Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 07:02:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1410 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
And I will point out to you, again, that this discussion isn’t telling
Christians that they have to allow gay marriages in tehir parish, but the US
laws and government, being a-religious (without religion) isn’t subservient to
Jesus’ teachings in the Bible. Therefore, you cannot use Matthew 19:4-6, or
any other verse of the Bible, as the basis of US laws or for overturning
constitutional rights.
|
This discussion is about the definition of marriage, Dave. How would you
define it?
| |
The final analysis--perfectly legal for a church to refuse to perform
marraiges, or anything else, they do not, under their idea of whatever
religious belief they ascribe to, believe in.
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?
|
The issue is whether the state has a vested interest in recognizing marriages or
not.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
| (...) The state should recognize marraige as a contract between persons, no matter their sexual affiliation. If the Church wants to put quantifiers on that contract, i.e. one person must be female, and the other must be male, all the power to the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
| (...) So your point is that the state has a vested interest in NOT recognizing marriages? Why? I thought your point (in a past debate) was that somehow gay marriage negatively affected the American family, which was the foundation of society (though (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
