Posted on 05/26/2008 2:46:07 PM PDT by SmithL
As am I and a LOT of the other participants here. Thank you for pointing this out! :)
There are many gay couples in our neighborhood. Some are older and have been together for a very long time.
Jesus reject multiple marriage:
John 4:17-18
The woman answered and said to him, “I do not have a husband.” Jesus answered her, “You are right in saying, ‘I do not have a husband.’ For you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true.”
The great majority of lasting male homosexual couplings simply do not consider fidelity a requirement of the relationship. The great majority of lasting female homosexual couplings evolve into sexless partnerships of old maids.
Neither one emulates the true lasting marriage of opposites.
It was just a couple of weeks ago that I read an article praising gay marriage because both “spouses” tend to be so forgiving of dalliances outside the marriage. That’s not so in normal marriages. So, if a given gay couple should stay married for any length of time, it is almost guaranteed that one or both of them has sexual flings on the side.
There was another article posted just today, I believe, that took a look at the long-term affects of gay marriage in the most liberal parts of Norway, where gay marriages have taken place for 10-15 years. As it turns out, about 70% of children there are now born to illegitimate parents. The author, who is actually gay himself, points out that gay marriage devalues the institution of marriage and becomes more about coupling than about establishing families. As marriage becomes less and less about commitment and establishing families, fewer and fewer men and women marry. They still continue to have children, but those children rarely know the security of a home with one mom and one dad who are committed to each other. It was a fascinating article. If I find the link, I’ll post it.
I don’t think I need to do any homework, because I agree with you. It’s a trap I set for those that believe that homosexuality is no different than hetero’y.
I hate to break it too you but marriage in America is devalued through high divorce rates and reality shows where men and women choose their spouse.
So the objective is not to bring the institution of marriage to themselves, but to bring a debauched lifestyle to marriage.
and after 11/4 they won’t mean a thing...
and that’s the best you can do? a passage referring to serial monogamy? He said “you have HAD five husbands”.. the woman had been married multiple times.. not to multiple men at once.. I love people who take things out of context..
It was the Romans who put an end to polygyny in order to control the people.. do your homework next time.
What’s the difference between serial monogamy and having a different wife for each night of the week?
Only the time horizon of the infidelity.
Care to explain:
a) how allowing most men to marry consitutes “controlling” them or
b) just how the Romans achieved this triumph?
St. Paul rejects plural marriage:
Timothy 3:1-5
“This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?”
Titus 1:5-6:
“For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.”
Considering that the Romans were the ruling power at the time, it wasn’t hard for them to make the rules..
They controlled the population by declaring a long held way of life illegal.
The difference between serial monogamy and plural marriage is that it isn’t always “a different wife each nite of the week”.. you don’t switch wives or unmarry them.. you are still married to every woman you love simultaneously.. the bedroom schedule is determined by everyone.. mostly the women decide what works for THEM.. in “normal” polygyny situations (based on love, not force) women make most of the decisions.. there are more of them therefore they have the power. The man is still the head, but there is strength in numbers.. contrary to the “oppresive patriarchal” vision most feminists fear.
So you won’t have any difficulty demonstrating any decrees the Romans made abolishing the marriage laws of their subject territories?
Checking back for your no-doubt copious references, I note you have not addressed St. Paul’s rejection of the polygamous from calling as overseers or elders. Was he part of the Great Apostasy, too?
Here are some excellent links my friend.. you know as well as I do that Roman law wasn’t laid out in some singular book called Roman Law, but changed and developed over the centuries according to the whims of the leaders.
http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Polygamy
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Polygamy
These links don’t say anything about any Roman law against polygamy for their subjects.
The whims of the leaders were of course written down; this is the only way a procurator in Judea, for example, could possibly know what the whims of the emperor were.
Yes they do.. read them again.. sheesh..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.