Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.

[MrFun]

Defining the definition of marriage on something ridiculous like the sex orientation of the two spouses ignores the history of other examples in how the definition of marriage has CHANGED over the centuries in different parts of the world.

[Solomwi]

Defining the definition of marriage on something ridiculous like the sex orientation of the two spouses ignores the history of other examples in how the definition of marriage has CHANGED over the centuries in different parts of the world.

My point is that that's an argument that has to be made (and won) if you want to rely on your "right to marry." That marriage should encompass same-sex unions can't be assumed as self-evident. I'm not trying to pick that fight with you now. Remember, I favor gay and straight couples enjoying the same rights and benefits.

Oh, and the civil right distinction I made two posts ago was meant to show that marriage need not be a civil right for anti-miscegenation statutes to violate the 14th Amendment, not to weigh in on the current debate. If it makes you feel better, Ben is making the exact same mistake when he says, "If Loving does not say that "marriage is a civil right", then you cannot appeal to the 14th amendment."

[Agathon]

Defining the definition of marriage on something ridiculous like the sex orientation of the two spouses ignores the history of other examples in how the definition of marriage has CHANGED over the centuries in different parts of the world.

Christians do not see it as defining a word. They see it as making the word isomorphically reflect some real phenomenon in the world. For Christians, marriage has as real and objective nature as a piece of granite. It is not a result of custom.

Look, Fun. I'm on your side. I agree that homosexual couples ought to be allowed to marry as a civil right. I just don't buy your argument, as you aren't giving the other side the courtesy of understanding their position. You are implicitly assuming that marriage is a custom, when not everyone believes that it is.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're an idiot. Having a civil right does not legally enable you to practice your civil right if the result is to violate another person's freedom or civil right.

You've got it wrong. I can exercise free speech without having to ask anyone for consent or permission. the same is true of all other rights, but not marriage. You cannot exercise your right to marriage without consent from someone else.

We all have the freedom to choose the people we want to associate with, or with whom we want to develop relationships with as long as those other people share the same interest in you.

Freedom of association is that you have the right to associate with whomever. It does not require prior consent. You don't have to ask for permission to join a public gathering.

The civil right to marry does not mean that you can compel someone else to marry you. It means that two mutually interested people have the freedom to enter into a legally-recognized and protected marriage.

That's not a right then. Rights are not 'legally enforced and protected'. They are merely recognised. The government does not protect my right to freedom of association, I have that right regardless of the position of the government. I do not require the government to act in order to exercise my right to freedom of association.

Marriage, again, is different. Marriage requires legal endorsement by the state. It is not a natural right.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not say anything about homosexuality. Yet, the PRINCIPLE of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to people who are born or naturalized in United States - citizens. Gays and lesbians who are born or naturalized in United States are citizens.

It applies to everyone arguing that they have the equal protection of the laws. Now, you do have the equal protection of the law. You can get married the same way I can. The law is not barring you from getting married, in any way shape or form that is different from anyone else.

You are saying that your desire doesn't conform, therefore the state must accommodate your desires. That's not what the 14th amendment says. It says you are entitled only to the equal protection of the law as it stands. You may not find that the law is unsatisfactory, but that's not grounds for appeal to the 14th.

Another stupid remark in your post is that you say it was simply to permit interracial marriage without having anything to do with civil rights. This is just sheer stupidity. WHAT the hell was the compelling reason to permit interracial marriage then if it had nothing to do with civil rights??

The compelling reason was to establish that the law applied equally to protect black men and women as it did for white men and women. It is telling that the laws were so harsh, and out of proportion with other laws. There was the very good arguement that the reason the punishments were out of proportion is to enforce racial segregation.

The 14th doesn't care about civil rights, it cares about the application of the law equally to all persons in the united states. It is a negative assertion, not an assertion of positive rights that were not enumerated in the Constitution. You can't get there from here.

[Straybow]

The passage in question is critical of such traditions. That's one of its main points. It attributes them to hard heartedness.

It is critical of divorce, but where there is no marriage there is no divorce. One can infer from "from the beginning it was not so..." that concubinage is also not the way it should be, but it is not directly addressed as an alternative relationship.

Oh, so that's why it doesn't use "wife" in the plural, except when he's referring to the corresponding wives of many individual men. Consubstantiality is exactly what is being referred to here. It doesn't say that the woman becomes the man's flesh, but that a new unity is created from a previous plurality. The most apposite translation would be "fusion".

The passage doesn't say anything about equality. But equality is irrelevant to the claim I made.

One does not divorce "wives," as each male-female marriage is severable in law, originating from a distinguishable act. The validity or continuity of one has no bearing on validity or continuity of another. If one had multiple wives and wished to divorce more than one, each action would be pursued and resolved separately.

The Jews are very practical. "One flesh" is poetic, but by no means literal. That only came from the Greeks and the forms their philosophers "cleave" to.

[Straybow]

"Kollao" has to bear the fusing or welding sense here, or it makes no sense to say that the two are one flesh. "Suzeugnumi" is used after "kollao" in this passage and anaphorically refers to it. He's not saying that they are numerically identical, but that their flesh is a unity in the way that it is not a unity with the flesh of others.

Exactly. The "one flesh" of a marriage does not overlap into the "one flesh" of another marriage that man may make; wives are not "one flesh" with each other.

[Agathon]

Exactly. The "one flesh" of a marriage does not overlap into the "one flesh" of another marriage that man may make; wives are not "one flesh" with each other.

Feeble.

Look it's pretty obvious you can't read the Greek, so you're just making it up now, or parroting what your local preacher told you.

Your interpretation fails to explain the heneka clause in verses 4-5 and its relation to the creation of male and female, and its relation to the corresponding material on the unity of flesh. That isn't poetic or figurative at all, but a simple statement of explanation of why heterosexual unions happen.

Your interpretation also fails to explain the use of "kollao" rather than any of the other verbs the author could have used.

In other words, you completely ignored the argument I laid out in my previous post - probably because you don't have an answer. So come up with an answer or STFU.

Stop wasting my time and come up with an argument that is actually based on what the text says, and not on your particular church's interpretation of it.

[Agathon]

It is critical of divorce, but where there is no marriage there is no divorce. One can infer from "from the beginning it was not so..." that concubinage is also not the way it should be, but it is not directly addressed as an alternative relationship.

Read the previous posts if you want to understand why this is wrong.

One does not divorce "wives," as each male-female marriage is severable in law, originating from a distinguishable act. The validity or continuity of one has no bearing on validity or continuity of another. If one had multiple wives and wished to divorce more than one, each action would be pursued and resolved separately.

Bzzzz

Wrong again. The singular is used earlier in the passage.

The Jews are very practical. "One flesh" is poetic, but by no means literal. That only came from the Greeks and the forms their philosophers "cleave" to.

Except this leaves out verses 4-5, which are clearly relevant to the rest of the discussion.

You conveniently leave that out, because it demonstrates that you are wrong.

Your interpretation makes Jesus appear to be a worse bull****ter than the Pharisees, since he would be responding to their question with figurative nonsense. As the text stands, he gives a perfectly reasonable and honest answer.

edit: are you one of those people who belong to a pervert church? Because I looked around, and the only people who think as you do seem to be advocates for polygamy. Everyone else says that the passage reflects Jesus' desire to restore what he considered to be the original God sanctioned monogamy. The reason they believe this is simple: it is what the text says.

[Straybow]

Feeble.

Ah, the arbiter of Biblical doctrine and interpretation speaks at last! If only Jesus and Apostles understood their own culture and history as well as you do.

Doesn't matter if you think it "feeble," it is the truth. That's the way polygamous marriages were handled. Jesus didn't say anything about wives being "one flesh" with each other, or requiring consent from one wife to divorce another wife, or any other "logical" conclusion that would come from your fascinating but ultimately flawed philosophy.

Your interpretation fails to explain the heneka clause in verses 4-5 and its relation to the creation of male and female, and its relation to the corresponding material on the unity of flesh. That isn't poetic or figurative at all, but a simple statement of explanation of why heterosexual unions happen.

You would be correct if Jesus were talking about "heterosexual unions." Unfortunately for your argument, he was talking about marriage, which is a specific form of heterosexual union. Otherwise every sweaty roll in the hay would be a "marriage." Now, the Mosaic code had some really strong deterrents to illicit sex outside the bonds of marriage, but even that didn't apply to concubines.

Your interpretation also fails to explain the use of "kollao" rather than any of the other verbs the author could have used.

No, just interpreting the passage as a discourse on Jewish marriage and divorce, which requires one understand marriage as a covenant between exactly two people: one husband and one wife, regardless of any other wives present.

In other words, you completely ignored the argument I laid out in my previous post - probably because you don't have an answer. So come up with an answer or STFU.

I addressed the glaring deficiency which renders the rest of your argument moot. Come up with a better one or shut up yourself.

[Straybow]

Wrong again. The singular is used earlier in the passage.

Your interpretation makes Jesus appear to be a worse bull****ter than the Pharisees, since he would be responding to their question with figurative nonsense. As the text stands, he gives a perfectly reasonable and honest answer.

Except you seem to gloss over the fact that Jesus was giving permission to divorce, even though all divorce falls under the heading of "in the beginning it was not so."

edit: are you one of those people who belong to a pervert church? Because I looked around, and the only people who think as you do seem to be advocates for polygamy. Everyone else says that the passage reflects Jesus' desire to restore what he considered to be the original God sanctioned monogamy. The reason they believe this is simple: it is what the text says.

Did I say Jesus advocated polygamy? No, only that your trite arguments fail in the real world that Jesus and his audience lived in. Jesus didn't base his argument on the concept of "one flesh" being some mystical bond, but of the nature of covenant relationship as indissoluble except by breach of terms. That standard could be interpreted trivially, as some did under Mosaic code, but should be treated as Jesus said.

[Agathon]

Except you seem to gloss over the fact that Jesus was giving permission to divorce, even though all divorce falls under the heading of "in the beginning it was not so."

Not at all. Try reading.

[Agathon]

Doesn't matter if you think it "feeble," it is the truth.

No argument. Spoken like a true fundie.

That's the way polygamous marriages were handled.

No argument. This assumes continued approval, where the passage concerns criticism of older views.

Jesus didn't say anything about wives being "one flesh" with each other, or requiring consent from one wife to divorce another wife, or any other "logical" conclusion that would come from your fascinating but ultimately flawed philosophy.

What is said in this passage implies it, or the passage is nonsense, or he's just bull****ting.

You would be correct if Jesus were talking about "heterosexual unions." Unfortunately for your argument, he was talking about marriage, which is a specific form of heterosexual union. Otherwise every sweaty roll in the hay would be a "marriage."

Nope. Try again. You can't seem to conceive that this passage might represent something wholly new, and that Christianity might not be a tight fit with previous practice. All this despite the passage doing this about divorce.

Now, the Mosaic code had some really strong deterrents to illicit sex outside the bonds of marriage, but even that didn't apply to concubines.

Given that the whole passage is critical of the Mosaic code, it seems rich to bring it up as evidence here.

No, just interpreting the passage as a discourse on Jewish marriage and divorce, which requires one understand marriage as a covenant between exactly two people: one husband and one wife, regardless of any other wives present.

Yawn... except in 4-5 the naturalistic origins of marriage are brought up.

I addressed the glaring deficiency which renders the rest of your argument moot. Come up with a better one or shut up yourself.

You haven't addressed anything. You've already made it clear that you don't read Greek, and so you have no real idea of what it says other than what some translator is telling you. Thus, you already made a mistake about the relevant verb, and your reading is based on an English translation which is deficient.

Address the argument. If marriage is only an agreement, then why bring up a version of an ancient belief in the union of opposites? Why bring up any naturalistic explanation at all?

According to you the passage reads:

Pharisees: "Hey Jesus, do you think divorce is OK?"

Jesus: "Well, [some poetical bull****] no [because I say so - no reason]."

Pharisees: "What about the Mosaic divorce laws?"

Jesus: "You can only divorce if your wife screws around [because I say so - no reason]".

The whole point of the passage is that the Pharisees are putting him to some sort of argumentative trial (which is what it says in Greek) in defence of an unorthodox belief he had about divorce.

According to you, he responds with some quoted poetical bull****, and then just says more or less "this is what I think, and my saying it makes it so, biatch!".

Again, verses 4-5 have to be strongly reason-giving for the rest of the passage to make sense, and to be strongly reason giving they can't be merely figurative, or Jesus is exposed as a sophist.

The way you interpret them ignores their reason giving function, and thus ignores the fact that this is some sort of test, and not just an opportunity for him to lecture the Pharisees.

[Berzerker]

You've got it wrong. I can exercise free speech without having to ask anyone for consent or permission. the same is true of all other rights, but not marriage. You cannot exercise your right to marriage without consent from someone else.

Freedom of association is a right, but you're correct in making that distinction - rights cannot oblige others to act against their will. We can both attend our church but we cannot require others to hear our sermons.

Which means I cant use my religion or religious freedom to deny others their freedom of association

[Berzerker]

Aggie and Straybow, good debate. But I have a question: this two into one is either just mystical BS or it refers to the children, true? Well, not BS, but just a nice way of saying the two have committed to sharing their lives and they kept the commitment. Yet Jesus allowed divorce for infidelity, but Adam and Eve didn't divorce at all, much less over infidelity. That was "from the beginning", not divorce for infidelity. Polygamy doesn't violate that idea, the children of each relationship are still the flesh of two into one... Btw, God didn't marry Adam and Eve... I cant see where God said much of anything about their relationship until the serpent taught them (Eve) about procreation and God saw Eve's pregnancy.

[Berzerker]

No, just interpreting the passage as a discourse on Jewish marriage and divorce, which requires one understand marriage as a covenant between exactly two people: one husband and one wife, regardless of any other wives present.

Thats true, was that patriarch's heart hard when he married two sisters to marry the one he wanted to marry? Seemed like quite a sacrifice, 14 years of labor I think. And that was 7 years after the father of the sisters tricked him... Now if Jesus was just asked about that patriarch and polygamy rather than Mosaic divorce law we'd have something.