- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, July 30, 2012

Who would Jesus marry?

If Family First and Friends want to use history to justify not redefining marriage, will they be calling for wives to be re-included in the chattels?

Christians claiming to have invented marriage are like American's claiming to have invented democracy. Christianity didn't 'invent' marriage so Family First and the rest of the God squad are going to need to come up with a new justification for their homophobia.

I'm pretty sure Jesus would've married any couple, regardless of gender, as long as they loved each other.

Jesus said the word love 51 times in the Bible. There is no record of him saying 'fag' or 'queer' or 'discriminate against the homosexuals', indeed there are some who point to the Bible itself for proof that Jesus healed a gay man, Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10.

Shouldn't the silly folk with their silly ideas about their silly version of what someone else said be a wee bit quiet now? We've been terribly patient for a very long time on this front and it's time to move on.

PS, the Earth is not 6000 years old by the way.

We need to debate why homophobic bigotry is allowed to continue within marriage and adoption, and we need to challenge it.

As a progressive society this discriminatory blot on our law books is a dishonor we should all feel proud to remove. By expanding the franchise of official recognition of the value of gay and lesbian relationships via marriage, we enrich all our relationships.

Family First have a way of making the word family as un-inclusive as possible, it's time to move our country beyond that narrow view of whanau.



At 30/7/12 1:51 pm, Blogger Muerk said...

I'm afraid I completely disagree with you. FYI I'm Catholic, I believe that evolution is how God created us, science being the 'how' and scripture showing us 'why'. I'm certainly not a young-earther.

I disagree for several reasons.

1. Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine at the wedding of Cana. What this shows is how important marriage was as an institution to God. He revealed his glory in the service of the celebration of marriage between a bride and her bridegroom.

(John 2 onwards for anyone who wants to read it.)

2. Jesus' talk with the Samaritan woman at the well. Here the woman has had five husbands but the man she is currently with is not her husband. Here Jesus is talking about divorce and commitment, but the point is that yet again Jesus reveals his glory through the institution of marriage. The woman recognises him as a prophet because he miraculously knows about her marital history.

(John 4)

3. Points 1 and 2 are to be read in light of Jesus' direct definition of marriage and I'll quote directly here.

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

(John 19)

Here we see that marriage goes back to "the beginning" pre-dating any religious organisation. Marriage is something innate within creation according to Jesus. Religion can acknowledge this truth by ritually blessing marriage, but it's true even without religious sanction.

When a man and a woman come together, leaving their own families to create a new one, they do so by becoming "one flesh". This is both a sexual procreative unity but also is a unity that mirrors the Trinity.

Just as the love between God and the Son was so great that it created another person, the Holy Spirit, so we too can mirror such relationship when a one flesh union creates another person, their child.

Jesus specifically says that divorce is not possible except in cases of adultery.

"Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Marriages are where a man and a woman are joined together by God. God Himself is there in their union because of how we were made 'in the beginning'. Even laws made by man can't undo what God has done.

At 30/7/12 2:23 pm, Blogger pbubyah said...

You forgot to mention that if you're going to hold up your holy book of words as the one true word that we're soon going to be back to owning slaves, not having tattoos, only ever wearing once type of cloth and of course never eating shellfish.

Same sex marriages harms no-one, and why excatly in your life time of 3 score years and 10, do you actualy care?

At 30/7/12 2:28 pm, Blogger Frank said...

So basically, Muerk, you want to deny other people the right to marry because of your own beliefs in some supernatural deity?!

And you wonder why so many folk are hostile to you "christians" who constantly want to ram your peculiar beliefs down our throats?

Personally, I don't care if you believe in gods, angels, fairies at the bottom of the garden, hobbits, etc. Go hard.

Where I do have a difficulty is where you claim an institution like marriage as being a Christian construct where it is not. Anyone with a passing knowledge of history knows that many forms of marriage have existed through the millenia.

Or that you feel you can deny others the same rights that you enjoy.

Basing your refusal to deny your human cuzzies the same rights that you enjoy, based on some weird belief in an invisible being, is nothing short of derisable.

I would like to interfere in your life; with your rights; in your bedroom; based on the teachings of the One True Thundergod, Thor.

According to your 'logic', I have that right to interfere in your life.

Prepare to be judged and commanded.

(Hmmmm, it's amazing how superior I can feel with a god on my side...)

At 30/7/12 4:53 pm, Blogger Dr Syn said...

"Same sex marriages harms no-one..." - pbubyah

Pretty much this, to quote pbubyah. This bill can't pass soon enough. One less bit of bullshit to ruin people's lives with.

At 30/7/12 5:10 pm, Blogger slydixon said...

Not to mention using a highly bowdlerized account of the scriptures carefully edited to leave the Holy Roman Empire in sole possession of the "truth" by the Council of Nicea and then repeated re-written to reflect the mores of the times and those in power over millennia. No credibility in any argument based on this book I'm afraid it is a guide only and the only part that those who describe themselves as Christians should be concerned with is the New Testament the rest is nothing to do with Christ and is largely a survival guide for desert dwelling nomads.

At 30/7/12 5:51 pm, Blogger Muerk said...

"You forgot to mention that if you're going to hold up your holy book of words as the one true word that we're soon going to be back to owning slaves, not having tattoos, only ever wearing once type of cloth and of course never eating shellfish."

I think you need to reread the Bible there. Nowhere does the Bible exhort us to own slaves. And in Acts the First Jerusalem Council tells Christians to let go of the Levitical laws (eg. tattoos, shellfish) and to just abstain from what has been offered to idols, blood and what has been strangled and to avoid fornication. (Acts 15) By all means you can go hassle Jewish people about shellfish.


Could you quote me where I said that marriage was a Christian construct? Because I don't believe I said that at all. Jesus, you might remember, was Jewish. The only scriptures around during His life were Jewish texts. As well as that I can happily point you to all the non-Abrahamic religions that have marriage, Hinduism, and Buddhism for example.

What I said was that "Marriage is something innate within creation..."

Am I taking a faith based view of marriage as an institution? Yes, absolutely. God created us with marriage as a vocation for us. But then my stance should hardly come as a shock given I think God actually exists. I think marriage is innate in us, part of our social DNA if you will allow the metaphor. It's why marriage transcends societies and history.

Last time I looked we live in a democracy, I get to say what I believe is right and I get to vote as I see fit. You wish to impose a new definition of marriage, so all democratic disagreements are impositions of a sort. If the Government redefines marriage I accept that. Faith in God, whether Jewish or Christian will just keep on going watching man-made empires, governments, and morals rise and fall.

At 30/7/12 7:18 pm, Blogger BobbyD said...

Interesting that despite all his rhetoric, Bombers political leanings still rest with a party and leader who remain 'undecided' on the matter of gay marriage.

It seems Key is a wee bit more enlightened than Hone eh.

At 30/7/12 10:45 pm, Blogger Frank said...


"Could you quote me where I said that marriage was a Christian construct?"

You're f****n kidding me?!

If you're going to be disingenuous and sly in your argument, then that shows a lack of principle in your position.

Now, would you care to re-phrase that question? Because when you start your argument with,

" FYI I'm Catholic, I believe that evolution is how God created us"

... and then refer to tracts from an old book of dubious value, and then demand adherence on the state of marriage based on your superstitious beliefs in invisible beings - then by heck, I think you've made the point that you believe that marriage is a Christian construct.

'Cos as sure as evolution made li'l green apples, you sure weren't referring to Klingons.

"What I said was that "Marriage is something innate within creation...""

Really? Sez who? The hundreds of millions of people who live together unmarried?!

And if you're correct, then who are you, one person, to deny another person "something inate within creation"? How does your internal "logic" reconcile your statement that something is "inate" in some parts of creation - but not "inate" other parts - in gays and lesbians?

"God created us with marriage as a vocation for us. "

Ah.. I see your erropr, Muerk. You hold the mistaken belief that we all share your deity - and your version of a deity.

Let me disabuse you of that idea. Many of us don't believe in gods, ghosts, and goblins.

And those who DO believe in a god don't believe in your particular creature.

That is where the arrogance of people like you is so repugnant.

"You wish to impose a new definition of marriage..."

"Impose"? Impose on who??? Pray be reassured, good sir, I fully endorse your right not to marry a gay or lesbian against your wishes.

In fact, I will fight to stop any gay or lesbian from trying to marry you against your will.

So please share with us - how is this "imposed" on you?!

Did you feel "imposed" upon when we stopped killing witches, despite Exodus 22:18??

Just because the right to marry is extended to gays and lesbians does not "impose" anything upon you. (Except, maybe, Thor forbid, a bit of tolerance on you?)

Tell me, did you feel threatened when slavery was abolished and women won the vote? Was that an "imposition" upon you?

If you have a rational argument against marriage equality, feel free to present it. But if you're going to rely on an invisible supernatural entity to back up your position, then you have no argument.

A belief in fairies is no basis upon which to deny people equality.

At 31/7/12 9:01 am, Blogger Gosman said...

To be fair Muerk is simply responding to the original point of this post that Jesus would be supportive of same sex marriages. As he/she pointed out there are numerous examples in the Bible where Jesus seems to support the concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

People can dispute whether the Bible is the true 'Word of God'. Certainly I don't agree with it at all. However Muerk's criticism of the posts main asertion regarding Jesus's position on marriage is still valid.

At 31/7/12 12:45 pm, Blogger countryboy said...

Aw , you silly people . Letting what God botherers think about a universal and ancient ceremony involving people who love each other wind you up . All you have to do is ignore those silly bible bashers they'll go away .

No . Wait . They won't will they . They destroy economies , civilizations , cultures and families . They cruelly manipulate communities to bolster up power bases to make money and peddle guilt like a junkie selling P . Bible Bashers also like to bash their kids and their Holiest of Holy's ... the missus too . The Roman Catholic Church is synonymous with greed and ego and while Vatican City grows ever fatter and ever more elitist , kids die from God's good AIDS .

@ Muerk . I wouldn't go around spouting off about you being Catholic as you quote scriptures from an average work of fiction if I were you . It's almost as bad as saying you're a lawyer or an investment banker . Bullshit artists alike .

In the old days people needed an invisible beardy man living in the clouds . Who could only be reached by mumbling in vast and clearly wealth created buildings by praying to make life more tolerable while toiling in the fields for some fat , rich cunts draped in the cloth of the church while they fiddled with the choir boys .

Homo-hate , like all Hate is Mans Word . Not Gods word for those who try to understand .

If God does indeed exist I imagine God's words as " Hell yeah ! You guys go ahead and marry . If ya love each other , go ahead ! But be warned ! I only intended bums for one way traffic if you know what I mean . Use a condom ! Or them weirdo Catholics will feel smugly justified if you get sick and die .
Now , if you want to drop by sometime , I'm in the bush by that creek you liked as a kid . Those big drafty old buildings are only used to misappropriate ( Or swindle ) money from the vulnerable so forget-about-them . You wanna talk to me ? Sure , anytime and it won't cost a dime .

A little joke there to lighten the mood .

Religion is not the opiate of the masses . Opium is .

And Also ;
In Heaven:

The cooks are French,
The policemen are English,
The mechanics are German,
The lovers are Italian,
The bankers are Swiss.

In Hell:

The cooks are English,
The policemen are German,
The mechanics are French,
The lovers are Swiss,
The bankers are Italian.

At 31/7/12 2:25 pm, Blogger Muerk said...

Thanks Gosman. I'm a woman btw.

At 31/7/12 3:18 pm, Blogger Dr Syn said...

Image link for some breakdown of marriage from Old testament.



At 1/8/12 10:41 am, Blogger Frank said...

"People can dispute whether the Bible is the true 'Word of God'. Certainly I don't agree with it at all. However Muerk's criticism of the posts main asertion regarding Jesus's position on marriage is still valid."

And why do you believe, Gosman, that we should put any stock in someone elses's deity?

Do you think we should run our economy along supernatural lines, like marriage?

Don't forget, your god(s) is not shared by everyone. So why should we put stock in what someone said, 2000 years ago.

At 1/8/12 10:43 am, Blogger Frank said...

Countryboy - classic post!!

At 3/8/12 8:28 am, Blogger Gosman said...

Ummmmm... Frank I don't think that we should put any stock in someone elses's deity. I am in fact an Atheist. I actually support Gay marriage. You could have found that out by asking but instead you leaped to conclusions like you usually do and like you did with Muerk's original post without fully understanding her point.

At 3/8/12 11:52 am, Blogger countryboy said...

Ummmmmmmmm ...@ Gosman . Fuck you , you sneaky little saboteur ! Who the fuck cares what you are or who you support ? Are we supposed to go all Oooh and Ahh on you ? I get the sense you'd say the first thing that pops into your hollow little skull cap if you thought it'd further elevate how highly you already think of yourself . How come you can never put anything original into the pot ? You just sit back and snipe and correct those whom might be brave enough to proffer an original idea at the expense of the exactingness of some obsessive compulsive lawyer with an accountancy degree ? Particularly if those opinions are negative to those cruel aliens who seem to have infested our politics . God botherers like our esteemed Little Billy English . Good Christian and breeder of Gay Haters . You're the stick that whacks the Tall Poppy . I bet you're a disagreeable , friendless little creep sitting sober and alone at the end of the bar .Do you get rashes ? Fuck off ! And as for good catholic @ Muerk . Well , you go girl ! Just don't leave your I'm assuming many , many children alone with your precious , fat , lazy , dirty old Priests . When some of them take a break from espousing their hypocritical gibberish they go on the prowl .

And one more thing ! The catholic church . Filthy rich in itself and supporting a rich , privileged , politically powerful oligarch who uses the God Equation to justifying ignoring their most at risk followers then profit from selling guilt to them ? Yeah,fucking right !

While you Gosman , point out the fernickety anomalies in @ Franks excellent and original posts , the catholic church terrifies seriously at-risk people out of having protected sex in Aids ravaged countries . Wear a condom and be tortured in Hell for all eternity . Don't wear a condom and die of AIDS . @ Muerk ? What's your point of view ? Do you have some scripture that makes sense of that ? Better make it exacting for Itchy Scratchy Gosman .

Pompous ,self professed atheist siding with a good catholic girl who will only feel comfortable after she's rammed her contorted beliefs down the throats of others and for why ? Wings and a seat on a cloud with an archaic musical instrument that sounded like shit anyway . What about molting season ? Does one lay eggs ? And then what ? Sitting around bothering God all eternity . What's God ever done to you ? Would you get like a television channel showing round the clock coverage of poor bastards burning in Hell ? Oh , wait we have that don't we . Reality Television . @ Frank ? Sharpen your pencils and show no fear ! ( Said of Truman Capote )


Post a Comment

<< Home