Dear Dan,

The correct translation is: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and they shall become one flesh".

Now this describes a subtle occurence, not an external one. Externally, biologically, we know that a man and a woman can never share the same flesh (except for Siamese twins), nor can a son with his father/mother.

Just as the subtle does not show in the gross, so does the gross, the external formality of a marriage/wedding does not guarantee that subtle occurence of becoming one flesh. A ring and a document, or even the blessings and dedications of clergymen, are no substitute for the REALITY of being married. It is either present, or it is not.

Likewise, no formal social act is required for that subtle event, as described in Genesis 2, to occur. This subtlety could occur before the formal ceremony, after it, or even without it.

Historically, marriage gradually evolved from a woman-purchase contract (as is still formally the case in Judaism), to its current western concept of equality. The ring, for example, was considered the price paid for the woman - it was unheard of a women giving a ring to a man!

Social customs have ever been changing and will continue to change, but are of no spiritual significance. You should therefore let go of the fuss and concentrate on the essence.

If God does not intend for two men or two women to become one flesh, then it will simply never occur, no matter how much confectionary, rice and flowers fly through the air, so there is nothing there for you to worry about.

Sorry Dan, I see that a few words came missing in the translation:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall stick with his wife and they shall become one flesh"

Dear Yuyutsu,
I don't think there is anything 'subtle' about a man uniting with a woman. That's probably one of the last adjectives I might choose.

Romance can be subtle. That's not exactly what we're talking about here. A man becoming one with a woman has quite the physical element to it. Marriage combines a physical, mental and spiritual union.

I can't see what is gained by allowing same sex couples to be wed.  It would only work to undermine marriage and make the laws more confusing than they already are. But I'm becoming used to living in a country where politicians pass strange laws.

I would agree that social customs are continually changing. Yet the Christian view of marriage does not change in it's essence.  

 

Dear Dan,

The bible is very specific, it says "and they shall become one flesh".
Now physiologically, on the gross level, this never happens, not even during sexual intercourse (with fluids and skin in between), so the remaining option is the subtle. Whether you believe in the bible or not, is of course up to you.

"I can't see what is gained by allowing same sex couples to be wed".

Neither do I, because nobody should need to ask the government's permission to wed in the first place. It is not for them to allow or disallow what should be one's private affair.

One should of course ask the permission of their prospective spouse.
One may choose to ask for the permission of his/her parents.
One may choose to ask for the permission of his/her prospective parents in law.
One may choose to ask for the permission of their religious minister.
One may choose to ask for the permission of their spiritual guide or mentor.

But asking for the permission of the government or of the secular legislators? what can be gained by that? who are they anyway? What moral authority do they wield?

As you mentioned yourself, we are innundated by heaps of confusing and strange laws. Politicians are intruding in areas of life to which they should have no access, marriage being just one of them, religion being another.

So correctly-speaking, nobody is actually asking the politicians to "allow same sex couples to wed" - what in fact the politicians are being asked to do, is to repeal one of their intruding laws, specifically that law which prohibits same-sex couples from being wed.

Obviously, being a Christian, nothing is going to change for you, except...

What is to be gained is greater personal responsibility and the rejection of the culture that allows governments to dictate opressive laws, including other laws that limit the free practice of religion.

If you want the laws that oppress you to be repealed, you should help your fellows who are oppressed by other laws to repeal theirs, then they will help you too.

Dear Yuyutsu,
Perhaps we might have different definitions for the word 'subtle.'.

There is also a social aspect to marriage, in which society takes into account cultural norms and expectations and frames it's laws accordingly.

You speak of laws that limit the free practice of religion and marriage being a private affair. In this line, are you happy for men to have polygamous marriages in line with their religion? Should the Australian government permit this practice?

I've lived outside of Australia and have friends who are polygamists, so it's not just a theoretical question for me.   

Dear Dan,

Certainly it is neither for myself nor for the government to either permit polygamy (or polyandry) or to unpermit (forbid) it. Neither myself nor the government have any right to tell you what to do in your own bedroom and in your own church (and in many other places, so long as you do not hurt others).

"There is also a social aspect to marriage, in which society takes into account cultural norms and expectations and frames it's laws accordingly."

This practice is called nowadays "social engineering". It is an atrocity and an abomination. Only God has the right to engineer us, and He blessed us with free choice - who are they to take it away?