Defining Marriage

[Ahab]

That can't be the definition, because it doesn't explain polygamy or sexless marriages.

In polygamy two are coming together as one, just as in monogamy. A man only has one, you know, you know.

And there is no such thing as a sexless marriage. A person's sex is either male or female.

And besides, two men or two women can be of "one flesh" just as easily as can a man and a woman.

They can, though, even though it's not "as easy". It's just not acceptable to God, although it could be defined as a marriage. Edited August 1, 2012 by Ahab

[Cobalt-70]

I hate to be the one to have to explain the basics of the birds and bees to you, but in addition to the metaphoric meaning of the phrase "one flesh," literally it take a man and a woman to create a child. Or said another way, they twain (the man and the woman) shall become one flesh by producing a child.

If this explanation is still not clear, I can point you to some websites with graphics and all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's clearly not what the passage means. It says that "they [meaning Adam and Eve] shall be one flesh."

Moreover, it wasn't God who made the comment about "cleaving." That was commentary by the narrator. See Moses 3:24, as more explicitly reflected here.

[wenglund]

That's clearly not what the passage means. It says that "they [meaning Adam and Eve] shall be one flesh."]

Moreover, it wasn't God who made the comment about "cleaving." That was commentary by the narrator. See Moses 3:24, as more explicitly reflected here.

I am sorry, but I don't ascribe to your myopic interpretation of the scriptures. I favor the learning of the Jews, which peals back layers of meaning.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Really? Can't tell if you are being serious here...

In a time and area where having children was what gave women status and barren and widowed women might be left uncared for? Yes, I am serious. I don't agree with the culture that pretty much the only value a woman had was for having children, but considering the culture it was a humane solution. It took care of widowed women without children during the time period the culture needed to advance to regard women as having value in and of themselves as well as giving them independence rather then being solely dependent on a male relative and if there was no male relative, then pretty much being condemned to poverty and a very harsh existence.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

No matter how offensive the circumstances or misunderstanding can make it appear, marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

And every ballot has reaffirmed this.

[california boy]

And every ballot has reaffirmed this.

I happen to agree with almost all of the posts here. You are all doing a very good job of defining what marriage means to a member of the church. You are also doing a very good job of defining what marriage means to those that interrupt the biblical scriptures cited in the same way as Mormons do.

Long after marriage for gays will be legal in this country, you will be free to continue to hold your Mormon view of what marriage is. At issue here is not what the Mormon view of marriage is. What is at issue is, in this country, should Mormons or any person who Interrupt the Bible in a similar manor be able to force their definition of marriage on others, especially through the ballot box. Some believe yes, the ballot box is an appropriate way to force others to follow their religious interpretation of what marriage is on those that do not share that belief.

Others, who may hold those same religious beliefs personally feel that in America, religion is something that a person comes to, not something that is forced. Fortunately most people in this country have come to that conclusion. Thankfully more are moving in that direction every year. Here is the latest Pew polls on this very subject.

Two-Thirds of Democrats Now Support Gay Marriage,

And it is not just Democrats, it is EVERY political category has moved towards gay marriage in a pretty significant way. Even with that movement, it is important to remember that no civil rights issues has ever been decided at the ballot box. Either will this one.

Proposition 8 Supporters Ask Supreme Court To Keep Marriage Ban

Now if gay marriage is just a religious issue, then the Supreme Court will overturn the right for gays to marry since 5 of the sitting Supreme Court justices are Catholic, a church that shares this Mormon belief. But the majority of people in this country think it is not a religious issue and the Supreme Court will rule in favor of gay marriage. Gays will be allowed to marry. Mormons will continue to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Edited August 1, 2012 by california boy

[treehugger]

I hate to be the one to have to explain the basics of the birds and bees to you, but in addition to the metaphoric meaning of the phrase "one flesh," literally it take a man and a woman to create a child. Or said another way, they twain (the man and the woman) shall become one flesh by producing a child.

...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

CFR, from that the Biblical phrase "one flesh" means create a child, and to be authoritative, it would have to be an Official LDS source. And your positions means the childless couples are not considered to be married.

Edited August 1, 2012 by treehugger

[treehugger]

When the Chick-Fil-A debacle hit the media, I noticed at one point someone challenged the "Biblical Definition of Marriage" by hitting on points like that rapists are supposed to marry their victims, or that when a man dies, his brother is supposed to take over. Many very ugly views were presented about how the Biblical definition of marriage is embarrassing.

How would some of you address this claim directly? How do you feel the Bible defines marriage?

There are many things from the Bible, not followed today by people who claim the Bible.

Women are to remain in silence, not to teach men, essentially were hijabs;

For a person who centers their life on the Gospel, marriage is not recommended, as marriage distraction.

Marriages, statistically destined to fail are encourage i.e. "better to marry than to burn".

What I think when someone brings up the issues you raised, that person is pointing out the uncommitted tactics of the a person who claims "support for Bibllical definition of marriage". So pointing of the issues of Biblical definition of marriage is simply to encourage the other person to expound on what "Biblical definition of marriage" is. Biblically, divorce is prohibited, save for fornication of a wife; those are Christs words. As I recall only the Baptist Church has a strict prohibition against divorce.

Edited August 1, 2012 by treehugger

[why me]

When the Chick-Fil-A debacle hit the media, I noticed at one point someone challenged the "Biblical Definition of Marriage" by hitting on points like that rapists are supposed to marry their victims, or that when a man dies, his brother is supposed to take over. Many very ugly views were presented about how the Biblical definition of marriage is embarrassing.

How would some of you address this claim directly? How do you feel the Bible defines marriage?

I wouldn't take the bait. The bottom line is: the bible claims that marriage is between a man and a woman. All the rest is a distraction from that foundation. Distractors love to confuse and bemuse the people that disagree with them. And in this case of same sex marriage, they want to shut them done if they own a business and shut them up with threats. Such is the chick-Fil-A problem.

[Jaybear]

I wouldn't take the bait. The bottom line is: the bible claims that marriage is between a man and a woman. All the rest is a distraction from that foundation. Distractors love to confuse and bemuse the people that disagree with them. And in this case of same sex marriage, they want to shut them done if they own a business and shut them up with threats. Such is the chick-Fil-A problem.

Actually, the very point of the thread is that is you are cherry picking the parts of biblical definition of marriage you agree with (the so called bottom line)and throwing the rest out the window, which include concubines, plural marriages, marriage to rape victims, and perhaps most importantly no divorce.

From my perspective, the clear implication is that your ideas of marriage aren't actually derived from the bible. You are just quoting from the bible when its suits your purpose.

I have to say, I am not very impressed with those who purport to follow the "word of God" only when you happen to agree with God is saying.

[Ahab]

I happen to agree with almost all of the posts here. You are all doing a very good job of defining what marriage means to a member of the church. You are also doing a very good job of defining what marriage means to those that interrupt the biblical scriptures cited in the same way as Mormons do.

Long after marriage for gays will be legal in this country, you will be free to continue to hold your Mormon view of what marriage is. At issue here is not what the Mormon view of marriage is. What is at issue is, in this country, should Mormons or any person who Interrupt the Bible in a similar manor be able to force their definition of marriage on others, especially through the ballot box. Some believe yes, the ballot box is an appropriate way to force others to follow their religious interpretation of what marriage is on those that do not share that belief.

Others, who may hold those same religious beliefs personally feel that in America, religion is something that a person comes to, not something that is forced. Fortunately most people in this country have come to that conclusion. Thankfully more are moving in that direction every year. Here is the latest Pew polls on this very subject.

Two-Thirds of Democrats Now Support Gay Marriage,

And it is not just Democrats, it is EVERY political category has moved towards gay marriage in a pretty significant way. Even with that movement, it is important to remember that no civil rights issues has ever been decided at the ballot box. Either will this one.

Proposition 8 Supporters Ask Supreme Court To Keep Marriage Ban

Now if gay marriage is just a religious issue, then the Supreme Court will overturn the right for gays to marry since 5 of the sitting Supreme Court justices are Catholic, a church that shares this Mormon belief. But the majority of people in this country think it is not a religious issue and the Supreme Court will rule in favor of gay marriage. Gays will be allowed to marry. Mormons will continue to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

.. and marriage between "gays" will continue to be wrong (as in evil) even though the law of the land may approve of it and consider it to be "legal".

I hope that at least the "gays" will be aware that just because something is legal that doesn't mean it is right.

[CV75]

I happen to agree with almost all of the posts here.

The definition is broader than religious. The OP is about what the Bible says, and what others say about it, so it isn’t fair to pinpoint the responses in this thread that respect the scope of the question as reflecting all we have a leg to stand on.

Globally, other sources and cultural patterns and moral traditions have never defined marriage as between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. There are good reasons or it, and for not forcing a change of definition upon these human beings through legislation.

Of course morality is a very real basis for legislation. Some morals are good, some bad, some legislation is good, and some bad. But the two are rarely disconnected in the most important facets of a society’s laws. A relaxation of this particular tradition began long before homosexuality became popular and has also tracked with the popularity and acceptance of other taboos. A self-fulfilled prophecy of a downward spiral in society isn’t really something to glory in.

One may be happy that traditional marriage and family values have eroded in the last 60 years to the point where gay marriage is an acceptable consideration for the ballot box. And one may be OK with “gay marriage,” but which perversion of marriage will he fight against 30 years from now—or is gay marriage the final frontier?

[KevinG]

I stopped by Chick-fil-a this morning and grabbed a chicken biscuit.

Free speech is delicious.

[Jaybear]

One may be happy that traditional marriage and family values have eroded in the last 60 years to the point where gay marriage is an acceptable consideration for the ballot box. And one may be OK with “gay marriage,” but which perversion of marriage will he fight against 30 years from now—or is gay marriage the final frontier?

Ah, nostalgia for the good times. 60 years ago:

It was not illegal for a man to rape his wife.

Birth control and abortions were illegal in many states.

Interracial marriages were illegal in many states.

Unwed mothers were stigmatized by society.

Gay men routinely married women to hide their sexuality.

A women needed to present "cause" to be determined by a judge, to be permitted to divorce her husband;

Employers could openly discriminated against women who chose to work outside the home.

Women were discouraged and in many instances prevented from getting a college education.

Father rarely received custody of their children.

Child abusers were routinely swept under the rug.

Apparently when people are given the freedom to make choices to do things in their personal lives that others disagree with then "society" falls apart.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Men also had to present "cause" to be determined by a judge, to be permitted to divorce his wife. There was no no fault divorce.

[california boy]

.. and marriage between "gays" will continue to be wrong (as in evil) even though the law of the land may approve of it and consider it to be "legal".

I hope that at least the "gays" will be aware that just because something is legal that doesn't mean it is right.

You forgot to add "according the the religious beliefs of the Mormon church."

Most gays don't think gay marriage is any more wrong than straight marriage. They believe that it is not good for man to be along. I know, kind of an odd point of view.

[KevinG]

The question for me is no longer can gays and others define marriage as they wish. Given the widespread support of civil unions and access to legal rights identical to heterosexual couples I don't see civil rights being denied too often. There are still a few places where corrections need to be made (visitation rights in hospitals, inheritance laws, etc.) but those are being corrected.

The question then becomes "at what point do your free speech rights begin to overreach into my right of free association and speech?" The attempt to boycott Chick-fil-a because Dan Cathy affirmed his support for traditional marriage or the successful attempt to deny the Boy Scouts access to publicly funded parks and facilities because their choice of free association does not agree with yours is overstepping that line.

I'm all for respecting the rights of others and support the efforts to insure gays and straights have the same fundamental rights under the law. Once those efforts seek to punish others for their beliefs and associations then they deny the fundamental rights of all citizens to freely choose their associations and express their beliefs.

I ate a Chick-fil-a today not to protest gay rights but to support Dan Cathy's right to express his beliefs without the whole Chick-fil-a chain being punished for the opinions of some of their leadership.

[california boy]

The definition is broader than religious. The OP is about what the Bible says, and what others say about it, so it isn’t fair to pinpoint the responses in this thread that respect the scope of the question as reflecting all we have a leg to stand on.

Biblical teachings is the argument presented in this thread. It is a valid argument if you are Mormon and others who interpret the Bible in the same way to base their religious beliefs on. It it often the argument that those who oppose to gay marriage often use because of their religious beliefs. So what we have here is a religious argument against gay marriage vs a legal argument against discrimination. Guess which one is going to win out in America.

Globally, other sources and cultural patterns and moral traditions have never defined marriage as between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. There are good reasons or it, and for not forcing a change of definition upon these human beings through legislation.

Well never might be a bit overstated, but for the most part you are right.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.^[74] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.^[75]

An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.^[76]

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.^[77] For instance,Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carianslave named Hierocles.^[78] These were usually reported in a critical or satirical manner.^[79] It should be noted, however, that conubiumexisted only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).^[80] Furthermore, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."^[81]Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure.^[82] In 342 AD Christian emperorsConstantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.^[83]

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.^[84]

Of course morality is a very real basis for legislation. Some morals are good, some bad, some legislation is good, and some bad. But the two are rarely disconnected in the most important facets of a society’s laws. A relaxation of this particular tradition began long before homosexuality became popular and has also tracked with the popularity and acceptance of other taboos. A self-fulfilled prophecy of a downward spiral in society isn’t really something to glory in.

One may be happy that traditional marriage and family values have eroded in the last 60 years to the point where gay marriage is an acceptable consideration for the ballot box. And one may be OK with “gay marriage,” but which perversion of marriage will he fight against 30 years from now—or is gay marriage the final frontier?

Virtually NONE of the problems with marriage in this country today is because of the 4% population that is gay. If marriage is spiraling down, it is not a result of gays practicing or wanting marriage. The blame lies solely on the straight population that is eroding marriage all by themselves. Can you honestly say that if gays are not allowed to marry, then marriage will somehow revert back to what magical ideal you want marriage to be? If marriage is going to stop its downward spiral you talk about, it is going to have to come solely from the 96% of the population that has caused that spiral. Don't blame it on the gays. That is just ridiculous.

[Jaybear]

Virtually NONE of the problems with marriage in this country today is because of the 4% population that is gay. If marriage is spiraling down, it is not a result of gays practicing or wanting marriage. The blame lies solely on the straight population that is eroding marriage all by themselves. Can you honestly say that if gays are not allowed to marry, then marriage will somehow revert back to what magical ideal you want marriage to be? If marriage is going to stop its downward spiral you talk about, it is going to have to come solely from the 96% of the population that has caused that spiral. Don't blame it on the gays. That is just ridiculous.

Ironically, CV75 is troubled by the fact that today more people are having casual sex outside of marriage, and fewer people are willing to make a lifelong commitment of marriage.

[KevinG]

I agree that the preponderance of troubles with marriage are caused by heterosexuals not honoring marriage covenants. That does not excuse throwing out the baby with the bathwater and giving up on traditional expectations of marriages. Again I'm not interested in imposing my definition of marriage through civil law. I do however thing religious bodies should have a voice in the community standards that guide our laws. The debate for me is where your civil rights and my civil rights may overlap. There we need to have a serious dialogue not demonization of those who disagree with each other.

[treehugger]

Divorce is not God breathed Biblical. In only one instance is divorce permitted by God, and that is when a wife commits fornication. To support Biblical marriage means opposition to divorce in all cases except fornication.

Edited August 1, 2012 by treehugger

[KevinG]

Divorce is not God breathed Biblical. In only one instance is divorce permitted by God, and that is when a wife commits fornication. To support Biblical marriage means opposition to divorce in all cases except fornication.

Yet no one threatens to boycott the business of anyone who disagrees with the high divorce rate in this country. Perhaps "traditional marriage" advocates need to make more TV sitcoms portraying committed couples and enroll some Hollywood B list actors in support of staying with your spouse so it can receive popular support?

[wenglund]

At issue here is not what the Mormon view of marriage is. What is at issue is, in this country, should Mormons or any person who Interrupt the Bible in a similar manor be able to force their definition of marriage on others, especially through the ballot box.

As expected, you got it exactly backwards. The term "marriage" has been legally defined (implicitly and explicitly) for centuries. It is the SS advocates who, not until relatively recently, have attempted to "force" their definition on others, though through the courts.

In the indelible words of Bill O'Reilly: "Let the spin stop here, because we are looking out for you."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 1, 2012 by wenglund

[CV75]

Biblical teachings is the argument presented in this thread. It is a valid argument if you are Mormon and others who interpret the Bible in the same way to base their religious beliefs on. It it often the argument that those who oppose to gay marriage often use because of their religious beliefs. So what we have here is a religious argument against gay marriage vs a legal argument against discrimination. Guess which one is going to win out in America.

So you are now taking the discussion beyond the scope of the OP (how to respond to the challenges to the "Biblical Definition of Marriage").

The religious argyment is as valid as any other rationale for the sake of public discourse. The religious should not be silenced any more than any other group.

I notice you are quite xenophobic, arguing as if "gay marriage" in America is all that matters. It is interesting to me that the values of the vast majority of the world’s population is ignored so that relatively few can indulge their egos by imitating real marriage where they have the means to get away with it. On the other hand, the Gospel is extended freely to everyone, everywhere.

Well never might be a bit overstated, but for the most part you are right.

Yes, for the most part (and more), I am: Your examples are not about marriage at all, as the lengthier second paragraph repeatedly reiterates. The wave of popularity for "gay marriage" is a very modern development, like so many other immoral misapplications of society’s relatively new-found liberty, wealth and technology.

Virtually NONE of the problems with marriage in this country today is because of the 4% population that is gay. *** That is just ridiculous.

You miss my point, reflecting your abject prejudice. I pointed out that the problems with marriage, also a function of immoral misapplication of society’s relatively new-found liberty, wealth and technology, has set the stage for its subsequent perversion by imitators.

[CV75]

Ironically, CV75 is troubled by the fact that today more people are having casual sex outside of marriage, and fewer people are willing to make a lifelong commitment of marriage.

This cheap shot comes by way of misrepresenting, through your own jaundiced view and misunderstanding of what I wrote. I am far more "troubled" by "gay marriage" than by casual sex (whatever the persuasion) simply because it the next step in moral devolution.