5 reasons why marriage wasn\'t meant to be monogamous

[J-man]

Not sure what happened there. Weird. I think it's a conspiracy, someone is censoring my post.

 

[ShoeDiva]

I wonder how many homosexual relationships they would like to compare to in the animal kingdom?

Okay you to help me out here. What do you mean? ) I really can't figure it out. (Apparently my blond moment for the day.)

Should I type slower this time? (I type close to 100 wpm, you know.) :laugh

No, seriously. The article specifically compares (items 3 AND 4) the human relationship to animals to justify it's reasoning that we weren't wired to be monogamous. Would that translate to we were wired to be homosexual? After all, the animals aren't doing it? :dunno

Okay apparently I am tired... the end still makes no sense to me. ) I will go to bed and reread in the morning. (Thanks for your explanation though)

Well, it should have said we "weren't" wired to be homosexual. ) That may have helped. I just don't think the author gets to have it both ways. Yes, I'm assuming this writer is more liberal leaning based upon the viewpoint of marriage. You can't claim we weren't meant to be monogamous by comparing us to animals.

It was originally typed as a side-thought based upon all the gay topics lately. :dunno

)

So you are saying that we weren't wired to be homosexuals because the animals aren't doing it? The reason I ask (again) is that research has showed many animals are, so yes, sadly I am lost again. (again I am using this as my blond moment for the day...no one post anything else I might be confused over!!!)

But!! I do get why the side thought and it makes sense with the topic and I do agree that it was an article not based in faith at all.

 

[ShoeDiva]

Not sure what happened there. Weird. I think it's a conspiracy, someone is censoring my post.

)

 

[lotstodo]

Inasmuch as marriage is meant to be a picture of Christ's love for the church (a collective bride, if you will), then yes, marriage was meant to be monogamous. I realize the author doesn't share my views and probably doesn't give a crap about what the Bible says. Free country.

Libertarian panda here personally wouldn't care if polygamy were legal. As with gay marriage, that's not what has killed the institution of marriage. Heterosexual proclivities for living together outside of marriage, affairs, serial divorces, etc., did that all by themselves.

I also noticed that they left out any Biblical definitions of marriage.

You mean like Deuteronomy 22:28-29? :Ninja

Actually, scholars don't think that means what some think it means. To wit, here is a different translation:

In light of the foregoing, we feel the following rendering best captures the intended meaning of the passage which has nothing to do with a woman having to marry her rapist:

“Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her.” Contemporary English Version (CEV)

Excellent information here. I'm not familiar heretofore with this web site, but this analysis of the passage is excellent, and pretty much debunks the thought that verses 28-29 are referring to rape.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

My point being that our interpretation of what marriage means has changed even within our interpretation of ancient texts. Paying 50 pieces of silver and being forced to marry your consort is hardly the holy matrimony we think of today now is it?

 

[J-man]

Inasmuch as marriage is meant to be a picture of Christ's love for the church (a collective bride, if you will), then yes, marriage was meant to be monogamous. I realize the author doesn't share my views and probably doesn't give a crap about what the Bible says. Free country.

Libertarian panda here personally wouldn't care if polygamy were legal. As with gay marriage, that's not what has killed the institution of marriage. Heterosexual proclivities for living together outside of marriage, affairs, serial divorces, etc., did that all by themselves.

I also noticed that they left out any Biblical definitions of marriage.

You mean like Deuteronomy 22:28-29? :Ninja

Actually, scholars don't think that means what some think it means. To wit, here is a different translation:

In light of the foregoing, we feel the following rendering best captures the intended meaning of the passage which has nothing to do with a woman having to marry her rapist:

“Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her.” Contemporary English Version (CEV)

Excellent information here. I'm not familiar heretofore with this web site, but this analysis of the passage is excellent, and pretty much debunks the thought that verses 28-29 are referring to rape.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

My point being that our interpretation of what marriage means has changed even within our interpretation of ancient texts. Paying 50 pieces of silver and being forced to marry your consort is hardly the holy matrimony we think of today now is it?

That's extortion!!! It shouldn't be anymore than 10 pcs of silver, at the most.

 

[ShoeDiva]

Inasmuch as marriage is meant to be a picture of Christ's love for the church (a collective bride, if you will), then yes, marriage was meant to be monogamous. I realize the author doesn't share my views and probably doesn't give a crap about what the Bible says. Free country.

Libertarian panda here personally wouldn't care if polygamy were legal. As with gay marriage, that's not what has killed the institution of marriage. Heterosexual proclivities for living together outside of marriage, affairs, serial divorces, etc., did that all by themselves.

I also noticed that they left out any Biblical definitions of marriage.

You mean like Deuteronomy 22:28-29? :Ninja

Actually, scholars don't think that means what some think it means. To wit, here is a different translation:

In light of the foregoing, we feel the following rendering best captures the intended meaning of the passage which has nothing to do with a woman having to marry her rapist:

“Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her.” Contemporary English Version (CEV)

Excellent information here. I'm not familiar heretofore with this web site, but this analysis of the passage is excellent, and pretty much debunks the thought that verses 28-29 are referring to rape.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

My point being that our interpretation of what marriage means has changed even within our interpretation of ancient texts. Paying 50 pieces of silver and being forced to marry your consort is hardly the holy matrimony we think of today now is it?

Very true and this is why I constantly question things, to learn, because interpretation of the bible is huge. (Though I think some do not appreciate my questioning, but oh well. ) )

 

[ShoeDiva]

Inasmuch as marriage is meant to be a picture of Christ's love for the church (a collective bride, if you will), then yes, marriage was meant to be monogamous. I realize the author doesn't share my views and probably doesn't give a crap about what the Bible says. Free country.

Libertarian panda here personally wouldn't care if polygamy were legal. As with gay marriage, that's not what has killed the institution of marriage. Heterosexual proclivities for living together outside of marriage, affairs, serial divorces, etc., did that all by themselves.

I also noticed that they left out any Biblical definitions of marriage.

You mean like Deuteronomy 22:28-29? :Ninja

Actually, scholars don't think that means what some think it means. To wit, here is a different translation:

In light of the foregoing, we feel the following rendering best captures the intended meaning of the passage which has nothing to do with a woman having to marry her rapist:

“Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her.” Contemporary English Version (CEV)

Excellent information here. I'm not familiar heretofore with this web site, but this analysis of the passage is excellent, and pretty much debunks the thought that verses 28-29 are referring to rape.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

My point being that our interpretation of what marriage means has changed even within our interpretation of ancient texts. Paying 50 pieces of silver and being forced to marry your consort is hardly the holy matrimony we think of today now is it?

That's extortion!!! It shouldn't be anymore than 10 pcs of silver, at the most.

:spitchick You are bad!