Restricting marriage is. Did you read my post? Is procreation the only purpose of marriage? Lol.Originally Posted by PawDawg
|
|
|
|
|
Restricting marriage is. Did you read my post? Is procreation the only purpose of marriage? Lol.
I realize procreation is not a 100% deal for man and women, but yes, the original definition of "marriage" had the parts fitting and babies were most often a result.
And same-sex marriage homes can be good places for heterosexually-procreated unwanted babies.
Of course. It's only "natural".
It certainly is part of the traditional concept of a family. But restricting it to couples that can and do intend to have children makes no logical sense.
ahhh, back to that "save the children" argument so many like to use when convenient.
Sure, given that it isn’t supernatural. It is atypical for families in general given that homosexuals are only about 5% of the population, but that is not even that rare of a variance within nature. Other “natural” minority populations are even rarer.
It's not restricted to only couples that can and do intend to have children. Many can't and don't.
BTW, your getting off topic. Or are you saying that the trend for cultural norms toward homosexual "marriages" the last 10-20 years is a true sign of "the end times", as predicted in the Bible?
I heard a sermon the other day saying that it's not sexual sins that the bible is referring to, but the denial of gender and the craziness going on with that now.
I think it is natural for society to progress over time regardless of many of the anti-progressive ideals touted by religionists that hold ancient texts written by ancient men as their standard.
Remember when religionists opposed white people and black people from marrying? I bet there was some “end times” talk from wingnuts back then too.
What we define as a "traditional" marriage was created by the Catholic Church, around 1000 AD or so. The Church stepped in to protect young women, who before that, were being rented out by families to farmers and wealthy merchants. Rented out for help in their places of business....with benefits. Many were used to have children for that farmer/merchant...with "clinics" of mid-wives used to help with the child births. After a few years, and a few kids delivered, the woman was "released" and returned to her family, her parents.
The Catholic Church saw this as immoral, an abuse of young women, and created the concept of marriage. It's original form was not exactly like we've come to know it as, but it was very close, and it did establish the basis of ONE MAN...ONE WOMAN for life. Again, for the purpose of protecting women, who were granted rights and a measure of protection. The man had to marry a woman first, and that brought both moral and legal obligations.
Not that the women really had much choice in the matter back then. Some chose martyrdom over marriage.
Actually God defined marriage and yes the definition of God's marriage is in both the Old and New Testaments before there was a Catholic church.
Actually, “marriage” was not a word at the time the Bible was written.
And it isn’t like the Bible celebrates marriage. It is discouraged, but provided as a concession for those that cannot control their passion.
1 Corinthians 8, KJV, “Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.“
Just as "trinity" was not a word. The concept is clear from Genesis through Revelation. Marriage or the lifelong union of a man and a woman is certainly celebrated in the Bible (like the entire Song of Solomon). The passage you are quoting is written to people who were in one stage of their life and now have come to faith in Christ. Paul is giving wisdom for those who are new to the faith. It certainly isn't to be taken as a once and for all absolute statement about marriage.
FWIW
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
