Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 04:43:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1310 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
“And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from
the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, FOR THIS REASON A MAN
SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO
SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What
therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6
JOHN
|
I’m not seeing where that description of linkage rules out a similar linkage
with another willing partner, although I’d grant that it does rule out the
partmer being the same gender.
|
The operative word I’d say would be “two”.
| |
I’m also not seeing the relevance to constitutional rights but that’s a
different topic.
|
Not really. Marriage is a religious institution-- that governments decide to
recognize marriages as civil unions is where the rub lies. All I am arguing
is for the preservation of the definition of marriage. Whether a particular
government should acknowledge such unions or not is another debate. The
entanglement of these 2 issues is what is making this topic so complicated.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
| (...) I'm not seeing where that description of linkage rules out a similar linkage with another willing partner, although I'd grant that it does rule out the partmer being the same gender. I'm also not seeing the relevance to constitutional rights (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
