|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh good grief, it's how we were MADE ... And a woman with Mllerian agenesis is MADE anatomically infertile. That seems to be either a plain sign from God that she isn't intended to marry anyone ... or a plain sign that your argument is rubbish.
Although there are certainly conditions that prevent fertility in heterosexuals, they are still by principle able to become one flesh, whereas the rectum cannot conceive a child no matter how much you might wish it. Nor can the vagina of a woman with Mllerian agenesis. --- I do not in fact spend any time wishing that rectums could conceive children, there are enough religious fundamentalists already.
Marriage is a Creation Ordinance, established by God, by which a man and a woman become "one flesh" which is expressed in the offspring they create which are literally one flesh out of the two of them. This is said in Genesis 2:24 and quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, and by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:16 and Ephesians 5:31. But there is no reason why people don't share your religious views should be bound by them. Jews can't stop me eating bacon, Muslims can't stop me from drinking beer ... Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You're talking about a disease, which doesn't change the principle of how men and women were made. It's the principle on which a woman who has it is made. Y'know, anatomically unable to conceive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
But I'll say it again: the reason for marriage being for heterosexuals is obviously that they fit together in such a way that makes procreation possible. If someone discriminated against black people, and when asked why explained "because they have dark skin", then that names the criterion he's using to discriminate against them, but it's hardly a reason for doing so. In the same way, by using the criterion of whether a couple's genitals fit together in such-and-such a way, you have a criterion for discriminating against gay couples. But not a reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I get you so God's law said it was wrong... No, no, polygamy was one of those things God disapproved of secretly, like slavery, genocide, the rape of prisoners of war, etc. He's a funny chap, y'see, on some issues, such as picking up sticks on Saturday or wearing mixed fabrics he gets all outspoken and smitey. On other subjects, such as polygamy, he comes over all bashful and is afraid to speak out. Indeed, so far from him openly disapproving of polygamy, he set special blessings on such polygamists as Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, without even mentioning to them his preference for monogamy ... no-one would ever have guessed that he was secretly disapproving of their marital arrangements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Christian law WAS the law of the US and the UK and many European countries ... Are we talking, again, about the days when the median age of consent in the US was 10?
All your freedoms derive from it. Er ... bollocks.
Not going to be the case when Sharia kicks in. Have you gone completely mad?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You're going to have to provide chapter and verse for that one, jar, God never commanded polygamy, and never told Hagar to return to Abraham. Perhaps if you read the Bible more often you wouldn't hold it in such esteem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is absurd to call an ancient institution like marriage discrimination against people who don't qualify for it. I did not call marriage discrimination against people who don't qualify for it, because I am not in the habit of spitting out random collections of words with no relevance to my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Nobody is objecting to homosexual unions that are established spontaneously or with rituals of any sort that don't involve redefining marriage for the state or the whole society. Many people object to them, in fact. If you think that homosexuality is perfectly unobjectionable, then you are more enlightened than many of your coreligionists, some of whom seem to think that it's a sin. Well done. As for this stuff about "redefining marriage", again, if that's your objection, could you explain why it's an objection at all? People are more important than words. You can redefine a word without hurting it. It's a commonplace practice. What's more, it seems to have already happened. "Gay marriage" is, after all, not an oxymoron, we know what it means, whereas we do not understand (for example) the phrase "four-sided triangle". Ergo, the word marriage already means, among other things ... well, let me turn you over to a dictionary:
marriage [mar-ij]
noun a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It doesn't have to be said in so many words for us to recognize sin in God's people, you simply have to know what God commanded and when they violate it you know they are in sin. Yeah, but they didn't know they were in sin, because God never told them to be monogamous. No commandment, no personal communique ... even when God granted Solomon wisdom and knowledge (2 Chronicles 1:12) this apparently didn't include knowing that he shouldn't have all those wives and concubines.
God also called David a man after His own heart although David not only committed polygamy but seduced the wife of one of his loyal soldiers, then had the man killed to cover his tracks. Yeah, it's almost as though he doesn't give a damn. He's fine with murder, adultery, polygamy, but orders the death penalty for picking up sticks on Saturday. Reading the Bible, one gets the idea that he has a fairly odd set of priorities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As for the definition you supplied of "marriage" it's clearly a modern politically correct definition. You might consider Noah Webster's definition from his dictionary of 1828 ... Well, that was 1828. This is now. And my point remains: apparently marriage has already been redefined. If redefinition is a bad thing, then obviously we shouldn't redefine it again, should we? Redefining words is bad, right? We should stick with the definition we've got.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Murder and adultery were also punishable by death. Polygamy and concubinage, on the other hand, were punishable by sweet F.A.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
They got punished along with all the other sins committed by David and Solomon, and others too, as I describe above, in the consequences to David's sons and daughters, and the consequences to the nation of Israel as it was split into two kingdoms and had many evil kings. But there's nothing in the Mosaic Law against them, is there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, it's not in the Mosaic Law, marriage is a Creation Ordinance, established at the Creation. But without telling anyone not to have multiple wives and concubines. I mean, it's something he could have mentioned, isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
They were taught the Creation Ordinances, which were after all written down by Moses. They were not taught that polygamy or concubinage were sinful, were they? They were taught that it was sinful to wear mixed fabric, and to eat lobsters (but not locusts), and to interplant two kinds of crops, but somehow not a sanction, not a mention, not a whisper, against polygamy, or concubinage ... or pedophilia ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I can think of exceptions. For example, consider the time popularly known as "now" and the societies of Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, France, Uruguay, New Zealand ... And now the UK.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024