 | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —John Neal
|
| | | (...) 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" —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) 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" —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | "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" —David Laswell
|
| | | | | (...) 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" —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) 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" —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) 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" —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) 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" —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
