Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

reply to post by Biliverdin


Genesis 16

And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

bible.cc...


Wife = MARRIED

reply to post by OpinionatedB


So a marriage can constitute a wife giving to her husband another woman? Polygymously? Kind of stretches the boundaries doesn't it?

But then, Abraham told Sarah she could do with Hagar as she wished. Thus he gave her back, before the child was born. Seems to me a bit of a tenuous assumption, that they were married in law, or even 'God's' eyes, don't you? I think really, in terms of translations, we are looking at the use of 'to be his wife' as a euphemism for you know, 'knowing her', in the Biblical sense.

reply to post by Biliverdin


Men are allowed more than one wife.... If I was young and married then was unable to give birth yes I would find another wife who could bear children for my husband...

what on earth is wrong with that? How many people in that bible of yours had more than one wife? Now you want to judge it?

Or did you just want to sit and try and make the Arab ancestry bastards like all christians and jews wish to do?

Well that was an epic fail whats next?

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

Men are allowed more than one wife.... If I was young and married then was unable to give birth yes I would find another wife who could bear children for my husband...

what on earth is wrong with that?

You live in the US, there is quite a lot wrong with that, unless you intend to divorce him first.

Edit to accomodate your edit...not at all, one organised religion is pretty much the same to me, as is one bad attitude...Hagar is the obvious example...and bastard is never a term I would use, nor is legitimacy something that is important to me...legal or religious definitions of such...by those definitions my child is a bastard, but he has a father, I simply never married him

reply to post by Biliverdin


I have not always lived here, and yes in the united states criminal law must be followed.... however we just spoke about an event how many thousand years ago?

you failed to insult arabs.... what would you like to try next?

Any child out of the wedlock between a man and a woman is a bastard, there is no legitimacy.

Originally posted by thebtheb

Answering for a question you asked Annee about what are your hangups. I'd say just read above! So basically after all your posts talking about state, laws, etc., blah, blah, the real reason is just because you don't consider marriage real unless it involves a man and a woman. Why didn't you just say that at the beginning and save everyone the time?

What I consider "real" should in no way matter to the gay community. they seek legal status, do they not? If that is the case, they should worry only about what the law considers "real". If someone cannot deal with my hang ups, that isn't my problem - that is their own hang up.

Things evolve dude. 50 years ago, some people considered a black and a white marrying as not real. I'm pretty sure if you'd been of age then, you'd have been one of them.

edit on 27-7-2012 by thebtheb because: (no reason given)

Nothing evolves unless it first propagates. It's that propagation that has some folks worried.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Well.. you are wrong there. It isn't just a religious institution anymore.

So all of your confusion should be allayed.

Let me break it down for you so you can understand. In this country we have freedom of religion. So two people of opposite sex of ANY religions can get married in that religion and get ALL the benefits that come with being married in America. So if there is a religion that allows ANYONE to marry anyone else no matter the sex, despite the fact that the religion allows men to marry men and women to marry women, two people of the same sex couldn't have a marriage recognized BY LAW even if their religion allowed it. You see? Christians are trying to lord over "marriage" which is not simply a christian institution. Two people of the same sex can't get married BY LAW.

It's absurd.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

I have not always lived here, and yes in the united states criminal law must be followed.... however we just spoke about an event how many thousand years ago?

you failed to insult arabs.... what would you like to try next?

Any child out of the wedlock between a man and a woman is a bastard, there is no legitimacy.

You said, in the current tense that you would allow your husband a second wife, if you were barren...that is therefore relevent to your current residency in the US.

reply to post by Biliverdin


If this happened in the United States then yes I would divorce him so that he could be with a woman who could bear him children.

Or leave the United States. Whichever.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


So really what you are saying is that, as I stated earlier, that the marriage construct is for the purpose of raising legitimate children, favouring the rights of paternity. It is not about love, or spirituality. Just legal procreation. Yes? Whether that law be a god's or the states. That is it's sole and primary purpose.

And really that is why you are confused about homosexuals wanting to marry?

I can see that, it fits in with my rather contrary views as to why I would never marry.

So, I would presume, that a heterosexual couple who have no intention of having children would similarly not be entitled to marry under god's law?

reply to post by Biliverdin


The primary purpose for marriage is for procreation, the secondary purpose is for companionship and care. If two people are unable to have children and they marry then they are entitled to marriage, for the secondary purpose of marriage is important too, it is important for the soul.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

The primary purpose for marriage is for procreation, the secondary purpose is for companionship and care. If two people are unable to have children and they marry then they are entitled to marriage, for the secondary purpose of marriage is important too, it is important for the soul.

Sorry, I understand that, but specifically, humour me, if a couple do not want children, and some do make that choice, then they should not marry because of that primary 'failure'? No physical deficiency, they simply do not want to procreate. Not a marriage?

reply to post by Biliverdin


I have never known anyone who did not desire children

But I do not think there is any law on the topic.

reply to post by nenothtu

Nature DOESN'T like non-procrerators. They are at an end of existence, according to the rules nature itself has set up.

Nature makes gay people.. through straight people procreating. It doesn't matter if gays can reproduce or not, they will still be here, which is why they are here at the moment.

I have a question
hopefully someone with knowledge can answer

why are married couples given tax breaks? when was this law made and with what purpose?

I dont really know but I would guess they were made to help in raising a child

if thats true then why would gay marriages be entitled to tax breaks

would it not be akin to rich people demanding financial aid?

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

I have never known anyone who did not desire children

But I do not think there is any law on the topic.

There are plenty I can assure you...some simply do not like children, for others it is an ethical matter, an intellectual decision so to speak, much like those made by many of the Gnostic faiths. But surely if homosexuals cannot be recognised on the grounds of inability to procreate, surely, a heterosexual's unwillingness should be similarly judged? Given the constraints you have set.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


I don't get what that has to do with all with what I said. I guess it means you're alright with discriminating against people because your religion allows you to? The US is not a theocracy.

reply to post by Biliverdin


Homosexuals are not allowed marriage because it is against the law.

Not anything to do with procreating, it is an illegal act, God made it so. God says men and woman are the natural state of man, and anything which is harmful to man or against the natural state of man is illegal.

reply to post by timetothink

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
I have never known anyone who did not desire children

Really? I must admit I had the desire to have children before we married, and found out that I could not. We lightly explored the idea of adoption, but decided that we didn't want to have kids that much. Over the years, we have been more and more relieved and happy that we made the decision not to have kids. Our best friends are also childless by choice. And married.

Maybe that's why I have a hard time with the claim that the main reason for marrying is to procreate. Because for me, that reason doesn't exist. That's why it's so important for each person to define his or her own marriage.

And let's not forget. Gay people CAN have kids. Their reproductive organs work just fine. To say they can't procreate is simply untrue.
,

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Their children would not be legitimate though.

One comment made earlier was marriage to make their children legitimate. Well their children are unable to be legitimate. Legitimacy is conception and birth within the confines of a marriage between a man and his wife. That is what decides legitimacy.