Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 313 (751758)
03-05-2015 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
03-05-2015 12:23 PM


Re: the only benefits were social benefits Faith
You are generalizing a few anecdotes into law.
And you're creating your own version of what Biblical Marriage is.
At least jar is quoting the Bible. You're just making stuff up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 272 of 313 (751759)
03-05-2015 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by New Cat's Eye
03-05-2015 12:57 PM


Re: the only benefits were social benefits Faith
You haven't been reading carefully. All I've said about the BIBLICAL view of marriage is that its purpose is to make one flesh of the two sexes. That's ALL I've said about the BIBLICAL point of view and I'm sure you know it's in the Bible or would you like me to quote it for you?
The social ideas I DID make up, since, as I also said, that's all you can do to try to come up with a purpose for marriage, make up something that seems to explain it, which is what the sociologists do. I mentioned protection of women, which I did NOT say was biblical but a sociological explanation, and I mentioned creating a safe and stable environment for the raising of children, ALSO as a sociological and not a biblical explanation, which I also said would be true in a society that valued marriage but is rather a joke in our divorce-prone society. You will see this if you read back through my answers to vimesey.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 12:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2600
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 273 of 313 (751773)
03-05-2015 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
03-05-2015 1:06 AM


...and what did happen in Gomorrah?
Faith uses this terminology:
cram down the throats of people who object
I got a bit of a laugh. This is a non consensual version of sodomy, part 2.
Mind rape indeed.
Edited by xongsmith, : misspelling

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1102 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 274 of 313 (751784)
03-05-2015 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NoNukes
02-10-2015 9:18 PM


If you really cannot stand to abide by those limits, there are plenty of Western democracies which don't have a bill of rights.
There are? Where? Even the UK has one, it's just easier to repeal than in a typical country, but this did become a bit harder since the passage of the Human Rights Act in 1998.
Sorry for the derail, just a pet annoyance of mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2015 9:18 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by NoNukes, posted 03-05-2015 11:04 PM caffeine has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6418
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 275 of 313 (751786)
03-05-2015 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Faith
03-04-2015 11:52 PM


The fantasy is clearly in the attempt to treat a homosexual couple as the same as a heterosexual couple, which truly I would think anyone would recognize, and in fact it HAD been recognized universally up until quite recently, as I also said.
With same sex unions allowed, marriage will be very different from what it was 2,000 years ago.
Without same sex unions allowed, marriage will still be very different from what it was 2,000 years.
Things have changed greatly over the last two millenia. That you haven't noticed is the real fantasy here.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 9:57 PM nwr has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 276 of 313 (751796)
03-05-2015 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by nwr
03-05-2015 5:41 PM


No, marriage did not change over the last two millennia at all, up until a little over half a century ago, when it started falling apart in the west under the onslaught of Cultural Marxism / Political Correctness. And again you are refusing to recognize the simple logical point I made, preferring to misrepresent it and accuse me of something that's a total non sequitur and false to boot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by nwr, posted 03-05-2015 5:41 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by jar, posted 03-05-2015 11:04 PM Faith has replied
 Message 279 by nwr, posted 03-06-2015 12:08 AM Faith has replied
 Message 284 by Larni, posted 03-06-2015 6:30 AM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 313 (751798)
03-05-2015 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by caffeine
03-05-2015 4:54 PM


Even the UK has one, it's just easier to repeal than in a typical country,
Which in my opinion, is exactly the distinction that distinguishes legislated rights from a set of rights set on the same level as the constitution, with protection against both government overreach and majority vote.
I understand the annoyance. I don't begrudge you from feeling that way. But on the other hand my remarks on the matter hinge on the ease of repealing your rights.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by caffeine, posted 03-05-2015 4:54 PM caffeine has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 278 of 313 (751799)
03-05-2015 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
03-05-2015 9:57 PM


more total falsehoods from Faith
Faith writes:
No, marriage did not change over the last two millennia at all, up until a little over half a century ago, when it started falling apart in the west under the onslaught of Cultural Marxism / Political Correctness.
Faith, when you say stuff as absurd as that you have to be either totally delusional, willfully ignorant or just plain lying.
Marriage has constantly changed and changed based on era, culture and society. No "Biblical Marriage" practice as I outlined several times here in this thread would be acceptable in any western country today and most not for hundreds of years.
It's been awhile since women were just chattle, property to be bought or sold, not yet long enough though
It's been a long time since the way to get a wife was to rape a virgin and then give her father 50 sheckels.
It's been awhile since you bought property and a wife got thrown in.
It's been awhile since to get a wife you slew 200 men and brought their foreskins to the King.
It's been awhile since God said to take a wife from whoredom and knock her up.
Having seven hundred wives and three hundred mistresses is not really acceptable anymore.
It's not general practice to have district officers gather all the fair young virgins together and the one that pleases the King become Queen.
For most of history marriage between different races was fine until Christianity decided it was wrong. Fortunately that madness was finally outlawed.
Marriage has changed and to claim that "marriage did not change over the last two millennia at all, up until a little over half a century ago, when it started falling apart in the west under the onslaught of Cultural Marxism / Political Correctness" is at best utter ignorance but most likely just plain dishonesty.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 9:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 6:24 AM jar has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6418
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 279 of 313 (751800)
03-06-2015 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
03-05-2015 9:57 PM


No, marriage did not change over the last two millennia at all, up until a little over half a century ago, when it started falling apart in the west under the onslaught of Cultural Marxism / Political Correctness.
That gave me a good laugh. But you are completely out of touch with reality.
I see that jar has answered in detail. I'll put your post down to self-deception. You have somehow managed to convince yourself, in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.
You "blame" the changes on "Cultural Marxism / Political Correctness." I think you would do better to credit the cultural changes to the moral teachings of Jesus. It's a pity that the religious right in America have abandoned those moral teachings.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 9:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 6:26 AM nwr has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 280 of 313 (751801)
03-06-2015 2:35 AM


Just one other thought on this.
IMHO I don't believe that governments should be involved in who can marry in the first place. The government should only be concerned about who can form an economic unit under the law for purposes of taxation, inheritance etc. If any couple be they heterosexual or homosexual want to form an economic union they should legally be allowed to do so with the privileges and responsibilities that go along with it.
The way it is now it discriminates against two siblings who might want to co-habitate and combine their financial resources. Why shouldn't a a parent and adult child be able to form an economic union under the law.
As it stands right now any non-related couple can marry thus forming an economic union whether they are actually consummating the relationship or not. Is anyone really going to check?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 6:28 AM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 281 of 313 (751802)
03-06-2015 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by jar
03-05-2015 11:04 PM


the errors are yours jar
You continue to confuse incidentals with the essence. The point was that marriage itself has not changed over the last 2000 years, but only very recently, it's been one man with one woman for 2000 years, and it's been enforced by most societies as the rule. The objection to interracial marriage was very shortlived and very very local and its defense on the basis of the Bible bogus in the extreme, besides which that too has nothing to do with what I'm saying about the essence of marriage itself. Multiple spouses during that period is an aberration, the examples you have in mind precede Christ, meaning precede the last 2000 years.
What's changed in the west in the last few decades is that divorce has become easy, many people live together without bothering to get married and now we have the absurd idea that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Those are real changes and they are new.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by jar, posted 03-05-2015 11:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by jar, posted 03-06-2015 8:15 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 282 of 313 (751803)
03-06-2015 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by nwr
03-06-2015 12:08 AM


I just answered jar. He is bringing up irrelevant incidentals and he's including things from BEFORE 2000 years ago, missing the whole point.
Jesus' moral teachings bringing about the devaluation of marriage over the last few decades? What ARE you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by nwr, posted 03-06-2015 12:08 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by nwr, posted 03-06-2015 9:26 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 283 of 313 (751804)
03-06-2015 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by GDR
03-06-2015 2:35 AM


When I suggested on this very thread that government shouldn't be involved in marriage I got trashed. Let's see if they do the same to you,.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by GDR, posted 03-06-2015 2:35 AM GDR has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 284 of 313 (751805)
03-06-2015 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
03-05-2015 9:57 PM


No, marriage did not change over the last two millennia at all,
Not so. Until 1993 it was impossible to be convicted of rape of one's wife in some American states; it was not a crime.
That's a huge difference. Married rape enthusiast must have been very annoyed in how their marriage was changed by the damn gov'ment.
All the best.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 9:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 6:32 AM Larni has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 285 of 313 (751806)
03-06-2015 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Larni
03-06-2015 6:30 AM


Could we please keep the topic in sight here? You are also bringing up extraneous incidentals that are not about the nature of marriage itself, who may marry and so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Larni, posted 03-06-2015 6:30 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Larni, posted 03-06-2015 6:35 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024