Original Marriage Definition

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
W

WinterBorn

Guest
I was enlightened as to the original meaning of "marriage" by a good friend.

Much talk has been about the original meaning of marriage and the long traditions of the institution. Several people have said we should not change the definiton.

The first references to "marriage" come from the Torah. And it is defined as between one JEWISH man and one JEWISH woman.

But if we pressure hard enough, I am sure we can get civil unions recognized for christians too.
 
Southern Man said:
I noticed it didn't say between a man and a man.
Click to expand...

Nope, that is why we are campaigning for a change.

But you insist that change in the definition of marriage is bad. So how about we get a civil union for your and your live-in partner?
 
Southern Man said:
'The definition is A so we are campaigning for it to be B.'

Rather odd logic.
Click to expand...

Nothing illogical about equality for all. We are campaigning for a change. So naturally 'A' cannot remain 'A', or there would be no change at all.

Nothing odd about my logic at all.
 
The "Traditional" def of marriage is constantly changing, it has been for hundrids of years. A marriage today is nuthing like a marriage a thousand years ago.

IN Jesus's time marriage to many wifes was common. Interreligous marriage was not allowed, inter racial marriage was not allowed and if you were married to a woman you owned her!
 
Jarod said:
The "Traditional" def of marriage is constantly changing, it has been for hundrids of years. A marriage today is nuthing like a marriage a thousand years ago.

IN Jesus's time marriage to many wifes was common. Interreligous marriage was not allowed, inter racial marriage was not allowed and if you were married to a woman you owned her!
Click to expand...
Marriage between one man and his wife has always been included in the definition; between two queers, never.
 
Southern Man said:
Marriage between one man and his wife has always been included in the definition; between two queers, never.
Click to expand...

In other words, you are willing to ignore any other changes in the definition of marriage, as long as we don't change things that you don't want changed?
 
WinterBorn said:
In other words, you are willing to ignore any other changes in the definition of marriage, as long as we don't change things that you don't want changed?
Click to expand...

YES, that is exactly what bigots like him believe. Only changes that he wants are allowed. Changes to provide others the same rights he is granted are not allowed if it goes against his OPINIONS.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, its not a change, but a refinement to require that the meaning include only one man with his wife. :)
Click to expand...

But it was a change to allow different religions to marry. It was a change to allow different races to marry. It was a change when women didn't become property when they married.

Those changes you don't mind. But the change to allow either opposite genders or same genders to marry is one you object to?
 
WinterBorn said:
But it was a change to allow different religions to marry. It was a change to allow different races to marry. It was a change when women didn't become property when they married.

....
Click to expand...

Not so much. Folks from different religions and races have always married. Eve wasn't Adam's property either. You're referring to man made bastardizations in order to justify another.
 
Southern Man said:
Not so much. Folks from different religions and races have always married. Eve wasn't Adam's property either. You're referring to man made bastardizations in order to justify another.
Click to expand...

No, I am referring to changes that have been made to the institutionof marriage.

Adam and Eve were not married.

And you don't mind "refining" marriage. Well thats all we want to do is to "refine" it to include same gender marriages. Opposite gender marriage will be uneffected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top