Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Dark Lord Sauron Gothmog Jaimbern |
![]() "One ring to rule them all". |
Mordor NS Discord Chat Channel |
| News: |
| Greetings, and welcome to Mordor. We hope you enjoy your visit. At the moment you are viewing our forum as guest. This means much of the forum is hidden to you and you are unable to use many of the features. To be able to post in forum and apply for citizenship you must register an account with your nation name. Once you have done that you can apply for citizenship and get the appropriate access to the whole forum! So what are you waiting for? Join our community! If you require diplomatic status as an envoy from another region, apply for diplomatic status here |
| Same-sex marriage | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 18 2012, 04:07 PM (518 Views) | |
| Tadin | Jan 19 2013, 04:05 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Haradrim
|
I see. Well, I am not going to get into a Biblical argument about interpreting the text or pointing out where other parts of Leviticus are no longer adhered to by our society, because I don't think that's the discussion here. The discussion here can enter into a larger debate of what role religion has in law. What are your thoughts on that? Also, are you from the States or elsewhere? I am from the States. Chicago, specifically. |
![]() |
|
| Hellhound | Jan 19 2013, 04:07 AM Post #22 |
![]()
Warg
|
States. South Carolina. And that would depend on what exactly you mean by "religion." I'm finding that word to be quite dangerous. Some of the worst chapters in human history involve religion as justification. |
![]() |
|
| Tadin | Jan 19 2013, 04:32 AM Post #23 |
![]()
Haradrim
|
You're right. Religion can and has been used to justify atrocities and its blind following can be dangerous. But, we can certainly make this part of our larger discussion of what role religion has in law. If religion has the ability to command emotional and spiritual justifications of atrocities to the masses that are faithful to it, is it possible that we have taken religion too far? Is it dangerously dogmatic? Does it have standing to inform and interact with law if it is not dynamic enough to adapt with the times, like law is supposed to do? I would argue that religion is a philosophy. It's not grounded in dogma that cannot be shifted. It's a theory. An idea. It may be wrong. It may be right. We cannot know until we test it. Laws are often based on philosophy. But, do we just accept all philosophies as fact because someone has thought about it for a while. Or do we need to vet it before it becomes part of our legal legacy? So, the question I have is, can you posit for us that homosexuality is a sin that has a detrimental affect on society so much so that we need to regulate it? Edited by Tadin, Jan 19 2013, 04:33 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Hellhound | Jan 19 2013, 04:36 AM Post #24 |
![]()
Warg
|
It is my belief that any nation that allows sin of any kind to spread, with its blessing, will incur God's disapproval, if not outright wrath. However, in answer to the question of religion in government, if the government would hold itself to a moral code put forward by a religion, then said government would be better off compared to one that held to no such code. |
![]() |
|
| Tadin | Jan 19 2013, 04:45 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Haradrim
|
Well, that all would depend on how you plan to measure "better off". Is it increased household income? Number of people killed do to violent crime? Education? Life expectancy? If we just say that any nation that embraces religion as law is better off, then that's a pretty large generalization. Iran, for example, embraces religion as law probably more than any other country in the world. I don't think I could argue that they are better off. I'm not sure if that makes for an effective indicator. |
![]() |
|
| Hellhound | Jan 19 2013, 04:49 AM Post #26 |
![]()
Warg
|
I mean, if individuals involved in politics were to hold themselves to a code of morals, instead of being completely self-serving, (a vain hope though it may be) then the whole country might be better off. But, it is easy to use religion as a means of control. Or a tool to bash someone who disagrees with you, if they argue against your beliefs. |
![]() |
|
| Tadin | Jan 20 2013, 02:11 AM Post #27 |
![]()
Haradrim
|
I agree. It can be a tool for control, especiaaly when religion is thought to be fact, instead of a philosophy. I think religion could be a nice thing if we as a society Decided to treat like food for thought. But, that doesnt mobilize people if it isnt treated like fact. Then, human nature for survival takes over to fall in line or suffer the consequences. Almost like Stockholm syndrome. As for politicians only interested in self preservation, that argument over simplifies the decision process of an elected official. Aside from trying to find consensus with all the point of views they represent, they also are concerned with staying in office so they can continue to serve. With how corrupt political financing has become, its no surprise that decisions get compromised. Just in order to stay afloat in future campaigns, you need to raise money every week. If we want our elected officials to spend more time work for us, we need to limit campaign contributions. Once we do that, then self preservation wontbe a primary concern. |
![]() |
|
| Hellhound | Jan 20 2013, 02:58 AM Post #28 |
![]()
Warg
|
Of course religion is going to be treated as fact. Any followers of any faith are going to believe, excepting lip service. But when the faith becomes "religion" and inseparable from government, then religious persecution and oppression are almost certain to follow. It is unfortunate that so much money is spent on campaigning. But if not money, power and influence are reason enough for politicians to be self serving. That is where a moral code of some kind were promoted. A set of standards that government officials were held to. |
![]() |
|
| PhDre | Jan 20 2013, 05:27 PM Post #29 |
![]()
|
Should it be against the law to sin? |
![]() |
|
| Hellhound | Jan 20 2013, 10:07 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Warg
|
It IS against God's law. But, in the hands of an earthly government, they can use the justification of religion to control every aspect of people's lives. And some sins Are against the law. Murder, for instance. Theft. But, since rejecting God is a sin, forcing people to say they believe is oppression, and robs people of the free will that God gave to us. |
![]() |
|
| Emrys Mercer | Jan 21 2013, 12:34 AM Post #31 |
|
I have no problem with it as it affects me none whatsoever. |
![]() |
|
| Cacti | Jan 22 2013, 11:53 AM Post #32 |
|
Marriage was around before Christianity and it has changed over time. In fact marriage was a civil affair in the Roman Empire. The early church took it over as a holy union when the Roman Empire collapsed and when the church became more and more powerful they defined the rules of marriage. Some churches around the Mediterranean in the 13th century conducted same-sex marriages. It was this that led to the church declared marriage a sacrement. Women were once described as property, handed over from father to husband. Interracial couples weren't allowed to marry until 1967 in the US. Marriage is a changing institution. It was a civil affair before it became a religious affair. Marriage will keep changing over the years and same-sex marriage is the next logical step. |
![]() |
|
| Hellhound | Jan 22 2013, 04:38 PM Post #33 |
![]()
Warg
|
Marriage was sacred in God's eyes since creation. |
![]() |
|
| Cacti | Jan 22 2013, 11:24 PM Post #34 |
|
Yet the church didn't care about marriage until the 13th century. |
![]() |
|
| Hellhound | Jan 23 2013, 01:21 AM Post #35 |
![]()
Warg
|
God is far older than the church. |
![]() |
|
| Cacti | Jan 23 2013, 10:08 AM Post #36 |
|
If you are male and had a brother and he sadly died, and he had a wife but no male heirs, would you marry his wife, or if you are female would you marry your late husbands brother, like God commands? |
![]() |
|
| Hellhound | Jan 23 2013, 03:48 PM Post #37 |
![]()
Warg
|
That question is entirely out of context. The Old Testament laws were rendered obsolete with the death of Christ on the cross. But the sanctity of marriage was reiterated in the New Testament. The marriage of a brother to his brother's widow was a means of taking care of the widow in a form of social welfare. |
![]() |
|
| Cacti | Jan 24 2013, 11:56 AM Post #38 |
|
My New Testament memory is a little rusty. Can you give examples of New Testament verses that state the sanctity of Marriage and that marriage must only be between a man and woman? |
![]() |
|
| Hellhound | Jan 24 2013, 03:25 PM Post #39 |
![]()
Warg
|
Matthew 19:4-6 "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." This is reiterated in the Book of Mark. And the following passage from 1 Corinthians 7:2 "because of sexual immorality each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband." Whenever marriage is mentioned, it is always man and woman. |
![]() |
|
| Andarev | Jan 24 2013, 04:49 PM Post #40 |
![]()
Easterlings
|
If you don't like homosexual marriage, then don't get one. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:04 PM Jul 11
|
Theme created by Sjaelen Auren from Zathyus Networks Resources












7:04 PM Jul 11