Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 02:24:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1418 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> Yep, you've just lost any sense of moral ground--"let no man separate". As
> long as "man" is separating, you've got nothing. Get rid of divorce (man
> separating the covenant that 'God joined'),
Don't forget anullment which is the Catholics' way of getting around that little
religious entanglement.
> get rid of adultery and coveting,
Now, see, there you're just restricting the rights of the citizenry to break
their solemn vows. That'll never fly (heck, in California, infidelity still
isn't considered just grounds for getting that divorce, meaning your wife can
cheat on you to her heart's content, and you'll probably still end up paying
alimony).
> Perfectly legal for a government institution, under the Constitution (or
> Charter of Rights and Freedoms here in Canada) that is legally allowed to
> perform marriages, to perform gay marraiges.
>
> Where's the issue?
It's only legal for them to perform same-sex marriages if their state government
says so (since, like murder, marriage falls under state jurisdiction), and some
of them explicitly forbid it. Most of the rest just fail to address it one way
or the other. In fact, many of the cities that have issued same-sex marriage
licenses aren't explicitly given the right to do so by their state governments,
but were only taking advantage of various loopholes before they could be closed.
Now, add to all of this wishywashyness the fact that the Church continues to
view marriage as their provenance, regardless of who actually performs it, and
that tells you why there's such a push to outlaw same-sex marriages altogether.
In my understanding of the way things work, the US government can't outlaw
same-sex marriages, but it can legally pass a law stating that one state doesn't
have to acknowledge the validity of another state's marriage licenses, but if
it's not worded correctly, it could possibly allow states to ignore the validity
of other states' traditional man/woman marriages where convenient (including,
but not limited to, issues of inheritence upon death, establishing nationalism
through marriage, or enforcing alimony payments). Of course, noone would ever
pass such a law, either because they feel it goes too far or because they feel
it doesn't go far enough.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
| (...) Yep, you've just lost any sense of moral ground--"let no man separate". As long as "man" is separating, you've got nothing. Get rid of divorce (man separating the covenant that 'God joined'), get rid of adultery and coveting, and then we may (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
