Until I began paying attention to religious and conservative secular perceptions of marriage I had no idea that marriage could be so easily debased by so many.
To value marriage as a space entirely reserved for sexual propagation of the species is, it seems, a debased sense of what marriage is; a stunningly primitive sense of marriage as nothing more than a space for sexual union and procreation rivaled only by the sense---again both religious and secular, that the purpose of human life is to reproduce human life.
And so, who is really changing the meaning and definition of marriage: Advocates for same-sex marriage OR for marriage redefined as exclusively sexual and procreative?
I didn't know there were a great deal of ppl that define marriage the way you have described.
Honestly, I don't know anyone personally who does, but if you listen to those speaking a case against same-sex marriage, this is basically what you hear.
It is quite appalling to listen and read exactly what opponents of same-sex marriage do have to say---and much of what they say is an endorsement of a debased sense of marriage; debased at least in terms of how most Americans would define their own marriages.
Hmm. That's an interesting observation. Those ppl would be missing out on quite a bit if that was their sole interpretation for marriage.
It is interesting to me that even some religious and secular conservative ethicists who have entered into this debate also claim that marriage is about sexual union of male and female---infertile or not, because this particular form of sexual union is "procreative" by "design".
I cannot think of a less ethical reason to marry than to engage in sex---even if one is making claims that such sexual engagement is definitively moral as it is potentially procreative.
I suppose that would carry you into a whole different argument, namely individual's perspectives on the issue of homosexuality. Is that the topic you are actually wanting to discuss?
I am really increasingly interested on how a debased notion of marriage underwrites religious and conservative arguments against same-sex marriage.
As I said, I haven't really heard anyone espouse those views, which doesn't mean they aren't out there... there are probably 6 billion views in the world. I just imagine that the core of your subject is the basic principle of how one views homosexuality.
No actually, because those who support marriage as entirely for procreation do not support companionate heterosexual marriages as understood in contemporary society either.
http://www.frc.org/brochure/the-bibles- … and-family
Well I saw that the language he used when discussing the things you mentioned were words like *aspect and *common elements... so I'm thinking he wasn't saying sexual relations were the only reason for the marriage... that seemed to be merely a part of his discourse.
"*These aspects of marriage *These common elements"
Saying, "marriage is far more than a human social contract; it is a divinely instituted covenant."
And then when he stated what, biblically, he believed marriage was intended for, he actually said these 5 reasons were the main purpose.
Marriage is intended to be permanent
it is a relationship before and under God (sacred)
Marriage is the most intimate of all human relationships (one flesh)
Marriage is a relationship of free self-giving of one human being to another (mutual)
The exclusiveness of marriage (exclusive)
He then goes on to give his understanding of divorce, homosexuality and singleness, but I didn't get quite the same msg. you did that marriage was intended for sex alone.
The funny thing about your statement is your qualification of your views. "Until I began paying attention to religious and conservative secular perceptions of marriage" has a connotation that there is only a religious slant that has authority to speak to your opinion. That because of that, a legal instrument could be introduced to replace the religious one is wrong to take its' place is foreign to the argument and tries to place validity once again towards that side of the argument. I really think the whole idea of marriage is to establish a relationship between two people who bond on a spiritual plain and wish others to respect their rights to continue with a societal acknowledgement (law). Thus their belongings. property and yes children are acknowledged and protected them from society in the event such a relationship is challenged by the state, any other individual or each other if you wish to get legally involved in it.
Absolutely not. Religion and its definitions of anything (let alone marriage) are entirely irrelevant to me. My point is that while living in my secular bubble, I had little sense of the debased conservative religious view or "definition" of marriage that permeates marriage-related discourse. And then, I started paying attention.
I apologize for my misconstruing your statement. It sounded different then in your reply. Many confuse marriage as a definition by religion. The effort of the religious establishment is to liken it to a relationship shared with God and not one of the legality. My answer to that frame of thought is why does it have to be governed by mans court system and not taken to task with strictly the religious repercussions?
I think you made the OP's case. Recognizing that you wish to force your religion onto others, a big part of the "reasoning" in your blurb is that people are "pluggable"; that is, marriage is mostly about sex.
Of course that has zero to do with the LGBT crowd asking for the same right to love as you do, but it is a common reaction from the Christian far right. As mentioned by the OP and repeated by you.
I could not agree more. To liken human beings and the complexities of affections and attractions that bring us to marriages---regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners in those marriages, to outlets and plugs does make my point that a Biblical or Christian or conservative definition of marriage distills and debases marriage to one space: sex.
I find human beings reduced to outlets (females) and plugs (males) and marriage reduced to an conduit for sexual reproduction to be quite disgusting.
And please excuse any terms that can be misconstrued as efforts at electrical wiring humor. They are purely unintentional...
As an electrician in another life, your comments might be construed as offensive. Probably not as trades people are pretty rough around the edges anyway, but maybe.
But not nearly as offensive as those in that blog.
It is not disgusting to think about humans like that; think about it, it is true. The penis was made for the vagina! That's that. And I wasn't being offensive; I was just stating my right to have an opinion that is different from yours.
As far as I'm concerned, the idea that a penis and vagina determine what a marriage should be about isn't offensive, just silly. The sexual act has little to do with marriage; marriage is and should be about love and to think otherwise denies marriage to a whole group of people that cannot perform the act. A paraplegic, maybe, or quadriplegic could not marry by your requirements.
The offensiveness comes with the idea that praying over a gay person can somehow "cure" them. Impossible, as hundreds and hundreds of people can acclaim to - the same people have have received great psychological damage by people telling them they are "demon ridden" or hated by their God or some other foolish notion. That you promote the same concept is offensive indeed; we have far, far too many cases showing the opposite to believe a myth from the mists of antiquity that says it is true. To continue to propagate that old myth is irresponsible at best - considering the people that have been badly hurt by the concept and that we know there is no demon sitting in their brain it borders on evil.
God created marriage as a gift between a man and a woman. Two men together or two women together pervert that.
God did not create marriage. It is solely a human invention. An invention that has had numerous forms through the millenia; that the current fad in the US is one man with one woman does not make it the only way or even the oldest way.
Who do you think created the humans? You think we just "appeared" out of nowhere, or developed from monkeys? Not so.
Not so? Do you have proof otherwise? I don't want to hear some ridiculous story of human origins that includes a talking snake!
As a matter of fact, monogamous one man/one woman marriage isn't even the preferred marriage of your the Old Testament of your Bible!
Since you perceive no offensiveness in reducing human beings and marriage to sex and apparently appropriate plug-ins, then should one assume that you would also see no offensiveness in suggesting that people who are different from you---in terms of their sexuality, are demon-possessed?
I'm just going by what scripture says. I'm not making this up by myself.
Not everyone believes what "Scriptures" relate as truth. In fact, the Scriptures are inconsistent in their own claims as to what is the truth.
But, I guess this is what happens when---over hundreds of years, men (and probably some women) write assorted narratives and stories (some fiction, some fact, some an amalgam of fiction and fact; some philosophies, some rhetoric, some fable, some prescriptive) that are then collated---even more hundreds of years after the fact, by a group of bureaucrats seeking to reinforce the social and geopolitical authority of an emergent power.
Quote, please, where scripture says that demons enter the minds of newborns to turn them into homosexuals?
Saying things like this does not make them true, you know.
Not a damn place. I've read the bible several times. It's simply not in there. Jesus never said a word about homosexuality... it would have been odd if he had, since the word did not exist in any language then, but since he didn't... I'm gonna go with what Jesus said.
Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Adulterers and witches will not either. It say it in the Old Testament. And I am sure they had a word for homosexuality in Jesus's time, as homosexuality was practiced by the Romans, Greeks, and other ancient sinners.
Go ahead and find that word then. I'll wait.
You didn't answer my question. And you replied with something that wasn't in the bible either. And I don't care about the old Testament, I'm Christian, not Jewish.
You have to believe in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament; You cannot pick and choose what you are going to believe in. You cannot live in sin by being with other women and expect to be saved. You must repent of your sin, and just go out with men. You must give yourself over to Christ, 100%.
Yeah, I'm not Baptist either. "Being Saved" is a crock made up by churches not the Bible. You aren't telling the truth... which means you will not enter the Kingdom of God. Sorry.
I'll not go out with men either. That would be a sin.
And I follow Christ. You apparently follow Jewish law directed at Levite priests... but only one verse of it.
I am telling the truth. You say you've read the bible? Did you not understand it? I suggest you reread it, and choose The Message bible, because that translation breaks the word of God down into layman's terms, that you can understand. Jesus says specifically that the ONLY way to God was through Him. He mentions hell many times in the bible. If you were a true believe you would know that!
Yeah, my reading comprehension is quite good. I don't need any words broken down for me. I don't need you to tell me what a true believer looks like... you obviously don't know yourself or you'd be one.
Does that mean that the requested quote is not available? That the bible does NOT say demons attaching to newborn babies are the cause of homosexuality?
Why would you ever make such a nasty claim then? Just to hurt someone different than you are?
She's saying things that are not Biblical...
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves"
Doubt it. The claims from this one are just too far out. No one could actually swallow that demons swoop down at birth and latch onto the brain stem of babies being born, turning them into evil homosexuals. Well, maybe Phil Robertson, but no one else.
I know this. Although she actually is going against several things that Jesus actually said... and telling me I'm not a real Christian because I'm not going against what Christ said as well. It's not exactly hypocritical, but it's ironic as hell.
They always do, don't they? Go against the teachings, that is?
Unable to browbeat others as they wish, they will "demonize" (no pun intended) them with some wild tale until they feel superior. It seems necessary for some folk, however odd it may be.
We'll see on Judgement Day who's a true believer. You know NOTHING about the bible.
You are the one who is deceived. You know NOTHING. Are you Mormon? A Jehovah's Witness? What church do you belong to?
Uh oh - the "not a true Scotsman" fallacy. Those people not agreeing with you are not true Christians, are they?
I must pray on this conversation,
It's obvious that Matthew 7:15 applies to your posts... as well as Romans 16:17...
But I'm torn, because Galatians 6:1 also applies.
Who said I was going anywhere? I'm just rolling my eyes, because what I am saying is biblical. Y'all just don't get it.
Oh I get it, you are relying on one verse (repeated twice) in the Old Testament that was in a book meant to pertain to Levite priests to judge homosexuality.... adding your OWN non-biblical nonsense about demons and babies... and ignoring Christs directives to not judge.
I get it just fine. You follow the way of levite priests, not Christ. Good to know. I follow Christ though, so yeah... I'm the true Christian.
Go ahead and make fun of me all you want. Blessed are those who are made fun of for believing in God. Jesus did really say that in the New Testament. Look it up.
Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what he said...
I'll get on looking that up immediately...
Blessed are those made fun of... right? That's in the version of the Bible where demons chew on babies' heads, right... That's the Bible by Bubba version, right? Cause I'm not finding it in the KJV.
Believing is God is not the issue here, reading comprehension is.
Go ahead. Actually read the bible for the FIRST time, will you?
I have read it and you seem to be on the wrong side of the argument. Perhaps you need to quote the verses you think we are misunderstanding. Then you might see why we don't interpret them like you do.
I've read the Bible several times... that's why I know that demons entering babies to make them gay ISN'T in there. Perhaps you should read it... you know... instead of making stuff up.
Wait, she claims that nonsense comes from the Bible? Really?
@Lybrah: The Bible may be full of some really dumb tripe, but at least it's not stupid enough to suggest that imps latch onto babies in the womb, as you claim. Not even Final Fantasy XIII, a game with a storyline so preposterously brainless that it is often dubbed the worst-written plot in the history of fiction, is that inane and stupid.
Actually, the term "homosexual" is a late 19th century term developed by the then emergent discipline of psychology.
The concept of a homosexual as an identity was unknown to the Greeks and Romans as it was unknown to anyone who lived before psychology determined a label was needed.
What was known---before the label, was that some men and some women engaged in sexual acts with others of the same sex.
That said, Jesus makes NO reference to homosexuals or homosexuality---at least not in any of the collated and published books that it was agreed would become the so-called "New Testament".
And remember, just because someone does not agree with you OR is not a follower of whatever religion it is that you follow, does NOT mean that they know nothing or are not a "true believer" or that they are damned or sinners or going to some imagined hell.
I completely agree with you that we must believe in the Old Testament as well as the New. However, in that belief is also the understanding that there were no Christians in the old testament. The laws of the OT applied to Jews and Levites. Now, with that having been said, Christ's teachingsmade no mention of homosexuality. And Christ's example was one of love and tolerance for all. Even looking at the scriptures you mentioned in 1 Corinthians, that was more of an admonishment against judging and witnessing against your brother and he was speaking of OT law. Still no real mention of Christ's teachings.
Everyone not going to heaven has a demon embedded in their brain? And your god burns those people for an eternity because of that demon?
Doesn't sound much like a "loving" god to me...
He is a Just God. People will answer for their sins.
Just, perhaps. At least by His defintion.
Loving? Caring? Gentle? Kind? Not a chance.
Evil? - absolutely. Burning someone for eternity because god allowed a demon to attach to a newborn infant is evil.
His definition is the only one that will stand in the end. You commit an offense against a Holy, Righteous God? The penalty for sinning against God is far greater than the penalty for sinning against a human or an animal.
I don't like your god. When I pay the price for something I was forced to do, that I cannot stop (demon determining my actions) I have a real problem with any creature ascertaining what that punishment will be. After all, I didn't offend; the demon did, using my body to commit the sin.
But then, your god is well known for punishing people for something their great-great-great grandfather did long before they were ever born. This seems more of the same; just flail about with the punishments whenever a sin is detected; He might connect with the right person somewhere in the mass of hurt and damaged people He strikes.
I think your god needs to grow some morals. The non-Christians of the world can help there.
The demon does not commit the sin for you; it entices you to sin, and you yield to it.
The demon is powerful. You cannot battle a demon by yourself. You need Jesus to fight it with you. If you try to go up against a demon alone, you will fail.
Well, that's kind of what I said, isn't it?
God let the demon grab those people, He refuses to kick it out, and will therefore burn them forever. Not a creature I would have anything to do with, then, let alone worship. Certainly not a loving or caring god, just an evil one more interested in punishment than love.
I've battled and destroyed many demons successfully with no help from Jesus. Considering demons are just figments of peoples imaginations, it's really quite easy.
I've defeated many demons. They're worth roughly 550 EXP each, resist Fire, are weak to Cold and Radiant, and deal 1d8+11 damage with their melee basic attack.
Will women who cut their hair "inherit the kingdom of God"?
How about men who eat pork and shellfish?
And what about the woman who disobeys her father and refuses to have sex with some guys he invites into his house as guests?
Why is it that you are so focused on homosexuals?
No gays, no adulterers, no witches?
Heaven is empty.
And not only empty, but devoid of some of really good souls.
do you eat shrimp? Do you wear clothing of a cotton/poly blend? Those things are both abominations in the old testament. Which means you must be demon possessed as well, right?
I'm wondering why you aren't posting threads about divorce? Why, again, aren't remarried couples possessed by demons?
Scripture does not say that demons possess babies and make them gay.
I did a little research on this claim.
A similar claim was made by Pat Robertson.
Robertson claimed that demons cause homosexuality though it does not appear that he claimed babies were demon possessed and converted to homosexuality.
But, Robertson has also claimed that second-hand clothes may be demon-possessed, and therefore, before wearing them they should perhaps be exorcised.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/26/p … ossession/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 … 66810.html
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Timothy 1:10
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
...And? Where are the demons? Where are the references to possession?
You're really bad at this.
What am I really bad at? Bad at what? What I am telling you is the truth. You're just refusing to listen.
The bible refers to them as "unclean" spirits. Unclean includes homosexuality.
There is NO truth whatsoever in the any statement or in any idea suggesting that the body of an infant can be possessed by some demon and that demon can then conjure that infant's future sexual orientation. None. Zero.
That said, you need to offer the exact chapter/verse in your Bible that makes the claim that demons enter into the beings of infants and of those demons then convert the infant to homosexuality. You need to offer the exact chapter/verse in your Bible that makes this wild and shocking claim.
The demons-in-the-baby's-brain bit is not in the Bible. Can't you concede at least that much?
Ok...so women ARE safe; women CAN engage in homosexuality and not be punished.
So...lesbians are safe and can inherit the Kingdom of God?
As or thieves, the New Testament says that Jesus told the common thieves crucified with him that:
‘Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise.’
So was Jesus just trying to make them feel better? Was he uninformed?
The thief next to Jesus repented of his sin. That is why he got saved. Homosexuality refers to both men AND women. Lesbianism is not okay, either.
So tell me, if an infant or a baby dies and that infant or baby had not yet embraced your faith and has not yet repented that "original sin" that you presuppose, does that infant go to hell?
It's called the age of accountability--that's the age where the human (child or adult) can distinguish right from wrong.
Oh boy! Another medieval Catholic invention being passed off as scriptural!
You really are full of delightfully amusing faux pas-es.
Yes, along with making **** up and claiming it was in the Bible. Claiming it was God's words.
Jesus has a bit to say about people who make stuff up and claim he taught it.
Doesn't the Book of Revelation also say something about taking away or adding to the scriptures ensures a place for that person in the lake of fire?
EDIT: Yep, Chapter 22.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Lybrah must be in some really hot water.
so on top of finding the scriptural reference for demons possessing fetus in the womb in order to make them gay, please also find a scriptural reference that mentions the age of accountability. Go ahead. We'll wait.
But, but, but... someone actually needs to read the bible (not just read the passages their "preacher" tells them to) to know what's NOT in it. Obviously, quite obviously, if you don't then you'll believe any wild crap (Demon hit lists for example) that someone says is in there.
It's really funny how these evangelical types don't even know what is or isn't in the Bible, especially considering it's their argument for everything, wouldn't you agree?
Unfortunately, I do agree. You can't quote mine it and hope to get any real understanding. And once you do read it all the way through, all you want to do is go into a corner and cry for a bit. THEN is when the real learning starts. People might come to different conclusions, many become atheists, many who remain Christian are changed, but it does aid in understanding.
But she's read it in the most unreliable translation known to man, and her ideas are ALL biblical. Yet she can't provide the verses.
It's okay, Lybrah. i know that the message often doesn't have verse listings for more coherent reading. The book and chapter reference are fine. Go ahead.
39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Do point out where the repentance is. And here's a hint: Acknowledging one's misdeeds != regret for misdeeds.
That guy had the fear of God in him, when he said "Remember me when you go into your kingdom" he was asking Jesus for forgiveness.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit either, I take it?
"Remember me" means exactly that--"remember me." That guy was saying to Jesus that, when Jesus goes to the kingdom he's always talking about, it would be nice if he would remember that that guy died right alongside him. It's not a request for forgiveness at all; it's a request for remembrance. There is a clear and obvious difference.
That is exactly what he meant! He meant forgiveness! He believed that Jesus was the son of God. Since he believed, he got saved.
ROFLMAO... yep I know it. It doesn't say what you think it does... but since you're just randomly pulling bible verses out of google, you wouldn't know that.
Once again, you are telling me things against my teaching. Christ says people who do that should have a millstone around their neck and be thrown into the water.
Please sister, find Jesus.
"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God" Please find Jesus, for the sake of your soul.
You are deceived. I'm not worried about myself.
To be fair, you did mention that you deal mostly in the new testament and as that particular scripture is in the new testament it could easily be applied, or it would if the book of 1 Corinthians were the actual words of Christ (whom we are commanded to hear) and not Paul. But I forgot the rest of my point so never mind.
I'm honestly curious about this. You said that the scriptures state that demons attach themselves to babies at birth and that is what makes them gay? When I read this, I searched different bibles including (in hardcover) my parallel bible which contains both the amplified version as well as the original KJV, also the NLJV, and my wife's NIV. Then I consulted my Bible app that has the original Greek and Hebrew translations along with a Strong's concordance and I was unable to find this information. Could you point a fellow Christian to those scriptures? Thanks
Your claim that "demons" attach themselves to the brains of homosexuals at birth is appalling and leaves me speechless, commentless.
Your claim that one can "pray the gay away" would be amusing were it not so potentially destructive.
OMG! I didn't get that far - unbelievable!
And you're right - such crap is incredibly destructive.
I'm only half-possessed. I must have gotten a lazy demon. I'm too busy praying for the strength not to strangle bigots to worry about praying the bi away.
Oh yes...some of us are more possessed than others. Even demons, apparently, can not all be counted on to give 100% to an assigned task...
If Conservatives are hell-bent to uphold the "traditional definition" of marriage, they sure as hell better be ready to uphold the traditional definition of divorce. And I, for one, would love nothing more than to see the horizon-blocking wall of corpses that were once divorcees killed in the name of God's law.
Unfortunately, we are beginning to see conservative legislative efforts to change divorce laws in the US.
by Jack Lee5 months ago
Let's just cut to the chase. I have initiated a discussion here on hubpages forum regarding the media and conservatives but here is the bottom line.This is an appeal to all liberals and progressives...and...
by Christina5 years ago
Why is there so much controversy over same sex marriage?
by Kylyssa Shay23 months ago
What is your definition of marriage itself? Let's compare definitions to discuss marriage equality.I think there's a confusion regarding the definition of marriage because there are different assumptions about what...
by Elizabeth3 years ago
If you oppose same sex marriage, what justification do you have for condemningI get that the bible says it's a sin, but people are not putting gay people to death (mostly) in society today. I want to know why YOU...
by Felixedet20005 years ago
What do you think about the promotion of same sex marriage?The adoption of this pattern of marriage is also a source of concerns to various stake holders in the religious and political circles.What is you say in all...
by Josak5 years ago
I struggle with the gay rights issue, with most partisan topics I can see the other side of the argument and even have doubts about my own position, this is not one of them. The congregation of people getting together...
Copyright © 2018 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.