When neither one have to do anything wrong to get granted a divorce. A divorce just because you want one vesus a divorce where someone does something wrong like cheat.
my point is that God considered Lot to be the only righteous person worth saving in the entire place even after (or because of) the offer he made. If that's how God judges us then who needs him?
So basically you're calling Jeff's and millions of other's marriages "silly"? in what way does it weaken the covenant? Right now, two strangers can get married in 30 minutes. Death row inmates can marry someone they've never met in person. A person can marry and divorce an unlimited number of spouses in their lifetime.
Why doesn't that argument hold up? If a hetero couple is physically, naturally unable to produce offspring and they are married what's the difference between a same-sex couple who physically, naturally cannot have children? What about men and women who have surgeries to become infertile?
Outlaw, on the Bible heroes, I wasn't really even disagreeing with you. Lot's a shady character; and pretty much everyone else in the Old Testament is too. It does make you wonder or at least recalibrate when you're told that person X is 'righteous.' As for 'weakening the covenant', those other things you've listed do the same, and the last one to a much greater extent. Last 3 posters, actually, as for my own view on gay marriage, I don't really want to argue in its defense. I just mentioned it in the spirit of full disclosure. I said some won't be convinced and I didn't and won't try to convince anyone of it. I just posted to discuss the Biblical angles on gay marriage but felt it dishonest to not own up to my own opinion on it. If you want to be offended, that's fine.
Another thing, we cannot base laws on what the Bible says anyway because then they could be deemed unconstitutional, correct? I don't want you to argue I would just like you to explain your views of how it is in fact different. I'm set in my ways and thoughts so I doubt you could sway me but I would like to hear your thoughts.
Well I wasn't really referring to the amendement just laws trying to outlaw same-sex marriages based on religious views. That's what I keep hearing everybody refer to when talking about outlawing same-sex marriages, their religion which I don't think it should even come up when you're talking about law anyway.
i don't necessarily disagree with you. but again...the way around this is constitutional amendment. which is what the administration was talking about for a while. the legislatures don't use religion...they simply say marriage is something that is between a man and woman...and that they have societal interests they seek to protect in maintaining that status quo.
I understand what you're saying MadMax and I also understand what they are trying to base the amendment on to but people need realize that and stop dragging religion into it. I mean who really cares what your religion says (no offense to anybody) when regarding a certain subject because there are other religions that think differently, heck they're are different groups within the same religion that don't share the same beliefs. I know it won't happen because it's such a sensitive subject that just conjures up religion when it is even brought up but people do need to try to limit it.
i can't understand why people spend the energy on being anti-gay. hey, teacher, leave them kids alone.
I wouldn't go so far as that. We aren't supposed to authorize a particular religion, but there is a point to which a democracy should reflect the values of its constituency. Our laws are informed by the moral code of the people. That moral code is, in turn, influenced a great deal by our religions. I think you can draw a line between including religious practice and morals that are underpinned by Christian axioms. Prohibition of murder is something else dictated by the Bible; but I don't think we should get rid of it just because of that. If the people want it, they want it. I don't want to get into it, again over axioms. The disagreement will be not over reasoning but on the basic assumptions upon which I would build any argument. It's very frustrating to have a disagreement with someone when you know the root of it is actually a disagreement on something much more basic, like the Platonic Ideal (in this case), Truth, or God. If I tell mc mark I think the platonically ideal marriage bears children, he'll say that means he must divorce or live in sin, because he has a different understanding of what it means. And that disagreement will never be resolved. Why would I want to open the door to all that? (... d'oh!)
Question can you support and satisfy 5 women and make them get along with each other? And how would u deal with the other husbands your wife has?
Yeah but we're talking about murder, a deed that directly affects the well-being of another and ultimately takes another person's life. Gay marriage, at least to my knowledge, doesn't affect anybody unless they let it affect them. I can respect your decision to not want to get into that so I will leave it alone.
In making that argument, aren't you espousing a moral code of your own? Namely, a humanistic ideal that one should be free to do as he pleases as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. Regardless of whether that's a valid approach to law-making, it is simply one of several moral systems that could be brought to the question. If you can use that as a basis of law, why can't you use one that says homosexuality is sinful? That would, I'd argue, defeat the freedom of religion that you'd want to protect by not allowing devout Christians (and Muslims, Jews, etc) a voice in politics.
