Traditional marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan_McVay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dan_McVay

Guest
If we going to have traditional marriage, shouldn’t men buy their wives as property? Going back to to the earliest marriage contracts, like Sumerian Ra-immum’s, wives were bought as property. It is a tradition seen carried on in the Bible and Christian Europe. Why not go back to the original traditions? Why are some traditions natural and required, while others can be abandoned? Why is the tradition of treating a wife as property nit required by natural law but the tradition of having the partners be of different sexes is? Why was it okay to abandon an approximately five-to-six-thousand-year tradition of treating wives as property?
 
Dan_McVay said:
If we going to have traditional marriage, shouldn’t men buy their wives as property? Going back to to the earliest marriage contracts, like Sumerian Ra-immum’s, wives were bought as property. It is a tradition seen carried on in the Bible and Christian Europe. Why not go back to the original traditions? Why are some traditions natural and required, while others can be abandoned? Why is the tradition of treating a wife as property nit required by natural law but the tradition of having the partners be of different sexes is? Why was it okay to abandon an approximately five-to-six-thousand-year tradition of treating wives as property?
Click to expand...
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

Why don’t we start by defining what natural law is.
 
Dan_McVay said:
If we going to have traditional marriage, shouldn’t men buy their wives as property? Going back to to the earliest marriage contracts, like Sumerian Ra-immum’s, wives were bought as property. It is a tradition seen carried on in the Bible and Christian Europe. Why not go back to the original traditions? Why are some traditions natural and required, while others can be abandoned? Why is the tradition of treating a wife as property nit required by natural law but the tradition of having the partners be of different sexes is? Why was it okay to abandon an approximately five-to-six-thousand-year tradition of treating wives as property?
Click to expand...
Christ has already given the answer to this question.

**It was not so in the beginning. **

Sin entered the world and through sin the disordered acts youn describe,
 
1ke said:
I don’t think you understand what natural law is.
Click to expand...
Aristotle’s view was that while what was customary varied from place to place, what was natural was the same everywhere.
 
The “tradition” 😃 of having opposite sexes as partners probably arose out of the biological makeup of human beings as well as the necessity for the continuance of the race!

While women have not always been treated as property, there have been social customs to ensure the financial stability of the union; dowries for women, payments from men to the father of the bride. The tradition continues, or seems to have been revived, in the form of pre-nuptial agreements.
 
Dan_McVay said:
Aristotle’s view was that while what was customary varied from place to place, what was natural was the same everywhere.
Click to expand...
I gave you a link to the Church’s view on natural law. I assume that is what you wish to debate is it not? I’m not going to debate why the Church does not hold itself to a standard that it doesn’t claim to hold to…
 
Dan_McVay said:
If we going to have traditional marriage, shouldn’t men buy their wives as property? Going back to to the earliest marriage contracts, like Sumerian Ra-immum’s, wives were bought as property. It is a tradition seen carried on in the Bible and Christian Europe. Why not go back to the original traditions? Why are some traditions natural and required, while others can be abandoned? Why is the tradition of treating a wife as property nit required by natural law but the tradition of having the partners be of different sexes is? Why was it okay to abandon an approximately five-to-six-thousand-year tradition of treating wives as property?
Click to expand...
Your argument is a fallacy that’s known as an Improper transposition.

Example:

If p then q.
Therefore, if not-p then not-q.

“If you uphold the oldest traditions of mankind, you are a traditionalist. If you do not uphold the oldest traditions, you are not a traditionalist.”
Dan_McVay said:
Aristotle’s view was that while what was customary varied from place to place, what was natural was the same everywhere.
Click to expand...
  1. St. Paul said the same of natural law. He’s more germaine to our Catholic context. Read the Epistles. Furthermore, marriage contracts are not mentioned in the New Testament.
  2. Natural law is a building block or a foundation upon which God EXPANDS.
  3. In addition to being quite the fan of traditional Christian marriage, I like to read books as well. Are you saying that in order for that statement to be true I must read every book ever written by man? Of course not.
People uphold tradition in DEGREES, and according to CONTEXT. There is no principle which says that traditionalists must defer to the most obscure traditions of mankind. These Sumerian marriage contracts are dead to Christians and devoid of meaning because Christians did not practice these arrangements, at least not as an article of the Christian faith; they are not spoken of in our Scriptures (not in the light of the New Testament) or among our traditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top