Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
Thanks Tree36Thanks

Thread: Marriage and the Bible.

  1. #11
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    1984

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzling Evidence View Post


    Apparently, it's not just between a man and a woman.

    *Please note that virgin girl children were used as sex slaves during the battle for Canaan. So much for the whole "Mohammad was pedo" thing.
    I'm an avid fan of history -- especially ancient and medieval history. And so whenever a conservative tries to defend anti-gay marriage rules by citing "traditional marriage," I just have to chuckle. The concept of marriage as a love match entered into by a man and a woman is quite recent. In addition to all the Biblical variations in your graphic, the usual rule for much of history, at least in Western society, was that the daughter was essentially conferred by her father to a man, in exchange for money or in order to firm up social ties. Even after women got legal say in the matter, it was still largely thought of as a property and social-caste decision (think of Jane Austen novels). If you'd explained 1950s-era marriage to someone from the Middle Ages or Ancient Rome, it would have seemed alien. Marriage has been evolving for as long as it has existed.

  2. #12
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    33,074
    Thanks
    28239

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    I'm an avid fan of history -- especially ancient and medieval history. And so whenever a conservative tries to defend anti-gay marriage rules by citing "traditional marriage," I just have to chuckle. The concept of marriage as a love match entered into by a man and a woman is quite recent. In addition to all the Biblical variations in your graphic, the usual rule for much of history, at least in Western society, was that the daughter was essentially conferred by her father to a man, in exchange for money or in order to firm up social ties. Even after women got legal say in the matter, it was still largely thought of as a property and social-caste decision (think of Jane Austen novels). If you'd explained 1950s-era marriage to someone from the Middle Ages or Ancient Rome, it would have seemed alien. Marriage has been evolving for as long as it has existed.
    Historians sometimes call it the Romeo and Juliet Revolution and yes, it is quite recent, dating only to the 17th century at best, and maybe more like the 18th century.
    Thanks from Friday13

  3. #13
    olguy OlGuy's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2016
    Posts
    2,323
    Thanks
    454

    From
    california
    If you're not going to have children and raise them why get married at all.

  4. #14
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    37,847
    Thanks
    35669

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by OlGuy View Post
    If you're not going to have children and raise them why get married at all.

    Because you love one another and desire to live together as family?
    Thanks from Friday13

  5. #15
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    1984

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    Historians sometimes call it the Romeo and Juliet Revolution and yes, it is quite recent, dating only to the 17th century at best, and maybe more like the 18th century.
    Ironic name considering Romeo and Juliet had a 13-year-old Juliet’s father discussing marrying her off to a much older man, and ultimately the decision to elope for love leads to the death of both main characters.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey, BigLeRoy and Friday13

  6. #16
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    1984

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by OlGuy View Post
    If you're not going to have children and raise them why get married at all.
    Legal marriage has a bunch of legal conveniences and protections for those sharing a household — for example, the option of joint ownership of property, free inheritance, power of attorney if the other is incapacitated, etc.

  7. #17
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,648
    Thanks
    31344

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    Ironic name considering Romeo and Juliet had a 13-year-old Juliet’s father discussing marrying her off to a much older man, and ultimately the decision to elope for love leads to the death of both main characters.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Loki's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,199
    Thanks
    3843

    From
    East coast USA
    Quote Originally Posted by OlGuy View Post
    If you're not going to have children and raise them why get married at all.
    I would assume a great many marry with the dream of having children falters.
    That then begins great anguish.

  9. #19
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    1984

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I would assume a great many marry with the dream of having children falters.
    That then begins great anguish.
    Many start with the plan of having children, but a whole lot have no such intention. My father, after his divorce, and my father-in-law, after his wife died, both remarried, each in their 70s, and each to women in their late 50s. There was no plan to have kids, and I suspect they'd have been most put out if somehow their respective wives had gotten pregnant. But our society is built up around the idea that most households will be built around a married couple, and so it's far easier to run a household if you fit that pattern. For example, the new wives of the two men I mentioned got access to their husbands' retiree health benefits, and they'll get survivor benefits when their husbands die, which wouldn't be the case for an unmarried live-in. They also will be able to make medical decisions for their husbands if their husbands are incapacitated, without a lot of legal drama. Although each couple isn't rich enough for estate taxation to be a problem, if they were, a legal marriage would mean the surviving spouse would pay no such taxes. Etc.
    Last edited by Arkady; 13th June 2018 at 05:57 AM.
    Thanks from Friday13

  10. #20
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,325
    Thanks
    3002

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    The question is why do non-believers care what the Bible says?
    The underlying reason (which they will never admit) is to change the thinking of any individual that believes what the Bible says about marriage. I would expect Liberal Progressives to say " Its nobody's business what people do in their bedroom" . This thread is trying to make the Jewish laws of marriage look foolish, so they can say the Bible should be disregarded altogether. Its an attempt to dumb down those that believe in Gods laws and most likely indoctrinate us to believe this current Social Experiment is normal even though we have been warned its an Abomination.
    Thanks from ptif219

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Satanic Bible vs. the holy bible
    By knight in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 26th March 2016, 07:07 AM
  2. Replies: 388
    Last Post: 13th June 2015, 10:56 AM
  3. The Bible Now Is Not The True Bible.
    By Nivia1904 in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 24th December 2014, 07:36 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 8th February 2014, 04:26 PM
  5. The Sanctity of Marriage, according to the Bible.
    By Ronin Tetsuro in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 25th June 2012, 05:41 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed