Your formatting was a bit hard to follow Derfred so I may not have gotten this 100% accurate but it's in good faith.
Originally Posted by
Derfred
Yes, it does affect society, but I disagree that it affects us all.
It won't affect my marriage, nor my family, whether it comes into effect now, later or never. Unless of course one of my sons turns out to be gay, and wants to get married to a loving partner.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. As an example to the principle, abortion is an issue that affects us all in society. It changes how we view ourselves, how we view others, how we view life and how we view infants. Euthanasia is the same. Irrespective of whether it has an immediate, direct impact on me (which SSM won't as I don't expected I'll be invited to a gay wedding any time soon) it has an impact on society and therefore me. As a result don't expect me to 'get over it'. I care about society and where it's going. You can describe it as a 'hang up' all day but that doesn't make me wrong.
Originally Posted by
Derfred
So, yes it affects society, but not everyone in the society. In my opinion, SSM will affect society positively. In particular, those who want SSM will benefit. They will finally receive equal rights.
What about polygamists? Why are they not deserving of the 'rights' you're demanding for people of the same sex? Who are you to tell them the can't marry whomever they want? What about those people have 'genetic sexual attraction'. And want to marry? Apparently this is becoming more common with the increasing number of broken homes and kids growing up without knowing their biological parents or siblings and meeting them later in life? Do they deserve to marry whom they love?
This is the principle you're championing when you champion 'equality'. Are you consistent with your principles? Do you think legalising these types of relationships in the form of marrriage has a detriment to society? Do you think legalising these relationships will affect society positively? Do you think legalising these relationships as marriage will not have an impact on your 'marriage' and how it's perceived in wider society? I guess you'll only be affected if you choose to be psychologically affected. (I'm not trying to sound prissy or rude here, just trying to be blunt).
Originally Posted by
Derfred
---
I was born and raised in a red-neck, rural, and actually quite "churchy" society where it was OK to call a gay person a "Poofter" and attempt to beat some sense into him with a lead pipe.
The same word was also acceptable to use when denigrating a heterosexual man who was perceived as a weakling, or a musician, or a dancer, or who didn't like footy, or was offending any other of the many manly societal stereotypes. In fact, a man's greatest goal in the community was to never, ever, at all costs, earn the name "Poofter". It was the biggest conceivable insult available.
You could cheat on your wife, and still drink at the bar. You could even rip off old Tony and still drink at the bar after a bloody nose. But there was a golden rule: "No Poofters". Such was the hate.
Sounds like a sad state of affairs. I've seen certain aspects of it- certainly the name calling of 'poofter'- but nothing approaching the level of violence you're talking about.
Originally Posted by
Derfred
I don't know if this hate originated from the Bible you so dearly defend, but all I remember is that the local church certainly made no effort to reduce the hate. The local Pastor's interpretation of tolerance was limited to attempting to avoid using the word "Poofter" in his weekly sermon.
The church hasn't been perfect in the past in defending people who needed defending. I think the church has grown considerably in speaking out firmly against violence and hate whilst still proclaiming its stance on marriage and so on. That's why the hate speech these days is far more likely to come from the SSM lobby than the church- unless of course you're one of the narrow minded lot who view any stance against SSM as 'hate speech'. (The royal 'you', not you specifically Derfred).
Originally Posted by
Derfred
So if holding on to traditional so-called "societal" ideals and values is by definition a "good thing", it certainly hasn't been my experience in life.
I think I get it now. I say I'm concerned for society and want to uphold 'traditional marriage'. The picture you see in your head when you hear or see the words 'traditional marriage' is husbands boozing on with their mates at the pubs, cheating on their wives, giving a backhander to their wives and kids if they talk back, and raising kids to call gay people 'poofters'.
Let me be very blunt and clear. That is NOT 'traditional marriage'. That is NOT biblical marriage. Biblical marriage does NOT view wives and children as possessions and nor does the Bibke suggest that our role in life is to treat others poorly. The picture you have articulated of marriage and society is NOT the type of society I am talking about.
Originally Posted by
Derfred
But Keg I note you get your moral code from the Bible. You probably think that is a good thing because, in part, it provides a robust moral code rather than the one I grew up with and had to evolve in time. I also note you are interested in debating the relative merits with intelligent conversation.
The moral code I was taught by my parents (not my community), which has served me well, could almost be regarded as an excerpt from the Bible: Love thy neighbour, and treat others as you would have them treat you. Be humble and learn.
Lol. 'Almost' be regarded as an excerpt from the bible? They're basically words direct from Jesus mouth.
Matthew 22:37
Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ [/I]40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Luke 6:31
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Matthew 23:12
For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
It's actually worth reading all of Matthew 22 and 23 to get the correct context to those statements too.
Originally Posted by
Derfred
And pretty much ignore the rest of it as it is a bunch of controlling bull**** introduced by the Church in the middle ages by the same muppets that kept insisting the sun revolved around the earth.
I've just given you the quotes from the bible which dates back to the first century AD. Sure, over time some people have valued 'tradition' over God's word in the bible and distorted that for their own purposes. The Bibke though has been pretty fixed since the various books were written and then those books collated at the Councio of Nicaea.
Remember too that Jesus was a bloke who sat down and engaged with the lowest of society. The poor, the young (who were not held anywhere nearly as highly in the first century as they are today), the crooked (tax collectors), the outcast (prostitutes and sick). Note though he did NOT say to them. It's ok, you can keep living that way. No, he called them to change the way they lived and follow Him. He didn't say to the prostitute that she was ok to choose her path. He told her to follow Him. Loving your neighbour doesn't mean saying 'OK' to the way they live their life, it means lovingly telling them of a better way.
Originally Posted by
Derfred
So, let me ask as another analogy: when the debate was going on (not that long ago) about giving women the vote, would it have been inappropriate then for an airline to paint a women's vote theme on an aircraft? Or would that have been too political?
I've got problems with companies championing what they do in the workplace. If a horse and cart company back then wanted to champion the awesome benefit they get from their female employees then they can do that. I don't think it's the companies responsibility to then take it further and say 'you're an tell other people what they should think regarding a socio political issue though isn't
Originally Posted by
Derfred
Did the Bible ever indicate that women should have a vote? Did that offend the people in your sphere at the time? Did people in your position offer verses from the Bible that referenced "men" at the exclusion of "women" in evidence against the proposal? As a Christian family traditionalist, do you regret society giving women the vote?
It's interesting that you bring this up. Until Christendom, virtually every culture in the world viewed women as possessions. In Roman times adultery was asssumed by men and punishable by death for women. They had no possessions, no worth. Christianity was hugely and massively counter cultural at the time regarding its treatment of women. Jesus first appeared at his resurrection to women (and if you were going to make up a story about a risen deity, at the time you would not have the deity appearing first to women.... way to make the story less than palatable given their testimony was worthless). Despite the (non biblical) teaching of some Christian scholars through the ages, the teaching of the bible has been unchanged. Wives are equal partners in the 'body of Christ' (ie the church) and equal partners in marriage given that relatjiosho is supposed to mirror the relationship between Jesus and the church. (There are some nuances that I'll leave aside here but happy to comment on if asked).
So that women are viewed 'equally' at all is a Christian notion. Even when you look around the world now, in most non western cultures women are not regarded as equal of men. Western culture has been heavily influenced by Christianity and thus we have the equality of today because of Christianity and despite some non biblical mis steps along the way.
As an example, this is Paul's letter to the church in Galatia. Paul was executed about AD62.
"In Christ's family there can be no division into Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female. Among us you are all equal. That is, we are all in common relationship with Jesus Christ"
So how do you interpret that as to what the bible teaches about women?
I think the important notion to understand when discussing the churches past failures is that biblical teaching on humanity is that we are flawed. We have a perfect example in Jesus and we have a book that gives us all the guidance we need to work through every issue we face but I'm still a rebellious sinful person and I still rebel against God and what I know is good for me. I can only keep going back to His teaching on the issues. His teaching on women is that they are 'partners in the body of christ'.
Originally Posted by
Derfred
In general, do biblical interpretations change in time with "progressing" societal values? If SSM goes ahead, will people in your sphere in 50 or 100 years' time regret the SSM progression, or will future interpretations of the Bible acknowledge and accept it?
No. I don't reckon they do. What tends to happen is that leaders (sometimes church leaders, sometimes rulers of kingdoms) drifts away from Scripture as their source of wisdom and put a personal slant on it. The KKK is a great example of people putting using a passage out of context, a passage poorly from Aramaic or Greek to their native tongue to justify their political aims. to en slant on it. I hope that in all of this discussion thanpeope see I've been pointing back to not my personal slant but what the bible teaches.
Originally Posted by
Derfred
If one of your kids turns out to be gay and wants to get married to a loving partner, will you change your opinion? Will you proudly declare that you flew that A330 that helped progress societal values? Or will you disown them because it challenges your ideal of Mum, Dad, 2.4 kids and dog?
Or when you and your wife are having one last cuddle in your twilight years, will you look back and think how much better your marriage and your family would have been if only those gay pricks didn't go and get married?
For somone who said they didn't get intend to get personal these two paras are actually pretty nasty and insulting. The options you've put forward are not the only options available. Nor is it helpful to characterise my feelings towards a gay friend who married his partner, and another gay friend who only recently came around to supporting SSM as 'gay pricks'. That's just not the way I roll- and nor is it the way every other Christian I know characterises the issue.
My kids know the Christian teaching on not just marriage but life, death and Jesus. If they choose to walk away from that, that's their choice. Having walked that path from my late teenage years to late 20s I understand only too well how that looks and how to love my children and support them through that journey. Recall my earlier comments about Jesus and prostitutes. Lov Ng them didn't mean endorsing what they did. It meant walking with them as they faced up to their choices in life.
I will not tell my children of proudly of flying the rainbow roo. They'd know it was a lie.
Maybe in my latter years I will lament those lost in their own desires. For me I will simply continue to persevere to serve God. Everything else is chasing after the wind.
I know it's been a long read but for those that have persevered I thank you for your time. It's taken me a good couple of hours to put this together. I appreciate the opportunity to put forward what I pray is a biblical and faithful account of the Christian position. I did so not because I want to thump everyone over the head and certainly not because I'm trying to push for everyone to bend to my beliefs- I'd hope you'd do that through your own reflection and search for Truth. I did all thismsimply because Derfred asked for m thoughts on the matter and asked about biblical principles.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend everybody.
Go the Bloods!