May I just ask a question to some of our theological and learned members in this forum concerning proposition 8?
Basically, those who are proponents of gay marriage argue and say that marriage is not only a religious term, but a civil term in its own right; and that gays having the legal right to marry in no way impacts the faith term of marriage or the sacrament of marriage.
Is this true? Is marriage a civil term or a religious term?? Which is it? Did the civil society adopt this term from the religious society, or was it vice - versa? Did the religious community adopt this term from the civil?
Comments
Whether it is legalized as civil or not, since OT in the eyes of the Lord this particular 'marriage' is clearly an abomination and detestable.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&verse=22&version=31&context=verse
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=20&verse=13&version=31&context=verse
Romans 1:26-32
"26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."
Long before (and also after) marriage was established as Holy in the Church, people had (and still practice) 'civil' marriages, like agreements and marriage contracts since early history - that is in all past and present civilizations. Of course that is not the same thing at all as the Holy Sacrament, it's totally different.
GBU
Now this is a very perceptive question. Before one can even begin to grasp the depth of the question though, one would do well to unearth the hidden assumptions. Gay marriage may appear to be a merely theologically tainted subject when one considers the recent social movements made in the name of civil authority to resurrect the issue under purely political grounds. Nevertheless, I find that such a maneuver is at best, an unsuccessful joust at thin air. Furthermore, the terminology used in the question is loaded. The issue surrounding gay marriage, in particular, is no more than an offshoot of the issue of evil, in general. The question evoked is not really one of whether gay marriage is an issue for civil or moral authorities, but rather whether or not the issue of marriage in general is theologically relevant. Now here I find that the antagonists of church-authoritative marriage will often argue that marriage is a commitment made between two people and by two people and, thus, is in no way relevant to theological bastions or particularly to God. I ask then, can the secularist rightly deem that marriage has indeed lost its stronghold of sacredness and that the doorway of discussion should be adamantly shut in God's face? Well, I think rationally that such a proposition proves to be far from the case.
For starters, the question evokes a moral law. The question really presumes that certain rights and infrastructures of freedom are substantially imperative to moral consequences. So, in essence, the skeptic is really asking "Is it not wrong of the church to impose sanctions upon a right that is constitutionally amended to every individual?" Now aside from the obvious dilemma one must face in terms of the theological implications constantly tailgating the Constitution, let us grant, for the skeptic's sake, that an individual has earned his rights apart from a constitution founded by religious tenants. The question still presumes a moral absolute. Namely, that it is absolutely unjust to impede upon another's civil freedom or inherit right. Nevertheless, in order for moral absolutes to hold steadfast in a world of relativized opinion, an absolute Moral Law Giver must be presumed. So that the question, unveiled, must really ask; "Is it not morally wrong for an individual to impede on another's freedom, given that moral values do exist and have their origin in God?" Yet, as the old addage applies, “beggars can't be choosers”. One cannot borrow from the theistic world view in order to jettison it from a particular frame of reference. The question presumes the existence of God and then attempts to subtly ignore His presence. For, if moral values do exist, where moral rights cannot be violated, then a Moral Law giver must exist to which all values naturally stem. Yet, if marriage, an institutional nexus established by God is the topic at hand, then wouldn't it be more immoral for an individual to take God out of the picture in assessing marital rights than it would be for one to include Him? Thus, the question not only proves to be unreasonable, but ultimately self-negating. For, without God in the paradigm the question becomes morally insignificant and meaningless. By the same token, keeping God in the paradigm already assumes an answer to the question being situated.
What's worse is that the first and second premises of this argument, with premises one and two respectively claiming; that marriage is a sacred bond that should be left unviolated and that theological prerequisites violate the sacred bond of marriage; hold to the assumption of a First Cause for unification. Specifically, unless unity is an objective value in the framework of the question, the question cannot entrust any sense of particularism between a couple and their sacred rights. At best, the question would only tickle the notion of an implicit or assumed unity within marriage. But then, what would the fuss really be all about? Couldn't a homosexual couple engage in a loving relationship without an affirmation of their unity? What the second premise wholeheartedly presumes, is that there is a civil right for homosexual couples to not only declare their right to a loving relationship, but to have such a right officially undergirded by the state as well. So objective unity, where an actual explicit unity of two persons is acknowledged, has been evoked by the question at hand. Yet, then the real question remains; where does such objective unity originate from? Now, in order to avoid an infinite regress of potential causation the skeptic is forced to assuage the reality of a First Cause. However, this means invoking an uncaused, infinite, personal Agent, that is able to beget harmony in a state of chaos and discord….namely, God. Yet, isn't that who the question is explicitly trying to avoid? Without a first Cause of unity, unity ceases to be meaningfully objective. Objective unity in marriage requires an initial starting point that can only be logically fulfilled by a personal Agent who can create cord out of discord. Thus, so long as God is invoked in the paradigm of the question, the question cannot be meaningfully answered with God dejected from the framework of the answer. Otherwise, the question literally becomes self-destructive. I would add that on a theological note, the only God who can fit the role of a First Cause Unifier is the Christian Trinitarian God. For, aside from the Trinity, every other God must implicitly lay siege to an isolated existence before the creation of our world. A Trinitarian God, however, can uniquely and unblushingly lay claim to an initial unity by His very nature; primarily unity in the community of the Trinity. Every other God falls outlandishingly short of the mark for first cause unification. Thus, the question posed no longer remains as thorny or as aggressive as it first makes itself out to be. Ultimately, the question self-destructs leaving the remnants of it's scattered pieces in a uniformly structured pattern, with the answer so perfectly manifest for anyone who takes the time to look at the pieces from a bird's eye view. The question is not really then whether "marriage is a civil term or a religious term??" but, whether marriage can be a civil term in lieu of it's religious backdrop.
God Bless.
personally i think the government should not get involved in social issues but that may be beside the point
one must take a close look at the Constitution and what the founding fathers ment and it is clear that what they meant by marriage was man and wife so the question realy then becomes in my mind of is America sticking with its founding fathers or is it going to re interpret the constitution
i see a trend in history that countries that lose there morality dont exist for vary long
NESS<><
May I just ask a question to some of our theological and learned members in this forum concerning proposition 8?
Basically, those who are proponents of gay marriage argue and say that marriage is not only a religious term, but a civil term in its own right; and that gays having the legal right to marry in no way impacts the faith term of marriage or the sacrament of marriage.
Is this true? Is marriage a civil term or a religious term?? Which is it? Did the civil society adopt this term from the religious society, or was it vice - versa? Did the religious community adopt this term from the civil?
Hi QT,
As you may know Prop-8 has been defeated in California. As a result,the supporters of gay marriage are running amok, so to say.The proponents of gay marriage will always come with myriad ideas to justify their case. For example, the ungodly is defining marriage as 'alternative lifestyle' or a 'common-law relationship'.They use such politically correct terms to deceive the gullible and naive.Political correctness is employed to make the evil appear harmless and is actually one of the greatest evils that is out there these days.It has distorted things beyond recognition and the world has become sick and twisted. People would not know the truth if it hit them in the face. Now,God does not call Fornication and living together outside of marriage an "alternative lifestyle"- He calls it SIN.God is not politically correct.God calls it as He sees it. Sin is sin and evil is evil. The Lord does not mess around with words.He calls things what they really are.
As a matter of fact, here is what God says about political correctness, "woe to those who call evil good and good evil',Isaiah 5:20.
Hi gmankbadi,
I read what you wrote, but I did not understand its relevance to the topic.You lost me through the jungle of your writing. Could you sum it up in a paragraph or two?
May I just ask a question to some of our theological and learned members in this forum concerning proposition 8?
Basically, those who are proponents of gay marriage argue and say that marriage is not only a religious term, but a civil term in its own right; and that gays having the legal right to marry in no way impacts the faith term of marriage or the sacrament of marriage.
Is this true? Is marriage a civil term or a religious term?? Which is it? Did the civil society adopt this term from the religious society, or was it vice - versa? Did the religious community adopt this term from the civil?
In Roman Law we see that marriage as a civil institution existed long before Christianity. In ancient Roman times a marriage or 'matrimonium' in Latin was a substantial relationship between a man and a woman where the woman lived together with the man and where they mostly had a 'familia' which in the ancient times meant joint goods, and the 'pater familias', the head of the family, if you will, was the one who managed the goods of the members. Children born out of a matrimonium were automatically given civil rights as their father. (Not everyone had civil rights in Rome initially..).
So marriage is not a christian invention, and when christianity came in Europe they took the concept of the Roman civil marriage over, but of course with a few changes.
God bless
[quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=7281.msg96482#msg96482 date=1225308223]
May I just ask a question to some of our theological and learned members in this forum concerning proposition 8?
Basically, those who are proponents of gay marriage argue and say that marriage is not only a religious term, but a civil term in its own right; and that gays having the legal right to marry in no way impacts the faith term of marriage or the sacrament of marriage.
Is this true? Is marriage a civil term or a religious term?? Which is it? Did the civil society adopt this term from the religious society, or was it vice - versa? Did the religious community adopt this term from the civil?
In Roman Law we see that marriage as a civil institution existed long before Christianity. In ancient Roman times a marriage or 'matrimonium' in Latin was a substantial relationship between a man and a woman where the woman lived together with the man and where they mostly had a 'familia' which in the ancient times meant joint goods, and the 'pater familias', the head of the family, if you will, was the one who managed the goods of the members. Children born out of a matrimonium were automatically given civil rights as their father. (Not everyone had civil rights in Rome initially..).
So marriage is not a christian invention, and when christianity came in Europe they took the concept of the Roman civil marriage over, but of course with a few changes.
God bless
This has nothing to do with the Romans, Marriage has been around since the very beginning, you cannot tell me that Adam and Eve were not "married" it might not have been called that then but its the exact definition of it. Society took it from religeous practices. The Romans came after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Romans came after Moses. The Romans came after all of these people. Marriage existed from the beginning, infact in the rites we have for marriage, passages of the OT are read which shows how long this sacrement has been around.
God Bless and Pray for me and my weakness
My point is, that marriage is not a monopoly of the church, the existence of civil marriage and the fact that people in the past and today still get married even if they don't believe in religion has to do with judicial and economical benefits they might enjoy while in marriage and also because it's a way to express their commitment to eachother and to the world.
And this is why I (in my personal humble opinion) am not against civil gay marriage for they are citizens just as the rest of the Americans and it's thus their right to get married and I really don't see why the church has to interfere with that. For they're not getting married in church and the state isn't forcing the church to marry them there, so neither should they interfer with state matters that have nothing to do with them. I don't think it's necessary for me to point out what happens when religion iterferes with state matters and how that may lead to discrimination of certain minorities...
God Bless
In Roman Law we see that marriage as a civil institution existed long before Christianity. In ancient Roman times a marriage or 'matrimonium' in Latin was a substantial relationship between a man and a woman where the woman lived together with the man and where they mostly had a 'familia' which in the ancient times meant joint goods, and the 'pater familias', the head of the family, if you will, was the one who managed the goods of the members. Children born out of a matrimonium were automatically given civil rights as their father. (Not everyone had civil rights in Rome initially..).
So marriage is not a christian invention, and when christianity came in Europe they took the concept of the Roman civil marriage over, but of course with a few changes.
God bless
That marriage is of biblical origin is clearly recorded in Genesis. 'And Adam said ,This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh"
Another example that Marriage is not Roman inventionand had long been around before is evidenced in Genesis, when Jacob asked Laban for the hand of his daugher Rachel and Laban replied , "It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one"
Levticus 21 has almost a whole chapter about the biblical rules that govern the institution of marriage.
Then in the NT,the Lords said, I did not come to abolish the laws of Moses but to fulfil them.In regards to marriage he said " So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate". The epistles of St Paul are replete with many examples that explicitly show that Marriage is a sacred sacrament that is of devine institution.
Furthermore, I do not think that banning gay marriages is the practice of religion having a say over state laws. Even the most atheist would oppose to this kind of marriage, because he would tell you it was contrary to the laws nature. This week those who voted against the union of same sex marriages in California did not so because they were overwhelmingly concerned about their christian values but because,there will always be things that society is reluctant to accept. Political religion has other dimensions and consequences and is much more evil and devastating than the simple ban of whole bunch of hybrids.