leo VI promulgated a novella putting the Church in charge of marriage (and adoptions of children) in 912 that a specific marriage rite was composed. In the West, only slightly earlier, the Carolingian court was militating for the blessing of a priest to be considered necessary for a marriage — prior to that, evidently, local usages existed in which it was not.
Factually incorrect - hardly! It might be a religious statement of fact (which it is) but factually incorrect...to you!.. please..
Almost everything stated in conflict would be incorrect unless your are ignorant of religious beliefs.. It is okay for you to profess different opinions but to do so with ignorance and contempt... without cause..not so nice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.