TED Conversations

Caitlin McDonald

Student - Loreto Normanhurst,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Technically Speaking about Religion and Gay Marriage

Technically Speaking....From a religious standpoint, marriage was not a creation of God. Adam and Eve were not married. It began during bible times, and is mentioned in the bible, therefore it is a creation of man.
How do certain faiths have the authority to choose whether it is acceptable or should be condemned due to the fact that nowhere in religious books, such as the Christian bible will you find anything about propagation of species?
How do two people of the same sex damage faith worldviews when it has no personal affect in the slightest manner?

I'd love to see whether others have picked up on things such as this. i am studying the case of Matthew Shepard who was murdered due to being gay in the late 1990's a story everyone would know something about. This disgusting act of murder was a hate crime and it sickens me knowing that people think its okay to kill others due to being so insecure about change.

Topics: Gay Marriage Matthew Shepard Same Sex Marriage religion social change society
+1
Share:
progress indicator

  • gale kooser 20+

    • 0
    Nov 17 2011: No one in their right mind would choose to be GLBT! Being persecuted is no fun folks!
    As to marriage: It's a piece of paper with perks-insurances etc. Religion should have no part in it. If two folks want to be together then no one should deny that. Many children have no parents but some folks including Gays & Lesbians step up & adopt, but it is hard to do so-thanks in part- to religious laws.
    Too much intolerance and not enough acceptance on every side of the coin.
  • thumb

    Debra Smith 200+

    • +1
    Nov 10 2011: Hi Caitlin!

    I have often wondered about the traditions that are enforced as though they are part of the relgious texts which are not even there. I wonder where they come from and why they have such power. Homosexuality, however, is not one of those cases. Relgious texts are full of the prohibitions and fear mongering that is seen today. I also wonder why some prohibitions are taken so deadly seriously while others which are equally threatened with stoning or 'abomination' are utterly ignored in society today- like divorce for example.

    In Canada where I live we have enshrined sexual preference as a human right and anyone who harms another based on their sexual orientation is charged with a hate crime which has very serious consequences. In the end, I think we have to rely on governments to lift us out of the residuals of the dark ages.
  • thumb

    brian herring

    • 0
    Nov 10 2011: Religion is used to control the "sheep" or masses. There is some truth is all religious texts but has been bastardized by men as a tool of control and power. If ANY religion was absolutely true or correct, there wouldn't be offshoots or seperate denominations within that religion. That's the truth. People argue and disagree and allow their ego to guide their actions. Would those things be reseperentative of ANY perfect religion? Of course not. In Christianity, it's doctrine is simply to profess Jesus as savior and son of god.(John 3:16-17). Thats all thats required of me to get into their heaven. According to their text, nothing, from that point can keep me out. So because society for ages, has followed the churches morality laws, it's deemed unlawful. Thats totally crazy. Why should any groups personal belief no matter how long they have held it, keep an adult from marrying another adult of any race,creed,or gender.? makes no sense, but mob, i mean majority gets its way(Why do you think they have to recruit 24/7?) historically, but hopefully people are tired of not being to make their own choices, and a new awareness is arising and it is becoming the majority. Thank god!
  • thumb

    Gisela McKay 30+

    • +2
    Oct 28 2011: As I have grumbled many times, marriage should have nothing to do with the law.

    Declaring someone to be your legal dependent and/or beneficiary SHOULD BE distinct from declaring someone to be your love for all eternity (which for most people is an amazingly short time).

    What the hell does the latter have to do with the government?
    • thumb

      Paul Lillebo

      • 0
      Nov 23 2011: You're drawing a distinction between moral commitment and legal commitment. I think that's philosophically valid, though for most people it seems to work best when the two involve the same person. Perhaps convenience is why they've merged.
      • thumb

        Gisela McKay 30+

        • 0
        Nov 24 2011: And still, if I wanted to name my cat my beneficiary (I don't) I can in my will. What I cannot do is declare that she should receive my pension ... OK, this is silly, let's change to my sister (who is married and does not need to be so named, but that is beside the point).

        If I want to declare someone to legally be my dependent or decide to do income splitting with a person, why should I have to marry them at all? Why should I pay more taxes strictly because I have no intention of pretending I am going to breed and thus marry someone? Everything costs me more as I am not already splitting the cost with another individual, so why on top of that must I be penalized at tax time?

        This "holy state of matrimony" bullshit should have nothing to do with the law.
        • thumb

          Thomas Jones 100+

          • 0
          Nov 24 2011: QUOTE: "This "holy state of matrimony" bullshit should have nothing to do with the law."

          No, Gesela, there's no need to be subtle, tell us what you really think.
        • thumb

          Paul Lillebo

          • 0
          Nov 24 2011: I agree that there shouldn't be tax consequences of marriage. One of hundreds of simplifications that we should make in our tax laws.

  • Louise Asselin

    • +1
    Oct 27 2011: Caitlin,

    I am curious as to why you say, so factually, that marriage was not a creation of God and that Adam and Eve were not married.

    Genesis 2:24 - "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

    So, technically speaking, "united to his wife" indicates marriage, no? A wife is defined as "a female partner in a marriage" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wife). This is stated immediately after Eve was created. There wasn't enough time between that creation and the following verse to affirm man created marriage. In fact, it affirms that it came from God.

    Secondly, how does the hate crime for this story specifically relate to religion? Did the killers kill in the name of their god? I understand your outlining topics, but trying to connect the dots for this specific story and what you are asking TEDsters.


    Anyways, my heart breaks for Matthew Shepard and his family. I can't begin to pretend how it feels to be treated as a second class citizen simply because you are homosexual, let alone be tortured to death for something that wasn't hurting anyone. Thank you for opening this discussion.
    • thumb

      brian herring

      • 0
      Nov 10 2011: then why would catholic priest sexually assult young boys, Louise?
      1st of all, your Aramaic to english translation, your hanging your hat on probably is a little diffrent that it was first intended. If religion was perfect, then maybe it would have to power to make tese kind of choices in peoples lives, but it's not. It's why we fight wars. It's why people die. Hopefully it's relevance and power is a thing of the past. I would suggest getting to know yourself, perfecting yourself, before you start demanding others do things your way. peace.
  • thumb

    Kenji Gerhardt

    • +3
    Oct 27 2011: Personally, I've always noticed the strongest tendency of religion is to be most active in putting down whatever would bring the largest number of people happiness in the shortest amount of time.

    However, in today's world, marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. Because of that, it is a matter of state. Church and state need to be separate, and religions should ,therefore, have absolutely no influence on whether gays can marry or not.
    • thumb

      Peter Law 30+

      • 0
      Oct 29 2011: Hi Kenji
      "and religions should ,therefore, have absolutely no influence on whether gays can marry or not."

      I agree, but the trouble is they often want to use the church building &/or the minister. That is when the 'religion' has to make a decision.

      :-)
      • thumb

        brian herring

        • +1
        Nov 10 2011: thats more tradition. The courthouse works just fine, if not better.
  • thumb

    Matthieu Miossec 100+

    • +1
    TED TranslatorAssociate
    Oct 27 2011: I share your outrage. I go a step further in not caring what religion has to say because it's all nonsense anyway.
    • thumb

      brian herring

      • +1
      Nov 10 2011: I would just say as irrelevant as religion is, don't let religious zealouts, keep you from being a spiritual or aware, being. I've found nature is a great place to start. not a lot of talking in nature, usually means something good is going on.
  • thumb

    Tanzi Gill

    • +2
    Oct 27 2011: Just as as you say marriage wasn't natural amongst humans beings, neither was homosexuality. No i am not against homosexuality. It is something I have never experienced so I don't have a right to judge anyone. I will tell you one thing, at the end of the we all are answerable to our own deeds. We have a right to choose but with choices comes consequences.
    • thumb

      Matthieu Miossec 100+

      • +2
      TED TranslatorAssociate
      Oct 27 2011: homosexuality is not a choice! Also, define natural. As I see it, homosexuality is natural because it happens in nature. What's your definition?
    • thumb

      Matthieu Miossec 100+

      • +2
      TED TranslatorAssociate
      Oct 27 2011: Also, a gay man made the modern computer, don't you forget that!
      • thumb

        Tanzi Gill

        • +1
        Oct 27 2011: Please be informed, I am not against homosexuals. We all have a right to love who we wish to love. And also apologies for the poor wordings. However, from Mother Nature's point of view, my confusion is if homosexuality was suppose to be natural amongst homo-sapiens then why hasn't mother nature allowed two same gender's to reproduce naturally? {I believe you can assist me in understanding this because by the looks of your profile you are more well learned than me in this part of human nature from scientific point of view.}

        I think it is a choice and a courageous one. Being yourself is a choice.

        Once again, I'd like to remind you, my intentions are not to hurt anyone and if so, then apologies in advance. And feel free to correct me if I am wrong because I don't know about you, but i'm here to understand and learn different perspectives.
        • thumb

          Matthieu Miossec 100+

          • +2
          TED TranslatorAssociate
          Oct 27 2011: Is every heterosexual encounter you have capable of producing offspring? Is it any less natural? Again, I find your definition of natural confounding and I can point to many human behaviors that don't exactly lead to reproduction and yet are commonplace and not considered unnatural. I can point to homosexuality in nature too, outside the realm of human beings.

          It's not a choice, whatever you may think. I have never met a gay man who has told me that he chose to be that way. in fact, given the social stigma, some lament the fact that they could not be otherwise. I don't see how it could be, I didn't chose to be straight, so why should a gay man chose to be gay?
      • thumb

        Paul Lillebo

        • 0
        Nov 23 2011: And a straight man made the paper clip, don't you forget that!
        (Whatever the point of this excursion may be ...)
    • thumb

      Julian Blanco 30+

      • +4
      Oct 29 2011: Dear Tanzi:

      Two comments:

      First: Homosexuality is a natural behavior observed in many species (1500 species according to Wikipedia) including mammals, birds, lizards, insects, etc.
      Why should it be unnatural in humans?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_homosexuality

      Second: by your last statement that we shall all have to “answer for our deeds”, that is not a fact, that is just what you believe. I personally don’t believe in any supernatural infinite entity, far less in one that cares about people’s sexual preferences…

      Regards!

      JB
    • thumb

      brian herring

      • 0
      Nov 10 2011: tanzi, how do you know we all answer our deeds when we die? because we don't answer anything about this life, we change states of being and become totally unaware of this human existance. Don't assume to present ideas as truth, that are not able to be proven.
Showing all 25 comments