oog. oog oog oog.
oog.
oog oog.
Prop 8 Oral Arguments
it was solely for the references to husband and wife inferring the ancient concept of marriage between a man and a woman.cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Apr 18 2013, 03:57 AM) I really didn't see where Vortog was going by citing that passage. Maybe he was going for I Cor 13 and missed?
The problem will always be you can change the legal definition of marriage, but not the definition in the bible. I should have been more specific.
Adept, you have become so self righteous it is pretty unbelievable.
As to why there should be a seperate word, its because you cant change the bible frs like you can laws!
Hey, lets not talk about islam here though. Islam condemns homosexuality so i womder how this topic is broached against the koran's definition.
Please read gandys post again.
Again, i am all for gay 'marriage' just there is too much religious baggage with the word marriage evolve it into something else for all gender matches.
Last edited by Vortrog on Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paul's letter is old, but marriage itself is older than Christianity. Aren't these anyway the views of an early leader of the church, not Jesus or revelation from on high even according to scholars of Christianity?Vortrog wrote:QUOTE (Vortrog @ Apr 18 2013, 12:47 AM) it was solely for the references to husband and wife inferring the ancient concept of marriage between a man and a woman.
The problem will always be you can change the legal definition of marriage, but not the definition in the bible. I should have been more specific.
I feel I'm bumping against religious sensibilities here. It's very hard to see how straiht couples are harmed in any way by gay people beng able to get married. The message of Jesus is love thy neighbor and judge not. Why would any christian want to deny people in love getting married?
Paul expresses lots of the prejudices of his day in his letters, but those are the views of a jewish religious leader of his day, not attributed to the new covenant of Jesus.
/addition I think the current anxiety over the word marriage will pass quite quickly. In ten years people will be quite used to it, and no harm will have been done to straight people's marriages.
Last edited by Adept on Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
Used to be if you weren't married in the church, you weren't really "married", and should use a different word ...
Also if you used to be that if you were married to someone of a different race, then that wasn't really a marriage either. It was a union between a human and a subhuman, and it was an insult to the word and to civilized society itself to call such an act of near-bestiality "marriage" ...
Well, we managed to change the definition of 'marriage' twice already, and look ... black is not white, night is not day, oog is not boog. We manage to understand each other just fine. Things we used to think of as critical to the definition of marriage turned out to be no more than just personal hangups. Behold, the apocalyptic future that awaits us if we give up the fight over definitions!
Social mores evolve, languages evolve. Isn't it time you evolved too?
Also if you used to be that if you were married to someone of a different race, then that wasn't really a marriage either. It was a union between a human and a subhuman, and it was an insult to the word and to civilized society itself to call such an act of near-bestiality "marriage" ...
Well, we managed to change the definition of 'marriage' twice already, and look ... black is not white, night is not day, oog is not boog. We manage to understand each other just fine. Things we used to think of as critical to the definition of marriage turned out to be no more than just personal hangups. Behold, the apocalyptic future that awaits us if we give up the fight over definitions!
Social mores evolve, languages evolve. Isn't it time you evolved too?
Globemaster_III wrote:QUOTE (Globemaster_III @ Jan 11 2018, 11:27 PM) as you know i think very little of cashto, cashto alway a flying low pilot, he alway flying a trainer airplane and he rented
QUOTE I feel I'm bumping against religious sensibilities here.[/quote]
You are and you should know as much as anyone else that beliefs are very powerful. Hence if I was in the G&L steering committee, why Id steer well away from a definition that can be correlated to an ancient text. Unless of course I seek to hurt those who had done me injustice for the last 2000 years.....
You are and you should know as much as anyone else that beliefs are very powerful. Hence if I was in the G&L steering committee, why Id steer well away from a definition that can be correlated to an ancient text. Unless of course I seek to hurt those who had done me injustice for the last 2000 years.....
Ok, I understand where you're coming from.Vortrog wrote:QUOTE (Vortrog @ Apr 18 2013, 01:33 AM) You are and you should know as much as anyone else that beliefs are very powerful. Hence if I was in the G&L steering committee, why Id steer well away from a definition that can be correlated to an ancient text. Unless of course I seek to hurt those who had done me injustice for the last 2000 years.....
I just have to disagree. I think equality and fairness has to take priority here. Churches don't have to conduct the ceremonies if they are opposed, but marriag should be equal for all, even in name.
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
