Should gay marriages be banned?

[krazeeboi]

nina said:

KB mentioned... "THAT'S what I was getting at. Marriage is the only institution that ensures the perpetuity of society, and it provides the context for optimal child rearing. Marriage is about families, and families are about children. And since two members of the same sex cannot procreate, they do not qualify for marriage. So you see, you can make the argument from a social and even a biological point of view, make perfect sense, and have no need to invoke religion."

This part "Marriage is the only institution that ensures the perpetuity of society" did not seem to hold to me because, if that's the case, it is not marriage - as an institution - which ensures the perpetuity of society. What does is the ability to physically reproduce, the "institution of marriage" has nothing to do with it. That's what lead me to asking about the difference etc...

Well, let me add to this: not only is marriage about reproducing, but also about the ability to provide the context for optimal child rearing. The key word there being OPTIMAL.

In fact, from that angle, there is no need for marriage. Marriage as an institution does not enable or impair the sexual/reproductive function. In the current state of science, even that part is not mandatory anymore to perpetuate society: people resort to in vitro fertilization and other artificial means to conceive or "have" a child they call their own..

It goes back to optimal child rearing.

Also, some heterosexual couples cannot conceive. Does that make their marriage invalid or of a lesser standard? Certainly not.

No it doesn't, but it still doesn't invalidate what marriage is all about. Just because I refuse to spend a $5 bill doesn't decrease its worth.

It's not a legal, social, biological or religious matter. It's a spiritual matter.

Actually, it's all of the above. If it weren't a legal matter, we wouldn't provide certain legal benefits to married couples. If it weren't a social matter, it would not serve as the basic building block for building a functional society. If it weren't a biological matter, then.....plugs go into sockets, I'll put it like that. And because all major religions the world over recognize the basic fact that marriage is for a man and a woman (with variations as regards quantity, but not quality or kind), it does have a religious value.

Marriage certainly originated spiritually, but that's not to say that it doesn't have legal, social, biological, or religious connotations.

[nina]

"LOL, where this come from Nina? You better stop eatin' steak before you go to bed!"

The lions ate the steak!


"Actually, it's all of the above. If it weren't a legal matter, we wouldn't provide certain legal benefits to married couples. If it weren't a social matter, it would not serve as the basic building block for building a functional society. If it weren't a biological matter, then.....plugs go into sockets, I'll put it like that. And because all major religions the world over recognize the basic fact that marriage is for a man and a woman (with variations as regards quantity, but not quality or kind), it does have a religious value.

Marriage certainly originated spiritually, but that's not to say that it doesn't have legal, social, biological, or religious connotations."

"If it weren't a legal matter, we wouldn't provide certain legal benefits to married couples."

Does that mean that the only reason which makes the issue of marriage legally arguable is finances?

"If it weren't a social matter, it would not serve as the basic building block for building a functional society. "

We know this one stopped being an accepted "absolute" a long time ago.

"If it weren't a biological matter, then.....plugs go into sockets, I'll put it like that."

Not going there.... Some plugs definitely have been plugged into the wrong sockets, I'll put it like that.
Being able is not what makes one eligible for marriage and is not what validates a marriage (even though it's legal ground for annulment)


"And because all major religions the world over recognize the basic fact that marriage is for a man and a woman (with variations as regards quantity, but not quality or kind), it does have a religious value."

Not necessarily. A lot of people have a religious marriage because of all the folklore attached to it, not for religious concerns or values.

"Marriage certainly originated spiritually, but that's not to say that it doesn't have legal, social, biological, or religious connotations."

If all those aspects, legal, social, biological and religious are only connotations to the prevailing reason for the existence of marriage, it's spiritual origin, then in whose court should all those matters be examined?

Can't have your steak and eat it too

[krazeeboi]

nina said:

Marriage certainly originated spiritually, but that's not to say that it doesn't have legal, social, biological, or religious connotations."

"If it weren't a legal matter, we wouldn't provide certain legal benefits to married couples."

Does that mean that the only reason which makes the issue of marriage legally arguable is finances?

Not the only reason, but it is a major reason. Doesn't the statement say something like "No romance without finance?"

"If it weren't a social matter, it would not serve as the basic building block for building a functional society. "

We know this one stopped being an accepted "absolute" a long time ago.

If anything, the fact that society has deviated from this demonstrates that a solid marriage (and family) is indeed the basic building block for a functional society. You think there is no correlation between all of the immorality we see around us today and the fact that the nuclear family is becoming less and less common, especially in the Black community?

"If it weren't a biological matter, then.....plugs go into sockets, I'll put it like that."

Not going there.... Some plugs definitely have been plugged into the wrong sockets, I'll put it like that.
Being able is not what makes one eligible for marriage and is not what validates a marriage (even though it's legal ground for annulment)

Actually, this IS what makes one eligible for marriage, and I'm not talking about the "plugs and sockets" themselves, but the fact that marriage is between a male and a female. As far as the law is concerned, this is the base qualification. And we know that as a rule, men have "plugs" and females have "sockets." The rule isn't made on the exceptions, but rather on the norms.

"And because all major religions the world over recognize the basic fact that marriage is for a man and a woman (with variations as regards quantity, but not quality or kind), it does have a religious value."

Not necessarily. A lot of people have a religious marriage because of all the folklore attached to it, not for religious concerns or values.

Understand something, I'm not talking about individual couples here. I'm saying that RELIGIONS have attached some type of value to marriage, and in every major religion, it is between male and female.

"Marriage certainly originated spiritually, but that's not to say that it doesn't have legal, social, biological, or religious connotations."

If all those aspects, legal, social, biological and religious are only connotations to the prevailing reason for the existence of marriage, it's spiritual origin, then in whose court should all those matters be examined?

They can reasonably be examined in a court of law. According to the Bible, governmental authority is derived from God. And understand something, the spiritual is not to be confined to its own realm without any implications for practicality. That's one of the reasons why I believe the Church is losing the so-called culture wars of today. We've bought into the notion that religion, or spirituality, is something that only belongs in church or at home with no bearing on any other aspect of life. The reason why marriage also has social, legal, biological, and religious connotations is because those realms DEMONSTRATE the spirituality of marriage. This is also why in the Pauline epistles, practical instructions often follow doctrinal precepts.

[nina]

They can reasonably be examined in a court of law.

True. Could we agree that the keyword here is reasonably? I understand that reason and wisdom are not the exclusive privilege of believers. However, it is a fact that societies in general evolve, and they do so at a higher pace than ever.
I find that some critical decisions are/have been made under pressure, political and otherwise, which hinders the reason, wisdom, and objectivity, required in such decision making.

According to the Bible, governmental authority is derived from God.

True. And we are told to obey those authorities, whether good or bad, in doing so we honour God. That's what we are told to do.
In that context, let's take for example the issue of population control. It does not make the headlines every day, but there is a lot happening on that, worldwide.
A government decides to make abortion mandatory for the sake of having male children first. Should this happen here, should we still abide by such a law? And before we all cry out impossible, not here, we really need to examine the issue.
Abortion was legalised. Now some want to reverse that decision. What was reasonable and wise to call for this ruling then?
Why should it not stand today?

And understand something, the spiritual is not to be confined to its own realm without any implications for practicality.

I do understand. As a matter of fact, the law as it is in the Bible is extremely practical. It goes in great details about a lot of very practical and sensitive issues. The purpose for that is holiness. Hence, the law (OT) as a whole includes commandments, laws and ordinances regarding body, soul, mind and spirit, to keep the people whole and holy. The commandment to love ourself (NT) is not an hedonistic/narcissistic commandment, it's a commandment to holiness.
God's principles, laws and decrees apply regardless of whether a person is a believer or not, or even knows who established those principles. That's why some things today are so deceptive, when such principles are applied by notorious unbelievers, and the world - including believers - sees the results, it is tempting to follow a man/woman without understanding.
When we take God and spirituality out of the laws, including in their practical aspects, since they are based on His word, regardless, they still apply.
Not giving Him the glory for it is what brings the dire consequences, for both believers and unbelievers.

That's one of the reasons why I believe the Church is losing the so-called culture wars of today.We've bought into the notion that religion, or spirituality, is something that only belongs in church or at home with no bearing on any other aspect of life.

I'll go out on a limb and say that if there is such a thing being lost, it could be because (talking in general) what is perceived as the working principles of the world have been brought in the church, used for the same purposes as the world's, but claiming that it is done in God's name. That may be where He draws the line...
We cannot love two masters...

The reason why marriage also has social, legal, biological, and religious connotations is because those realms DEMONSTRATE the spirituality of marriage.

And not acknowledging openly the spirituality of marriage is demonstrated openly by marriage being openly depicted/mocked as asocial, without legality, deadly and worldly, with the visible consequences thereof. It's not believing that makes things to come to pass, it is because He said it.
God is not mocked.

This is also why in the Pauline epistles, practical instructions often follow doctrinal precepts.

On a side note, I don't think that Paul was pro-marriage at all
I don't think it was the why though. What matters is not the demonstration, it's the foundation, that's what he hammered...