Or "If Gender is Arbitrary so is the Number"
This has been discussed before.
Marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. This is a biblical issue and isn't really open to discussion. People attempt to redefine marriage, but the genesis of the concept is found in the garden. Marriage can't be anything else than what it already is.
It would be like trying to redefine a square as a shape with three sides. We would tell our geometry student, no, that's a triangle. Although related to a square in that it has sides, a triangle is a completely different concept. We don't entertain the idea that the child may be right or just has a different perspective. A square is what it is. Pass or fail.
What advocates of same-gender unions don't seem to realize is that if gender is negotiable, then so is the number. Why stop at two? Why not have 3, 5, or 25 people enter into a "marriage" so that everyone involved can benefit by our current laws?
Or how about age? Why 18? Or 16? Why not allow children to enter into a "marriage" with an adult? Who's to say that this would be inappropriate?
The answer? The definition of marriage as revealed by God. It has already been decided that anything other than the union of one man and one woman is inappropriate.
Are there hard realities associate with the application of this truth? Sure. Divorce and remarriage is not an easy issue. Polygamy in the Old Testament has to be explained. Government and business may need to grapple with same-sex partner benefits. But the issue of marriage is solved. It is what it is.
Reflecting on Genesis 2:18-25
GT
P.S. Another thought: If the day comes when society at large disagrees with a biblical view of marriage, then maybe that's when the Church should get out of the "marriage" business altogether. More on that later.
Posted by Garth at September 8, 2005 11:23 AMGood post.
Those who want same sex marriage say "it's all about love. If people over each other, they should be able to be married."
Well, if it's all about love than why not a sister and sister get married; or a brother and brother? If it is "all about love" than there can be no distinction ever.
Why not an man and his dog?
Posted by: the daily missive at September 8, 2005 01:57 PMThe Daily Missive has taken this thought to a logical extreme. Why not beastiality? This absurd notion is an extreme example but solid argument for having absolutes when it comes to truth issues. There is a right and wrong, otherwise everything becomes "right" - which was the problem the people faced during the time of the Judges - everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. And look at the consequences. Thanks for your comment, GT
Posted by: Garth at September 10, 2005 11:25 AMThe reason a man and his dog can't be married is that a dog cannot legally enter a contract.
A marriage is a legal contract. Children, dogs, and objects cannot legally enter into a contract.
Arguing ad absurdum is a great way to get people talking about something that isn't relevent. Good work.
Posted by: Emily at September 30, 2005 12:24 PMEmily,
your quote>
Arguing ad absurdum is a great way to get people talking about something that isn't relevent [sic].
<end quote
Your comment is well taken. However, I don't believe reductio ad absurdum is out-of-line in this instance. What the anti-marriage movement is doing is trying to redefine marriage - in essence, change how many sides a square can have. If that is permissable, then who is to say that children, animals, or objects can't enter into a contract? If we make the rules, then anything is possible and then becomes acceptable. My point is that we don't make the rules, we simply honor or ignore them. Thanks for your input about something very relevant.
GT
backpacklumber
Posted by: backpack at February 24, 2006 03:33 PMpersonal protectionfirewire cables
Posted by: personal protection at February 24, 2006 03:33 PMforex charts Probaly you should read this. forex charts Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy forex charts now! God bless you.
Posted by: forex charts at April 5, 2006 09:43 AM
