toldailytopic: The Sanctity of Marriage.

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 29th, 2010 10:25 AM

toldailytopic: The Sanctity of Marriage.

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[antiknight]

There is nothing divine or even special about the concept of marriage. Two people or any number of people or animals should be able to unite themselves in any type of ceremony they like. It's none of anyone else's business.

 

[nicholsmom]

There is nothing divine or even special about the concept of marriage. Two people or any number of people or animals should be able to unite themselves in any type of ceremony they like. It's none of anyone else's business.

But should we call such unions "marriage" and, more importantly, should we require the world at large to accept these unions as equal to traditional marriages, and should we require the government to protect the purported equality of these unions?

 

[Son of Jack]

Why in the world did we ever give the government the right to declare who is and isn't legally married? Should the government be involved in giving special benefits to married people?

As to the sanctity of marriage, I believe that marriage is God's idea and is for our benefit in a number of ways. First, it is not good for man (or woman) to be alone (though there are certainly exceptions to the rule). Second, it serves to teach much about ourselves and God. The concepts of faithfulness and true love make much more sense within the context of marriage. Third, and most important to my mind, it works to sanctify us (at least in our fallen state). I am not allowed to think only about myself. I am forced to think about my beloved.

 

[Persephone66]

What about the sanctity of marriage? Is there a such thing?

One can get married then get divorced the next day. You can even get both done at a drive thru. Where is the sanctity there?

Marriage has become the subject of contest shows and reality shows. A viewing public and shove together two people that may not be all that interested in each other. Is that an example of the sanctity of marriage?

People get married for monetary, social or political gains. This has been going on as long as there has been mankind. Is that the sanctity of marriage?

If I buy a mail order bride, does that contribute to preserving the sanctity of marriage?

What about when someone is kidnapped then auctioned off? Is there any sanctity in that marriage?

I knew a gay man that married a Mexican woman that he was friends with so it would be easier for her to become an American citizen. They lived pretty much like roommates. Is that the sanctity of marriage?

Why is it that we only complain about the so called sanctity of marriage when 2 people, that just happen to be the same gender, that genuinely love each other want to get married?

 

[KingLouie]

Why in the world did we ever give the government the right to declare who is and isn't legally married? Should the government be involved in giving special benefits to married people?

Great point!

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore a religious ceremony, but it is also a legal contract which is enforced (or should be enforced) by the courts. Two people enter into a contract and have the ability to seek damages when one party fails to meet his obligations.

Statutes are also in place to define the requirements which must be met in order for any individual to enter into a contract within a given municipality.

Therefore the government does have a responsibility to enforce these contracts.

 

[bybee]

Well

Well

There is nothing divine or even special about the concept of marriage. Two people or any number of people or animals should be able to unite themselves in any type of ceremony they like. It's none of anyone else's business.

One doesn't contract STD's in a truly monogamous relationship. I don't think I'd invite a man and his beast to dinner. There is any manner of coupling going on. That separates the Godly from the unGodly you unmitigated contents of a barf bag! bybee

 

[bybee]

Well

Well

Why in the world did we ever give the government the right to declare who is and isn't legally married? Should the government be involved in giving special benefits to married people?

As to the sanctity of marriage, I believe that marriage is God's idea and is for our benefit in a number of ways. First, it is not good for man (or woman) to be alone (though there are certainly exceptions to the rule). Second, it serves to teach much about ourselves and God. The concepts of faithfulness and true love make much more sense within the context of marriage. Third, and most important to my mind, it works to sanctify us (at least in our fallen state). I am not allowed to think only about myself. I am forced to think about my beloved.

You make good points. May I add that I have thought that ours is a "Government of the people and by the people and for the people..."So, by extention, we the people are setting the standards for definition of family and legal obligations which purtain to creating a stable and law abiding society. peace, bybee

 

[chrysostom]

what God has joined together

if not the child

what could possibly join a man and woman together?

 

[Granite]

I don't think marriage as an institution has any "sanctity" at all. The relationship itself? Oh yes.

 

[Rusha]

I don't think marriage as an institution has any "sanctity" at all. The relationship itself? Oh yes.

Agreed

 

[Son of Jack]

Great point!

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore a religious ceremony, but it is also a legal contract which is enforced (or should be enforced) by the courts. Two people enter into a contract and have the ability to seek damages when one party fails to meet his obligations.

Statutes are also in place to define the requirements which must be met in order for any individual to enter into a contract within a given municipality.

Therefore the government does have a responsibility to enforce these contracts.

I don't think marriage as an institution has any "sanctity" at all. The relationship itself? Oh yes.

Agreed

Is marriage anything more than a contract, a legal agreement, between two people?

When did the relationship of marriage get separated from the institution? When did it become an institution?

If you believe it to be a covenant between two people (and God), then you bet it is a sacred relationship.

 

[Wolf]

Marriage laws have historically been designed to accommodate and regulate the special privileges and responsibilities associated with the biological reality of conception. The legitimacy of all marriage laws rests on the necessity of such laws in the presence or intent/likelihood of this physical union.

ISTM that Moses and Paul really muddied the waters when they implied that oneness was a matter of physical composition (bone of my bone), or doing the Hokey Pokey made you one flesh (unless they presumed that conception would follow?). Marriage laws based on the shaky ground that romance or coitus warrant regulation by marriage law when there is *no possibility* of conception are harmful, unjust and catering special interest.

Relationships that have no possibility of conception do not fall under marriage law. If there is mutual property, it can be covered by contract law. Adoption can be covered by adoption law.

The government has *no business* getting involved in "validating and celebrating" unions based on the feelings of same-sex couples.

Severing the link between law and biological reality will do great harm to our legal system.

 

[Granite]

Marriage laws have historically been designed to accommodate and regulate the special privileges and responsibilities associated with the biological reality of conception. The legitimacy of all marriage laws rests on the necessity of such laws in the presence or intent/likelihood of this physical union.

ISTM that Moses and Paul really muddied the waters when they implied that oneness was a matter of physical composition (bone of my bone), or doing the Hokey Pokey made you one flesh (unless they presumed that conception would follow?). Marriage laws based on the shaky ground that romance or coitus warrant regulation by marriage law when there is *no possibility* of conception are harmful, unjust and catering special interest.

Relationships that have no possibility of conception do not fall under marriage law. If there is mutual property, it can be covered by contract law. Adoption can be covered by adoption law.

The government has *no business* getting involved in "validating and celebrating" unions based on the feelings of same-sex couples.

Severing the link between law and biological reality will do great harm to our legal system.

Would you include hetero couples that can't conceive?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Would you include hetero couples that can't conceive?

Good point.

 

[zoo22]

I think that those who consider the sanctity of marriage important are better off working to separate marriage from government rather than having government define it.

I don't believe that the government ought to determine sanctity in marriage... I believe that having the government involved in defining marriage is actually deteriorating it's sanctity.

A civil union or a domestic partnership, however, is a different thing altogether.

 

[Chalmer Wren]

But should we call such unions "marriage" and, more importantly, should we require the world at large to accept these unions as equal to traditional marriages, and should we require the government to protect the purported equality of these unions?

It doesn't matter what we call them. Changing the word doesn't alter what it means to people. Call it 'snugensnoff'. The government should protect rights and privileges of civil unionship between people. Not letting a person see his dog at the ER Vet because he/she isn't married to it borders on lunacy. The government shouldn't outlaw any kind of marriage, only grant privileges to couples for legal and economic practicality.

 

[Town Heretic]

Is marriage anything more than a contract, a legal agreement, between two people?

In relation to the state? No. Now what it means to the individual in a religious or other personal sense is another matter.

When did the relationship of marriage get separated from the institution? When did it become an institution?

In a secular society it must remain a matter of contract, obligations, privileges and right. It's up to the individual to keep a thing holy.

If you believe it to be a covenant between two people (and God), then you bet it is a sacred relationship.

And it should be for anyone who believes it. That doesn't mean your belief or mine should be a litmus test for legitimacy in contract before the state though.

 

[Wolf]

>>>Would you include hetero couples that can't conceive?

"The law does not concern itself with trivialities."

Even though the birth rate in the US is at historic lows, marriages produce an average of about 1.5 children per woman. The law has seen fit to act on the presumption that marriage is entered into with the inevitability, intention or high likelihood of producing offspring. Cases where a couple is infertile are not challenged for legitimacy, and no proof is require of fertility before marriage. It is a relatively trivial and unpursued possibility that society has no vested interest in ferreting out.

Homosexual unions are batting at about zero percent possibility at this time. No amount of seminal fluid swishing around in a man's colon is going to produce an offspring.

This might change. Apparently, Atrazine, the widely used herbicide has been causing male frogs to begin producing and delivering eggs, with levels that are no higher than that allowed and found in our drinking water. It could explain the great number of homosexuals in this country.

So if that changes, and men deliver babies, or women produce Y chromosomes, the law would have to intervene in order to protect the interests of both parents and of the children produced by these unnatural unions.

 

[Granite]

>>>Would you include hetero couples that can't conceive?

"The law does not concern itself with trivialities."

Even though the birth rate in the US is at historic lows, marriages produce an average of about 1.5 children per woman. The law has seen fit to act on the presumption that marriage is entered into with the inevitability, intention or high likelihood of producing offspring. Cases where a couple is infertile are not challenged for legitimacy, and no proof is require of fertility before marriage. It is a relatively trivial and unpursued possibility that society has no vested interest in ferreting out.

Homosexual unions are batting at about zero percent possibility at this time. No amount of seminal fluid swishing around in a man's colon is going to produce an offspring.

This might change. Apparently, Atrazine, the widely used herbicide has been causing male frogs to begin producing and delivering eggs, with levels that are no higher than that allowed and found in our drinking water. It could explain the great number of homosexuals in this country.

So if that changes, and men deliver babies, or women produce Y chromosomes, the law would have to intervene in order to protect the interests of both parents and of the children produced by these unnatural unions.

That doesn't exactly answer my question. You said: "Relationships that have no possibility of conception do not fall under marriage law." So are you trying to say couples who are sterile and married don't fall under marriage law? That's a really stupendous claim.