Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:25:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1337 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
Shameless diversion aside, I agree. Let’s get back to biblical principles.
How many wives and concubines did Soloman have again?
|
Relevance? (as if polygamy was a “biblical principle”).
JOHN
|
Well, you seem to have a problem with the term ‘marraige’ being redefined.
|
EUREKA! Really, is it that obscure what I’m arguing?
| |
The point is that marraige has been redefined many times in the past
|
I don’t know what you mean. Provide examples, if you please.
| |
and has
many different definitions today. The point is that marraige is defined by
whatever the conventions and traditions of the day require, and just as
conventions and traditions change over time, so does marraige. I’m kind of
baffled why you think this is such a problem.
|
I don’t think marriage, until rather recently, has ever been defined as anything
other than the union of 1 man and 1 woman. But again, I am open to cites that
prove to the contrary.
I happen to like the way marriage has been defined for the past millenia or two,
and I don’t appreciate activist groups attempting to change that definition via
judicial fiat for their own personal agenda.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
