Re: POLITICS The Bible, Marriage, and Sex/Reproduction

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/23/04 11:16:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,

readnwrite@... writes:

> The fact that a child is always born to a man and a woman (not a man and a

> man, and not to a woman and a woman) certainly does have something to do

> with the raising of children.

They are related marginally, but the biological bearing of children and

raising of children are independent, and you simply conflate them because it

helps

your argument.

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.

No, I'm not. Children who are not raised by both biological parents living

in marriage are the norm, not the exception, in our society.

>

>

> > That structure of a man and woman

> >>procreating has, since day one (Adam and Eve), been marriage.

> >

> >Now you're conflating two independent phenomena. A man and a woman have

> >always been able to, and always have, procreated outside of marriage.

>

> Perhaps outside of civil marriage, but not outside of marriage.

Can a man be married to two woman, and vice versa?

> > Yes, a >single person can adopt, but that is the EXCEPTION, not the

> norm,

> >>for the raising of children.

> >

> >It is the exception, but presumably you will allow it legally. It could

> also

> >be said that homosexuality is the exception, and not the norm, to

> marriage.

> >So on what basis do you allow one legally, and not the other?

>

> To my knowledge homosexuality is no longer illegal in most places, or at

> least in places where there are laws against, they aren't being upheld.

You want your definition of marriage to be the legal definition of marriage.

That's what I'm referring to.

>

> > However, the propagation of the human race >will ALWAYS require a man

> and a

> >>woman. A child does best when raised by both biological parents in the

> same

> >>home. So it's important that that home and structure be protected.

> >

> >That may or may not be true. Let's assume it's true. In that case, a

> child

> >is still clearly benefited by being raised in a family of a man and a

> man, or

> >a woman and a woman, over being raised by a bureacracy.

>

> Again, you're arguing on the basis of exceptions, rather than the norm.

I'm arguing on the basis of the full range of possibilities, because

ordinarily we don't legally enshrine a norm on the mere basis that it is

normative.

> I'm sure we could both argue this till we're blue in the face, and still

> neither of us would be convinced by the other. I'll leave my statement as

> it stands, especially since it has no significant bearing on the subject at

> hand. Certainly companionship is PART of God's purpose for marriage, but

> also just as certainly not the only one.

The question isn't whether the Bible assumes procreation can or usually will

result from marriage, but whether the Bible considers procreation a moral

requisite for marriage. If it does the latter, it should be easy for you to

produce a quote where it does this directly and unambiguously.

There are many moral demands placed upon marriage in the Bible, and to my

knowledge, none of them require procreation of a married couple. Companionship

is required, sacrifice is required, the assimilation to the typification of the

relationship between Christ and the Church is required, etc

> >>The Bible does declare that marriage is for the purpose of

> >>procreation, and more specifically for raising godly offspring. This

> >>verse is in reference to a husband and wife, which you can look up and

> >>see it in context:

> >>

> >> " Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And

> >>why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. " (Malachi 2:15, NIV)

> >

> >This appears to me to be referring to the godliness of the offspring.

> >Moreover, it seems apparent by the linguistic structure of the passage

> that

> > " offspring " refers not to the offspring of the human couple, but the

> offspring of God.

>

> No, it's referring to the offspring of the human couple, as commentary

> after commentary that I have referred to over the years has confirmed this.

> I haven't found anyone else to intepret this to mean the offspring of God.

Commentary such as from whom? That's not clear from the passage at all.

Nevertheless, were it true, the passage is referring to the faithfulness of the

man to his wife, and the godliness of the offspring, not the existence of

marriage and the existence of offsrping.

> 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. "

Well it is either translated poorly or written poorly if this is the desired

meaning. Neverthless, if we take your meaning, the passage is saying one must

be faithful to one's wife, so one's offspring will be godly. To equate this

with the moral demand that one have children if one is married is silliness.

>

> >>Furthermore, the laws God gave to the Israelites included when a

> >>husband and wife could come together sexually, which excluded the

> >>times when the woman is NOT fertile, but gave free access when she

> >>was.

>

> >This is incorrect. It only barred access during menstruation (Lev

> 18:19),

>

> AND 7 days afterwards, which takes you up to the week before and during

> ovulation, when she is the most fertile. (See Leviticus 15)

You are divorcing this entirely from the theories of uncleanliness that make

up the context of the Levitical laws. Furthermore, you seem to be to be

arguing dishonestly by suggesting that the seven days afterwards are in any way

similar to the bar on sex with her during her menstruation. They are

qualitatively different, and in fact it is simply not true that the man was

barred from

sex during the seven days.

The seven days was a period of uncleanliness in which time no one could touch

her.

The man was not barred from having sex with her, but was simply considered to

share in her uncleanliness. Compare the two passages:

" You shall not approach a woman to unocver her nakedness while she is in her

menstrual uncleanliness " (Lev 18:19)

" When a woman has a discharge of blood which is her regular discharge from

her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her

shall be unclean until the evening. And everything upon which she lies during

her impurity shall be unclean; everything also upon which she sits shall be

unclean. And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself

in water, and be unclean until the evening. And whoever touches anything upon

which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be

unclean until the evening; whether it is the bed or anything upon which she

sits,

when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening. And if any man lies

with her, and her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and

every bed on which he lies shall be unclean. " (Lev 15:19)

In one, the man is commanded not to have sex. In the other, he isn't, and is

simply considered unclean-- like he would be if he touched the place she sat!

This just does not support your argument in any remote way.

By the way, if they were meant to be taken together for a combined effect of

relegating sex to the most fertile period, wouldn't you expect them to be

found together, rather than three chapters apart???

Furthermore, there are no bans on sex during pregnancy or post-menopause, to

my knowledge.

> No indication whatsoever? There isn't only if you say it isn't, Chris.

> Again, I'm not going to argue with you, as it's fruitless. But I think

> anyone can see, who knows anything about a woman's fertility, that God's

> laws guaranteed that a husband and wife would have children unless they

> were infertile either by age or otherwise.

I think most people, who don't have strong religious views on the matter

prior to reading the passages, would see that that clearly is not the intent of

the passages.

> Exactly, and that sexual energy, whether in the animal world or between

> humans, when culminated leads to the conception of offspring, unless some

> sort of intervention is made to prevent it, and unless one or the other

> mate is infertile, due to age or otherwise.

And there's, to my knowledge, no clear requirement from the Bible to allow

this to occur, but more importantly, there is no justification of sex with

procreation.

> (Man, it gets a bit tiring listing the exceptions over and over, but

> evidently I must, or else they are brought up over and over.)

Your argument seems to be that because marriage is more commonly a man and a

woman, homosexuals should not have it, or because marriage most commonly

results in procreation, homoseuxals should not have it (because they cannot

procreate, although heterosexuals who cannot procreate you allow to legally

marry).

It's not so much that I'm arguing on the basis of exceptions, but that I don't

accept your (seeming) argument that because something is normative means it

should, ipso facto, be law.

>

>

> >Furthermore, the statement that most clearly identifies the purpose of

> >marriage is the one that God uses when he creates marriage, which is that

> " It is not

> >fitting that the man should be alone. "

>

> But again, it's not the ONLY statement He makes regarding the purpose of

> marriage, unless of course you choose to ignore the rest.

I simply choose to look at a passage in the context in which it is written,

rather than divorce it from the context and rearrange the intended meaning.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Does this thread have anything to do with _Nourishing Tradititions_ and Weston

Price's work?

Not to be a spoil sport or anything...

Leann

[Guest guest]

Leann,

The original thread that progressed to these subjects was an article in Wise

Traditions Lierre took notice of because it linked homosexuality with

nutrition. Today's news is the President is stepping in to " conserve the

institution of marriage " at the federal level and not make it availablle to

homosexuals in state's allowing or considering. With that imo there's little

left to debate. Choice is being made. With Heidi on marriage is what the two

people within it and the family from it are and make of it.

> Does this thread have anything to do with _Nourishing Tradititions_ and

Weston Price's work?

>

> Not to be a spoil sport or anything...

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>. With that imo there's little

>left to debate. Choice is being made. With Heidi on marriage is what the two

>people within it and the family from it are and make of it.

Choice was made on Prohibition also ... lasted 6 years. Sometimes

societies have to go to extremes before they figure out what

they want ... we seem to be hitting a lot of extremes at the

moment, maybe that is good, it will spark more debate, get

more stuff out in the open, and get a lot of this extremism

out of our system!

Call me naive, but I can't see this passing after there is more

debate on it. Most Americans see themselves as tolerant

and against discrimination ... they just don't see this

as " discriminatory " yet. Just like in the 60's, most whites

didn't think blacks were discriminated against. I remember

that debate ... most people just didn't think there was a problem,

but when it became more clear there was a problem, more were

willing to change the structure of society.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>> Call me naive, but I can't see this passing after there is more

debate on it. Most Americans see themselves as tolerant

and against discrimination ... they just don't see this

as " discriminatory " yet. Just like in the 60's, most whites

didn't think blacks were discriminated against. I remember

that debate ... most people just didn't think there was a problem,

but when it became more clear there was a problem, more were

willing to change the structure of society. <<

I agree completely. At the time of the decision overturning California's

law banning mixed-race marriage, nine out of ten Californians opposed mixed-race

marriage. And this wasn't all that long ago either - only 56 years. (And the

Federal decision, Loving vs the state of Virginia, that overturned all states'

remaining laws banning mixed-race marriage, was only in 1967!)

This appeared in the Chicago Tribune in 1996, last time we had a national

go-round on this issue. Be sure to read all the way to the end.

MARRIAGE ISSUE JUST AS PLAIN AS BLACK AND WHITE (Chicago Tribune)

Statement No. 1: Same-sex marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican

senator from Wisconsin, " simply because natural instinct revolts at it as

wrong. "

No. 2. An organization opposed to gay marriage claimed legalizing them would

result in " a degraded and ignoble population incapable of moral and intellectual

development, " and rested this belief on the " natural superiority with which God

(has) ennobled heterosexuals. "

No. 3. " I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose gay

marriage as `prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice, " grumped a noted

psychologist. " Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage. "

No. 4. A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing gay marriages

" necessarily involves (the) degradation " of conventional marriage, an

institution that " deserves admiration rather than execration. "

No. 5. " The next step will be that gays and lesbians will demand a law allowing

them, without restraint, to . . . have free and unrestrained social intercourse

with your unmarried sons and daughters, " warned a Kentucky congressman. " It is

bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm

is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization. "

No. 6. " When people of the same sex marry, they cannot possibly have any

progeny, " wrote an appeals judge in a Missouri case. " And such a fact

sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages. "

No 7. Same-sex marriages are " abominable, " according to Virginia law. If

allowed, they would " pollute " America.

No 8. In denying the appeal of a same-sex couple that had tried unsuccessfully

to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are " not only unnatural, but .

.. . always productive of deplorable results, " such as increased effeminate

behavior in the population. " They are productive of evil, and evil only, without

any corresponding good . . . (in accordance with) the God of nature. "

No. 9. A gay marriage ban is not discriminatory, reasoned a Republican

congressman from Illinois, because it " applies equally to men and women. "

No. 10. Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argued that such unions should be

illegal because they are " distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the

human race. . . . " The state supreme court agreed, declaring gay marriages would

be " a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that

are to come after us. "

No. 11. Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on same-sex marriage is

necessary to prevent " traditional marriage from being contaminated by the

recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior. . .

..(and entered into by) the dregs of society. "

No. 12. " The law concerning marriages is to be construed and understood in

relation to those persons only to whom that law relates, " thundered a Virginia

judge in response to a challenge to that state's non-recognition of same-sex

unions. " And not, " he continued, " to a class of persons clearly not within the

idea of the legislature when contemplating the subject of marriage. "

To sum up: Legal recognition of such marriages would offend tradition, God, the

sensibilities of the majority and the natural order while threatening

conventional marriage, children and the future of our civilization.

The previous quotes are culled from a Boston University Law Review article and a

brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, though I did take the minor liberty of

changing the subject of the rage, fear, and righteous indignation.

Everywhere I quoted the speakers as referring to same-sex marriage,

homosexuality and heterosexuality, they were actually referring to *interracial

marriage* and their views of black people, white people and the proper

interaction thereof. And yes, that includes statement No. 6, which in original

form articulated the old white supremacist belief that offspring of whites and

blacks were sterile - like mules that result when horses mate with donkeys.

The quotes date from 1823 to 1964 and, though the sentiments look hatefully

ridiculous to us in 1996, they had sufficient appeal and staying power that 15

states still criminalized black-white marriage until the U.S. Supreme Court

unanimously overturned those laws in the appropriately named 1967 case, Loving

vs. Virginia.

Christie

[Guest guest]

> >. With that imo there's little

> >left to debate. Choice is being made. With Heidi on marriage is what the

two

> >people within it and the family from it are and make of it.

Wanita

>

> Choice was made on Prohibition also ... lasted 6 years. Sometimes

> societies have to go to extremes before they figure out what

> they want ... we seem to be hitting a lot of extremes at the

> moment, maybe that is good, it will spark more debate, get

> more stuff out in the open, and get a lot of this extremism

> out of our system!

>

> Call me naive, but I can't see this passing after there is more

> debate on it. Most Americans see themselves as tolerant

> and against discrimination ... they just don't see this

> as " discriminatory " yet. Just like in the 60's, most whites

> didn't think blacks were discriminated against. I remember

> that debate ... most people just didn't think there was a problem,

> but when it became more clear there was a problem, more were

> willing to change the structure of society.

>

> -- Heidi Jean

Heidi,

Don't know which way this will go. Do know its now become an issue to the

presidential election as I told my DH it would when Massachusetts put

constitutional change to allow homosexual marriage up for legislation months

ago. This isn't just about San Francisco or New Mexico as said. Its a

political moral bid against Massachusetts with Massachusetts Senator

Kerry being the Democratic front runner right now. Taking this to the

federal level could be a double edged sword. Words " preserving the

institution of marriage " do not reflect U.S. Constitutional division of

church and state. Two humans institute marriage.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Christie,

Replace an organization with Pilgrims in Massachusetts or Columbus, gay

marriage with Indians or Native Americans, legalizing them with letting them

live and heterosexuals with us and you've got manifest destiny 500+ years

old.

> No. 2. An organization opposed to gay marriage claimed legalizing them

would result in " a degraded and ignoble population incapable of moral and

intellectual development, " and rested this belief on the " natural

superiority with which God (has) ennobled heterosexuals. "

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> . Today's news is the President is stepping in to " conserve the

> institution of marriage " at the federal level and not make it

availablle to homosexuals in state's allowing or considering. With

that imo there's little left to debate. Choice is being made. With

Heidi on marriage is what the two people within it and the family

from it are and make of it.

>

Oh dear, I'm afraid to read about that.

It occurs to me (minor observation) that it is now pretty accepted

for couples to live together and have sex before marriage, in a way

that it wasn't back in the 50s. Yet after all these years people

don't use the word 'marriage' to describe that state. But we are

already talking about same-sex marriage and gay marriage. If people

are okay with cilvil unions covering all the same legal situations

but they are unhappy about the *word* marriage, it's too late for

them to be concerned. Even if we only get legal 'civil unions',

people are going to call it marriage. The word marriage describes

the commited state we're talking about, and I think the word in

common usage will expand to include same sex unions easily, in a way

that it never did for uncommited co-habitation.

Marty

[Guest guest]

Marty wrote: It occurs to me (minor observation) that it is now pretty accepted

for couples to live together and have sex before marriage, in a way

that it wasn't back in the 50s.

Marty,

I am not a regular in this part of the e-mails but. . .I felt a need to type

I am not so sure the observation is correct. I just think people in general

don't care what others think so they live together. Therefore it would appear

that more people think living together is all right.

To be honest I don't care if my neighbors are living together and aren't

married, and they are living together and aren't married. That is their choice,

as a Christian I would never condemn them, but it does not mean I think is all

right or what God would want them to being doing.

The have purchased a house together. . .At the almost tender age of 50 I have

seen this same scenario many times. It works sometimes. . .the people end up

getting married. But when it doesn't It is so very messy. The financial aspect

can be devastating to both people. Let's throw a child in the mess, and then

ask how messy it can really get. Who gets the kid.

I had many friends when I was in my 20's who did exactly what I have described

above. One of my closet friends at the time had 2 kids out of wed lock by 2

different men she lived with. They left and she was left with the kids and no

recourse for child support. I am not sure what the laws are now to protect a

woman in that situation. But she ended up on Welfare because she couldn't

afford to pay daycare costs and well. . the men they left.

God's law's are not made to punish people but to protect them from their selves

and from others who might jeopardize their future and safety.

I tell my kids the consequences of living together without getting married. .

..What if it doesn't work?

I tell my kids not to have sex before marriage. Not only because they can get a

deadly disease. . What if my daughter got pregnant? Would the guy be

responsible enough to be the father and would she want him to be the father, and

does she want to go to college and be successful. I tell my Son the same thing.

.. .Does he want to be strapped down with a wife and kid at 19. Does he want the

Viper he dreams of, or will he allow his sexual desires to screw up all his

dreams and future.

Someone will say well there is birth control. Yes but even that has drawbacks.

The pill is safer now days. . .but read the label of the side effects. Yes you

can use rubbers. . .how romantic. And their is always the chance that they

won't work.

Well I better stop. . .seems this might turn into a novel.

Sorry this post got so long. . .didn't really mean to post. . .but I guess it

was the mother and my birthday next month that took over.

Sheryl

Sheryl Illustrations

http://dovedesignsrus.com

[Guest guest]

>I had many friends when I was in my 20's who did exactly what I have described

above. One of my closet friends at the time had 2 kids out of wed lock by 2

different men she lived with. They left and she was left with the kids and no

recourse for child support. I am not sure what the laws are now to protect a

woman in that situation. But she ended up on Welfare because she couldn't

afford to pay daycare costs and well. . the men they left.

Well, you see this is one of those things where looking for " what works "

sometimes gives the same answer as " what is traditional " . I was reading

a book (when I was looking for a spouse) called " How to be married one

year from today " . It's a totally pragmatic book has nothing preachy in it,

not from a religious standpoint at all. The lady teaches classes in how

to look for a good mate.

And she had some of the best advice I've ever heard! She said ... don't

" date " someone for more than 5 months. After 5 months, it's time to

put up or shut up. You know, by then, if you want to commit or not.

If you don't want to commit, move on. Because after 5 months, you will

become so entangled (whether you live together or not, but it's worse

if you share a dwelling) that you can't date anyone else, and leaving

becomes a major emotional trauma.

After reading that book, and seeing some of the entanglements

encountered by some folks who " made do " with their live-ins,

I began to see WHY marriage exists ... it gives you a way to say " we

are REALLY committed " and it pretty much sets the standards for

how to share property (and kids if they come about). I didn't appreciate

the institution before that so much. Now I do ... which also makes

me think it's an important thing for non-straight folks too.

-- Heidi JEan

[Guest guest]

>

> I am not so sure the observation is correct. I just think people

in general don't care what others think so they live together.

Therefore it would appear that more people think living together is

all right.

>

Sheryl, you may be right. I don't know too many people.

Marty

(On an NT note: finally, finally I sent off my order for a kefir

culture after meaning to do so for a year or more.)

[Guest guest]

Great Post Heidi!!

Sheryl :0)

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>I had many friends when I was in my 20's who did exactly what I have described

above. One of my closet friends at the time had 2 kids out of wed lock by 2

different men she lived with. They left and she was left with the kids and no

recourse for child support. I am not sure what the laws are now to protect a

woman in that situation. But she ended up on Welfare because she couldn't afford

to pay daycare costs and well. . the men they left.

Well, you see this is one of those things where looking for " what works "

sometimes gives the same answer as " what is traditional " . I was reading

a book (when I was looking for a spouse) called " How to be married one

year from today " . It's a totally pragmatic book has nothing preachy in it,

not from a religious standpoint at all. The lady teaches classes in how

to look for a good mate.

And she had some of the best advice I've ever heard! She said ... don't

" date " someone for more than 5 months. After 5 months, it's time to

put up or shut up. You know, by then, if you want to commit or not.

If you don't want to commit, move on. Because after 5 months, you will

become so entangled (whether you live together or not, but it's worse

if you share a dwelling) that you can't date anyone else, and leaving

becomes a major emotional trauma.

After reading that book, and seeing some of the entanglements

encountered by some folks who " made do " with their live-ins,

I began to see WHY marriage exists ... it gives you a way to say " we

are REALLY committed " and it pretty much sets the standards for

how to share property (and kids if they come about). I didn't appreciate

the institution before that so much. Now I do ... which also makes

me think it's an important thing for non-straight folks too.

-- Heidi JEan

[Guest guest]

Have good night Marty!

Sheryl

darkstardog <darkstar@...> wrote:

--- In , Sheryl

wrote:

>

> I am not so sure the observation is correct. I just think people

in general don't care what others think so they live together.

Therefore it would appear that more people think living together is

all right.

>

Sheryl, you may be right. I don't know too many people.

Marty

(On an NT note: finally, finally I sent off my order for a kefir

culture after meaning to do so for a year or more.)

[Guest guest]

I hope you sent for real kefir grains and not the pseudo-kefir cultures that are

sold commercialy, they are of little merit.

Bruce

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

From: " darkstardog "

> (On an NT note: finally, finally I sent off my order for a kefir

> culture after meaning to do so for a year or more.)

[Guest guest]

> I hope you sent for real kefir grains and not the pseudo-kefir

cultures that are sold commercialy, they are of little merit.

>

>

I ordered them from GEM cultures.

Marty