I have mixed feelings about a Presbyterian convocation recently held. At least they have tabled the discussion of the nature of marriage for another few years before rushing off the deep end like they have done concerning who is now allowed to be clergy.
The Orthodox Church has always been consistent about service in the church (we have always had married priests as well as monastic ones), and about the nature of marriage: a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one. 'Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church...' is powerful advice. A wife is naturally going to love a husband like that -- 'wives, see that you reverence your husbands'. A truly Christian husband - someone who imitates the Saviour and models His life to his family - is going to elicit that reverence and respect (and deserves it).
Marriage functions as the kernel of a family unit - and we have all been born into one. God himself instituted it that way, between a male and a female. This type of relationship should begin sanctified in church, and God smiles on it, because it means so much more than a physical attraction.
There are practical legal aspects to this covenant, norms that are seen as advantages. I can see why two men who choose to live together or two women who do so would want to have their arrangements legally recognized if their involvement is serious. (Funerals, life insurance, mortgages, and the like -- it's not on the level of the holy and blessed) If civil unions are an idea for which the time has come, these legal advantages are what civil unions should encompass; people do this anyway and it's better to avoid legal messes that come after their relationships come to an end. (A great number of them do...)
It is indeed a sacrilege, however, for two people of the same gender to have a sham performed in a church building. Whatever their arrangements entail, they do not meet the definition of a true marriage bond, because miracles and blessings cannot happen in that context as they do between a potential mother and father. The Sacrament of Marriage is never performed for two people of the same gender in the Orthodox Church; on the grounds of sheer absurdity. Better a civil union than a slap of God's face.
Authentic marriage, I beleive, is a matter of the heart, and of the mind, and the fact of this type of marriage is naturally consecrated by God, for he knows the heart and mind. No peice of paper ever brought two people together, and no paper ever kept them together. That is a thing of man's construction. You mention Orthodox, is that asin Eastern? At any rate, I have heard a little about your path. I beleive that we aren't supposed to judge. The world will go the way the world is supposed to go, and we are to keep our speech minimal "Yes or No" cold or hot. Leave judgement to the judge. Amen
It is true, Mr. Barnett, that indeed, we are not supposed to judge the sinner, because, after all, God loves the person even if He abhors sin. It is for this reason that I consider civil unions a viable alternative for people of the same gender who want to live together. The world goes on going on; what people do is none of my business, but I needed to vent about flawed theology, in defense of one of the Sacraments of the Church. I am sorry if I have offended you in doing so. I still feel that 'Marriage', per se, is something mystical that God instituted between a man and a woman as a sacrament. It actually involves the man, the woman, and God Himself. Anything else does not meet that definition and would not make sense to solemnize in any church, being absurd.
Marraige predates Christainity and is exists in non-Christain nations and families, so I don't see how Christianity can now "own" the institution and determine who has access to it.
It's a given that Jews, Greeks, Egyptians and pagans had equivalent rites. What I am saying is that I can't understand why anything but a truly Christiian marriage ceremony should be performed in a church building or blessed within a Christian context. There are other contexts for other faiths, and a civil context for people regardless of their faith or lack of it.
When it comes to Christian sects who want to bless same sex marraige, well--that is up to them I think. The congregation decides what they do in their shared holy places. That is their right too so long as it is within the law. I had a long talk with one Anglican priest who officiated in gay weddings and he was a pretty erudite and reflective person--he and his congregation were worshipping and acting as they thought they should to please God.
That may be the perspective of your church, but other churches support gay marriage and want to celebrate them just like any other marriage. In a nation founded on the principle of freedom of religion and separation of church and state, it is unconstitutional for your church to dictate to other churches whether they can or can not celebrate gay marriage.
Gay marriage proponents are not trying to force your church or any other church that opposes gay marriage to perform marriages for gay and lesbian couples. The Bill of Rights protects your right to refuse to perform such ceremonies and will continue to do so. All we want is:
a) for churches and other religious organizations that DO wish to perform gay marriages to have the legal right to do so if they choose, in accordance with their own religious beliefs, and
b) for gay and lesbian couples to share the same civil rights and responsibilities as straight couples - a few states currently offer identical rights, but most do not, and since gay marriages are not federally recognized they are essentially dissolved simply by crossing state lines if the couple should happen to travel or move to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriages
Kerryg, you nailed it.
Further, it seems to me that the state (and the fed) must recognize any marriage performed in a church, regardless. See, if they'll recognize a Christian marriage, a Jewish marriage, a Hindu marriage, etc, then under the equal protection clause, and the establishment clause (take your pick, they both seem to apply) a marriage between any people performed in a church has the same weight as any other marriage performed in any other church.
So, if a church (Christian or otherwise) performs a marriage between two members of the same sex, then that marriage is legally identical to any other marriage.
Nobody is legally required to approve of a same-sex marriage, mind you, only to recognize that it is legal and binding.
Dave Barnett said ...Authentic marriage, I beleive, is a matter of the heart, and of the mind, and the fact of this type of marriage is naturally consecrated by God,
If this is true then why not keep the arguement ,,, there also?
Following Jerami's drift...
There are marriages that are not authentic , for they there is no unity of the heart and mind and thus NATURALLY are not consecrated by God....
Therefore that which is most important is ....the state of the heart and mind....
The children of God will understand both positions while the world would understand neither.
Whosoever seeks after the wisdom of God will not judge a thing before it's proper time. for what so ever judgement YOU.. pass you will be judged by the same.
BUT the Spiritual man knows all things and his judgement is correct.
MOst christian judge these things by the written Bible thus heap condemnation upon their own selves and unnecessarily upon other... For they knows nothing of the things they speak.
I don't have the sources at hand to qualify what I'm writing. (If I can find them, I'll supply them...)
But there is mounting evidence that "Christian" marriage was a result of "buying" a service with a kind of certificate saying your marriage is sanctioned by God. It was, in essence, a tax to church-goers. If you didn't get married in the church, by a priest or presiding leader, you lived in sin, thus were not sanctioned by God, and threatened with excommunication. It was a way of controlling the masses, taxing them and "making them pure."
Now if you take that in context of what marriage was before such taxation, it was an agreed upon union between two people, that carried with it the same basic promises made to each other as exists to this day. The difference? One was paid to "God" and the other was either not paid for at all, or paid to an government agency of some kind.
Gosh, Adam and Eve must have lived in sin their whole lives.
You are absolutely correct.
It wasn't that long ago ... back up in the mountains
... All that was required was a public anouncement.
Hay everybody !!! She's mine; don't be messing with her!!
and I am hers.
I'm pretty sure that is all that used to be required
from God. A piece of paper didn't really mean anything.
The wisest man in the Christian Bible had 700 wives
Jacob had three. God did not object.
He who breaks the hymen has found his wife.
This is why virgins were so much in demand. Gods people knew that according to holiness and gods best for them, that the hymen was to be intact upon wedding night. Another reason why the parents let the women marry early in life.
As the temple has the holy of holies that was protected by a veil, so the womans parts are set up the same way. The man enters the holy of holies by entering through the veil (hymen).
This is another reason why raped women were made to marry the man who raped her. In gods eyes the man married her. And believe me the rest of the girls family made sure she had a good married life. lol. They were on that *snap*. He didn't get off easy at all. Jewish people never forget.
No document is going to establish a marriage in gods eyes, because each man is already married to the girl whose hymen he broke regardless of which female the guy is married to or however many years ago it occurred. So the world is full of adulteries UNLESS you repent! according to the biblical scripture and god will forgive this breaking of the hymen and in gods eyes you can marry the one that god sends your way, in your new christian life; if she has a hymen, woohoo! thats a rockin situation. The marriage after repentance will be likened to sexual intercourse.
The 'marriage of society' is not a part of gods system of doing things. Indeed a male and female can be married in the eyes of God and not have a document from the earthly authorities.
Yes give to caesar what is caesars, but who was caesar? A tyrant king who conquered and invaded israel and was living there by force. This saying had many different meanings to many of the jews at that time.
Authentic marriage is a Christian institution!?
It is a strange topic; I think marriage started from Adam and Eve; and it was as authentic as it could be.
Marriage has got nothing to do with the present "Christianity" invented by Paul. Neithe Paul did marry no Jesus, as per Bible, so marriage has not authenticity in Christianity.
As per Quran Jesus could have married and have had children; it is a norm of the Messengers Prophets of the Creator- God Allah YHWH; and very naturall which Christianity lacks.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
What do you wish to share with others about the facts concerning marriage in general. It has a long history. What about marriage interests or benefits YOU?Or is there anything about marriage that irritates you or does...
by silverstararrow16 months ago
Hello everyone! I've been on HP only for a short while, three weeks to be exact. In that time, I've come across one prominent topic on both the forums and the questions section. The Gay Issue. Why people are gay, how...
by Felixedet20004 years ago
This may sound absurd to anyone who is carnally minded, but if i am given the benefit of the doubt i want to believe that same sex marriage is antithetical to what marriage stand for any way you look at it. Argument in...
by Dale Hyde4 years ago
I am amazed that the passage of legalized gay marriage in Maryland is heavily contested by the "churches". What does gay marriage have to do with "faith"? And... why do they care or even want...
by Leta S7 years ago
I'm so proud of my adoptive home state (went to college there) of Iowa for lifting the ban on same sex marriage in a unanimous Supreme Court ruling.Justices wrote that they had “excluded a historically disfavored...
by WayneAnsell17 months ago
Should the government allow same sex marriage?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.