Biblical Marriage Not Defined Simply As One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious Scholars'

Jarod said:
What if the man never met his father. Can he no longer get married? Or in that case, is the marriage to a woman not required?

I see where that passage allows for hetrosexual marriage I simply do not see where it requires it.

Jesus did not have a father (not a biological one), so would he have been allowed to have a homosexual marriage, because he could not leave his parents, plural!
Click to expand...

And guess if you need to take care of your parents for some reason, so you stay home, you're just out of luck in the marriage biz
 
patriot66 said:
It's really simple actually,

Matthew 19:5-6

New King James Version (NKJV)

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[a] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like an argument against divorce and nothing more.
 
patriot66 said:
It's really simple actually,

Matthew 19:5-6

New King James Version (NKJV)

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[a] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Click to expand...

And if I don't share your belief in the Christian Bible? Anyone that would take this as an excuse or reason for a state or federal law would be trying to impose (as in force) that religion or that interpretation of it on other people that do not agree. The sooner we get rid of this idea that two people are legally one (or ever need to be,) the sooner we will all be treated as individuals no matter who we choose to live with.

Then this whole argument of who can "marry" who just goes away.
 
Red Mule said:
But you are still making ASSUMPTIONS on what most people think. Where is your study and where are your numbers?
I've been willing to drop the goat (maybe an annulment?) but you keep bringing it up. Cruelty to animals? I rather suspect that if the goat enjoyed it, it's not cruelty. Where and how do you think they get the bull semen to impregnate all those dairy cows? Cruelty, perverted sex? After all, are we sure it's a cowGIRL that jacked off the bull?

My POINT is that who (or what, when it really comes down to it) that I marry is just none of your damned business, whatever your reasons. If you want to argue about who (or what) should benefit from my insurance, my investments, my death, etc... go right ahead. THAT is a reasonable thing to argue about because it could impact other people. It's not MY fault that laws are written that reward people for being married and (by extension) limit or punish others that legally cannot. The problem is not the marriage - it's the laws and regulations tied to it.

Why not just drop the whole fiction that two married people are now one person? They should be able to write up their own partnership agreements. If some other organization is involved, just treat everyone as an individual or something like a business partner. Maybe people should just incorporate??? But, get it out of the church and get other people out of our bedrooms.
Click to expand...

those that quote a religious work as a reason for the government/law to do something are advocating a theocracy whether they realize it or not
 
Red Mule said:
And if I don't share your belief in the Christian Bible? Anyone that would take this as an excuse or reason for a state or federal law would be trying to impose (as in force) that religion or that interpretation of it on other people that do not agree. The sooner we get rid of this idea that two people are legally one (or ever need to be,) the sooner we will all be treated as individuals no matter who we choose to live with.

Then this whole argument of who can "marry" who just goes away.
Click to expand...

Marriage is, and has always been a religious institution, Government got involved as a way to charge people for the license.
 
Red Mule said:
And if I don't share your belief in the Christian Bible? Anyone that would take this as an excuse or reason for a state or federal law would be trying to impose (as in force) that religion or that interpretation of it on other people that do not agree. The sooner we get rid of this idea that two people are legally one (or ever need to be,) the sooner we will all be treated as individuals no matter who we choose to live with.

Then this whole argument of who can "marry" who just goes away.
Click to expand...

as far as I am aware there are those people who aren't Christians who marry.....even atheists.....as you might recall, if you are capable of recollection, the verse from Matthew was brought up in response to the specific question about whether the Bible spoke on the nature of marriage clearly or not.......nobody is trying to require you to believe in the Bible.....and the understanding that marriage is a relationship between a man and a women transcends any specific religion or even all religion itself.....

anyone that thinks it is an attempt to force religion on them, is an idiot.....(and looking at the folks who "thanked" your post, we have a list of them......)
 
patriot66 said:
Marriage is, and has always been a religious institution, Government got involved as a way to charge people for the license.
Click to expand...

wrong, government got involved for two reasons, a way of keeping track of who is married to whom for legal purposes and later as a way to check for stds (a blood test used to be required before you could get married)
 
Don Quixote said:
wrong, government got involved for two reasons, a way of keeping track of who is married to whom for legal purposes and later as a way to check for stds (a blood test used to be required before you could get married)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't 'domestic partnerships" allow GovCo to do the same thing?
 
patriot66 said:
Marriage is, and has always been a religious institution, Government got involved as a way to charge people for the license.
Click to expand...

So atheists were never able to marry?

Civil marriage was about land and about power back in the days. Later it became about responsibility for kids. Doubt the govt counts marriage license fees as a major part of its income, but who knows?

In terms of domestic partnerships - if we want to change ALL recognized-by-the-state relationships to domestic partnerships, I might agree. But seems like a lot of work to go through when just changing the man/woman in the marriage laws to "2 people" seems so much easier.
 
tekkychick said:
So atheists were never able to marry?

Civil marriage was about land and about power back in the days. Later it became about responsibility for kids. Doubt the govt counts marriage license fees as a major part of its income, but who knows?

In terms of domestic partnerships - if we want to change ALL recognized-by-the-state relationships to domestic partnerships, I might agree. But seems like a lot of work to go through when just changing the man/woman in the marriage laws to "2 people" seems so much easier.
Click to expand...

how about 2 or more consenting adults while we are at it
 
patriot66 said:
Marriage is, and has always been a religious institution, Government got involved as a way to charge people for the license.
Click to expand...

Nope, marriage was social, to insure rights to property, title and heirs. The church only got involved later on.
 
Last edited:
Rana said:
Nope, marriage was social, to insurance rights to property, title and heirs. The church only got involved later on.
Click to expand...

anyone who has ever researched genealogy knows that prior to Napoleon the only records of marriage and birth were kept by churches. He is the one who established government records in all the areas he controlled......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
will they get the same protections under the law that married men and women receive?......
Click to expand...

Are you referring to domestic partnership question? If everyone is under domestic partnerships - the govt doesn't "marry" any more -then they get whatever rights are allowed for domestic partners, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Either everyone gets married or everyone is in a domestic partnership; having two different things is how you get discrimination.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no......the domestic partnership question is moot since it was rejected as inadequate by the gay community.......
Click to expand...

Yes, that was because heterosexuals would still be allowed to be married, while same sex partners only got domestic partnerships.

An earlier comment on this thread was:
Wouldn't 'domestic partnerships" allow GovCo to do the same thing?
Click to expand...
(in reference to tracking status)

My comment was - if EVERYONE had domestic partnerships - I might be okay with that - but that seems like a lot more work than just changing marriage to include same sex partners.

Clear now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top