Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:25:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1605 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
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.
|
How many persons?
| |
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.
|
So are public restrooms. Are you against separating those?
| |
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*!)
|
For what possible reason? That is downright strange.
| |
--the marriage contract, by the
*stated* nature of the participants, wasn’t ‘under God’, but the church still
allowed it.
|
Well, that “church” has some issues.
| |
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’.
|
lol “evolution of society”? Are you so sure our society isn’t “devolving”?
Sorry, Dave. That is exactly the job of the church. People are morally
rudderless; the Church is the moral anchor.
| |
That’s the very nature of separation of church and state.
|
As far as the Church is concerned, the state doesn’t enter in to it.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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"
|
| (...) 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"
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
