)Madea said:ShoeDiva said:Madea said:ShoeDiva said:Madea said: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
J-man said:Not sure what happened there. Weird. I think it's a conspiracy, someone is censoring my post.
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?mei lan said:lotstodo said:You mean like Deuteronomy 22:28-29? :NinjaLisaC said:mei lan said: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.
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
lotstodo said: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?mei lan said:lotstodo said:You mean like Deuteronomy 22:28-29? :NinjaLisaC said:mei lan said: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.
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
lotstodo said: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?mei lan said:lotstodo said:You mean like Deuteronomy 22:28-29? :NinjaLisaC said:mei lan said: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.
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
J-man said:lotstodo said: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?mei lan said:lotstodo said:You mean like Deuteronomy 22:28-29? :NinjaLisaC said:mei lan said: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.
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
That's extortion!!! It shouldn't be anymore than 10 pcs of silver, at the most.