Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:11:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1763 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
Could they, hypothetically speaking deny marriage to blacks by not
recognizing their legal status or somesuch?
|
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. They’re still able to get married to members of the opposite sex just
like any heterosexual. By refusing to perform weddings for all blacks, its
refusing to allow any blacks to get married at all in a church ceremony.
Now, before anyone misinterprets that, if you look at hiring practices, it’s
illegal to refuse to hire someone on the basis that they are gay because that
means you are refusing all gays the right to work for you at all. Marriage is
defined sufficiently independant of sexual preferrence that you can’t show
discriminatory preference by not allowing Joe to marry Jack. Joe can’t marry
his biological sister either, or a woman who is already married, but that
doesn’t mean he can’t marry anyone at all.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
