|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 1, 2007 15:06:05 GMT -5
It strikes me as a validation of all the "unrealistic fears" that people who favor traditional marriages have been saying will happen some day.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 1, 2007 21:32:18 GMT -5
It strikes me as a validation of all the "unrealistic fears" that people who favor traditional marriages have been saying will happen some day. And there you go with that "traditional marriage" line of feces. Traditional to whom? Not the Bible. For there are many peeps in the Bible with more one wife... God did not seem to concerned with that. In fact, i have not found in the Bible anywhere "one man to one woman"
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 2, 2007 0:57:06 GMT -5
On the up side the bible is not he only source of information. 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
-Jacob 2
There are many cases in the Bible of plural wives. In many times the Lord commanded. When the lord commands it is a correct practice.
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on Dec 2, 2007 5:58:23 GMT -5
What struck me most about the wikipedia link on gay marriage in India was how the connection we make in the west between the validity of a marriage and its legal status doesn't apply to Indian weddings. Therefore, the majority of Hindu wedding ceremonies are about the ceremony itself and the acceptance of its worth by the local community not its legal status-which actually doesn't bring any real benefit. In this way, some lesbian couples are going through marriage rites and because it is acceptable to their community it is deemed valid and they are considered to be married.
What is also interesting is that the law banning "unnatural acts" (obviously I don't agree with the wording) was imposed on India by British Imperial rule and did not stem from Indian culture.
This is backed up somewhat by the Indian courts supporting the rights of individuals to live with whomever they chose to. So a gay couple who live together are not forced to separate on grounds of the law mentioned above. This is significant if you consider the situation in the UK in 1950s/60s when men or women could be put in jail if the authorities found a double bed in their home rather than two singles.
" It strikes me as a validation of all the "unrealistic fears" that people who favor traditional marriages have been saying will happen some day. "
Oh I don't think you need fear anything at all Teancum.
The "marriages" being described are not even "traditional" when they take place in India. They are based on nothing more than the superstitious belief that "marrying" a dog will protect people from dark powers, bad luck or stop an illness. There is no bestiality involved, no promises to share a life together. It is only a hugely symbolic (and I think slightly ridiculous but heh that’s cultural differences for you) enterprise that essentially means the human now owns the dog and must look after it. It doesn't stop the man or the woman marrying for real in the future-it just means they are trying to ward off evil at a particular point in their life.
Unless somewhere in the dim and distant past Americans married dogs for similar reasons I think it highly unlikely any law allowing gay couples to marry would instigate a torrent of human-dog weddings. What possible reason would Americans as a whole have for dong that?
Answer: None, its not an accepted part of your history and its not part of your superstitions.
The view is scaremongering at its worse and is completely unfounded.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 2, 2007 6:32:31 GMT -5
On the up side the bible is not he only source of information. 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. -Jacob 2 There are many cases in the Bible of plural wives. In many times the Lord commanded. When the lord commands it is a correct practice. Funny thing is, you forgot the present the verse(s) from the Bible that say "one man to one woman."
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 2, 2007 11:22:01 GMT -5
I did not forget. The term one man and one woman being married does not appear in my bible. If you are interested in a Patten through out the Bible than we would have something interesting. Starting with Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve) ;D
There is a fairly consistent pattern of marriages between man and woman. There are several individuals who have had more than one wife, but I know of no situation where the Bible condones homosexual relationships. There is a lot about marriage and sexual purity. But to spend time to define what everyone already understood would have been a waste of time. The Americas had different people and different struggles. So it is from their record that we have a clear statement on marriage.
|
|
doug
Student
Posts: 8
|
Post by doug on Dec 2, 2007 12:37:05 GMT -5
Well its true there is no Adam and Steve but then you would also have to believe the Garden of Eden was an actual place and not a mythical story of our beginnings for that to have relevance and I would argue as many people do not as do.
I am also extremely sceptical of the LDS beliefs in a pre-Native American Chrisitan population (a belief I think your church holds) but I guess thats a matter of faith and not of fact...or is there some kind of evidence for it?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 2, 2007 13:54:15 GMT -5
Its an interesting question Doug. I'm going to start a new thread for this however as it does not relate to the current subject.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 2, 2007 14:10:29 GMT -5
I did not forget. The term one man and one woman being married does not appear in my bible. If you are interested in a Patten through out the Bible than we would have something interesting. Starting with Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve) ;D There is a fairly consistent pattern of marriages between man and woman. There are several individuals who have had more than one wife, but I know of no situation where the Bible condones homosexual relationships. There is a lot about marriage and sexual purity. But to spend time to define what everyone already understood would have been a waste of time. The Americas had different people and different struggles. So it is from their record that we have a clear statement on marriage. Adam and Eve? That was not heterosexuality, that was a lack of options.
|
|