So why is gay marriage being fought for? - I hear many arguments opposing and promoting it, but there are a few that annoy me. The first argument: "They can have a civil union - this gives them the same rights as marriage, why are they fighting for this? We just don't understand what they want.":
Imagine you were told - See this cubic zirconia, it looks like a diamond, it can be set like one and it shines like one and no one will say that it doesn't look like one. I hope this is enough for you, because even though there are real diamonds - you are never allowed to have one. It is about the freedom to choose, to have the same entitlements and you know what? One of those entitlements is just saying that you have the real thing.
Now to the "We cannot change the definition of marriage" - Whose definition of marriage are we talking about?.... Gods?.... Have you seen the bible?... ok, here we go, and understand that you have chosen whether you will read on or not.
I don't claim to be an expert on religion, but what if I am someone who believes eternal happiness is based on whether I understand which parts of the bible are able to be used together and which are not? I thought it was a book of moral lessons and then some rules for life - The morality lessons have specific learning requirements but do they contain additional restrictions and regulations in addition to these commandments, that if judged important enough of a breach be spending eternity feeling pretty sorry for myself- is the choices we have really study this book and at some point you learn the exact requirements of our life, or don't and suffer hell?.......
Old testament - vengeful and unforgiving god, rains sulphur, floods the world to kill everyone, turns people to pillars of salt for disobedience after countless people had proven free will might be quite the disappointment for him and not much chance of redemption since he just killed them. Genocide? not a problem - take a few plagues, pestilence and famine which weren't told as a bit of an oops, but pretty damn deliberate.
Jesus - only son, born - lets him die to change all this, new god emerges with love and forgiveness - new books and new testament is then written with new and exciting concepts of acceptance for all - Basically there's ten rules - to live your life by, but not limited to that at all and God never lies, and everything right or wrong is clear if you have the mind to find it. Well, except for the commandment: "keep the sabbath holy". This one doesn't matter if you go to church on Tuesdays, its obviously got to be ok if you miss a few here and there because this gift of free will means that God understands that life is busy and you might miss a few.
It is evident through Eve that disobedience wasn't rewarded and punished quite harshly by todays standards don't you think. Eating a bit of fruit? Now this story always confused me - in Sunday school i asked "Can't god see everything? And didn't he create everything?" I always received quite the distinct "yes" - so the question lingered further. Why would God give us free will to allow us to have choices, then proceed to create everything and the garden of Eden. Why would he create all this and then throw in a tree with some fruit that couldn't be touched have a talking serpent living in it? - I understand that the snake was a liar, etc but couldn't God see everything? - I still don't get this story - I probably never will.
Moving along to what are some things the bible discusses surrounding the definition about marriage? - Now as everything about marriage has been clearly defined as to what is acceptable which clearly dismisses the concept of altering this definition as the perfection of its meaning will radiate with clarity to all:
1 - Say no to your husband or wife when they as for sex? - of course not, they own your body. Rape within a marriage cannot occur as far as I can tell - as there is never the use of the word No.
1 Corinthians 7:1-40
It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
2 - the purity of marriage? - well I am not sure where it says that sex before marriage is ok as this only refers to same sex activity? But please let me know which different author of a another time and section of the bible explains this. Could have been confusing if it the person writing the below wasn't given the other guys notes before hand.
The marriage union which God established, God also sanctified. Sexual purity begins with highly esteeming that which God has given—marriage, and the one whom God has given—our mate. When we thus honor marriage, we will see to it that the marriage bed, the blessing of sexual union, remains undefiled by sexual union outside of that marriage, which profanes.
3 - If you had sex before marriage, well you marry that person. I am assuming that the virginity part must be proven and lets face it, the police are just not on top of this at the moment.
A man who seduces a virgin must marry her or pay the price of a virgin’s dowry.
4 - women must live and submit to the laws made by the husband - as if he were god! but of course without idolising him like a god because that is a sin. Or does Lord have another meaning? Websters dictionary didn't exist back then, this may have been an issue.
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
5 - Falling out of love and then divorce- covers garments with violence could mean any number of things not relating t actual violence and possible threat to your soul. If you look for alternates in modern day language variations: You could have to have a knife fight on his wardrobe? She must fight her husband to the death? Ok, I may need someone to explain this one to me - The clarity of this message has confused me.
“For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”
6 - remarrying was considered adultery? maybe it was just horrible punctation and and it was: Marries another, commits adultery - the comma denoting it meant and and was not in fact a singular directive but were required to do both things in order to be committing adultery? I was not involved in the proof read of the final scipt so Its not my place to assume.
Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"
Divorce? well since adultery could mean a few things, and adultery is supposed to be the only reason to divorce, then it is logical that in order to commit adultery, you must first divorce and sleep with another before your divorce can go through - essentially causing this rule to be a fun riddle of words to decipher over time. Based on texts regarding when God made a statement, and in every story I have ever heard though: His words were deliberate, delivered with clarity and had no room for confusion?
I really hope I haven't been wrong in that too because those stories told in a different way could confuse children which I think I am starting to see as a sin. We can have been set up to fail like this as a joke with the outcome being the harshest punishment there could ever be if you did fail - surely it was easier than that? Maybe God just has a sense of humor - we do, so he must right? God could find this flapping around in failed attempts to interpret a historical figures understanding of what they heard and transposed into the the written word - hilarious.
I don't know all the answers - but marriage seems a little different now based on the above descriptions and just using the words written. I would all be happy for most people to be excluded based on the fact that if they have had sex already - there is a chance that they are actually in Gods eyes destroying the meaning of marriage in its purest essence. Luckily it seems that the practices that we decide are fair and reasonable, the Forgiving Creator in his love for people understood that as times change so do what is considered "fair and reasonable". I guess its possible that Gods word is based on social level, status and self perceived intellect and can be better understood by those who have reached this in-auditable level of understanding.
Where those given the task of writing his words down word for word, showing skill and accuracy or were they likely to be confused hearing it first hand and just need some guidance by people who have uncovered inflection and meaning beyond that which was stated? Time has gifted us a greater understanding of these sentences. God will love us us all just like he did Cough*babylon*cough Egypt? Who was it that at some point someone decided these weren't ok and they do not represent the meaning that God is clear in his teaching about? They have had it wrong for centuries, but lucky for us, someone has found a greater level of understanding and the TRUE meaning of his word can now be explained as it stands today.
All those silly people who got it wrong for centuries earlier - Now as what is current must be correct, then what opposes what we know as being correct can thus be rendered as flat out wrong - but the general theme here is that there are different levels of right and unfortunately, no one I know feels that they can step up to that level. I still am hesitant to discount what i read as being something else, because I don't think 'love' would be the word to describe a God allowing confusion in his strict and unerring contingency of rules and regulations. They must have known they were directly disobeying God as both truths cannot be correct - and thus, must all be residing in hell. If all of a sudden I hear that they can both be correct, then discounting the possibility that a third exists must stem from an place of amazing self worth.
If you disagree with equal marriage, you have an opinion but using: "We can't change the definition of marriage"? It either has changed to benefit "advancement" in our culture intelligence (assumed or proven, who can say), or it hasn't changed but history missed the correct meaning and unfortunately were wrong in their assessment. Just in case though - what happens in the old testament to those who disobeyed God? In every story - those who directly disobeyed his word did not show confusion in what he meant. EG: look back and be turned to pillar of salt - Don't look at what he said not to see, but if you see it accidentally because you glanced back for an entirely difference reason could be how he meant it today? - I doubt you'd get away with that but then I doubt there were subtexts and clauses in his directive.
In saying all this, I do agree that the stories in the old testament provide some great life lessons in its teachings if you can listen and take what you need out of it- if you are going to use the words contained there as backup for your narrow minded and discriminatory views when it comes to things like marriage then you cannot just pick the shit you like dismiss the rest because it was misinterpreted until you came along. If you string some sentences from different parts of the book together to make a new paragraph that will also be a clear and direct statement from god himself and it will back you up and mean you are following exactly what he said". I could do that in any book and probably be able to come up with "go fist yourself" many times over if I cut little bits out from all over the place as well. There are choices, and if God's word must be followed, but allowed to be interpreted and depending on how that is delivered, could mean loopholes to heaven?
Now just to help you understand your obvious right to ascend to heaven as the dutiful child of god you are, fighting to ensure that his word is untainted followed - The definition of adultery included divorce. One of the ten commandments states quite clearly as far as my limited understanding was: "don't commit adultery". Now as I may be misinterpreting the literal words of a translated text, this means that any sex you had outside of marriage or divorce you may have gone through can be excused by subtext of a different author, book, chapter, or even century in its writing. Could this be the first of he biggest lie we all use today?: "Yes we have read and understood the terms and conditions" Have a look yourself and try and find that get out of jail free card that isn't what cannot be a contradiction of Gods word, but a wonderful new layer of understanding which history was too stupid to see?. Lucky for us and our eternal souls, there are better people right now with a better and clearer understanding of the bible than has previously been seen throughout history - as they are capable of telling us how each word should be defined and whether or not we have in fact been a good, clean person who has been living by the simplistic Rules created by God correctly and of course without judging those that have -but yet again, there is probably something that says that is ok, as long as you were given the ethical map to that instruction in the book.