Matthew 19:6 … Will the REAL “traditional marriage” please stand? (07/18/15)
“Traditionally”, marriage has been recently (and quite vociferously) defined as the legal &/or spiritual union of one man with one woman — looking something like this:
Well, guess what, folks? Marriages that are truly “traditional” have nothing at all to do with this particular vision OR the law OR the church … That’s right, true “traditional marriage” was a union made PRIVATELY between two people (regardless of gender or sexual preference) who simply chose to form a day-to-day renewable life-long partnership. As such true “traditional marriages” — the ones that actually count — will continue to be made privately for as long as we humans reside in this Universe, and this will be the case no matter what a country’s laws or what a community’s church might have to say to the contrary.
Now where we start getting into trouble is when those laws &/or those churches start trying to enforce THEIR beliefs about marriage onto the private marriages of others … THAT is discrimination; and THAT is unacceptable behavior in any truly respect-based, civilized society. Believe whatever you wish about any of the “unusual” or “alternative” or even “sinful” marriages of your neighbors — It is most certainly your right and your prerogative to do so. AND just be sure to refrain from expressing those views in public. The beliefs and actions of others that do not harm you or anyone else are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, so please — either openly support those unions and the Love that inspired them, or keep your less-then-kind & less-then-tolerant views to yourself.
Thank you.
P.S. As an example, I personally do not believe in legal or religious marriage at all — believing as I do that such binding unions tend to make real LOVE much more difficult to give and intimate relationships much more difficult to maintain. That having been said, when one of my Friends Joy-fully tells me that he or she is getting married, I keep my opinions to myself, give them a HUGE hug, and profusely wish them all the best.
P.P.S. Better yet, instead of remaining silent-yet-still-judgmentally-biased against those relationships of which you do not personally approve, why not use those encounters as opportunities to humble your ego & open your Heart; to extend acts of Kindness to those others — and thereby drastically expand your own understanding of LOVE & dramatically deepen your own experience thereof?
Amen … Let it be so.
“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what GOD [not the government or the church] has joined together, let no one separate.” ~ Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:6)
P.P.S.S. And for all my conservative Christian Friends out there, try considering the fact that marriage was not considered a scared institution until the Council of Verona in 1184. Before then, no specific rituals or requirements were prescribed for celebrating a marriage. Marriage vows did not have to be exchanged in a church, nor was a priest’s presence required. A couple — ANY couple — could exchange their vows & intentions and thereby become married anywhere, anytime … Yes, it is true that Genesis 2:24 (which Jesus references in Matthew 19:6) does note that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh”, and yet the Hebrew word translated here as “united” is actually “dabaq” (Strong’s #1692), which meant “to cling” or “to cleave”, and had nothing to do with present day marriage whatsoever. Just as importantly, even if the Bible DID sanctify heterosexual unions with this or any other edict, such an endorsement does NOT mean that homosexual unions are denounced or rejected. Such a negative prohibition would have to explicit to become Old Testament law, and such a prohibition does not exist in the Scriptures.
BONUS BIBLE FUN: Did you know that the ancient Hebrew manuscripts show God originally intending to make Adam a MASCULINE “helper” in Genesis 2:18 (“ezer” – Strong’s #5828)? And did you know that any being cloned from the rib of a man (which is how “eve” came to be thereafter) would have to have been essentially masculine as well? … I find that interesting.