Re: Were any of you aware of the Santorum google thing

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Karl Swenson <[email protected]> wrote:

> > **well, you must admit there is much more biblical precedent for it....
>
> More than gay marriage? Sure. But that doesn't make it right.
>
> ***Doesn't make it wrong either.    I have always wondered where the
change
> happened and why (between the OT and NT)
>

Early OT was monogamous.  

***then it was not so much.  So what changed?  And even that monogamy had
some odd exceptions as I recall.

And in this case?
>
> **I see it as a passive.  I can see a lot of social benefit to lural 
> marriage and a lot of potential harm.


What's the benefit?

***more parents provide a stronger base of support for the famil and the
children, including the ability to keep at least one home with the kids. 


> Face, it traditional marriage isn't
> such a pretty thing anymore is it?


It is when it hasn't devolved into serial polygamy.


***not really.  Some totally monogamous ones are abject failures.  The point
is that absolutes are pointless because too many exceptions exist.

>  As you say, western civilization has
> apparently moved past it.


To its detriment.

***frankly I tend to agree.  That said, plural marriage is still coming and
it remains to be seen what it will do.
 


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot