[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
So being a pedophile isn’t a choice?
Do you understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior?
[/quote]
So propensity and action are two independent things? Propensity doesn’t preclude choice and reason? Hmmm… interesting…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Polygamy and divorce were concessions to peoples, tribes, customs, and cultures already in place.[/quote]
You can dismiss them as cultural concessions all you want, but you can’t dodge the point that GOD COMMANDED IT.
Polygamy has been around a long time, it was specifically sanctioned by your God at one point in time, and marriage between one man and one woman is not the 5,000 year old unchanging institution that people claim.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
So you agree that it is legal for the government to morally regulate marriage and that it doesn’t infringe on people’s rights, even if it denies them the ability to marry the one they love?
You’re dodging the point, which is that your God sanctioned it in the old testament.
To answer your question though, I think the government has no right to deny marriage to people that love each other, so long as they are consenting adults and there is no inherent damage to the relationship.[/quote]
First off, the marriages are separate contracts, each contract involving one man and one woman.
Second, did you ever think That different things can be right or wrong not depending on the just the action, but also the situation. Multiple marriages back then may have been the best thing for all parties involved when today they no longer are.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So propensity and action are two independent things? Propensity doesn’t preclude choice and reason? Hmmm… interesting…[/quote]
Brilliant.
If the action doesn’t hurt anyone, why would you prohibit it?
Pedophilia is inherently damaging. Homosexuality is not.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Multiple marriages back then may have been the best thing for all parties involved when today they no longer are.[/quote]
I never argued otherwise.
What I did argue was that marriage has changed over time. Glad to see you coming around.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Polygamy and divorce were concessions to peoples, tribes, customs, and cultures already in place.
You can dismiss them as cultural concessions all you want, but you can’t dodge the point that GOD COMMANDED IT.
Polygamy has been around a long time, it was specifically sanctioned by your God at one point in time, and marriage between one man and one woman is not the 5,000 year old unchanging institution that people claim.[/quote]
There are 11 commandments now? Polygamy was a reality on the ground, not God’s plan.
And again, you don’t think Christians realize that Polygamy is an ancient practice? It’s the point of my counter-arguement! When westerners speaks of traditional marriage, just which tradition are you imagining they’re speaking of? Tribal practices in some foriegn culture?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
So propensity and action are two independent things? Propensity doesn’t preclude choice and reason? Hmmm… interesting…
Brilliant.
If the action doesn’t hurt anyone, why would you prohibit it?
Pedophilia is inherently damaging. Homosexuality is not.[/quote]
According to whom? Is polygamy inherently damaging? Can a good loving man not possibly care for multiple wives?
I for one think exposing children to homosexuality can be damaging.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Multiple marriages back then may have been the best thing for all parties involved when today they no longer are.
I never argued otherwise.
What I did argue was that marriage has changed over time. Glad to see you coming around.[/quote]
Still separate contracts involving 1 man and 1 woman. Even if what you are arguing were the case, society has been getting better by moving toward 1 man + 1 woman.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And again, you don’t think Christians realize that Polygamy is an ancient practice? It’s the point of my counter-arguement! When westerners speaks of traditional marriage, just which tradition are you imagining they’re speaking of? Tribal practices in some foriegn culture?[/quote]
It’s not just that polygamy is an ancient practice of some foreign religion. It is that polygamy was practiced with God’s approval in the old testament.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
According to whom? Is polygamy inherently damaging? Can a good loving man not possibly care for multiple wives?[/quote]
Good question. How about conducting the research, and if it is not found to be inherently damaging staying the hell out of other people’s business?
You’re entitled to your opinion, but the medical and mental health organizations that have actually done the research disagree.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Still separate contracts involving 1 man and 1 woman. Even if what you are arguing were the case, society has been getting better by moving toward 1 man + 1 woman.[/quote]
So it’s ok to be married to 10 women, as long as you conduct the ceremonies one at time? And that wouldn’t be considered polygamy?
You’re only proving my point about marriage changing over time.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And again, you don’t think Christians realize that Polygamy is an ancient practice? It’s the point of my counter-arguement! When westerners speaks of traditional marriage, just which tradition are you imagining they’re speaking of? Tribal practices in some foriegn culture?
It’s not just that polygamy is an ancient practice of some foreign religion. It is that polygamy was practiced with God’s approval in the old testament. [/quote]
As a concession to reality on the ground. The law was fullfilled with Christ. If you don’t want to agrue with the Christian faith, fine. But, you’re the one who mentioned it in the OP.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
As a concession to reality on the ground. The law was fullfilled with Christ. If you don’t want to agrue with the Christian faith, fine. But, you’re the one who mentioned it in the OP.[/quote]
At least you’re admitting that traditional marriage has changed over time, even if you claim it is only because of “reality on the ground”.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
As a concession to reality on the ground. The law was fullfilled with Christ. If you don’t want to agrue with the Christian faith, fine. But, you’re the one who mentioned it in the OP.
At least you’re admitting that traditional marriage has changed over time, even if you claim it is only because of “reality on the ground”.[/quote]
Uh, whose traditional form of marriage are you argueing for, exactly? You decided to bring the Christian faith into the arguement. I pointed out how you’re underestanding was flawed. Now you’re back to acting like Christians didn’t know polygamy had existed…
I don’t care as long as polygamists are left alone too.
Isn’t marriage just a contractual bond between two people? Why does government (i.e, the courts) need to become involved in that unless a party member breaks the contract?
Contract with whomever you want. Call it whatever you want.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
First off, the marriages are separate contracts, each contract involving one man and one woman.
[/quote]
No it isn’t necessarily. In the Mormon religion women were not considered property and only entered into a polygamist marriage voluntarily which all members of the family must agree on first – at least that is how my LDS friend explained it.
When a person enters into a family he does so because all members of the family allow it – even by today’s standards. They are not formal contracts but they are contractual in nature, nonetheless.
Historically, marriage between a man and a women was not even about the man and the woman but what was best for the entire extended family. It was most definitely a contract between the families involved even if the notions of a voluntary contract between the man and woman did not exist. The relationship between the man and woman were hegemonic and the contract was between the man’s family with the woman’s family.
Today we have replaced the hegemonic bond between man and woman with a contractual bond and have also done away with the idea of marriage as an institution to protect family and replaced it with the notion of “marriage for love”.
The contract has changed as traditions have changed but marriage has always been about a contractual bond between all party members.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now you’re back to acting like Christians didn’t know polygamy had existed…[/quote]
Fundamentalists know polygamy existed, they just forget that it was sanctioned by God as part of their history. It’s disingenuous to claim that Christianity has always followed the “5,000 year old tradition of marriage between one man and one woman”.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No it isn’t necessarily. In the Mormon religion women were not considered property and only entered into a polygamist marriage voluntarily which all members of the family must agree on first – at least that is how my LDS friend explained it.
[/quote]
Good post, but on this point Mormon men traditionally received their additional wives through “revelation” by their priesthood leaders. The so-called Law of Sarah required approval by the first wife, but I don’t know if that was always followed.
It worked pretty well for Joseph Smith, who just happened to receive revelations that a number of beautiful women should marry him, despite them already being married to faithful Mormon men.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Now you’re back to acting like Christians didn’t know polygamy had existed…
Fundamentalists know polygamy existed, they just forget that it was sanctioned by God as part of their history. It’s disingenuous to claim that Christianity has always followed the “5,000 year old tradition of marriage between one man and one woman”.[/quote]
Uh, fundamentalists know of it’s existence in the OT. What they also know is that it was not God’s plan for marriage, but a permitted activity of man, already in existence. Christ reiterated God’s design for marriage. Christians, Christ. Christ, Christians. Christians, Christ. You might be getting the pattern at this point.
Traditional marriage, from a purely Christian view, is the one described by…wait for it…Christ. And Christ referred to the actual plan, as seen in Gen. 2.
From a western view, the traditional man and wife arrangement. Not some tribal understanding.
If it was such an unchanging standard, stalwarts like Abraham, Jacob, and King David would have followed it.