Why a man and a woman?

[arunangelo]

Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings (a man and a woman) in which they unite their lives to form one life (Matthew 19:5-6). Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Since reproduction is only possible between a man and a woman union of reproductive physiologies is only possible between a man and a woman. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. <O:p</O:p

 

[DarkHorseRising]

The problem with defining marriage as a sacrament between two people capable of physiologically reproducing is that not all man-woman matchups are capable of doing so. Problems arise:

Would a man and woman who are sterile (naturally or through an operation) be allowed to marry? Under such a definition, strictly speaking they couldn't.

What about elderly people no longer capable of reproduction? Would grandma and grandpa find their marriage annulled once their reproductive physiology stops working?

It's also worth noting that human offspring can be conceived with three biological parents.


I do agree that marriage is between one man and one woman; I'm just playing devil's advocate here because if you use the "can't marry unless you can reproduce" argument, people will shoot it down fast with the above mentioned examples. I swear I'm not being a jerk!!!!

 

[elijah23]

Marriage is a covenant of love between two human beings (a man and a woman) in which they unite their lives to form one life (Matthew 19:5-6). Since life is physiological the only way they can unite their lives is by uniting their physiologies. Among all the physiologies we have, the only physiology in which two human beings can unite is in reproductive physiology. Since reproduction is only possible between a man and a woman union of reproductive physiologies is only possible between a man and a woman. Therefore, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman. <O:p</O:p

Yes, marriage is only possible between a man and a woman.

 

[Former Christian]

I got into it with another individual who used a natural argument to prove the man woman only position. I tried to show him that natural arguments are worthless because they lead nowhere and everywhere. That alternate natural arguments can prove him wrong. I tried to get him to use the bible instead of a natural argument. He refused to listen. Seemed to me to be a strange stance for a believer in Christ to take. Especially a Protestant who usually believes in the Bible above all. So in the last post I put on that thread I, in frustration said I wouldn’t bother him any more with it. I figured it was useless if he just wanted to go the natural route. He had that last post removed. I guess he didn’t like what I said. That thread went the way of the dodo four posts after I left out of 60 something, when all he had left were yes men. And this one too if the bible isn’t the ground for the argument.

If I was going to judge someone to not be saved, it would be someone who refuses to use the bible and instead wants to use natural reasoning. But I won’t judge Christians unsaved even for that reason.

The bible alone reveals the man woman relationship alone to be the only legitimate relationship. Natural reasoning does not. Natural reasoning reveals every kind of relationship is OK. Man woman relationship included. Not anything to base one’s life or thinking on. That is, if one wants to truly be a follower of Christ.

NC

 

[Comprehender]

The problem with defining marriage as a sacrament between two people capable of physiologically reproducing is that not all man-woman matchups are capable of doing so. Problems arise:

Would a man and woman who are sterile (naturally or through an operation) be allowed to marry? Under such a definition, strictly speaking they couldn't.

What about elderly people no longer capable of reproduction? Would grandma and grandpa find their marriage annulled once their reproductive physiology stops working?

It's also worth noting that human offspring can be conceived with three biological parents.


I do agree that marriage is between one man and one woman; I'm just playing devil's advocate here because if you use the "can't marry unless you can reproduce" argument, people will shoot it down fast with the above mentioned examples. I swear I'm not being a jerk!!!!

Those are good points.
I've heard some try to get out of common-sense question by saying, "Why argue about such pettiness?"
And I responded that the greatest battles are not fought on the battlefield - but are between principles & getting a good solid argument together is important for that battle! And we are in many battles over extremely impactful principles!

My basic argument for defending marriage between a man & a woman is this:
1. Children need both parents & legalizing same-sex marriage denies them of either a father or a mother.
2. Lealizing same-sex marriage supports behavior that statistically proves to be harmful to society (& children learn most through imitation). Those with homosexual preferences have disproportionatly high statistics of STDs & AIDs. Even in 2 healthy males, anal sex has risks of anal fissures, bacterial infection, anal cancer & colon rupture.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/poli...tions-same-sex-marriage-23.html#ixzz1vQLzYtYp