Should we respect Biblical marriage?

where I was married in canada and where my parents were married in europe both marriages required a government marriage certificate first, without that neither civil or religious marriage is officially recognized...

 

So why is it that the progressive bloc, who claims to be about equal rights for all, wants to deny Christian marriage?

Though it is refreshing that they are admitting their intent and desire to persecute Christians.

 

How silly.. Try family and domestic law 101.

 

Aint it glorious for a
Christian to get any chance they can contrive to claim they is bein' persecuted, just like their lawd jesus said they should be.

 

I don't think there is glory in persecution. Certainly there will be dimwits who think it is glorious, but I think they are few in number.

 

so should polygamous marriages be recognized as well? I can't see why not? if we're are open to all types of unions/marriages how can we draw the line at couples only...

 

The KJV isn't really that much different

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (King James Version (KJV))
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

As I understand it, it is the interpretation of the translation of the words taphas and shakab

While the KJV version doesn't adhere to the rape part of the OP as other translations do, it does allude to the woman being paid for .. I know that in some cultures and religions that a dowry is expected for a woman, but I did not think it was a Christian thing.

 

Personally, I have no objection in principal, however, it will require massive overhaul of, at the very least, the tax code, and quite possibly a whole lot more. Although polygamy is one male, two or more women, if we're going to make it legal, we would need to legalize polyandry, which could be any combination.

 

"Lie with" and "rape" are two very different words. "Humble" and "violate" are two very different words. This is the problem with the continuous retranslating of things.

 

I agree with the polyandry as well...the financial and legal consequences are mind boggling, taxes/welfare/divorce/child support/child custody and probably another dozen complications I haven't considered...

I had a friend from Ghana who told me his father was the "Lion King", he said he had nine mothers and he always felt secure as they all loved him and his numerous siblings...

 

I did say that

But it is this problem with interpretation and translation again.

 

This is why people should just figure out what it means in the KJV instead of reinventing the wheel.

 

Problem is that other denominations will say exactly the same for what ever version they follow .. the consensus of opinion seems to be that the most accurate translation for the NT from the original Koine Greek is The New World Translation used by the Jehovah's Witnesses (Published 1961) which has been critically acclaimed on a number of occasions.

 

Very true. I guess when debating the bible we should pick a version prior to debating.

 

now that could get very interesting.

 

Seems a strange question for a Canadian to ask given that gay marriage is legal here in Canada. Lines have already been drawn and redrawn over the course of American history... so yes, we can allow gay marriage while keeping polygamy illegal. If Canada can allow gay marriage while outlawing polygamy then so can the USA.

 

I have no issue with gay marriage which is why I asked how can we deny polygamy or polyandry, it's a moral contradiction...polyandry and polygamy have centuries of tradition behind them if we have freedom of religion and thought why draw the line at couples only...

 

So explain to me how it isn't persecution to seek to deny Christian marriage recognition..

Yet it is homo persecution to fail to recognize homo *marriage*?

 

Are you suggesting that only the christian type of marriage ought be recognized by law? Do you realize we live in a secular republic, that is prohibited constitutionally from legislating religious laws?

 

Actually, we live in a Christian republic.

How does recognizing Christian marriage constitute "legislating" religious laws? Are you implying the only marriages that the state may put it's stamp of approval on are homosexual marriages?

 

Have you been drinking? We live in a secular Constitutional republic. Imposing religious rules on society is constitutionally prohibited.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "christian marriage", but I'm not implying that the state's stamp of approval would apply only to homosexual marriage. Only that it can't limit it to just heterosexual marriage.

 

I see your point. I could care less if people are polygamist either. But none the less allowing gay marriage does not open Pandora's Box IMO. Distinctions can be made and lines drawn.

 

Maybe Christians have a better understanding of the scriptures than you do.

 

I doubt this very seriously.

 

Yes, the muslims are still using Force and Laws to control the young peoples' destructive sexual behaviors.
Christians need only explain the Truth in order to get the same results,... but they have been silent since 1960:

CRIME:



TAXES $$$$$:
Welfare $1 trillion in 2011
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...1-trillion-in-2011-study-shows/#ixzz2DfVu5Ujc