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.
tonyfrancis21 said:
If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).
How does your morality as a Catholic justify the above law?

The purpose of this legislation was to assure that each family and tribe in Israel was perpetuated by the bearing of children. When the oldest brother married, but died before having any children, the younger brother was to take the widow as his wife so that the first son would carry on the name and the leadership of the deceased. Other legislation assured that the inheritance of land would remain in the tribes and families. Here was a very practical law, given to assure future generations. One can especially see the importance of this legislation when you recall the fact that Messiah would be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15), from the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:9-10), of the line of David (2 Samuel 7:8-16). How crucial it was for the tribes of Israel to perpetuate, for from such the Messiah would be born.

Laws are made to suit the circumstances and location and time when it is applied.
In Moses’ time, it was a sin to kill a man, but in Jesus’ time, even not loving your enemy was a sin.
In Moses’ time, fornication was a sin, but in Jesus’s time, even looking at a woman lustfully was a sin.
Now since America is tracing her path back to the days of Noah, Laws have to change to suit the times.
Click to expand...
Natural Law, partially explained in the Ten Commandments, is eternal. Truth does not change, even to suit the times.
 
Jesus said that, in the last days, they would teach that it is wrong to marry.
He also said that the distress and suffering in those days would be worse than had ever been or ever will be again.

So, marriage is good but we are heading down the path of Western governments denying the sanctity of marriage. It’s just one more step to teach that it is wrong to marry at all.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Yes, I understand that this is the Catholic teaching. While there have been religious influence on law it does appear that adhering to the seven sacraments isn’t one of the goals of the the law.

From what I’ve seen when some one wants to redefine marriage in the public sphere the person is not seeking to redefine the Sacrament of Matrimony. It seems that the goal is to get the legal benefits that come with having such a civil contract. In other words if the option were available to allow the legal benefits of the marriage contract with the condition that “Your marriage will not be recognized as a Marriage by various churches” (not just speaking about the Church here) that proponents of marriage redefinition would largely accept as a state level victory with the exception of a small few. In the regions of the USA in which marriage has been redefined (12 states + the District of Columbia) this seems to be what has happened.

The Sacraments are considered permanent. But civil contracts can be terminated. It is because of this that there has been previous talks of renaming the civil agreements from “Marriage” to something else. But such a decision was largely unpopular. So legal marriage contracts and the Sacrament of Matrimony are often conflated together though it seems they are polysemic.
Click to expand...
👍 There are supporters of gay marriage on this forum - including a Christian - who will not be satisfied until marriage is redefined!
 
bsroufek said:
Jesus said that, in the last days, they would teach that it is wrong to marry.
He also said that the distress and suffering in those days would be worse than had ever been or ever will be again.

So, marriage is good but we are heading down the path of Western governments denying the sanctity of marriage. It’s just one more step to teach that it is wrong to marry at all.
Click to expand...
Or meaningless - as is often the case in the UK! 🙂
 
JackQ said:
It’s impossible for it to lose its status. Marriage is a permanent bond between a man and a woman, and the state can’t change it. Even if the state tries to change it, no change actually happens. Same sex marriage is an illusion.

That’s the point that both sides in the debate keep missing.
Click to expand...
In this benighted world many disagree with you because gay marriage has been legalised in fourteen countries with another eight on the way!
 
What is/are the precise purpose/s of marriage? To show everyone is equal? 😉
 
tonyrey said:
What is/are the precise purpose/s of marriage? To show everyone is equal? 😉
Click to expand...
To show ever one is equal? No. In some communities the female is still seeing subservient and less than a man. I can recall this message being shared the last time I was within a church. The justification for it went something along these lines:

God made man so man must be subservient to God. Woman was made from man so woman must be subservient to man. Woman was the cause of the fall from Eden so man must always be the leader because when woman lead man it caused problems.

While this view isn’t universal to the different sects of Christianity it does still exists today.

But getting back to your first question on the precise purpose of marriage that’s a hard one. Different people have different motivations/justifications/purpose for marriage. Some that I’ve come across include a license to have sex, an expression of love to some one, to attain social status, to attain some form of security, a rite of passage, tradition/custom, securing a business arrangement (in the case of arranged marriage) and many others. When it comes to purpose marriage is quite multifarious.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
To show ever one is equal? No. In some communities the female is still seeing subservient and less than a man. I can recall this message being shared the last time I was within a church. The justification for it went something along these lines:

God made man so man must be subservient to God. Woman was made from man so woman must be subservient to man. Woman was the cause of the fall from Eden so man must always be the leader because when woman lead man it caused problems.

While this view isn’t universal to the different sects of Christianity it does still exists today.
Click to expand...
It is certainly alien to the teaching of Jesus who treated women as equals and said man and woman were made for each other - in other words they fulfil complementary roles not as master and servant but as partners.
But getting back to your first question on the precise purpose of marriage that’s a hard one. Different people have different motivations/justifications/purpose for marriage. Some that I’ve come across include a license to have sex, an expression of love to some one, to attain social status, to attain some form of security, a rite of passage, tradition/custom, securing a business arrangement (in the case of arranged marriage) and many others. When it comes to purpose marriage is quite multifarious.
Click to expand...
An excellent summary! What is your view?
 
davidv said:
Natural Law, partially explained in the Ten Commandments, is eternal. Truth does not change, even to suit the times.
Click to expand...
**TRUTH and LAWS are not the same.
It is true that TRUTH does not change, but Rules and Laws change with time, location, and circumstance ( hardness of heart or other reasons). That is what Jesus taught.
Road rules in America are different from those in U.K.
Dress codes in Saudi Arabia are different from those in Europe.
Marriage laws, Gun control laws, Gambling laws, Hunting and Fishing laws change from state to state within the U.S, or from city to city.

Revelation 5:10
And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth.

In actual fact, the USA was founded by people who understood their Biblical sovereign rights, that is, the rights of Kings!

This is why there were no taxes for the first 200 years there were colonists in the USA, and why there was rebellion at the idea of 1% tax on tea by the King of England. It was not the amount they were battling, and they did not fight for the right to “be represented” while paying 55% tax rates; they were battling the idea of any taxes at all!

The entire book of Judges is all about God raising up Judges to free his people from having to pay tribute, or taxes, to foreign powers. After the period of Judges, and after the age of Kings began, that kind of Godly deliverance stopped, and the nature of the Kings grew worse and worse, particularly after the first three kings, Saul, David, and Solomon. Solomon’s child was a tyrant who raised oppressive taxes.

But Jesus said “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”
That means Jesus admonishes us to obey even a Tyrant’s rules.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement.

They say to him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorce, and to put her away? 8He said to them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her which is put away does commit adultery.4

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

But it is OK now to make statues or photographs and bow don in front of them as a mark of respect.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Compare the above with Jesus’ teaching below.
13And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.
14And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said to the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.
15The Lord then answered him, and said, You hypocrite, does not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his *** from the stall, and lead him away to watering? …
 
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...
Nope. 👍

X + Y = Marriage

2X = Marriage :confused:

They can’t both equal marriage, same sex marriage just doesn’t add up.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
davidv said:
Relevance to the preservation of marriage?
Click to expand...
The assertion was that the right to equal marriage is an invented right, as if the right to bear arms was not invented but discovered under a rock. 🙂
What a marriage is, is not about civil rights, it is about the reality of the complementarity of man and woman.
Click to expand...
Complementarianism is one theological view amongst others, and not nearly as popular as it once was:

A husband is considered to have the God-given responsibility to provide for, protect, and lead his family. A wife is to collaborate with her husband, respect him, and serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism
 
Muze said:
Let’s be a bit more specific. Loving v. Virginia was about the right of a man and a woman to live together as a married couple. It wasn’t about a license or any right to have their union recognized by anyone.

The supreme court case cited Skinner v. Oklahoma, which said, that marriage and procreation are fundamental to the furtherance of the [human] race. Thus, the courts closely tied together marriage and procreation.

Homosexuals don’t procreate together, so they don’t fit under this court definition.

However, gays do already have the right to take vows together and to live together, which is the only elements of this that are actual “rights”, and no one is denying them any of that.
Click to expand...
Apparently Cardinal Bergoglio was also in favor of civil union for gays as a compromise but was overruled by a majority of the bishops in Argentina.

But then by a similar democratic process the majority in Argentina (mostly Catholics there I think) approved equal marriage, including several priests, although one was defrocked.

From the polls I’ve seen there’s also a majority of Catholics for equal marriage in the States.
 
Muze said:
Let’s be a bit more specific. Loving v. Virginia was about the right of a man and a woman to live together as a married couple. It wasn’t about a license or any right to have their union recognized by anyone.

The supreme court case cited Skinner v. Oklahoma, which said, that marriage and procreation are fundamental to the furtherance of the [human] race. Thus, the courts closely tied together marriage and procreation.

Homosexuals don’t procreate together, so they don’t fit under this court definition.

However, gays do already have the right to take vows together and to live together, which is the only elements of this that are actual “rights”, and no one is denying them any of that.
Click to expand...
Homosexuals don’t procreate, but they can bring up the children straight couples abort, or give up for adoption or put away in streets or garbage cans
 
tonyfrancis21 said:
Homosexuals don’t procreate, but they can bring up the children straight couples abort, or give up for adoption or put away in streets or garbage cans
Click to expand...
So can heterosexual couples-and heterosexuals can do so without exposing children to disordered sexual behavior.
 
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...
Race and marriage were addressed in Loving vs Virginia drawing from an earlier ruling Skinner vs Oklahoma…

The right to marry and procreate…is the right of every man/woman…and the verbage that was used in loving vs virginia was the “right to marry”, referencing Skinner vs Oklahoma, and when you view Skinner vs Oklahoma you see that it is the

Right to Marry and Procreate:thumbsup:

not

The Right to Marry.:cool:

Homosexuals cannot procreate and do not have the right to marry.:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top