Defining the definition of marriage on something ridiculous like the sex orientation of the two spouses ignores the history of other examples in how the definition of marriage has CHANGED over the centuries in different parts of the world.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by MrFun View PostDefining the definition of marriage on something ridiculous like the sex orientation of the two spouses ignores the history of other examples in how the definition of marriage has CHANGED over the centuries in different parts of the world.
Oh, and the civil right distinction I made two posts ago was meant to show that marriage need not be a civil right for anti-miscegenation statutes to violate the 14th Amendment, not to weigh in on the current debate. If it makes you feel better, Ben is making the exact same mistake when he says, "If Loving does not say that "marriage is a civil right", then you cannot appeal to the 14th amendment."Solomwi is very wise. - Imran Siddiqui
Comment
-
Originally posted by MrFun View PostDefining the definition of marriage on something ridiculous like the sex orientation of the two spouses ignores the history of other examples in how the definition of marriage has CHANGED over the centuries in different parts of the world.
Look, Fun. I'm on your side. I agree that homosexual couples ought to be allowed to marry as a civil right. I just don't buy your argument, as you aren't giving the other side the courtesy of understanding their position. You are implicitly assuming that marriage is a custom, when not everyone believes that it is.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
You're an idiot. Having a civil right does not legally enable you to practice your civil right if the result is to violate another person's freedom or civil right.
We all have the freedom to choose the people we want to associate with, or with whom we want to develop relationships with as long as those other people share the same interest in you.
The civil right to marry does not mean that you can compel someone else to marry you. It means that two mutually interested people have the freedom to enter into a legally-recognized and protected marriage.
Marriage, again, is different. Marriage requires legal endorsement by the state. It is not a natural right.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not say anything about homosexuality. Yet, the PRINCIPLE of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to people who are born or naturalized in United States - citizens. Gays and lesbians who are born or naturalized in United States are citizens.
You are saying that your desire doesn't conform, therefore the state must accommodate your desires. That's not what the 14th amendment says. It says you are entitled only to the equal protection of the law as it stands. You may not find that the law is unsatisfactory, but that's not grounds for appeal to the 14th.
Another stupid remark in your post is that you say it was simply to permit interracial marriage without having anything to do with civil rights. This is just sheer stupidity. WHAT the hell was the compelling reason to permit interracial marriage then if it had nothing to do with civil rights??
The 14th doesn't care about civil rights, it cares about the application of the law equally to all persons in the united states. It is a negative assertion, not an assertion of positive rights that were not enumerated in the Constitution. You can't get there from here.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agathon View PostThe passage in question is critical of such traditions. That's one of its main points. It attributes them to hard heartedness.
Oh, so that's why it doesn't use "wife" in the plural, except when he's referring to the corresponding wives of many individual men. Consubstantiality is exactly what is being referred to here. It doesn't say that the woman becomes the man's flesh, but that a new unity is created from a previous plurality. The most apposite translation would be "fusion".
The passage doesn't say anything about equality. But equality is irrelevant to the claim I made.
The Jews are very practical. "One flesh" is poetic, but by no means literal. That only came from the Greeks and the forms their philosophers "cleave" to.(\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
(='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
(")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agathon View Post"Kollao" has to bear the fusing or welding sense here, or it makes no sense to say that the two are one flesh. "Suzeugnumi" is used after "kollao" in this passage and anaphorically refers to it. He's not saying that they are numerically identical, but that their flesh is a unity in the way that it is not a unity with the flesh of others.(\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
(='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
(")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Straybow View PostExactly. The "one flesh" of a marriage does not overlap into the "one flesh" of another marriage that man may make; wives are not "one flesh" with each other.
Look it's pretty obvious you can't read the Greek, so you're just making it up now, or parroting what your local preacher told you.
Your interpretation fails to explain the heneka clause in verses 4-5 and its relation to the creation of male and female, and its relation to the corresponding material on the unity of flesh. That isn't poetic or figurative at all, but a simple statement of explanation of why heterosexual unions happen.
Your interpretation also fails to explain the use of "kollao" rather than any of the other verbs the author could have used.
In other words, you completely ignored the argument I laid out in my previous post - probably because you don't have an answer. So come up with an answer or STFU.
Stop wasting my time and come up with an argument that is actually based on what the text says, and not on your particular church's interpretation of it.Last edited by Agathon; February 17, 2009, 08:08.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Straybow View PostIt is critical of divorce, but where there is no marriage there is no divorce. One can infer from "from the beginning it was not so..." that concubinage is also not the way it should be, but it is not directly addressed as an alternative relationship.
One does not divorce "wives," as each male-female marriage is severable in law, originating from a distinguishable act. The validity or continuity of one has no bearing on validity or continuity of another. If one had multiple wives and wished to divorce more than one, each action would be pursued and resolved separately.
Wrong again. The singular is used earlier in the passage.
The Jews are very practical. "One flesh" is poetic, but by no means literal. That only came from the Greeks and the forms their philosophers "cleave" to.
You conveniently leave that out, because it demonstrates that you are wrong.
Your interpretation makes Jesus appear to be a worse bull****ter than the Pharisees, since he would be responding to their question with figurative nonsense. As the text stands, he gives a perfectly reasonable and honest answer.
edit: are you one of those people who belong to a pervert church? Because I looked around, and the only people who think as you do seem to be advocates for polygamy. Everyone else says that the passage reflects Jesus' desire to restore what he considered to be the original God sanctioned monogamy. The reason they believe this is simple: it is what the text says.Last edited by Agathon; February 17, 2009, 08:40.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agathon View PostFeeble.
Doesn't matter if you think it "feeble," it is the truth. That's the way polygamous marriages were handled. Jesus didn't say anything about wives being "one flesh" with each other, or requiring consent from one wife to divorce another wife, or any other "logical" conclusion that would come from your fascinating but ultimately flawed philosophy.
Your interpretation fails to explain the heneka clause in verses 4-5 and its relation to the creation of male and female, and its relation to the corresponding material on the unity of flesh. That isn't poetic or figurative at all, but a simple statement of explanation of why heterosexual unions happen.
Your interpretation also fails to explain the use of "kollao" rather than any of the other verbs the author could have used.
In other words, you completely ignored the argument I laid out in my previous post - probably because you don't have an answer. So come up with an answer or STFU.(\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
(='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
(")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agathon View PostWrong again. The singular is used earlier in the passage.Your interpretation makes Jesus appear to be a worse bull****ter than the Pharisees, since he would be responding to their question with figurative nonsense. As the text stands, he gives a perfectly reasonable and honest answer.
edit: are you one of those people who belong to a pervert church? Because I looked around, and the only people who think as you do seem to be advocates for polygamy. Everyone else says that the passage reflects Jesus' desire to restore what he considered to be the original God sanctioned monogamy. The reason they believe this is simple: it is what the text says.(\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
(='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
(")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Straybow View Post
Doesn't matter if you think it "feeble," it is the truth.
That's the way polygamous marriages were handled.
Jesus didn't say anything about wives being "one flesh" with each other, or requiring consent from one wife to divorce another wife, or any other "logical" conclusion that would come from your fascinating but ultimately flawed philosophy.
You would be correct if Jesus were talking about "heterosexual unions." Unfortunately for your argument, he was talking about marriage, which is a specific form of heterosexual union. Otherwise every sweaty roll in the hay would be a "marriage."
Now, the Mosaic code had some really strong deterrents to illicit sex outside the bonds of marriage, but even that didn't apply to concubines.
No, just interpreting the passage as a discourse on Jewish marriage and divorce, which requires one understand marriage as a covenant between exactly two people: one husband and one wife, regardless of any other wives present.
I addressed the glaring deficiency which renders the rest of your argument moot. Come up with a better one or shut up yourself.
Address the argument. If marriage is only an agreement, then why bring up a version of an ancient belief in the union of opposites? Why bring up any naturalistic explanation at all?
According to you the passage reads:
Pharisees: "Hey Jesus, do you think divorce is OK?"
Jesus: "Well, [some poetical bull****] no [because I say so - no reason]."
Pharisees: "What about the Mosaic divorce laws?"
Jesus: "You can only divorce if your wife screws around [because I say so - no reason]".
The whole point of the passage is that the Pharisees are putting him to some sort of argumentative trial (which is what it says in Greek) in defence of an unorthodox belief he had about divorce.
According to you, he responds with some quoted poetical bull****, and then just says more or less "this is what I think, and my saying it makes it so, biatch!".
Again, verses 4-5 have to be strongly reason-giving for the rest of the passage to make sense, and to be strongly reason giving they can't be merely figurative, or Jesus is exposed as a sophist.
The way you interpret them ignores their reason giving function, and thus ignores the fact that this is some sort of test, and not just an opportunity for him to lecture the Pharisees.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
You've got it wrong. I can exercise free speech without having to ask anyone for consent or permission. the same is true of all other rights, but not marriage. You cannot exercise your right to marriage without consent from someone else.
Which means I cant use my religion or religious freedom to deny others their freedom of association
Comment
-
Aggie and Straybow, good debate. But I have a question: this two into one is either just mystical BS or it refers to the children, true? Well, not BS, but just a nice way of saying the two have committed to sharing their lives and they kept the commitment. Yet Jesus allowed divorce for infidelity, but Adam and Eve didn't divorce at all, much less over infidelity. That was "from the beginning", not divorce for infidelity. Polygamy doesn't violate that idea, the children of each relationship are still the flesh of two into one... Btw, God didn't marry Adam and Eve... I cant see where God said much of anything about their relationship until the serpent taught them (Eve) about procreation and God saw Eve's pregnancy.
Comment
-
No, just interpreting the passage as a discourse on Jewish marriage and divorce, which requires one understand marriage as a covenant between exactly two people: one husband and one wife, regardless of any other wives present.
Comment
Comment