When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.

[Charles Austin]

Can we "honor" the social contracts of the secular world, and would that not include a marriage contract or at least a contact of something between two people?

[peter_speckhard]

A hitman can have a contract to violate the 5th. We don't honor it. Why does making a contract out of something or mutually agreeing to it suddenly make it okay?

[Tom Eckstein]

Hebrews 13:4:  Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Hmmm, if marriage should be honored by all, wouldn't that mean that y'all should honor same-sex marriages?

No.  God wants us to honor marriage between one man and one woman.  Any other "marriage" is not MARRIAGE.

[Charles Austin]

But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a "family-like" unit of society? Take the "m" word out.

[Brian Stoffregen]

A hitman can have a contract to violate the 5th. We don't honor it. Why does making a contract out of something or mutually agreeing to it suddenly make it okay?

Because it's better than the alternative; and it's legal.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Hebrews 13:4:  Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Hmmm, if marriage should be honored by all, wouldn't that mean that y'all should honor same-sex marriages?

No.  God wants us to honor marriage between one man and one woman.  Any other "marriage" is not MARRIAGE.

That isn't what the passage says. In fact, nowhere in the Bible does it say that a marriage is between one man and one woman; but if that's how you want to limit it; then I also have a right to say that "by all" means "by all" and "marriage" means all legal marriages.

[Charles Austin]

Brian said it. We speak of a legal contract.

[Dave Likeness]

Holy Scripture reminds us that there are 3 purposes of a marriage instituted by God
between one man and one woman.

1. Companionship....God did not want Adam to be along so he created a woman Eve,
to be his companion and helpmate.

3. Reproduction.......God wanted man to be fruitful and multiply so he created a woman, Eve
to be his partner, so they could procreate and have children

3. For the Sake of Morality....God does not want men and women to be tempted by sexual
immorality, so He instituted marriage where one can be faithful to one's spouse..

[Steven W Bohler]

But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a "family-like" unit of society? Take the "m" word out.

No.

[Jim Butler]

But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a "family-like" unit of society? Take the "m" word out.

But if it's just a "legal contract" (as you and Brian have argued) then why stop with two people? Why not a "civil commitment" among three or more? Why not "honor and respect" a multiple partner arrangement? Polyamorous parties are already arguing under Obergefell that their marriages should be recognized. So far, courts have resisted this. But frankly, under the Kennedy's reasoning, there is no reason not to recognize them.

Brian has stated that "nowhere in the Bible does it say that a marriage is between one man and one woman." If that is the case, then marriage is simply a social construct and ultimately meaningless.

You can't have it both ways. Either Scripture has a definition of marriage which is between one man and one woman for life or it is simply a human construct, e.g. a legal contract. If it's the latter, then marriage has no meaning and there is no reason to limit it in any way.

[Dan Fienen]

Can we "honor" the social contracts of the secular world, and would that not include a marriage contract or at least a contact of something between two people?

We live in a pluralistic society. That means that in many aspects of life, we do not share a commonality of beliefs. But despite our disagreements over many aspects of life, we as a society need to craft ways for us to live together in our society without unduly burdening those whose beliefs differ from ours and showing at least a modicum of respect for them. In the history of our country, that has been very difficult to do and far too often that ideal has not been lived up to.

Same sex marriage is legal in the United States. While many believe that to have been a good idea and same sex marriage to be moral and right, many others believe that to be immoral and contrary to God's will. In a pluralistic society like ours, both points of view need to be respected and ways devised for people holding either belief to function in society without having their beliefs unduly burdened.

The proposed equality act seems to have abandoned that pluralistic ideal in favor of proposing that the position in favor of same sex relationships, transgenderism, and abortion be clearly the preferred position and providing that those whose beliefs dissent from those positions be burdened without recourse.

Now I can understand that those whose beliefs are not affected by the new regulations see no problem with them. They are religious and their religion is unaffected. If your religious beliefs are affected, perhaps you need to find new beliefs that will unproblematic? Easy peasy.

So yes, those of us who believe that same sex sexual relationships are contrary to God's will and immoral need to recognize that in our society such relationships are accepted and granted legal status. But we can also request that our differing beliefs be also respected and not unduly burdened simply because burdening them would be pleasing to some and easier.

[David Garner]

But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a "family-like" unit of society? Take the "m" word out.

But if it's just a "legal contract" (as you and Brian have argued) then why stop with two people? Why not a "civil commitment" among three or more? Why not "honor and respect" a multiple partner arrangement? Polyamorous parties are already arguing under Obergefell that their marriages should be recognized. So far, courts have resisted this. But frankly, under the Kennedy's reasoning, there is no reason not to recognize them.

Brian has stated that "nowhere in the Bible does it say that a marriage is between one man and one woman." If that is the case, then marriage is simply a social construct and ultimately meaningless.

You can't have it both ways. Either Scripture has a definition of marriage which is between one man and one woman for life or it is simply a human construct, e.g. a legal contract. If it's the latter, then marriage has no meaning and there is no reason to limit it in any way.

Ironically, there is also no reason for government to be involved in it at all.  It renders Obergefell as no more than naked social engineering.  The entire basis for government recognition of and protection of marriage falls to pieces if it's just an "all sorts of human relationships and who are we to judge them" sort of thing.

[Dave Likeness]

Our current secular culture fell into the trap of redefining marriage:  It says that marriage
is a relationship between two people who love each other.   Of course this opened the door
for homosexual marriage to fit that definition.  However, God instituted marriage as the
committed relationship between one man and one woman.   

There is only one type of marriage in God's sight.  The marriage of one man and one woman.
They are able to enjoy the companionship of the opposite sex, the opportunity to create
children, and a permanent relationship that reinforces the need to avoid the temptation
to sexual immorality.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Holy Scripture reminds us that there are 3 purposes of a marriage instituted by God
between one man and one woman.

1. Companionship....God did not want Adam to be along so he created a woman Eve,
to be his companion and helpmate.

3. Reproduction.......God wanted man to be fruitful and multiply so he created a woman, Eve
to be his partner, so they could procreate and have children

3. For the Sake of Morality....God does not want men and women to be tempted by sexual
immorality, so He instituted marriage where one can be faithful to one's spouse..

There's a fourth biblical picture (mostly from Song of Songs): pleasure. As the ELCA's so-called First Draft stated: "The pleasure of mutual erotic love is strongly affirmed."


My theory is that the earliest humans did "it" because it was pleasurable, not because they properly understood that "it" produced children. (We might also wonder if the desire for sex is innate. Do humans carry an instinctive drive like the animals to do "it"?)

[Brian Stoffregen]

But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a "family-like" unit of society? Take the "m" word out.

No.

What happened to "love your enemies?"