 | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) This discussion is about the definition of marriage, Dave. How would you define it? (...) The issue is whether the state has a vested interest in recognizing marriages or not. JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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"
|
|
(...) How many persons? (...) So are public restrooms. Are you against separating those? (...) For what possible reason? That is downright strange. (...) Well, that "church" has some issues. (...) lol "evolution of society"? Are you so sure our (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I recognize that the law requires boys to pee in one place and girls to pee in another, but I can't really think of a solid reason that this should be so, other than because people can be quaintly immature about functions involving the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:I15rpI.1v7n@lugnet.com... (...) pee in (...) so, (...) involving the (...) in the (...) I'm with you on this one. I visited a dorm at MIT that had a co-ed bathroom, that had multiple stalls (...) (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)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) And the scary bit is that, from what I've read, all Dave's seem to be on the same page regarding this issue, and these Dave's come from widely divergent backgrounds. Wow! Dave K -go Daves (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) (URL) fun) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Why would there have been a (URL) problem>? She was obviously calling out to Dave factoral;-) (Sorry to steal your thunder, Dave!) JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I like some of those names. Since this is a PG or less show, I won't mention that I choked on my tea whilst reading 'Soggy Muff'... Oops, did I say that out loud? Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFatee -formerly known as Dave K (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) As far as the state is concerned, the church doesn't, but the church does require itself to abide by the laws of the land. If the US government says gays can get married, it doesn't mean that the church would have to perform or even recognize (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Actually, I don't believe I've stated my opinion on whether gays should be allowed to marry, just on who should be able to say whether they can or can't (not the church, and not the federal government, because the US Constitution relegates (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I'm not sure this is how it should be in the US with our legal precident. If sexual preference is a fully protected non-discrimination item, then private churches won't be able to refuse to marry them. Maybe this is what folks like John are (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Well, that is kind of the defining belief of "conservative," right? (...) But I think John believes that if the Bible says something, it is right. That's the measure of rightness. So he doesn't need to look farther. Chris (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Marital status is a non-discrimination item, but that doesn't prevent the Catholic church from refusing to marry a divorced person. They can't be required to perform the ceremony if they can't be required to recognize the union, and forcing (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Let's hope not :) If stated so, I have a hunch lots of people would start migrating over to the liberal side :) (...) Well, I doubt that's John's point since I don't think he's interested in making other laws to: - attend church on Sunday - (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Could they, hypothetically speaking deny marriage to blacks by not recognizing their legal status or somesuch? Chris (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I'll admit that it's pretty thin, but there is a distinction nonetheless. By refusing to perform same-sex marriages, the Church is not refusing to perform weddings for gays at all. They're just refusing to perform weddings between them. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
