Why do people who push so-called "same-sex marriage" define it as between two people?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hokomai said:
It is standard Christian polygamist doctrine that marriage is between one man and one woman, each time it happens. It is possible for there to be more than ‘one’. I have no view on what Jesus meant, or whether he even said this or something like it, but the words like so many words of scripture are open to interpretation, including extreme interpretation. Why, if he wanted to be clear Jesus did not say: “I lay down some rules about marriage. Only an adult man and an adult woman can get married, and then only once while the other is alive, and they can’t get divorced ever” ? However, I digress. I was asking for the authority for the Bible saying that marriage could only be between a man and a woman because each of us has two biological parents, and no one has been able to cite it for me, despite the claim that it is in there somewhere.
Click to expand...
Really your a murder did you get time for that.

Oh sorry since what you said is open to interpretation, thats what your saying right?
 
Petersmate said:
Really your a murder did you get time for that.

Oh sorry since what you said is open to interpretation, thats what your saying right?
Click to expand...
I think I can work out what you mean. Is it:
"Really? You’re a murderer? Did you get time for that? Oh sorry, since what you said is open to interpretation, that’s what you’re saying, right?
Click to expand...
If that is what you were saying, then I disagree. I am not saying that all words are open to any interpretation. I am saying that the particular words of Jesus, quoted above, are open to the interpretation put on them by some polygamists, who believe in Jesus, and that he said these words. I am also saying that such potential for ambiguity is common in scripture, and only partly removed for Catholics by church teaching, which is itself sometimes obscure.
 
Hokomai said:
I think I can work out what you mean. Is it:

If that is what you were saying, then I disagree. I am not saying that all words are open to any interpretation. I am saying that the particular words of Jesus, quoted above, are open to the interpretation put on them by some polygamists, who believe in Jesus, and that he said these words. I am also saying that such potential for ambiguity is common in scripture, and only partly removed for Catholics by church teaching, which is itself sometimes obscure.
Click to expand...
Well I’m glad you at least agree with the Catholic Church.
 
livingwordunity said:
Heterosexual marriage is normally limited to two people because every child has two biological parents, one male and one female.
Click to expand...
Just this week on Showtime, a program was aired describing several “polyamorous” families … that is, “marriages” in which there are more than two people. The program was very sympathetic to these situations, and presented them as just “everyday” people that are in open relationships that include husband, wife, second wife, groups of 4 or more, etc., etc. Although the legal recognition of such multiparty relationships was not the main focus of the program, the implication that was hammered home was that people should be able to enter into whatever form of “marital” relationship they wish, as long as all parties do so volutarily. Again, the idea of “marriage” is redefined to the detriment of children, and for the gratuitous benefit of the “adult” partners.

It would be funny… if it weren’t so sad.

Peace,
Robert
 
Robert_in_SD said:
Just this week on Showtime, a program was aired describing several “polyamorous” families … that is, “marriages” in which there are more than two people. The program was very sympathetic to these situations, and presented them as just “everyday” people that are in open relationships that include husband, wife, second wife, groups of 4 or more, etc., etc. Although the legal recognition of such multiparty relationships was not the main focus of the program, the implication that was hammered home was that people should be able to enter into whatever form of “marital” relationship they wish, as long as all parties do so volutarily. Again, the idea of “marriage” is redefined to the detriment of children, and for the gratuitous benefit of the “adult” partners.

It would be funny… if it weren’t so sad.

Peace,
Robert
Click to expand...
Yep, and they deny that this is a slippery slope. They will continue to deny it until society accepts it. Then liberals and “gay” activists will say “yeah, so what?” when all the while they knew they were lying. But these “progressives” can’t fool me for a second.
 
Hokomai said:
Well, yes I understand about the teaching of the Church, but I was advised to read the Bible on this point. and your verse does not forbid polygamy. Why cannot, under this verse, a man have a series of relationships with different women, creating ‘one flesh’ on each occasion? Or a woman more than one husband? But I was challenging the assertion that marriage can be only between a single man and a single women because everyone has two biological parents. I asked why. i was told the Bible. I asked where it says this. So far, nowhere.
Click to expand...
Well, a man cannot create one flesh wih more than one woman. Thats why Jesus says to all the divorced, “youre all still married to your first wives.”

🙂
 
livingwordunity said:
Heterosexual marriage is normally limited to two people because every child has two biological parents, one male and one female.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Heterosexual marriage for Muslims is limited to five people, one, and only one, of whom must be male. Fundamentalist Mormons allow more wives, though still only one male. David had eight wives, Solomon had seven hundred.

The number of people in a heterosexual marriage has varied in the past, and varies at present.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Incorrect. Heterosexual marriage for Muslims is limited to five people, one, and only one, of whom must be male. Fundamentalist Mormons allow more wives, though still only one male. David had eight wives, Solomon had seven hundred.

The number of people in a heterosexual marriage has varied in the past, and varies at present.

rossum
Click to expand...
All the marriages you mentioned are heterosexual, they are not homosexual
 
_Abyssinia said:
All the marriages you mentioned are heterosexual, they are not homosexual
Click to expand...
Seeing as he was responding to someone who was very specifically talking about heterosexual marriage, doesn’t it make sense he would respond also talking about heterosexual marriage?
 
rossum said:
Incorrect. Heterosexual marriage for Muslims is limited to five people, one, and only one, of whom must be male. Fundamentalist Mormons allow more wives, though still only one male. David had eight wives, Solomon had seven hundred.

The number of people in a heterosexual marriage has varied in the past, and varies at present.

rossum
Click to expand...
What you are describing is outside the norm. Livingwordunity qualified his/her statement with the word “normally.”
 
rossum said:
Incorrect. Heterosexual marriage for Muslims is limited to five people, one, and only one, of whom must be male. Fundamentalist Mormons allow more wives, though still only one male. David had eight wives, Solomon had seven hundred.

The number of people in a heterosexual marriage has varied in the past, and varies at present.

rossum
Click to expand...
Aberrations do not prove that the existence of such things are right or must be legally acceptable.
 
fix said:
Aberrations do not prove that the existence of such things are right or must be legally acceptable.
Click to expand...
Likewise nor does a common practice prove it’s right or must be legal based on the fact it is simply common place.
 
EviPolevhia said:
Likewise nor does a common practice prove it’s right or must be legal based on the fact it is simply common place.
Click to expand...
Actually, it does prove it is right.

In fact, that marriage has always been between a male and female should not even be questioned as it is self evident.

Only in the post modern mind would any person actually ask if marriage should be other than a male and female.

Changing the standard requires some logical reason.

The very first thing is to understand is what marriage is.
 
Marriage is a natural institution and has been between one man and one woman in every culture that has ever existed; the fact that there have been exceptions to this standard does not change the fact that this is the standard.

The issue seems to be this: does “marriage” define something specific or does the term mean whatever we wish it to mean? If the term has real meaning - like the word dog - then it cannot be arbitrarily changed to mean something else. If the term does not mean anything specific, however, - like the word critter - then it can mean whatever we want it to mean.

This is what the fight over same-sex “marriage” is about - the definition of the term. The thing to recognize is that once marriage is determined to be an arbitrary term with no specific meaning then there is no rational way to put limits on what constitutes a “marriage.” If the term is arbitrary then refusing to recognize anyone’s definition is also arbitrary and there is no moral or logical defense for arbitrariness. Once marriage is defined as an arbitrary term then there is no reason to believe that it could be limited to two people as both “two” and “people” are arbitrary as well.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Once marriage is defined as an arbitrary term then there is no reason to believe that it could be limited to two people as both “two” and “people” are arbitrary as well.

Ender
Click to expand...
Two is less arbitrary then the word dog. What are you talking about? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top