marriage

[billwald]

Marriage is a word with several meanings. Many words are like that. For example, next time you see a sermon text, circle all the uses of "in." What does "in" mean?

The Govt uses "marrage" to define a particular variety of licence or civil contract. The govt routinely controls who is qualified for the various contracts and licenses.

For 1800 years the Church used "marriage to define a type of sacramant. The Church has traditionally controlled who may participate in the various sacraments.

What has one to do with the other?

Why is that the denominations who do not "believe in" sacramants worry most about govt contracts and licenses.

If these non sacramental denominations want the govt to control one sacrament, why not also baptism and communion? Why should the govt only control the sacramant of marriage?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by billwald
If these non sacramental denominations want the govt to control one sacrament, why not also baptism and communion? Why should the govt only control the sacramant of marriage? Because baptism and communion have no bearing on whose property goes where, and to whom.

From the government standpoint, marriage has only one purpose: to legitimize heirs.

[billwald]

I agree. Let the govt "marry" anyone it chooses and let the Church "marry" anyone it chooses. Seems to me there might be a tax advantage in 2 income families if they are church married but not govt married.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by Gerald

Because baptism and communion have no bearing on whose property goes where, and to whom.

From the government standpoint, marriage has only one purpose: to legitimize heirs.

Wrong.

Marriage's primary purpose for the government is to endorse that setup that is most capable of providing the best possible circumstances for the success of the future generations.

A man and woman together as husband and wife is the combinnation most likely to produce a 'next' generation that is stable and productive.

[billwald]

Disagree! The govt's job is to impliment the social contract of the community.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by billwald

Disagree! The govt's job is to impliment the social contract of the community.

The social contract inherently entails the insurance of the continuation of society. The safegaurding of the continuation of society in the best possible manner, marriage as presently constituted here in the states, is a vital part of the social contract here in America.

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

Wrong.

Marriage's primary purpose for the government is to endorse that setup that is most capable of providing the best possible circumstances for the success of the future generations.

A man and woman together as husband and wife is the combinnation most likely to produce a 'next' generation that is stable and productive. How many wives?
From www.lds-mormon.org

Terminology:

The media generally refer to plural marriages among Mormons as "polygamy." However, the practice has always been limited to polygyny: the marriage of one man and two or more women. Polyandry has never been allowed. Thus, polygyny is the more precise term to use here.

Misunderstandings about Mormon polygyny:

There are a number of apparently mistaken beliefs concerning polygyny that are commonly held by contemporary members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (a.k.a. the LDS or Mormon church):

Many Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was married to only one wife, Emma. In fact, he married 33 or more women.
Many Mormons believe that his second and subsequent wives were sealed to Joseph Smith after his death. In fact, he married them between 1833 and the year of his death, 1844.
Many believe that his second and subsequent wives were elderly who were widows and needed protection. In fact, most of his plural wives were young.
It is commonly believed that polygyny was necessary at the time because there was "an abundance of women who wouldn't otherwise be able to be married, [and] old women [were] marrying into polygyny for financial support purposes..."
It is also widely believed that "only the first wife [was] having sexual relations with the husband," and that additional spouses were "spiritual wives" who remained celibate.
It is also believed that "such a small percentage practiced it means that polygyny really was an insignificant part of Mormon history and doctrine." In fact, it was a core practice of the early LDS Church, and remains an identifying practice among Fundamentalist Mormon groups today.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

Wrong.

Marriage's primary purpose for the government is to endorse that setup that is most capable of providing the best possible circumstances for the success of the future generations.

A man and woman together as husband and wife is the combinnation most likely to produce a 'next' generation that is stable and productive. Then why are infertile couples allowed to marry? They can't produce a "next generation".

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by Mr. 5020

How many wives?

At present society is not willing to accept a higher law so, at present, just one.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by Gerald

Then why are infertile couples allowed to marry? They can't produce a "next generation".

Regardless of their capacity to produce offspring they have the best capacity to offer the best enviroment for childeren through adoption. Having both a man and a woman in the home of a child, even if they are not the biological parents, is the best situation for the child to grow and learn properly and in a way that properly outfits them for the world and survival in it.

[Mustard Seed]

This has an error or two (possibly more) and a great many generalizations I think are not supportable. I'll see if anyone can find them.

From www.lds-mormon.org

Terminology:

The media generally refer to plural marriages among Mormons as "polygamy." However, the practice has always been limited to polygyny: the marriage of one man and two or more women. Polyandry has never been allowed. Thus, polygyny is the more precise term to use here.

Misunderstandings about Mormon polygyny:

There are a number of apparently mistaken beliefs concerning polygyny that are commonly held by contemporary members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (a.k.a. the LDS or Mormon church):



Many Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was married to only one wife, Emma. In fact, he married 33 or more women.

Many Mormons believe that his second and subsequent wives were sealed to Joseph Smith after his death. In fact, he married them between 1833 and the year of his death, 1844.

Many believe that his second and subsequent wives were elderly who were widows and needed protection. In fact, most of his plural wives were young.

It is commonly believed that polygyny was necessary at the time because there was "an abundance of women who wouldn't otherwise be able to be married, [and] old women [were] marrying into polygyny for financial support purposes..."

It is also widely believed that "only the first wife [was] having sexual relations with the husband," and that additional spouses were "spiritual wives" who remained celibate.

It is also believed that "such a small percentage practiced it means that polygyny really was an insignificant part of Mormon history and doctrine." In fact, it was a core practice of the early LDS Church, and remains an identifying practice among Fundamentalist Mormon groups today.

[billwald]

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Shakers.html

The social contract of the Shakers excluded marriage and they are older than the USofA. I think they are down to two people?

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by billwald

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Shakers.html

The social contract of the Shakers excluded marriage and they are older than the USofA. I think they are down to two people?

Yes...

...and your point being?

[Christine]

Originally posted by billwald

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Shakers.html

The social contract of the Shakers excluded marriage and they are older than the USofA. I think they are down to two people?
Actually the Shakers are down to 4 people and the reson for such is not because they did not marry, but because they did not believe in having sexual relations. Some converted to the Shakers as husband and wife, but upon converting they had to live in the single woman's quarters or single men's quarters.

[billwald]

The point was to demonstrate that the following statement isn't necessary correct.

>The social contract inherently entails the insurance of the continuation of society.

[Emo]

Concerning the number of wives allowed in a marriage.............

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

At present society is not willing to accept a higher law so, at present, just one.

1 Corinthians 7:2

because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

I'll stick with God's current plan & you can live to your so-called "higher law." Try not burn in your lust.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by emohaslove

Concerning the number of wives allowed in a marriage.............



1 Corinthians 7:2

because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

I'll stick with God's current plan & you can live to your so-called "higher law." Try not burn in your lust.

I will live in God's current law, which is monogamy. Are you so exclusionary in your scriptoral references that you forget that polygamy was permited by God in the Bible. God's current plan is what we should follow and it's good you appear intent on such. But don't malign God's previous commands because you don't understand them.

Lest you forget an animal still must be sacrificed before the second coming. A time and a place for everything.

[Emo]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

I will live in God's current law, which is monogamy.

Good!


Are you so exclusionary in your scriptoral references that you forget that polygamy was permited by God in the Bible.

No, I'm not that ignorant.

We aren't living in the past & my name isn't Abraham, David, or King Saul.

If you wish to have more than 1 wife than you have already committed adultery in your heart.

But don't malign God's previous commands because you don't understand them.

Please, understand the key word here is previous & I wouldn't call it a command.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by emohaslove
If you wish to have more than 1 wife than you have already committed adultery in your heart.

I only wish what is God's will for me at present.


Please, understand the key word here is previous & I wouldn't call it a command.

Animal sacrifice and polygamy will eventually return. The dedication of the rebuilt temple before the second coming will require the sacrifice of a red heffer. Just because a command (and yes they were commanded to do such -in cases of the death of a brother they were to take his wife, oh and Solomon was only condemned for marrying outside the house of Israel NOT for having many wifes.)

Have your read the scripture that references a "restoration of ALL things" that will coincide with the last days?

[LivingDeadDoll]

So what about divorce?

If a man commits adultery or some other act against his wife that breaks his marriage vows, do you believe that at that moment they are no longer married in the eyes of God? Or do you believe that they must be divorced by the governments terms before that marriage is considered void by God?

[billwald]

"Animal sacrifice and polygamy will eventually return. The dedication of the rebuilt temple before the second coming will require the sacrifice of a red heffer. "

Which is why I say turn the temple mount into radioactive glass then if God wants a new temple he can build it and everyone will recognize the source.

[LivingDeadDoll]

Has anyone else heard of the abundance of red hefers lately? Didn't there used to be none around? Or there haven't been for so many years or something like that? Someone was discussing this just the other day.

[Prakk]

Mawwage is what brings us together today.....

[Turbo]

Mawwage is what brings us together today.....
That is exactly what I thought of when I saw this thread on the active page!

[koban]

marrige Marriage is a word with several meanings. Many words are like that. For example, next time you see a sermon text, circle all the uses of "in." What does "in" mean?

The Govt uses "marrage" to define a particular variety of licence or civil contract. The govt routinely controls who is qualified for the various contracts and licenses.

For 1800 years the Church used "marriage to define a type of sacramant. The Church has traditionally controlled who may participate in the various sacraments.

What has one to do with the other?

Why is that the denominations who do not "believe in" sacramants worry most about govt contracts and licenses.

If these non sacramental denominations want the govt to control one sacrament, why not also baptism and communion? Why should the govt only control the sacramant of marriage?


:freak:

You sure you don't mean maridge?

[kmoney]

Inconceivable!

[Delmar]

Actually the Shakers are down to 4 people and the reson for such is not because they did not marry, but because they did not believe in having sexual relations. Some converted to the Shakers as husband and wife, but upon converting they had to live in the single woman's quarters or single men's quarters.That's just gross!

[Emo]

That's just gross!

:up:

[Prakk]

"That is exactly what I thought of when I saw this thread on the active page!"I misquoted. I should have said, "Mawwage is what bwings us togevah today!" By the way, do you have the wing?

[BeforeThereWas]

Are you so exclusionary in your scriptoral references that you forget that polygamy was permited by God in the Bible.

This is incorrect. God actively GAVE plural wives, which speaks to the fact that He MORE than merely "permitted" it. He even identified Himself with it when Israel and Judah were His wives (plural). He also commanded polygyny in certain instances. Sorry, but your minimalization of the facts is incorrect.

BTW&DM

[foofighter]

Regardless of their capacity to produce offspring they have the best capacity to offer the best enviroment for childeren through adoption. Having both a man and a woman in the home of a child, even if they are not the biological parents, is the best situation for the child to grow and learn properly and in a way that properly outfits them for the world and survival in it.

Actualy children do well under homosexual parents as well. In many cases better.

[Outlaw]

Actualy children do well under homosexual parents as well. In many cases better.

Would someone please toss this waste of bit space from TOL.

[foofighter]

Would someone please toss this waste of bit space from TOL.

Why? Because you disagree with me?

[Outlaw]

Why? Because you disagree with me?No, if you were devoured by a lion, his stomach might disagree with you.

I'm just tired of having to see stupidity on such a massive scale.

[foofighter]

No, if you were devoured by a lion, his stomach might disagree with you.

I'm just tired of having to see stupidity on such a massive scale.

Don't read your own posts then.

[Mr. 5020]

Actualy children do well under homosexual parents as well. In many cases better.I'm sure that, with such an outlandish claim, you have stats to back you up, right?

[foofighter]

I'm sure that, with such an outlandish claim, you have stats to back you up, right?

Meyer, "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues. Pages 239 & 240 (1992)

[Dread Helm]

Don't read your own posts then.That has got to be the worst come back I've ever seen in my life.

[Dread Helm]

Actualy children do well under homosexual parents as well. In many cases better.:flamer:

[Dread Helm]

Meyer, "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues. Pages 239 & 240 (1992) And what were you doing reading that? :flamer:

[Outlaw]

Actualy children do well under homosexual parents as well. In many cases better.
Is this your way of telling us your mom's name was Bruce?

[Mustard Seed]

Actualy children do well under homosexual parents as well. In many cases better.

I'm not referencing the performance of the children, rather the optimum nature of the environment in which they grow. And you cannot produce sufficient evidence (if any at all) to support that last claim, the claim of "In many cases better."

[Mustard Seed]

This is incorrect. God actively GAVE plural wives, which speaks to the fact that He MORE than merely "permitted" it. He even identified Himself with it when Israel and Judah were His wives (plural). He also commanded polygyny in certain instances. Sorry, but your minimalization of the facts is incorrect.

BTW&DM

Since when is it incorrect to state that something is permited if it's also given? I see the wife in monogamist relationships as being God given also. Does that mean that saying God permits monogomist marriage is incorrect simply because it fails to point out that God is the one that gives a wife to a husband? Or do you dispute that the wife taken in a monogomist marriage was ultimately given of the Lord?

[foofighter]

And what were you doing reading that? :flamer:

Writing a paper in graduate school.

[Mustard Seed]

Meyer, "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues. Pages 239 & 240 (1992)


Is there any way you could place a few paragraphs from those two pages. From what I've found on the internet it doesn't counter my claim as the only thing it addresses is that the competency of the parents and the basic societal needs in interaction seem to come out the same. It says nothing of an overall advantage. And it doesn't address the claim that the combination of a mother and a father, all other things being equal to parental capacity, care, and effort put in, are better for the child than would be a same gender couple.

You see I'm not arguing the parental capacity or the love claimed to be given or the care or the effort or the initial social indicators of child development measured, I'm simply stating that, all other things being equal, the natural benefit of a second gender being represented in the rearing of the child gives that child an edge one lacking such opportunity would be unable to gain from a same gender set up.

[BeforeThereWas]

Since when is it incorrect to state that something is permited if it's also given? I see the wife in monogamist relationships as being God given also. Does that mean that saying God permits monogomist marriage is incorrect simply because it fails to point out that God is the one that gives a wife to a husband? Or do you dispute that the wife taken in a monogomist marriage was ultimately given of the Lord?

I took issue with your word choice, in that the Lord didn't merely "permit" polygyny. He fully endorsed it by way of actively giving plural wives, making governing provision for it in His Law, identifying Himself with it with Judah and Israel being His wives (plural), blessing it through His priests and prophets, etc., contrary to the beliefs of MOP's (monogamy-only proponents).

NOTE: Just for the record, I'm not a mormon. Polygyny far outdates the mormon religion, just in case anyone thinks that my agreement with God's endorsement of polygyny originated from mormonism. It's clearly portrayed within the very word of God, contrary to socially engineered theologies that have enjoyed obscene prominance within Westernized culture for several centuries...unfortunately.

BTW&DM

[BeforeThereWas]

Actualy children do well under homosexual parents as well. In many cases better.

Well, you can always tell who has given themselves over to carnal, worldly thinking. They almost always tout the usual partyline of liberal thought, most of which defies balanced reason.

BTW&DM

[Chileice]

I agree. Let the govt "marry" anyone it chooses and let the Church "marry" anyone it chooses. Seems to me there might be a tax advantage in 2 income families if they are church married but not govt married.

This is precisely the law in Chile. The two weddings are totally separate and the only one that "counts" for the goverment is the civil union and the only one that counts for the churches is the "church" one as a religious act of cocecration before God. Neither typr is too successful. Less than half of the couples marry in either form.

[BeforeThereWas]

This is precisely the law in Chile. The two weddings are totally separate and the only one that "counts" for the goverment is the civil union and the only one that counts for the churches is the "church" one as a religious act of cocecration before God. Neither typr is too successful. Less than half of the couples marry in either form.

A ceremony performed by a government and/or by organized religion don't make any marriage consecrated by God. The Lord at no time handed over to makind His sole authority over marriage or its definition.

BTW&DM

[Morpheus]

At present society is not willing to accept a higher law so, at present, just one.If society does someday will I have to wear holy underwear?

[Morpheus]

Actualy children do well under homosexual parents as well. In many cases better.I would not use the term "under homosexual parents"; it just invites abuse.