Go to Sannhetseeker
- Add a comment
- Go to Same Sex Marriage Used to be Acceptable. Why Not Now?
experience
there is nothing in the bible that backs up your statement.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 9, 2005 at 1:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Experience -
Yours is certainly a majority opinion.
posted by
sannhet
on February 9, 2005 at 9:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Woman and Men!
God does not agree with same sex marriages. He made it for a Woman and Man to become a Union.
posted by
Experience
on February 9, 2005 at 9:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Friar -
From what I have read, the terminology was the same. The ritual was the same. The process was the same. That would lead one to believe that same sex marriages performed in the past are similar to marriages performed today.
posted by
sannhet
on February 9, 2005 at 7:15 AM
| link to this | reply
In the cases that you mentioned
there was no "connubium" involved. Monks in the past went out "two-by-two"; they had a companion for life. If it were true that those were marriages, the same terminology should be present, and the same formula as in weddings. You are misled.
posted by
Friar__Tuck
on February 9, 2005 at 6:47 AM
| link to this | reply
loanlady
You are right. Any study can be skewed. It's an unfortunate result of being human (that whole Uncertainty principle and all). And I would love for you to send me some examples that you are referring to. I'm am always interested in looking at Christian historical documents. My email is in my profile. As for this particular subject, documents or not, questions still remain: why does the Church enforce some laws, but not others? And what are the criteria for making such decisions? I would also like to throw in the whole idea of Yeshua's message being based in love and acceptance, but that seems not to be true for some Christians.
posted by
sannhet
on February 8, 2005 at 3:37 PM
| link to this | reply
Kelli -
Great point! As you've mentioned before, how can we put limits on that which is limitless? This is just one of many examples.
posted by
sannhet
on February 8, 2005 at 3:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Limits. Always limits being put on things. I hate to even have to comment
on such a ridiculous limitation. Is there nothing better for people to think of doing other than to find something wrong somewhere? (Not you Sannhet, the ones who decide to play God).
posted by
Kelli
on February 8, 2005 at 3:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Having known Jon Boswell personally I can tell you his version of making history become whatever you dream it to be is not facts. Rewriting history by finding a little painting crudely painted by an unknown artist in Russia does not mean anything. I could paint a picture of two cows being married and it does not mean the Church sanctioned or actually had written policy/laws allowing such. If you like I can show you hundreds of examples that refute Professor John's attempt to be included in Catholic history. He was a brillaint scholar, a loving partner but what he wanted was for the Catholic Church to accept his life partner before his death from AIDS as his husband.
There always has been homosexuality in the world. I myself am accepting and loving to gay friends. Research, like scientific studies can skewed.
posted by
the-loanlady
on February 8, 2005 at 2:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariala -
Me too!
posted by
sannhet
on February 8, 2005 at 2:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Sannhet, good question! I dunno, depends on the church and the slant
of the board...I hate politics.
posted by
Ariala
on February 8, 2005 at 1:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariala -
Fair enough. But I still wonder why the Church allows other rules to be broken without apparent penalty, but not this one.
posted by
sannhet
on February 8, 2005 at 1:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Empty -
Good points!
posted by
sannhet
on February 8, 2005 at 1:23 PM
| link to this | reply
sannhet, I've never believed homosexuality to be "right." First of all,
fornication is sex outside marriage...most homosexuals, who aren't married, practice fornication. You were talking about same sex marriage and that's slightly different. Anyway, it's not a pet peeve for me. I usually stay out of the controversy, but if asked if I think homosexuality is natural and right, I would say, "No, it's unnatural and wrong," just as the Bible puts it. In Sodom, a group of homosexuals were wanting to have sex with the visitors who came to see Lot. The visitors were male angels and Lot tried to give them his daughters, knowing what an abomination it was for two men to lay together. If it was wrong then, then I believe it to be wrong now.
Now, having said all that, I believe people have a choice to sleep with whomever they want, male or female. I'm not the judge. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and I am not without sin. 
posted by
Ariala
on February 8, 2005 at 12:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Jesus Christ, the same, yesterday, today and forever
If this was of Jesus Christ at that time, then how come many (not all) of today's Christians don't think it is of Jesus Christ now?
Do they think the Church was wrong then?
And have those bishops gone to Hell?
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 8, 2005 at 12:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariala -
It's okay to disagree. I'm just wondering what happened to change things?
posted by
sannhet
on February 8, 2005 at 12:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Well, this is where I disagree...but I'm for freedom of choice.
posted by
Ariala
on February 8, 2005 at 12:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Passion -
Let's hope you're not right. Love between two people should be considered divine, not an abomination.
posted by
sannhet
on February 8, 2005 at 12:11 PM
| link to this | reply
I have a few bi-sexual friends and have had same-sex experiences before, though I don't consider myself to be Bi. There's still a stygma and may always be toward this lifestyle.
posted by
Passionflower
on February 8, 2005 at 12:05 PM
| link to this | reply