U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

The Dark Elf wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: Who is this "we" you refer to? If you are going to speak for the Christian masses, then you must take into account not what they do, but what they are supposed to do in concordance with the bible. And I have read the bible, and there is nothing I have said that contradicts it. Would you care for selected passages that prove my point, or is this a case where you prefer to blame it on bad translation or garble the message until it comes out how you want it? Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Scripture never identifies procreation as the sole purpose of sex or marriage.  It defines it as a purpose, but does not identify procreation-less sex as wrong (otherwise sex would be prohibited for infertile couples).  Rather, when considering sex from a Christian point of view, it is important to see it as a gift of God that has many purposes: pleasure, the greater unity of a married couple, the producing of children, etc. But scripture does forbid nearly everything else; ergo, what is left but procreation? Sodomy is right out, in all its manifestations. And the "spilling of seed", as in coitus interruptus, caused the death of Onan (Gen. 38: 3-10) for not fulfilling his obligations in impregnating his dead brother's widow (Gosh, do I love bible stories!). The Levitical Regulations, derived from the Torah (Leviticus and Laws), specifically abhor the spilling of seed, and whether by masturbation or nocturnal emission or sex that does not involve procreation, it would leave the man ritually impure (and the woman also, if the evil sperm hit her). See Leviticus 15:16-18: 16 “‘And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water and be unclean until the evening. 17 And every garment and every skin whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water and be unclean until the evening. 18 The woman also with whom a man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water and be unclean until the evening. Both the Hebraic Talmud and the early Christians interpreted the bible to mean the "spilling of seed" in any manifestation was a sin. St. Jerome wrote:  "Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother his seed....Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" And Clement of Alexandria concurred: "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted...To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature." Then in 1930, the Vatican used the same biblical premise to ban contraception. Which, of course, is still with us today. This just goes to show you books that are open to interpretation (whether the bible, koran or bhagavad-gita) should not be blindly followed. Conversely, nearly all Christians (and I bet we are talking over 95%) cherry-pick through the mind-numbing amount of prohibitions in the bible, like not eating shellfish (no Red Lobster restaurant for you!) or even touching pigskin (no football for you!), and requiring a circumcision (no foreskin for you!). So rationalize away your position on the bible, just don't foist your opinion on everyone else, particularly in the court and congress. Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   Why, then, does Paul encourage his audience to abstain (if God gives them the gift) from a good thing?  It is because Paul realizes that marriage, having been tainted by sin, will be a source of hardship for those involved.  Any married couple can tell you that marriage is hard work, often times distasteful, and sometimes the only thing that keeps two Christians in a committed marriage is not romance, which comes and goes, but merely the fact that they have sworn to stick together.  Paul was a priggish misogynist who never had any direct contact with Jesus (Paul would have thrown the first stone at Mary Magdalene). And whoever thinks marriage is "tainted with sin" does not deserve anything but celibacy. I have never considered marriage to be "distasteful", never felt I was forced through some coercive law to "stick together", and highly recommend retaining the spark of romance throughout married life (I am in my second decade). You interpret love like you do the bible. Flawed.

Genesis 38:1-10 wrote: It happened at that time that Judah went down from his brothers and turned aside to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. 2 There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua. He took her and went in to her, 3 and she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er. 4 She conceived again and bore a son, and she called his name Onan. 5 Yet again she bore a son, and she called his name Shelah. Judaha]">[a] was in Chezib when she bore him. 6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. 10 And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.

When a woman was left widowed and childless in ancient middle eastern culture, it was seen as her husband's brother's duty to take her as his wife and to bear children with her.  This was for the protection of the widow (A widow with no children was in quite a bad situation back then) and for the carrying on of his brother's name.  The text clearly says that the reason Onan spilled his semen on the ground was to "not give offspring to his brother."  His sin was pride and selfishness; he loathed his duty to provide offspring for his brother but still wanted the pleasure of having sex with his wife.  The sin was not "sex without procreation," but a shirking of his duty to his brother.

As to the Levitical regulations...are you talking about the same ones that prohibit eating bacon and wearing synthetic garments?  Christians are no longer bound to the Law, as Paul makes quite clear in Galatians, Romans, and Colossians.  The Law was supposed to be burdensome and impossible to keep; it was not meant to establish a universal moral code but rather to set God's chosen people apart and to point them toward Christ.  Now that Christ has fulfilled the Law, we need not submit to dietary restrictions or circumcision or laws about ritual impurity due to the spilling of semen.  The reason that Christians do not follow those laws is not that we "cherry pick" through them; it's that we have been freed from them.

And the church fathers also said negative things about music, science, and a host of other things.  Their opinions are helpful and often enlightening, as they lived close to the time of Christ and the writing of the Scriptures.  However, their perspectives were tainted by the times, just as ours are; and many were influenced by neo-platonism to the expense of proper Scriptural doctrine.  Christians do not hold to their writings as inspired truth, as we do the Scriptures, so all you have proved with their quotes is, as I said, that some Christians believed what you are saying at some point in time.  That doesn't make it true biblical doctrine.

Furthermore, I'm tired of being accused of "foisting my opinion on everyone else in the courts and congress."  I've already made it perfectly clear in this thread that I have no desire to prohibit homosexuals from getting married or to prohibit sexual immorality in general, and I would prefer that you not assume that I hold certain opinions merely because you have pre-existing assumptions of what Christians must believe. 

And on the marriage topic; I may have been unclear if my previous statements made it sound like I think marriage is a horrible thing that ends up badly for everyone.  On the contrary, I think marriage is a good thing, and that a good marriage is ultimately fulfilling.  But I do believe that, like everything else, it is tainted by sin, and that it is hard, not always pleasant, and involves conflict and strife like any other relationship, except intensified by the very nature of the marriage relationship.  With that said, I stick by what I said before.