How to Define Same-Sex Marriage

How have certain divorced heterosexual Christians reconciled their status with the tenets of their religion? How have certain remarried heterosexual Christians? (ref. Matthew 19:9, 5:31-32; 1 Corintians 7:10-11; etc.)

It's because of liberalization of their faith. It's why indications of divorce and adultery are more relaxed than they were in ancient times (though you may prefer the ancient scripture). Today, a faithful wife whose otherwise faithful husband divorced her is no longer considered an adulterer, nor is the man who decides to remarry her.

The faith has changed since Biblical times. It's currently changing. I'm sure there was great opposition regarding divorce, but today remarriages happen all the time. If it weren't the case, way more than 50% of the American public would be unmarried. Something like 55% of the population over 18 is married. I'm sure the number is much higher for 25+.

Let me be clear: This has been a redefinition of marriage from the Biblical sources because it is a loosening of the "rules" regarding marriage, divorce, adultery, and remarrying, all of which are "rules" of marriage.

Now that we've come to same-sex marriage, all that's happening is a liberalization of the "rules" to include couples who happen to be of the same sex. I think if Jesus were alive today, he'd be cool with it. (I realize I'm reaching here, but there it is.)

It literally is specious because it's not a definitive snippet of scripture against same-sex marriage, especially with the context entirely removed. The reason why I've pointed it out is because I'm thinking, "Remixer believes same-sex marriage is wrong because he thinks the Bible considers homosexuals 'abominations' who should be put to death." Is there more to it than that? I was thinking there is. Am I wrong?

We can delve also into the non-secular roots of same-sex marriage? It's also of note that there is non-secular support for same-sex marriage in modern times.

Secularists by and large are mostly concerned about the legal side of it. I don't know of any strong push (or argument for that matter) in favour of reforming religion to accommodate same-sex marriage. They want same sex-marriages to be legally possible, and I think many simply think it's great that at least some clergy folk will accommodate these marriages.

Most secular positions I've seen on this matter are along the lines of: "Same-sex marriages don't harm heterosexual marriages. If you don't like the idea of same-sex marriage, then don't get same-sex married." This isn't an issue Christians should be taking up with the state. They should be taking it up with fellow Christians. This is a more a question of faith and practice. There are many other reasons why Protestants and Catholics don't get along. There are many reasons for that.

They can co-exist legally, but I'm going to reiterate that many same-sex couples want their marriages to be blessed. They're not simply after state benefits and recognition. LGBT couples who believe in God want their love recognized by the Church as well as the state. A problem I have difficulty with is when the state says, "No, we will not allow the Church do their religous thing." It's a Church issue (I know you agree with this; I'm speaking broadly) and as such you are going to get different denominations doing different things taking different positions. There is currently a heated debate about permitting female pastors. This is another area of liberalization that's occurring within Christianity.

Any sort of system I assume is mostly about state benefits and recognition, but I will always come back to the clergy folk who wish to bless these unions (and, in many cases, the state not permitting this).

Christianity (and other religions, for that matter) today isn't the same as it was in ancient times. Times change as we learn more about humanity and morality and our daily experiences. If we were to attempt to take the Bible literally, it would be a) impossible (due to contradictions), and b) immoral by today's standards.

That we don't move forward regarding the blessing of same-sex unions would be unprecedented in terms of the progression of (at least) the Christian faith. But what isn't unprecedented, I'm sure, is this resistance to change.

 

Questions...
What happens if during the union/marriage...one/both/all of the partners change religion? What if it is not even the same?
What happens if a man/woman get into a union where they're both atheist?
What happens if one turns out to be gay...but they want to stay together and they're fine with it.
What happens if one/both do adultery ...but they want to stay together and they're fine with it.
And so on...

It does happen...and in multitude of varieties of situations you can't even want to try to absorb it all.

The state has to deal with and provide for all conditions.
The law should apply equally.

It's a contract...what does it matter what it's called?

The only time it is really called into question, is when they want to dissolve it.
Or there's a change in status, such as death, desertion, etc.

I predict it will even get to the point of supporting more than two persons.
But that will be complicated, so I don't know if the state wants to get into that...

 

Canada now has a 10-year history of same-sex marriage.

I don't see many signs of our nation falling crumbling into the bowels of the earth. And recent census numbers suggest that the population is still 67% Christian, and there is no evidence that their marriages have been destroyed by the gays.

What's more, I don't see any widespread Christian protests, or any evidence of widespread persecution to keep them quiet.

I'll report in if I see anything pop up on my radar.

 

Point taken.

 

All the more reason to move to Canada.

I've also seen free speech in action in Canada, so I know protests there do happen, despite jokes to the contrary.