Re: POLITICS (addendum) The Bible, Marriage, and Sex/Reproduction

[Guest guest]

Fern,

I didn't make a couple points earlier because I was in a rush, so I'm adding

them now.

> you are insisting on arguing on the

> >basis of exceptions, rather than on the basis of the norm, and I'm not

> >going to go there with you.

The exceptions are relevant because the disprove your argument. You keep

making conflations to support your argument, and having made the primary

conflation of marriage and sexual reproduction, you now secondarily conflate

" normative " and " definitional " in order to support the first conflation, which

is

essentially a conflation of " typical " and " inherent. "

Since you had made the claim that marriage " by definition " consists of a man

and a woman with the intention to procreate, perhaps it would be beneficial to

consider the definition of " definition. "

From dictionary.com:

____________

Definition: A statement conveying fundamental character.

Fundamental: Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or

structure; central: an example that was fundamental to the argument.

Essential: Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent.

____________

And then let's consider the definition of " normative " from the same source:

_____________

Norm:1)Something normal; the standard: scored close to the normal.

2)The usual or expected state, form, amount, or degree.

3)Correspondence to a norm. An average.

__________

You're argument is that marriage is " by definition " a man and a woman with

the intention to procreate, not that this is the norm. Thus, my argument need

simply show that this is *sometimes* not the case to disprove yours, because

that would show that it is not " inherent, " and therefore cannot be definitional.

> >Then you're saying that hundreds of theologians have bent and twisted this

> >passage. It's pretty clear if you take it at face value, rather than trying

> >to make " offspring " out to be something spiritual, rather than actual human

> >offspring between the man and the " wife of thy youth. "

Actually, I read the passage in Greek from the Septuagint only to discover

that you are actually twisting it much farther beyond recognition than I'd

initially thought, but I will comment on that in a separate email.

I hope the " hundreds of theologians " you are referring to are not commenting

on the English version, or this would be a very poor proof, but in any case,

I'd like to show briefly that my view on this (not specifically this passage,

but the Biblical purpose for marriage in general) is actually shared by

traditional Christian theology, and is not some newfangled idea contradicting

traditional Christianity.

One of the most renowned and prolific of Christian theologians, St.

Chrysostom, commented in the fourth century:

" Thus, marriage was given to us for procreation also, but much more for the

purpose of extinguishing our burning nature. And is a witness to this,

saying, 'Because of fornications let each have his own wife,' and not for the

purpose of procreation. And he commands that you come togther again, not for

you to become fathers of many children. But to come together again for what

purpose? 'So that Satan may not tempt you,' he says. He continues, but he does

not say, 'come together if you wish children.' But what does he say? 'If

they cannot abstain, let them marry.,' for in the beginning, as it was said,

marriage had two purposes. But later, with the earth and the sea and the entire

world filled, one reason alone remains: to cast out debauchery and

lasciviousness. " -- On Virginity

" What, therefore is the purpose of marriage and why did God give it? Listen

to who says, 'Because of fornication, each should have his own wife.'

Thus we may avoid fornication, subdue desire, live together in moderation, and

please God by being satisfied with our own wife. Therefore, for one reason

only do we need to take a wife: so that we may avoid sin and be freed from every

fornication. For this purpose, marriage is given so that all things in it may

work in behalf of temperance. " -- Encomium to Maximus

Chris

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> Since you had made the claim that marriage " by definition " consists of a

man

> and a woman with the intention to procreate

I made no such claim. PLEASE re-read my original posts.

Thanks.

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 5:31:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> >Since you had made the claim that marriage " by definition " consists of a

> man

> >and a woman with the intention to procreate

>

> I made no such claim. PLEASE re-read my original posts.

I don't have the time or inclination to make an entire compilation of all the

innumerable times you stated this, so I'll just offer one:

" Again, I go back to what I said before, about what marriage is: a man

and a woman in procreative sexual union. To now change the definition

of marriage is not giving more people opportunity to marry, but rather

destroying marriage and creating something else. "

Ok, I think we can end this thread now.

Chris

[Guest guest]

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> In a message dated 2/25/04 5:31:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> readnwrite@... writes:

>

> > >Since you had made the claim that marriage " by definition " consists of

a

> > man and a woman with the intention to procreate

> >

> > I made no such claim. PLEASE re-read my original posts.

>

> I don't have the time or inclination to make an entire compilation of all

the

> innumerable times you stated this, so I'll just offer one:

>

> " Again, I go back to what I said before, about what marriage is: a man

> and a woman in procreative sexual union. To now change the definition

> of marriage is not giving more people opportunity to marry, but rather

> destroying marriage and creating something else. "

What I meant by " procreative sexual union " is a sexual act that is

procreative in *nature*, not necessarily in intent, and not necessarily

between two people who are fertile. Two people of the same gender cannot

enter into such a union.

> Ok, I think we can end this thread now.

Thank you. Very much agreed.

~ Fern