Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views"
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 266 of 291 (222004)
07-05-2005 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
07-05-2005 6:27 PM


Re: Sexuality - pre 1960s
No I did not.
However, it is your assumption that there was a better time. It comes part and parcel with your claim that "we" have been in social decline....we cannot have declined from a lower point, right?
As you point out marriage was not always about love and romance. It was about social connections and property, to include money and power as well as survival (financially and through help from relatives). Under these basic guidelines gay marriage does not threaten heterosexual marriage.
The claim to reproduction as a necessity does not really exist any longer wouldn't you agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 07-05-2005 6:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 07-06-2005 5:31 AM Taqless has replied

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 284 of 291 (222140)
07-06-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
07-06-2005 5:31 AM


Re: Sexuality - pre 1960s
Faith writes:
What it threatens is not any particular marriages, but the IDEA of marriage, the CONCEPT of marriage, the MEANING of the concept of marriage. The ideas a society is based on have more impact than any particular situation or event or actuality. The consequences of such ideas probably won't show up right away. It may take a generation or two.
Yes, but as both you and I have pointed out marriage was originally a contract between two groups of people. Through this contract each group could assure themselves protection, loyalty (not really, BUT it was an IDEA), increasing their land holdings and/or money and of course power.
That was the IDEA, the CONCEPT. I think, I could be wrong, that you are romanticizing a little about the role of the man/woman union. That it had some higher meaning. It was strictly a means to an end. Hence the concubines/prostitutes offspring had no more claim to David and/or Solomon's throne and the lineage that brought forth Jesus.
Anywho, obviously I am of the opinion that anyone who wants to promote a loving, healthy relationship where children can grow is important. We no longer live in an era where it is NECESSARY to procreate. The world HAS changed in that respect and must be recognized. So, to continue to judge who gets to enter into a binding contract with whom is excessive (please don't talk to me about animals and children that really is a ridiculous claim as I am obviously refering to consenting adults). Btw, I don't think churches are/or should be REQUIRED to perform marriage ceremonies...it's not legally binding anyway.
And, as an attempt to swing back onto the topic. I think the bank was well within it's rights. Let's face it a bank does not give a shit what/whose money they have unless you are stupid enough to drop a bomb and get their attention. Obviously that sums up Christian Voice. No other christians got the boot, so claims of discrimination are whining at best. Christians claims of persecution in this country are like white peoples' claims of persecution in this country.....funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 07-06-2005 5:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024