Marriage – What Do You See?

“Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He said to them, Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”” (Matthew 19:3-10)

When you read that – what is being said about:

(a) Marriage?

(b) Divorce?

I am asking because I want to know how people interpret stuff like this. I am very interested in what interpretive form they are using to make sense of such a scenario. In fact, Jesus is interpreting the Torah here (all caps) and possible arguements of the day. Well, we are in our day and need to determine how this gets used…what do you see?

27 thoughts on “Marriage – What Do You See?

  1. Here is my take:

    (1) This is a test – not resemblance of what the Pharisee’s believed – they just wanted to see Jesus’ answer to such a question (Jesus went to the law with his answer)

    (2) Marriage seems to be something committed under God – in which the 2 become one and should not be broken up (the ideal)

    (3) Moses allowed divorce – this is a known fact

    (4) Jesus answers that this has not always been the case (the ideal again)

    (5) But if divorce is to be allowed – immorality would be the issue. We can suppose sexual immorality is being hinted here (from previous teachings) but that fact he simply says immorality he could be referring to a number of law breaking ideas that would hurt your neighbor – in this case – your spouse.

    (6) The disciples respond and mention if the relationship is this bonkers who would want to marry anyways? In which Jesus responds he who can handle such info should note it (seems to be directed more at men – noting a man’s personal responsibility in such an endeavor).

    (7) In the end, marriage is a good thing but can become something abhorrent. It is in the cases when things get abhorrent that the ideal should be broken…but not only to re-marry – but for the sake of sanity. Maybe it is also a warning of how much pain can be dealt out if one leaves a marriage for the sake of re-marrying and the bitterness that can be found in that scenario (which makes sense to me). Marriage’s should be ended only for the right reasons and in the right way – so as to ease the pain in the scenario in general.

  2. i think you’re accessment is pretty tight. it’s talking about both the ideal of marriage as well as grounds for divorce, which in the socio-historic terms were pretty lax to get divorced.

  3. Here’s a question not related to your post.

    What is marriage anyway? How would you define it? As opposed to 2 persons having sexual relations but are not married.

    Related to the post: I think that you started with your own conclusion, that, “Marriage’s should be ended only for the right reasons and in the right way” and twisted the passage towards your preconceived conclusion.

  4. “What is marriage anyway? How would you define it? As opposed to 2 persons having sexual relations but are not married.” (Temaskian)

    I have actually wrote a whole blog on the definition of marriage – two to three times I think…but it’s a great question I always wonder about myself.

    I tend to think marriage is not some piece of paper – that is the ceremony that people accept to seal the deal legally (which I agree with since it protects any injured parties in case the marriage goes southward).

    Marriage is the co-joining of 2 people becoming 1 in a few ways – sex, committment, and via children. Now 2 people having sexual intercourse are committing the action of the marriage bed (2 become 1). 2 gay people that love one another and are committed to each other 2 becoming 1. A child is the dna of 2 people becoming 1 new person…which seems to be the outcome of such an idea.

    So what is marriage? It’s really a mix of all 3 ideas together – or maybe even just 1 of 3 ideas. I see committment to one another is the key issue in marriage – which sustains the whole thing (and anyone can particpate in that). The sexual act in and of itself is symbolic of the idea – and not everyone participates in that (it’s quite a secondary idea). The child born from a marriage is the culmination of 2 becoming 1 – again not everyone does this.

    In the end, sex before marriage if it leads to children leads to a committment for both parties whether they like that or not (a child). Now if there is no child born in such a case – I make no issue with it except to let the people know they best beware of what their actions can lead to.

    “I think that you started with your own conclusion, that, “Marriage’s should be ended only for the right reasons and in the right way” and twisted the passage towards your preconceived conclusion” (Temaskian)

    It’s possible – I am not beyond moment and time and bias. It’s really a non-issue – everyone twists everything through their own perspective lenses (ie: bias).

    That being said, I am being am fair as I can be and am not taking some ‘easy route’ out on the issue. I am basically going by the wording used in the passage (which even my bias cannot change) and working around the intentions of the passage. I mention the warning that is going on in that passage concerning divorce and what a Christian needs to take seriously – and it’s not exactly some easy way out (which I think is Jesus’ point about divorce).

    I don’t know what you see the job if the interpreter to be Temaskian…enlighten me.

  5. It would be easier to just come right out and say that marriage is a fictional notion, a man-made idea.

    “I don’t know what you see the job if the interpreter to be Temaskian…enlighten me.”

    Huh? Sorry, don’t get what you’re asking.

  6. “It would be easier to just come right out and say that marriage is a fictional notion, a man-made idea.” (temaskian)

    It would be – agreed.

    “Huh? Sorry, don’t get what you’re asking” (Temaskian)

    Just wondering what you think the role of an interpreter is when dealing with literature?

  7. It is my understanding, and history has my back on this, that marriage is about ownership rights pertaining to women, young women in particular. Jewish history is not immune to this social reality, even to this day it is difficult for a Jewish woman to seek and actually get approval for a divorce. In Jesus’ day it was impossible for a woman to seek a divorce. The husband had to seek a divorce and get the approval because the woman was subject to the male and the law and she had to be obedient. If the woman was unfaithful she was just killed by stoning and that was end of it all. The male received the benefit of the doubt.

    Most cultures, in the past two thousand years, have used women as commodities and as bartering chips in the marriage ceremony. Europe is no exception either. This is how you get dowry and bride-wealth, etc… I do not have time to get into every detail but this is where I see the roots in traditional marriage. Marriage is changing and we are definitely better off as a society for this change. The institution of marriage, in the Christian sense, is laughable and is supremely sexist.

  8. “If the woman was unfaithful she was just killed by stoning and that was end of it all. The male received the benefit of the doubt” (Johnny)

    These are all good claims – but are they actually backed by rabbinic history (a history that does not record the stoning of women seeking divorce; let alone much of anyone for that matter).

    “Judaism looks with disfavor upon divorce; however, it is not prohibited and even encouraged in certain cases. The rabbis of the Talmud considered marriage a holy contract, and the dissolution of marriage an unholy act. They quote the prophet Malachi, “. . .the Lord has been witness between you and your wife of your youth against whom you have dealt treachorously, though she is your companion, the wife of your covenant” (2:14). They add in Sanhedrin (22a), “Even [G-d] shares tears when anyone divorces his wife.”” (Alfred Kolatch – The Jewish Book of Why – http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Divorce.html)

    Divorce is not seen as a good thing in Judaism – which this passage from Jesus is directly related to. However, it would seem that in the sense of making a divorce – onky the man can intiate that action (which is quite slanted). There are clauses now that help the women even this playing field in Conservative Judaism.

    However, what should be noted in Jesus’ ruling on this subject for his disciples is that he confirms an equality precept from the beginning of humanity in saying ‘He created them male AND female’. He is addressing the divorce laws of the day that made it pretty easy for a man to issue a ‘get’ (letter of divorce) to their wives (whom could not do that same thing back). Now he is not saying the law or rabbinic commentary supports this idea – but that from the beginning this was not so. One could see Jesus supporting equality in using that example.

    In fact, the divorce clauses Jesus adds for his disciples seeks to help the woman out and create an equality in the process…or more fairness. The cruelty is seen in the use of the idea ‘give her a certificate of divorce and send her away’…from a man’s perspective and slanted. Jesus addresses this exact concern in the part 2 of that passage. Jesus makes divorce ‘harder’ because it needs to be ‘harder to do’ and a man needs to consider his wife more in this process.

    Nonetheless, divorce is not seen as a path God admires nor wants for people…which I agree with. I may not like the idea only a man can issue a divorce in this time period (which continued for quite a while)…but Jesus (and later Paul) may be addressing this more progessively than was known in their times.

    “Most cultures, in the past two thousand years, have used women as commodities and as bartering chips in the marriage ceremony” (Johnny)

    This may basically be true – historically…but even within the times of Jesus and Paul this notion is being challenged. Jesus seem Adam and Eve as equals and Paul goes the furthest step when he says there is ‘no male or female in Christ’. Paul also see’s this inherent equality between the sexes. Now although was not an area that fully fleshed out in Christian history – it bears noting since I am basing my ideas on such concepts.

    • Well then answer me this oh wise one, how could a woman in Jesus’ day (2,000 years ago) get a divorce when most, if not all, women could not read a word of the law for themselves (were not permitted to do so), only knew the laws they were taught by their closest male (father, husband, brother), could not even speak in Temple (had to sit at the back – if they were allowed in the building at all), could not read anything for that matter (only a small share of rich women were literate, the immense majority were illiterate), could not go to a Rabbi and seek a divorce of any kind for any matter (the husband had access to the Rabbi and not the wife). And every Jewish female in Jesus’ day was completely dominated by a male in the religion and in all aspects of societal life.

      Not only that, but Jewish males wrote the entire Law, the Torah, the Talmud, and every other Rabbinic writing in the history of Judaism (women cannot become Rabbis, even to this day). Is there no bias in this scenario? None at all? You cannot see any?

      Jesus was not married, so why does it matter what he thinks? He has no base for his references about marriage, and he almost never speaks of marriage. Jesus did not view women as equals so please do not get crazy and assume some lie about Jesus’ life. Last time I checked, Jesus had 12 original disciples/apostles (whom he hand-picked) and yes they were all Jewish males, of course. And yes, all the New Testament is written by Jewish males, aka – business as usual.

      Do not even get started about Paul and his sexism because even you cannot claim that Paul was not a complete woman -hater, it is even a joke that you would even mention Paul as a beacon for women’s rights, that is a complete lie and a joke.

  9. If someone wants to know about Jewish history and women, or about women rabbis today, I would suggest they not consult with Johnny Bird.

  10. I reached the same conclusion as to what is going on here, but….why did I end up caught in the crossfire? I was just strolling through the neighborhood to look in on an old friend when all of the sudden all this shit starting flying in my direction! Sheesh.

    I knew I shouldn’t have some here! It’s just I found this page so interesting being covered with all these funny symbols neither my mother nor her mother, nor any of our mothers before her understood

    Oh crap, the big hand is on the stick and the squiggle and the little hand on the two sticks so I need to run off and spend some time with my female boss who actually is so deluded, along with four other women at our shul, as to think that just because she graduated from Rabbinical school and was ordained she is a rabbi! Can you imagine?

    😀

    • Yeah, well that is true for your particular section of Judaism in 2009, but please speak the truth about the history of the entire religion and not just what is happening in the liberal movements of the past 50 years. We all understand that liberal Jewish movements allow women some particular rights. Let us also be frank about liberal Judaism – it is a minority within the greater scope of Judaism.

      We were talking about Jesus’ days (2,000) years ago, that is where this started. Were there any Jewish women ordained as anything important in those days? Are there any women that are rewriting Torah, Talmud, and any other Rabbinical writings in the favour of women and their understanding? Do Jewish men still pray that they are thankful to god that they are not created as women? Can women participate in praying at the Wall? Are there any women Rabbi’s today that are writing law, or anything of substance that the WHOLE religion qualifies as being inspired of God? If the answer is no to these questions then what progress has been made in the religion? Other than a nice new name where outcasts can claim an identity, even though they are outcasts from the main body.

      I am not Jewish, I don’t pretend to be, so forgive me for my lack of understanding on liberal Judaism and all things Judaism. But please do not belittle me and claim that I am just some “little brother” or whatever shit you want to claim, please be respectful and I will give you the same courtesy. I have never met and spoke to any of you in real life and I probably don’t care to at all. If I am wrong then just say that and then correct me on what I am wrong about, do not go on some personal tangent about me as a being, whom you know nothing about.

      • Jason, you should take note of this because this is a part of religious violence and how it actually works. I am an outsider to all your friends (who are religious) and I am lacking awareness on many issues (which is true) but I am made to feel like an outsider and it is done so in a demeaning manner – by adults no less. Adults that are fervently religious and understand that I am not part of them, therefore they act out and intentionally attack – albeit in a rather ridiculous fashion. Nevertheless, hospitality was not granted by these delegates of their religion, neither was correction, I received some petty ploy to test my perceived anger towards my brother. This is coercion in order to get a negative reaction from me.

        All the while they probably cannot see that I do not even care about any of this, nor am I concerned about any of it. I only came on to talk about weddings and Jesus and blah blah blah (as usual) and I do not even care about that. So, peace out.

  11. (Jay, please remove the previous comment. The computer I was using was logged in with another person but I didn’t notice. The same comment is pasted below.)

    Liberal Judaism is the minority? Sure. Only 10% of Jews identify themselves as Orthodox and even in Orthodox Judaism women are now being ordained as rabbis, which leaves 90+% of us as a ‘minority’. Must be new math.

    As to all your questions. Of course women are writing Torah commentary, teshuvot on Jewish Law and Talmudic dissertations. This is actually not such a new thing. Yes, women pray at the Wall, always have, always will. So what that some men pray thanking God they are not women, some of them are no doubt quite arrogant others of them may just realize it is still most definitely a man’s world everywhere. Anyway, that is just Orthodoxy; there is no such prayer in the rest of the Jewish world.

    Liberal Judaism doesn’t hold that ANY of Torah was inspired by God so why would we insist women’s writings today must be considered inspired for women to have any status? Why must all of Judaism, liberal, Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox agree to anything? Does that happen within any other religion? And you now have the authority to claim that 90+% of Jews are outcasts from our own religion? Ah, I must have missed you being named chief rabbi of the world.

    Perhaps you should try getting a sense of humor. You were/are very demeaning of me as a Jewish woman, along with Judaism, and very much misinformed yet I took it all with homor rather than getting pissed off. Hey, if it will make you happy next time I’ll throw rocks back at you and tell you all about First Nations culture based on my own extensive knowledge of this topic.

    • Well then, I am truly sorry for offending you. I am sorry and I can own up to it.

      But would you be so petty to throw my ethnicity, yes my ethnicity, under any type of scrutiny? What kind and Why? You see, I was born “First Nations” and I cannot leave my skin, my blood, and my ancestry behind. First Nations is not a religion in any way or form and it never has been, never will be. In fact First Nations is just a catch-all word, I am actually Cree and Saulteaux (again, not a religion in any way). Cree is a group of ethnic peoples that share historical ties through family, blood, language, relationships and everything else that goes on in societal life. So too is Saulteaux, Inuit, Miqmaq, Lakota, and Nakota, etc…….

      I have no religion and I was mistaken about liberal Judaism (which is a religious section of Judaism, is this not right). I said nothing about Jewish life as an ethnicity or as a group of people. I commented on religious aspects of the Law, Torah, Talmud, Rabbinic history, and women’s rights, etc……..

      But you would dare to suggest that you are now going to “throw rocks” at my ethnicity – this demonstrates your religious and moral character (which appears to need some major fine tuning). I took no shots at Jewish women in any manner and you can check all my words. In fact, I was speaking of their rights within the religion and nothing else. I surmised (incorrectly) about a religious sect of Judaism, well then forgive me for my ignorance. But if you want to “throw rocks” then get it started because I would not be offended in the slightest. Here is why – if I knew for a certain that your were ignorant about the matter then I would merely correct your words and not throw your whole ethnicity under a bus. I will not retaliate if you want to “throw rocks” (I am an atheist and I can see this to be morally wrong) because I am not going to offend your ethnicity on purpose. I do not feel any negativity about your personal ancestry. How it got to this point is beyond me.

      But your religion is always open for debate and the day when it is not – well that is the same day that you have achieved authoritarianism. If I am wrong then correct me, that is fine by me, I can handle it. But remember you are not the only Jewish woman in the entire religion and you only speak for yourself as a singular person in a religion (I am speaking of religion and not ethnicity). There are whole movements of Jewish women that seek greater rights within their religion (whichever section it may be) and upon this there is no debate. Rights are never given, they are always fought for.

      I meant no disrespect to you and I am sorry for any offense.

  12. “Not only that, but Jewish males wrote the entire Law, the Torah, the Talmud, and every other Rabbinic writing in the history of Judaism (women cannot become Rabbis, even to this day). Is there no bias in this scenario? None at all? You cannot see any?” (Johnny)

    The majority of this is based in history – and I agree – you make some serious points on the subject of history. Obviously there is bias in many of these processes…not disagreeing there. But then how does change occur in policies like that written into history? We just keep the male dominated status quo as the standard?

    I see challenges to this through-out the biblical writings – which you may not acknowledge…but there are interpretive challenges to such ideas. From the beginning, as in from the start of the biblical record, God created them…not male and ‘then’ female – but ‘male and female’…inherent equality. I made that point from a simple reading of Jesus’ quotes of Genesis (Torah).

    As for Paul, yes he was slanted against women in many of his rulings in Gentile communities – however – he still wrote the idea of women and men being equal – and even had women running certain home congregations. Yeah, his slants against women exist – but even then – he leaves doors open for more freedom on the subject.

    What I am pointing to is history can be changed – it doesn’t always have to be about the past as precedent alone. I am not denying sexism has existed – even in this religion – that’s plain and obvious…but that’s also obvious in politics right up until Hillary almost (still a contested debate amongst secular society). So if secualrists have it more progressive – It’s not showing any great movement in this arena.

    Why expect a church to move quicker (which is actually ordaining women) than current societies (which struggle with women in power also)? The point of a good interpreter is to challenge why this is and how this can free up the system – whether in the home, the church, or the local political institution.

  13. “Adults that are fervently religious and understand that I am not part of them, therefore they act out and intentionally attack – albeit in a rather ridiculous fashion” (Johnny)

    Noted.

    I will also note that interaction with any group is not going to be easy-going when you make some of the claims you do and present them as altogther factual (even if some of the history of it was).

    For example, I used to blog with some pretty zealous atheists – like John Loftus and the person that made the documentary about ‘the god who wasn’t there’. I cannot term that ‘religious’ violence – they didn’t have any religion – it was just violence (according to your definition). But nonetheless, we just didn’t agree on what was factual and was honest in people’s presentations – and this later turned into just name-calling of a sort (or demeaning someone for being who they were). It happens…I don’t get all cold about it – it just is.

    As for the people on this site – I am not sure they are neccesarily being ‘mean’ about their critiques. I can’t say T4T is being mean – I just don’t think he is that way from blogging with him for a year or so. And Yael, I have to admit, you made claims about her faith that may not be warranted and if were made about your traditional culture – you might find insulting and say similar things.

    I do admit one thing though – let’s stick to the issues and what was said and go from there – this is what I try to do. I take each conversation as a discussion and dialogue – as much as I may not agree with a certain point of view – I figure we can all learn from one another.

  14. Johnny, I hope you dont mind me calling you by name. By the way, my name is John, though I do let a few close friends call me Johnny. I wasnt trying to offend you, more than anything I was trying to add a little humour to the conversation. I figured you wouldnt mind so much, afterall you did open the door a little bit after your rant on your brother in an earlier post. If you read a little more of my words you would probably deduce that I am not religious, though I do like to dialogue about it. Maybe if you take the edge off you might actually enjoy some of our conversations and partake a little more. If anything you might get to “Know” us a little better. Who knows, when Im down in Saskatchewan in the future I might by you a Pint. 😉

    • I am not easily offended at stuff I see on the internet. Do not worry. No need to ever apologize to me. But if you seek absolution then it is granted. No worries.

  15. I would just like to point out that marriage between a man and man is unnatural as well as between a woman and a woman is unnatural. I don’t believe that just because a person may have a tendancy for having a sexual feddish, a person should be given an exception to the norm.

    A marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the norm among nature not just for a Christian, Jew or Muslim. The only way truly for man to continue, a man and a woman must continue to have sex. Sure you could have test tube babies but then that is another issue is it? If people on this blog would continue to quote scripture I would hope that you interpret it correctly and do not take it out of context. If you read Genesis with an open heart the union between a man and woman is one of Love and protection. It is not one of a heavy yoke placed upon a woman by a man.

    Divorce- Only God can divide the union that the two have entered into. The scriptures then go on to describe how the two become one. If God had intended divorce to be the norm then the two would not become one. Premarital sex has brought our world into an epidemic of STD’s — HIV AIDS etc… These sins have not only affected the one who had sex outside of a marriage but it has come to damage millions of babies born to mothers with STD’s As you read through the scripture I will believe you will find that divorce is not something even the Kings of Isreal had committed. Sin as they may have the ones who repented of their sins God noticed and they did not suffer the wrath of God. Punishment did come to David and his house because of his sin, but he did not endure the wrath of God.

    Divorce has also torn apart not only the husband and wife but the children involved emotionally, psychologically and spiritually. The house is supposed to be one of refuge and safety for everyone. Divorce only divides a house and a divided house can not stand. Jesus made perfect sense when he said a house divide will fall upon itself.

    May all of you reading find the true love of God not only in Fear of him but LOVE in him.

  16. “I don’t believe that just because a person may have a tendancy for having a sexual feddish, a person should be given an exception to the norm.” (Xavier)

    So you think homosexuality is a sexual fetish? Do you know anything about people that claim to be gay and why they do such a thing? Homosexuality may be the exception to the norm – being like 10% or something in society (or even less) – but just because they are a minority doesn’t mean they are ‘wrong’.

    “If you read Genesis with an open heart the union between a man and woman is one of Love and protection. It is not one of a heavy yoke placed upon a woman by a man.” (Xavier)

    I tend to agree with this idea myself and see that with the concerns for why some scripture was written about it.

    “A marriage is between a man and a woman” (Xavier)

    I think this was the only type of marriage addressed by the disciples and Paul. However, I tend to see marriage being not only being about ‘sex’ (which is an aspect of pro-creation and the marriage also)…the core thing in a marriage is ‘committment’. Now you may not agree with this but two men or two women can also share that action – and I see no reason for them to be denied rights.

    “The scriptures then go on to describe how the two become one” (Xavier)

    They do – explain?

    “If God had intended divorce to be the norm then the two would not become one” (Xavier)

    Good point in a way.

    “The house is supposed to be one of refuge and safety for everyone. Divorce only divides a house and a divided house can not stand” (Xavier)

    Makes sense actually – good use of that scripture I must add.

  17. Why or what is the purpose of you questioning me about what I said about homosexuality? If you are asking if I know gay people the answer is, yes. Have I listened to why they intended to have sex with others, yes. Do I hear their pain and agony over what some wish to be normal or accepted by the norm, yes. What is your point in asking me why it is a sexual fetish? Do you believe i am incorrect in my statement? For my complete understanding of your positioning could you explain to me how homosexuality is correct not only in nature but also based in the bible. I’m assuming you are a christian I’m sorry if I speak incorrectly of your religion or belief. I know assuming can make a butt of me. lol 🙂

    To answer your question of the two become one flesh hear this is my view….
    When a male and female have sex the woman’s body excretes lubricant to all the male penis entry into her body. She receives the man into her he enters into her in a committed intimate way. As the two continue both the male and female’s skin is thin and easily ripped during the act of sex. As the two have sex literally both blood and secretions are literally shared. If you have sex with a virgin the blood covenant is made as the man enters the woman . Thus the sheet would have blood on it. I’m sure as most of have been educated in health class about all this. When you have sex the blood and secretion are all over both male and female. While sex with obviously a nonvirgin will not have as much blood scientists doctors still would support the in the skin tearing, blood, and secretions.

    To answer your question of the two become one according to the Torah and one according to the new testament here is your answer.

    It also refutes your statement that you believe it was only the apostle paul who said a marriage is between a man and a woman only.

    Genesis2 verse 22-23
    23 The man said,
    “This is now bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called ‘woman, [k] ‘
    for she was taken out of man.”

    24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

    Matthew 19 verse 3-5 this is the direct Quote of Yeshua Jesus Christ
    3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

    4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh

    This part of my life I take pretty seriously and i wish that all people would wait until marriage to have sex. I pray that there is a revolution across the world in which this would occur. Our whole world would change. Thank you for being civil and I appreciate being able to speak freely about this. Thanks for not insulting my spelling of fetish. Have a great week societyvs

  18. “What is your point in asking me why it is a sexual fetish?” (Xavier)

    I wonder why you think that in all honesty? Do you think all gay relationships are based on a sexual fetish – like someone that loves feet for example?

    “While sex with obviously a nonvirgin will not have as much blood scientists doctors still would support the in the skin tearing, blood, and secretions.” (Xavier)

    That only looks at the 2 becoming 1 as a sexual aspect – do you believe marriage is only about sex?

    The Genesis verses look at the subject matter – quoting scripture is not quite interpretation – it’s just putting the basis for an interpretation to exist in place – we need to still need to decide what that scripture means – then and now.

    I see the idealism in a man and woman for the act of reproduction in Genesis – pointing to the idea men and women will make children – children being another aspect of the 2 become 1 idea.

    Like I mentioned only about 10% or lower of Western citizens are actually gay – but are choosing committed relationships…which is another aspect of ‘marriage’ or 2 becoming 1. Now although they may not share in 2 aspects of the definition (ie: sexual action and bearing children) they do share in committment.

    And one needs to consider this closely – as to what judgement they make on this very terminilogy of marriage because it effects more than just gay relationships. Older couples that co-join do not share in the act of having children. Parapelgics do not neccesarily share in the act of children (in many cases). People that are sterile will not share in the act of having children. Many relationships are effected by what judgment we will make about the idea of marriage.

    However, the ideal is a man and a woman…this seems to be the biblical norm. But it is also idealism at it’s finest. The ideal is not always kept and I have mentioned a handful or circumstances where this is just the case…which means – we need to be careful with what we deem marriage to be…it can outcast many for the sake of an ideal.

  19. Jason,

    What have you been on lately? Man, you’ve been writing sooo much on such heavy topics for quite a while now. I’ve always enjoyed reading and commenting on your blog, but I can’t digest enough of it to put something down in a timely manner. Peace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s