[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well, they’ve still fallen short. They can’t produce offspring on their own. They can have an analogous relationship, but it will never be the same thing as a relationship a husband has with a wife, so they should stop trying to emulate us. Let them do our thing, they do theirs, and quit changing definitions handed down in the tradition of Western civilization.
Reproduction isn’t the reason why most people have sex. Plus sterile people get married all the time.
But providing an intact family unit for offspring is the most important use of marriage.[/quote]
I would agree to the extent that historically the purpose of marriage is legitimizing children, and defining rights of inheritance. Bastard children have a hard time claiming property.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Genesis 2
“23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”
Can you explain how that means one man and one woman?
“The Bible mentions approximately forty polygynists, including such prominent figures as Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Moses, David and King Solomon, with little or no further remark on their polygyny as such.”
It seems like polygamy was established for PC reasons rather than the word of God.[/quote]
We are talking about gay marriage, not polygamy. But this text says a man and a woman or wife, not wives. And it’s becoming one flesh, not many fleshes.
[quote]lixy wrote:
makkun wrote:
Incest: Medical issues may ensue when too closely related. First cousin marriage is legal in many western states, even siblings if I remember correctly in some (gotta check some sources on that).
Siblings can get legally married in Sweden. And I actually don’t know of any state in Europe that forbids cousins tying the knot. [/quote]
Gee, that’s a shock, because ordinarily Sweden is very moral and conservative:}
[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
You’ve left out Jesus’ exegesis of Genesis 2:
The OT saints did a lot of bad things. The Bible usually shows the consequences of these things. For example, the son of Solomon’s favorite wife (Rehoboam) ended up splitting the kingdom in two and getting a lot of people killed. The point of the narratives is that God draws a straight line with a crooked stick.
Still haven’t convinced me. Christianity is a derivative of Judaism. I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s a bastardized version, but it’s close. The main split (if I understand correctly) came from the interpretation of Jesus. Up till that point, polygamy was considered acceptable.
"[i]Saint Augustine saw a conflict between Roman civil law and Old Testament polygyny. He did not consider it in violation of scripture. He wrote in The Good of Marriage (chapter 15):
[although it] was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.
Augustine noted that polygamy was not in keeping with Roman custom or law. In chapter 7, he wrote:
Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living. [emphasis added]
"But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom......The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.[/i]"
Noah had one wife, Isaac had one wife, Abraham had one wife, Adam had one wife.
The kings of Israel were warned about polygamy, and the Bible presents the consequences of polygamous marriages in the OT. The fact that the Bible remains silent in various instances of it is not an endorsement. I’d like to see where it says to go out and get as many wives as one wants.
We already had this discussion and the Bible is against TOO MANY wives.
Solomon was, um, a tad greedy.
God himself says to David that he would have given him more wives, had he asked for it.
Plus, the fact that the Bible comes out against shellfish and planting two crops in one field, but never explicitly forbids polygamy is telling in and of itself.
So was God kidding in Genesis 2, Deut. 17:17, Matthew 19, and 1 Timothy?
How would I know?
He was definitely not commanding monogamy though.
Genesis:
So God created one wife. That infers that monogamy is what he had in mind how?
Deuteronomy:
Speaks out against TOO MANY wives. Or are you really arguing that kings should also possess only one horse and one gold coin?
Polygamy is implied here.
Matthew:
Jesus says to not divorce a wife to take another. However, that is not what polygamists do, so what is your point?
Timothy:
“A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well”
First that is a letter of Paul. Interesting, but not the official position in any way.
The very mentioning of the deacon having to be the husband of only one wive is telling though. Polygamy seems to have been quite common.
There is also no condemnation of polygamy on moral grounds. There could have been practical considerations, we don´t know.
“And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.” 2 Samuel 12:7-8
So God would have given David more wives, had David found that he had not enough.
Did God see David´s ways as sinful?
No, apparently not:
"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. "
1 Kings 15:5.
So David failed his God in one thing only, and polygamy was not the issue in question.
You think a God that wants people dead because they plant two different crops in one field, wear two different garments or touch a pig skin on shabbath just kind of forgot about that?[/quote]
I think you’re applying a different standard to the OT than you would apply to another ANE text. Does 1 King 15:15 mean that David screwed up only once in his life? Does it mean that David was otherwise perfect aside from getting Uriah killed because he had violated the 10th commandment? What about Psalm 25 where David asks God not to remember the “sins of (his) youth?” I think the point is, the Bible is being literary, not literal in 1 Kings 15. Obviously, David did a lot of other bad things, but the Bible omits those and mentions the most glaring. The omission of polygamy is not an endorsement of it.
Likewise, Samuel 12 is being literary. God is saying he gave David the spoils of Saul’s house as a sign of his favor, not that he wanted David to have a lot of wives.
Deuteronomy 17:17 says this:
Does that imply a retraction of Genesis 2 to you? It seems to me that God is saying, “Don’t live like other ancient Near Eastern kings” and accumulate a harem, a large amount of money, and horses. The kings of Israel were forbidden to keep horses because other kings at the time put their confidence in them. The Israelite kings were to put their confidence in God alone, which is why God ordered the Israelite to hamstring the horses they captured in the invasion of Canaan (Josh 11). The contrast in the Old Testament narratives was between Israel and the pagan nations and kings around them, the latter of whom had many wives, horses, chariots, gold, idols, etc, (but I’m getting the feeling you haven’t read the entire story, just the arguments for polygamy you’ve pulled off some website). Nowhere is it implied that God willed polygamy. Nowhere is it implied that God retracted Genesis 2, where the TWO become ONE flesh, which is typological of the mystical union between Christ and His bride (the church), as Paul explains. And Matthew 19 clearly reiterates the original pattern of marriage set forth in Genesis 2.
I’d like to offer all the great examples of well adjusted individuals raised by heterosexual parents as evidence against homosexual marriage.
Honestly, data mean nothing when it comes to the actions of individuals – which is what child rearing is. History does not prove the future – it doesn’t even help make predictions to any degree of certainty very well.
People are individuals and cannot be pigeonholed into models of behavior based on historical data.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
lixy wrote:
makkun wrote:
Incest: Medical issues may ensue when too closely related. First cousin marriage is legal in many western states, even siblings if I remember correctly in some (gotta check some sources on that).
Siblings can get legally married in Sweden. And I actually don’t know of any state in Europe that forbids cousins tying the knot.
Gee, that’s a shock, because ordinarily Sweden is very moral and conservative:}[/quote]
The country’s a helluva lot more moral than the the US. You see, it doesn’t go around bombing and invading other countries.
I think you’re applying a different standard to the OT than you would apply to another ANE text. Does 1 King 15:15 mean that David screwed up only once in his life? Does it mean that David was otherwise perfect aside from getting Uriah killed because he had violated the 10th commandment? What about Psalm 25 where David asks God not to remember the “sins of (his) youth?” I think the point is, the Bible is being literary, not literal in 1 Kings 15. Obviously, David did a lot of other bad things, but the Bible omits those and mentions the most glaring. The omission of polygamy is not an endorsement of it.
Likewise, Samuel 12 is being literary. God is saying he gave David the spoils of Saul’s house as a sign of his favor, not that he wanted David to have a lot of wives.
Deuteronomy 17:17 says this:
17And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
Does that imply a retraction of Genesis 2 to you? It seems to me that God is saying, “Don’t live like other ancient Near Eastern kings” and accumulate a harem, a large amount of money, and horses. The kings of Israel were forbidden to keep horses because other kings at the time put their confidence in them. The Israelite kings were to put their confidence in God alone, which is why God ordered the Israelite to hamstring the horses they captured in the invasion of Canaan (Josh 11). The contrast in the Old Testament narratives was between Israel and the pagan nations and kings around them, the latter of whom had many wives, horses, chariots, gold, idols, etc, (but I’m getting the feeling you haven’t read the entire story, just the arguments for polygamy you’ve pulled off some website). Nowhere is it implied that God willed polygamy. Nowhere is it implied that God retracted Genesis 2, where the TWO become ONE flesh, which is typological of the mystical union between Christ and His bride (the church), as Paul explains. And Matthew 19 clearly reiterates the original pattern of marriage set forth in Genesis 2.
[/quote]
I use the standard the texts sets: Whenever the OT God has a problem he does come out and says so.
In the case of polygamy he never does that, which is why you have to draw parts of the scripture into it that are clearly about other topics like divorce.
Genesis 2 was written by Moses, (allegedly) who had more than one wive.
That one man and one woman become one flesh only means that technically nothing else is possible, that does not mean that he cannot become one flesh with several women, one after the other.
Then, I reject your interpretation of the words of your Lord, your God. If He says David has not failed him, David has not failed him. For you do think otherwise is heresy. For David to think otherwise is heresy.
The idea that Israelian kings had no horses is preposterous, Solomon had more than 12000! horsemen.
Deuteronomy warns kings not to mulitiply, i.e to go to the extremes the kings surrounding them did, to use moderation.
Here are some translations that explicitly go that route:
And he is not to have a great number of wives, for fear that his heart may be turned away; or great wealth of silver and gold
The king must never have a large number of wives, or he will turn away [from God]. And he must never own a lot of gold and silver.
And why does God say this?
Because Solomon became greedy:
He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away.
had so many wives that he turned his heart away from God.
Now 1000 wives, that is multiplying.
Then, Matthew reiterates nothing. It is about divorce and divorce only. Not once is polygamy even mentioned.
The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is “to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being.” We promote “a society where all children from the moment of their conception are valued unselfishly.” The College further notes, “that children are the future of our nation and society. As such, they deserve to be reared in the best possible family environment and supported by physicians committed to ensuring their optimal health and well-being.”
This has been the most sensible post yet. [/quote]
No, unfortunately it hasn’t; both sources have been shown to be conservative pressure groups (with partly christian fundamentalist agendas), which has been repeatedly and widely discussed here in earlier threads. Quoting from them is about as unbiased and credible as using quoting the Gay Times.
Especially NARTH and its lack of scientific recognition for its support of reparative ‘therapy’ by the medical bodies in the field, has been repeatedly discussed here. So, sorry, nil points. Check the Search function, I’m not going to repeat it.
[edit]: Just have a read through the core values of the College my comments in parentheses:
"The American College of Pediatricians:
Recognizes that there are absolutes and scientific truths that transcend relative social considerations of the day. [Don’t know where to start, but anyone who has proper scientific training would have a problem here.]
Recognizes that good medical science cannot exist in a moral vacuum and pledges to promote such science.
Recognizes the fundamental mother-father family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for the development and nurturing of children and pledges to promote this unit. [This constitutes a clearly declared bias.]
Recognizes the unique value of every human life from the time of conception to natural death and pledges to promote research and clinical practice that provides for the healthiest outcome of the child from conception to adulthood. [Interesting comment, as it follows a strong pro-life definition, not clearly backed up within the scientific community.]
Recognizes the essential role parents play in encouraging and correcting the child and pledges to protect and promote this role.
Recognizes the physical and emotional benefits of sexual abstinence until marriage and pledges to promote this behavior as the ideal for adolescence. [That is again a more fundamentalist mission statement.]
Recognizes that health professionals caring for children must maintain high ethical and scientific standards and pledges to promote such practice.
Recognizes the vital role the College has in promoting quality education for parents, physicians, and other health professionals."
Here some real science on the issue of gay parenting from the American Psychological Association:
“In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpconclusion.html
"Last February, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out in favor of allowing gay men and women to adopt their partner�??s children.
“In light of data showing that children of gay and lesbian parents function just as well emotionally, cognitively, and socially as children of heterosexual parents,” the academy declared, “courts should stop using sexual orientation as grounds to deny members of same-sex couples the right to adopt their partner�??s children” (Psychiatric News, March 15)." http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/37/14/12
When turning to the real professional bodies, then the science seems to clearly indicate in pretty much the opposite of where NARTH and their fundamentalist friends are heading.
Makkun (getting of soap box, having fought this one far too often)
[quote]makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Brayton wrote:
Somebody mentioned the usefulness that some actual DATA about gay child rearing might have on this dicussion.
No, unfortunately it hasn’t; both sources have been shown to be conservative pressure groups (with partly christian fundamentalist agendas), which has been repeatedly and widely discussed here in earlier threads. Quoting from them is about as unbiased and credible as using quoting the Gay Times.
Especially NARTH and its lack of scientific recognition for its support of reparative ‘therapy’ by the medical bodies in the field, has been repeatedly discussed here. So, sorry, nil points. Check the Search function, I’m not going to repeat it.
Makkun[/quote]
I’ve yet to see any research that lacks bias. I guess the gays are on the hook to produce some. You seem pretty interested in teh topic, why don’t you dig some up?
I think you’re applying a different standard to the OT than you would apply to another ANE text. Does 1 King 15:15 mean that David screwed up only once in his life? Does it mean that David was otherwise perfect aside from getting Uriah killed because he had violated the 10th commandment? What about Psalm 25 where David asks God not to remember the “sins of (his) youth?” I think the point is, the Bible is being literary, not literal in 1 Kings 15. Obviously, David did a lot of other bad things, but the Bible omits those and mentions the most glaring. The omission of polygamy is not an endorsement of it.
Likewise, Samuel 12 is being literary. God is saying he gave David the spoils of Saul’s house as a sign of his favor, not that he wanted David to have a lot of wives.
Deuteronomy 17:17 says this:
17And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
Does that imply a retraction of Genesis 2 to you? It seems to me that God is saying, “Don’t live like other ancient Near Eastern kings” and accumulate a harem, a large amount of money, and horses. The kings of Israel were forbidden to keep horses because other kings at the time put their confidence in them. The Israelite kings were to put their confidence in God alone, which is why God ordered the Israelite to hamstring the horses they captured in the invasion of Canaan (Josh 11). The contrast in the Old Testament narratives was between Israel and the pagan nations and kings around them, the latter of whom had many wives, horses, chariots, gold, idols, etc, (but I’m getting the feeling you haven’t read the entire story, just the arguments for polygamy you’ve pulled off some website). Nowhere is it implied that God willed polygamy. Nowhere is it implied that God retracted Genesis 2, where the TWO become ONE flesh, which is typological of the mystical union between Christ and His bride (the church), as Paul explains. And Matthew 19 clearly reiterates the original pattern of marriage set forth in Genesis 2.
I use the standard the texts sets: Whenever the OT God has a problem he does come out and says so.
In the case of polygamy he never does that, which is why you have to draw parts of the scripture into it that are clearly about other topics like divorce.
Genesis 2 was written by Moses, (allegedly) who had more than one wive.
That one man and one woman become one flesh only means that technically nothing else is possible, that does not mean that he cannot become one flesh with several women, one after the other.
Then, I reject your interpretation of the words of your Lord, your God. If He says David has not failed him, David has not failed him. For you do think otherwise is heresy. For David to think otherwise is heresy.
The idea that Israelian kings had no horses is preposterous, Solomon had more than 12000! horsemen.
Deuteronomy warns kings not to mulitiply, i.e to go to the extremes the kings surrounding them did, to use moderation.
Here are some translations that explicitly go that route:
And he is not to have a great number of wives, for fear that his heart may be turned away; or great wealth of silver and gold
The king must never have a large number of wives, or he will turn away [from God]. And he must never own a lot of gold and silver.
And why does God say this?
Because Solomon became greedy:
He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away.
had so many wives that he turned his heart away from God.
Now 1000 wives, that is multiplying.
Then, Matthew reiterates nothing. It is about divorce and divorce only. Not once is polygamy even mentioned.
[/quote]
I think you’re having a hard time keeping track of what the Israelite kings DID and what they OUGHT to have done. David, as he explains in numerous Psalms, did a lot of bad things. “Sins” he calls them. The fact that God didn’t suddenly smite him dead or that the chroniclers didn’t mention God’s disapproval is not an endorsement by God - it’s an omission.
Yes, Solomon kept horses contra God’s commands. He multiplied wives. That still doesn’t make his behavior normative.
As Jesus said in Matthew 19, the “two shall become one flesh.”
I’ve yet to see any research that lacks bias. I guess the gays are on the hook to produce some. You seem pretty interested in teh topic, why don’t you dig some up?
[/quote]
Just started. I tend to look for the larger professional bodies in the field, and try to stay away from (also the gay) activists. I’ve posted some above, APA etc. and lots before.
I must admit I’m a bit tired to go against that NARTH crap every 6 months - seriously, check my profile and look up in all the gay-related threads I’ve been posting in - I stand by my sources and I’ve called nitpickish with some other posters’.
Yes, I’m interested in the topic - while not gay myself, I feel strongly about the issue (that’s my bias ), and I’m quite amazed how certain stereotypes don’t seem to die off, in spite of massive evidence to the contrary.
There is pretty much no objectivity in social or psychological studies (that’s what ticks me off mostly about the College’s statement above), but there is lots of peer-reviewed and methodologically sound research in the scientific communities. Once I find someone with a good and solid scientific argument on the topic, I’ll be thrilled - not much of that here in the last 4 years.
), and I’m quite amazed how certain stereotypes don’t seem to die off, in spite of massive evidence to the contrary.