English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In reference to the case of Mississippi plumber who sued the present beau of his ex- wife.

Please support your answer with any relevant doctrines/issues/articles etc. if you must.

2007-10-30 05:42:42 · 7 answers · asked by oscar c 5 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

I was trying to point out Biblical reference of this issue. It say in Genesis 3:16(re:the fall of man)To the wowan He said: 'Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you'. Also another qoutation from Genesis 2:23-25. How I understand the passage, we women, were taken out of a man. therefore, it is rightful to think that a man owned that woman.

2007-10-31 17:48:42 · update #1

7 answers

Of course not. When a man and woman got married, the two became one, and no one could claim propriety of the other. They must live together with homogeneity through thick and thin, with continuous adjustment on ones weakness and strength

2007-10-30 13:23:23 · answer #1 · answered by Ondoy 1 · 0 0

All right, because this evidences to be more a case of semantics than requiring deliberations, for which a mere transposing of this normative from the interrogative to read as declarative, the answer then becomes evident and needs no such forensics, nor has need to rely upon some authority as to the veracity.

Here's the shift and true underlying explication:
One should become property of, nay, should own his or her spouse after marriage!

'Preposterous...by any the measure of the United States.

Second: One will have acquired a license to marry, not to own as in executing title and deed.

And if a like scenario bears forth as in the case at Mississippi wherein the suit is brought against a current owner by the former for now owning the same in itself, then this -- utterly preposterous again.

2007-11-06 15:43:00 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0 1

There is a term for when one human is the property of another, and it's called slavery. Marriage is NOT a bondage of servitude, despite what some diehard singles may think. :-) You can't have a healthy marriage with one person subservient to the other. Nor is it possible to have both subservient to each other, because that is simply not sustainable or workable. One will eventually become the "master."

What marriage IS, is a promise that you will remain true and faithful to the person you have chosen to spend your life with. Marriage is an act of love, not of subservience. Being faithful and being "owned" are most certainly not the same thing.

2007-10-30 06:14:02 · answer #3 · answered by R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 7 · 0 0

well i think that if the affair was going on while the two of them were married then the beau should be held accountable but not if the marriage had already ended

2007-10-30 05:53:33 · answer #4 · answered by ღOMGღ 7 · 1 0

human life is never a property to anyone except to God.

the case should be dismissed outright for lack of merit.

2007-10-30 12:26:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Humans are people, not property. When you marry someone, you do not become their 'property'. You become their spouse; you share things and have equal decision-making power.

2007-10-30 06:11:48 · answer #6 · answered by Daewen 3 · 0 1

why not? i am a kept man, and that is a good life.

2007-10-30 08:10:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers