Why should marriage be preserved for a man and a woman?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tonyrey

Guest
Are there any valid reasons why marriage should lose its unique status as a permanent bond between a man and a woman which is the basis of family life?
 
tonyrey said:
Are there any valid reasons why marriage should lose its unique status as a permanent bond between a man and a woman which is the basis of family life?
Click to expand...
To paraphrase Mary Eberstadt…in her new book…“How the West really lost God”…the DNA of a civilization is built on the double helix of Faith and Family.

The traditional family of a man’s unique gift complimented by a woman’s unique gift…bringing forth children into a stable, self-sustaining and self-nurturing environment…is a tottering wall today…and gay marriage will knock it over. Yes, changing the definition of Marriage will have broad consequences…it already has…It was unheard of just 50 years ago that America would allow a radical Leftist regime to bully its populace in the name of “empathy”…but most of us are satisfied with these bullies as long as our government continues to subsidize and support our broken homes and hook-up culture.

Beware…Marriage is a load-bearing wall of Western civilization.
 
tonyrey said:
Are there any valid reasons why marriage should lose its unique status as a permanent bond between a man and a woman which is the basis of family life?
Click to expand...
No. there are no valid reasons to try to change the defination of marriage. Marriage is a metaphysical reality based on the biological complementarity of man and woman, which preceeds both religious and secular power. We can no more redefine marriage that we an redefine what it means to be a table or a dog. In a fit of nominalism we could call everything with four legs a table, even when its a dog and not a horse but that wouldn’t make it true in reality. The same is true of marriage, a man can no more ‘marry’ a man than he can a grapefruit, although some government somewhere may legally allow him to enter a civil partnership with said grapefruit if it deems fit.
 
God instituted marriage in the garden of Eden. Therefore
marriage between man and woman is Gods standard.
 
Pugsly said:
It was unheard of just 50 years ago that America would allow a radical Leftist regime to bully its populace in the name of “empathy”
Click to expand...
In some places 50 years ago it was unheard of that a black man was allowed to marry a white woman. But there was a voice in the wilderness.

This year is the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial:

*… There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”.

… I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”*

A lot has happened in 50 years, but for those who are still asking the devotees of civil rights “When will you be satisfied?”, the answer is not yet, not yet.
 
inocente said:
In some places 50 years ago it was unheard of that a black man was allowed to marry a white woman. But there was a voice in the wilderness.

This year is the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial:

*… There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”.

… I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”*

A lot has happened in 50 years, but for those who are still asking the devotees of civil rights “When will you be satisfied?”, the answer is not yet, not yet.
Click to expand...
In the case of a black-white marriage it can be said that such a bond is very much ordered toward the creation of new life, and is certainly ordered to nature. The objection against the marriage between a black and white person is not grounded in any legitimate theological or biblical reasoning. That being said, your post doesn’t really answer the question, nor does it provide a legitimate reason why marriage should be changed.
 
When full sexual relationships between members of the same sex are regarded as equal as that of between the opposite sex, where does that leave the styatus of children, bearing in mind that same sex unions are unable to produce off-spring?

Children become mere optional by products

Since this is the status of the unborn child, so the anti-life army have completed the pincer movement, and reduced the personhood status of born children, too.

This will extend, so that only those in a position of power are reserved the rights of full personhood, while the rest have their rights deminished by the steady erosion of their personhoods.
 
Read the Symposium by Plato. Socrates talks about how homoerotic relations were often an exchange of sexual favors, reserved for the benefit of the older male, traded for the passing on of knowledge to the younger male. For Socrates, this relationship was merely beneficial for the wisdom you could gain.

Therefore I think homosexual tendencies is an attraction that arrives from the mind. The thing is, our minds deceive us. We are made to think that it is natural for us to gravitate towards the same sex and that we should be allowed to marry a same sex. Two of the same sex is not complimentary. Homosexuality is a graduated friendship that employs an eroticism of the mind.

Marriage is very much like the completion or harmony of Yin and Yang. A Taoist will say that literally man needs woman’s essence, and she needs his, in order to achieve longevity and insure health into old age. Then start applying theological arguments and see the reality and truth of Scripture. Marriage is meant for the flourishing of children and for them to come into the light of God. We need both a mother and a father. The commandment does not read honor thy fathers or both mothers…God is very explicit that this communion is meant solely for Man and Woman.

In summary…homosexuality is a love of the mind, but never ever can be the soul mate love which God alone plans for us.

God love you all.
 
inocente said:
In some places 50 years ago it was unheard of that a black man was allowed to marry a white woman. But there was a voice in the wilderness.

This year is the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial:

*… There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”.

… I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”*

A lot has happened in 50 years, but for those who are still asking the devotees of civil rights “When will you be satisfied?”, the answer is not yet, not yet.
Click to expand...
You cannot legitimately compare interracial marraige and homosexual ‘marriage’ or turn it into a civil rights issue, this is whats called a category error. Interracial marriage was banned in the states because it was actually possible and had happened throughout history. There was a fear of intermarriage and so it was unjustly banned. The colour of the participants in marriage is accidental to the substance of the bond, gender is not. Rights cannot exist where natural potentials are lacking.

A man(a rational animal with XY chromosomes) for instance has no ‘right’ to become pregnant, his rights are not infringed by not acting out what for a man is a metaphysical impossibility. Likewise the marriage bond relies on the biological complementarity of the sexes for it to exist. No right to marriage can exist where the metaphsyical capacity to contract marriage is missing by nature. There is a vast difference between actual equality, which I am in favour of, and the ‘sameness’ advocated in the ‘homosexual marriage’ debate which ultimately seeks to destroy the dignity expressed in the differences between man and woman. Equal in dignity different in function.

(Incidentally I hope you agree that a mans rights are not infringed by that sign on the toilet door which says “Women Only” but that is another discussion)
 
CompSciGuy said:
In the case of a black-white marriage it can be said that such a bond is very much ordered toward the creation of new life, and is certainly ordered to nature. The objection against the marriage between a black and white person is not grounded in any legitimate theological or biblical reasoning. That being said, your post doesn’t really answer the question, nor does it provide a legitimate reason why marriage should be changed.
Click to expand...
The white-supremacist logic of 50 years ago was that marriage between a black man and a white women was disordered for that very reason, since according to them the new life created wouldn’t be “racial pure”.

My post was gently suggesting that civil rights is an ongoing struggle, and our institutions are broken unless they reflect the primacy of the truth we hold to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal.
 
Theophorus said:
You cannot legitimately compare interracial marraige and homosexual ‘marriage’ or turn it into a civil rights issue, this is whats called a category error. Interracial marriage was banned in the states because it was actually possible and had happened throughout history. There was a fear of intermarriage and so it was unjustly banned. The colour of the participants in marriage is accidental to the substance of the bond, gender is not. Rights cannot exist where natural potentials are lacking.

A man(a rational animal with XY chromosomes) for instance has no ‘right’ to become pregnant, his rights are not infringed by not acting out what for a man is a metaphysical impossibility. Likewise the marriage bond relies on the biological complementarity of the sexes for it to exist. No right to marriage can exist where the metaphsyical capacity to contract marriage is missing by nature. There is a vast difference between actual equality, which I am in favour of, and the ‘sameness’ advocated in the ‘homosexual marriage’ debate which ultimately seeks to destroy the dignity expressed in the differences between man and woman. Equal in dignity different in function.

(Incidentally I hope you agree that a mans rights are not infringed by that sign on the toilet door which says “Women Only” but that is another discussion)
Click to expand...
👍 With a delightful parting shot. Perhaps “Men Only” would be more appropriate in the context of rights! 😉
 
philial said:
When full sexual relationships between members of the same sex are regarded as equal as that of between the opposite sex, where does that leave the styatus of children, bearing in mind that same sex unions are unable to produce off-spring?

Children become mere optional by products

Since this is the status of the unborn child, so the anti-life army have completed the pincer movement, and reduced the personhood status of born children, too.

This will extend, so that only those in a position of power are reserved the rights of full personhood, while the rest have their rights diminished by the steady erosion of their personhoods.
Click to expand...
👍 Anything is permissible when men decide who is a person and who isn’t…
 
tonyrey said:
Are there any valid reasons why marriage should lose its unique status as a permanent bond between a man and a woman which is the basis of family life?
Click to expand...
Creation mandate: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.”
 
inocente said:
The white-supremacist logic of 50 years ago was that marriage between a black man and a white women was disordered for that very reason, since according to them the new life created wouldn’t be “racial pure”.

My post was gently suggesting that civil rights is an ongoing struggle, and our institutions are broken unless they reflect the primacy of the truth we hold to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal.
Click to expand...
All men and women are indeed created equal to other men and women. It is not the same as saying man-man or woman-woman pairing is equal to man-woman in marriage.

The right to gay ‘marriage’ is an invented civil right.
,
 
Theophorus said:
You cannot legitimately compare interracial marraige and homosexual ‘marriage’ or turn it into a civil rights issue, this is whats called a category error.
Click to expand...
White supremacists thought blacks were sub-human and only white Anglo-Saxon males could have rights, so for them that wasn’t a civil rights issue either. Once the primacy of the truth we hold to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal is dropped, anything can be excluded from civil rights merely by fiddling around with definitions.

I’m trying to find clear air between civil rights issues of the past and this one today.
*Interracial marriage was banned in the states because it was actually possible and had happened throughout history. There was a fear of intermarriage and so it was unjustly banned. The colour of the participants in marriage is accidental to the substance of the bond, gender is not. Rights cannot exist where natural potentials are lacking.
*
Click to expand...
Just as there is today, in some places, a fear of equal marriage. Fifty years’ ago there were those who argued that the color of the spouses’ skins was fundamental to the bond, just as now there are those who say their genders are fundamental. I’m trying to understand if there is a substantive difference.
A man(a rational animal with XY chromosomes) for instance has no ‘right’ to become pregnant, his rights are not infringed by not acting out what for a man is a metaphysical impossibility. Likewise the marriage bond relies on the biological complementarity of the sexes for it to exist. No right to marriage can exist where the metaphsyical capacity to contract marriage is missing by nature. There is a vast difference between actual equality, which I am in favour of, and the ‘sameness’ advocated in the ‘homosexual marriage’ debate which ultimately seeks to destroy the dignity expressed in the differences between man and woman. Equal in dignity different in function.
Click to expand...
Men and women have different “functions”? Like a man’s function is to earn a wage and a woman’s is to make his dinner? Suppose the man stays at home and the woman earns the wage, is that still complementary? How about if the woman says at home and the other woman earns a wage? Or are you just talking about differences in (how to put this politely) undergarments?
(Incidentally I hope you agree that a mans rights are not infringed by that sign on the toilet door which says “Women Only” but that is another discussion)
Click to expand...
No, it applies equally to straights and to gays. :cool:
 
InSearchofGrace said:
All men and women are indeed created equal to other men and women. It is not the same as saying man-man or woman-woman pairing is equal to man-woman in marriage.

The right to gay ‘marriage’ is an invented civil right.
Click to expand...
Technically, aren’t all civil rights invented?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top