Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:14:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1366 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
The issue is whether the state has a vested interest in recognizing marriages
or not.
|
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 I don’t think you ever stated how it actually is a negative
effect)?
This also seems to keep going back to this issue of “changing the definition of
marriage”, which I just don’t get. Why is that an issue? If we’re changing a
definition for the *better*, why should it matter? Why is *change* a bad thing
in and of itself, rather than evaluated by the *outcome* of the change? Who
cares what the Bible and the US government say about marriage-- shouldn’t we
figure out what’s *right*, and go with that? And if it happens to coincide with
either the Bible or the government, well, fine, but shouldn’t that be
irrelevant?
DaveE
(Dave #4 to stick his nose in the debate)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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"
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
