Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:42:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1506 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> 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]
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 church. The state, o
nteh other hand, cannot make such a quantifier 'cause it's sexual
discrimination.
I don't recall the church, in general, getting their knickers in a bunch when
athiests started getting married. I have many friends who are athiests and who
are married (even married in churches! *gasp*!)--the marriage contract, by the
*stated* nature of the participants, wasn't 'under God', but the church still
allowed it.
Looking at this, and the 'evolution of society', what, with divorce, non-belief,
etc, the church cannot, and more importantly, should not, dictate to everyone
else in the society, 'which way is up'.
That's the very nature of separation of church and state.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
