Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:11:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1565 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
>
> > Why is *change* a bad thing in and of itself, rather than evaluated by
> > the *outcome* of the change?
>
> Well, that is kind of the defining belief of "conservative," right?
Let's hope not :) If stated so, I have a hunch lots of people would start
migrating over to the liberal side :)
> > Who cares what the Bible and the US government say about marriage--
> > shouldn't we figure out what's *right*, and go with that?
>
> 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.
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
- accept Jesus as your savior
- not have pre-marital sex
- force charitable donations
- 'honoring' your parents
- restrict any and all forms of homosexuality
etc, etc. He's free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he thinks that
the US law should be based on the Bible. Note I said what's "right" versus
what's "moral" (just vs. moral), since my guess is that John also believes that
it's one's personal choice to be moral, and that the government should not
restrict morality, but that a government should instead attempt to enforce
justice. I could be wrong, though, I'm not John.
I think his point is that *besides* the fact that it's immoral to marry someone
of the same gender, that it's somehow detrimental to society at large to allow
gay marriage to occur. I'm not sure *how*, but I think that was his point in the
previous debate. I think those were the two questions I didn't really get
answered:
1) Why is change inherently bad, regardless of the outcome? (IE why not change
the *definition* of marriage?)
2) How will making that change negatively impact others? (Apart from those who
seemingly are just annoyed with the prospect itself)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
