Transexuals and Marriage: A Question

Actually that part is about owning each other's bodies. Sex.

quote:

---

1Cr 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

---

But otherwise there is no notion of property involved in marriage in the New Testament. The man is to be the "head" meaning he has the responsibility for the family, but his obligation is to "love his wife as Christ loved the Church." Nothing like the crass property stuff people keep talking about here. Edited by Faith, : to add Bible quote.

I can't argue any further than what I have already stated because I don't know what it's like to be "trapped" inside the wrong body.

To unite, to set apart from all others for the sake of each other --the possession of each other only -- and to be recognized as separate by the culture, a man and a woman, TWO DIFFERENT SEXES, who are obviously designed by nature to be united. That the two sexes were designed for this union is the primary reason. To form a UNIT from two parts MEANT to form it. It IS protective of the female too. I still think that reason applies even with all the modern cultural protections that make it less needful. It's just a natural and right thing and I have a terrific problem understanding how anybody can countenance for half a second a misuse, a travesty, of this natural right thing by uniting two males or two females. Natural procreation is another reason, too, possible only to heterosexuals.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Of course's there's love and commitment. But it isn't the definitive thing. You can have all kinds of love and commitment between people who have no reason to be married.

---

Love and committment is reason enough to get married.Of course, YEC folks like you want to take the love out of marriage and reduce it to a mere biological, clinical matter.How dehumanizing.

quote:

---

You can have all kinds of love and commitment between people who have no reason to be married.

---

To breed, obviously.

quote:

---

To unite, to set apart from all others for the sake of each other --the possession of each other only -- and to be recognized as separate by the culture

---

Are you saying that no culture is ever allowed to change marriage to be the above regardless of the genders of the couples?Are you saying that because it has always been so (according to you) it must always remain so?

quote:

---

It's just a natural and right thing and I have a terrific problem understanding how anybody can countenance for half a second a misuse, a travesty, of this natural right thing by uniting two males or two females.

---

HOW is it a misuse? Show some examples of how marriage is misused in general.HOW is it a travesty? Show some examples of how marriage in general is affected.Can you please, for once, supply some reasoning behind your obviously strong conviction that the country and the institution of marriage will go to pot if gay marriage is allowed?Come on, tell us what is going to happen if we allow it. What will be the dire consequences you keep alluding to?

quote:

---

Natural procreation is another reason, too, possible only to heterosexuals.

---

So, should we disallow women who have passed childbearing age to marry? Should we disallow sterile or impotent men from marrying?If you say no, they you really need to stop including "natural procreation" in your argument.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

Faith You use the term "natural" as though there were never any examples of homosexuality in the natural world.Surely you must define natural in some other way however you have not yet given this definition to us.

Hi all,
It was claimed earlier that all cultures have viewed marriage as specificly heterosexual. 14th Dalai Lama - Wikipedia
I think the Dalai Lama gets final say on his cultures opinion.
He clearly says, it is not in any way unacceptable in society, which includes marriage doesn't it? Especially legal as opposed to religous marriage.
Should the Dalai Lama get a new word for marriage too?

I don't now where you're from, but this statement is just plain wrong. In the US we fought a war over it. If it hadn't been for the Emancipation Proclomoation, which was designed to prevent Europe from entering the US civil war, the war wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. However, at that point, the war turned into one against slavery, not just to preserve the union of the US.End result--more than half a million americans killed, if I remember correctly. More than a million wounded. And that's more than all wars we've fought in combined (if I remember my casualtiy figures--WWII may throw that out) That's how we got rid of slavery.By the way, the concept of indentured servant was like this--I want to go to America, but I'm dirt poor. So, some dude in america will pay for my trip, and I'll work for him for seven years, possibly longer to pay it off. And this is the brief on what being an indentured servant is. It was really quite horrible, up there with being a slave.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

No, it does NOT include marriage. Why should it? It has nothing whatever to do with the historic reasons for marriage.

I'm sorry, I thought you said it was all about marriage's cultural historical place.And as to why it should include marriage, sorry I don't feel qualified to speak for the Dalai Lama, or his culture, but on both topics, his is the definitive word. Not yours.
He said the above quoted, care to tell us how you know what he meant better than he does? He's fairly well known to be articulate.

so, commitment then? cultural recognition. not a reason.man: "will you marry me? after all, i'm a man, and you're a woman."
woman: "i don't even like you." argument from (apparent) design. this requires belief in a creator -- what about athiests? still subject to the above fallacy: it's not a reason. ok, that's a valid reason. females are weak and need protection (in your view), and so they should be married. what do we do with the unmarried women? the major logical problem with this, of course, is that it supposes three things:1. that any marriage that does not include a female is limiting the resources (men) available to protect the women. in reality, gay men don't like women anyways. by definition.2. that there are no other sources of protection for females, including their own abilities, and families.3. that any other reason for marriage is secondary. (and we are actually living in the dark ages) because you have not established that heterosexuality (let alone marriage) is either natural or right, nor have you provided reasons why homosexuality is a misuse or a travesty.you are aware, of course, that in "natural" world many animals form lasting bonds with homosexual mates. while it is true that many people do get married because they have procreated, that's simple societal pressure at work. we do not need marriage as a social institution in order to breed. neither are we required to breed. some of us even lack the ability to breed.it is clear that procreation is not a good reason for marriage.

---

quote:

---

No, it does NOT include marriage. Why should it? It has nothing whatever to do with the historic reasons for marriage. No, it does NOT include marriage. Why should it? It has nothing whatever to do with the historic reasons for marriage.

---

No, the time factor is irrelevant in itself, it is merely an indicator that the collected wisdom of humanity -- which is really all we have if we reject God -- has made marriage a matter of uniting the two OPPOSING sexes.But I understand that there is no such thing as the collected wisdom of humanity to today's generation in the West, who are sure that they and only they have the true and ethical word on all things, and the billions that have gone before can be shrugged off as so many ignorant or bad people.Uniting the two OPPOSING sexes, obviously designed for each other, the uniting of whom under ideal conditions produces offspring, which two of the same are obviously unfitted to do, also is eminently reasonable, undeniably appropriate, while the uniting of two of the same is just some kind of weird pantomime and denial of reality, as they suit themselves up in the Emperor's New Clothes.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But isn't that exactly what you're doing to all the people who saw gay marriage as entirely reasonable and appropriate? Shrugging them off?You don't even have the evidence to assert that they were a minority. I imagine most people just didn't care either way. There's a corallary to the Emperor's New Clothes; the lone hallucinator who is alone in insisting that the Emporer is naked. Everybody else sees the clothes just fine, and the Emporer isn't shivering or anything. The question is - what's wrong with you that you don't see the clothes? It can't be that they aren't there - because they are. We've proven that.