tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2657912610170806601.post1404537128894996202..comments2023-10-19T06:42:07.648-05:00Comments on Banter of a Blond Republican Couple: To Lance - or the post where I still can't leave well enough alone.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03558069223334537518noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2657912610170806601.post-51536597514396789452009-04-21T14:52:00.000-05:002009-04-21T14:52:00.000-05:00A couple of things:
-Strong's is notoriously...unr...A couple of things:<br />-Strong's is notoriously...unreliable in some of its translations. "Porneia" encompasses nowhere near as many activities as Strong's indicates. Most glaring would be lesbianism, which Scripture never mentions.<br />-I wonder where these terribly easy divorces can be obtained. As someone who's been through one, I can tell you, the last thing I needed was for it to be MORE difficult. It is far more difficult to get a divorce than to get married. I think it should be much more difficult to get married than it is.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12096059535148777683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2657912610170806601.post-14816987483759983322009-04-20T17:15:00.000-05:002009-04-20T17:15:00.000-05:00Another fundamental disagreement is whether the go...Another fundamental disagreement is whether the government ought to legislate morality based on purely religious grounds--because, as far as I can tell, there's nothing different about gay marriage in a secular sense as long as heterosexuals who don't have kids are allowed to marry.<br /><br />(I'm not trying to badger you, so you can ignore me as much as you would like.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10465697598410731794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2657912610170806601.post-54526819247099810092009-04-20T16:50:00.000-05:002009-04-20T16:50:00.000-05:00We won't ever really come to an agreement and ther...We won't ever really come to an agreement and there isn't really a point debating logically because we start with different suppositions. You believe marriage is a right. I believe marriage is not a right, but an institution set up by the government to encourage behavior its citizens feel benefit society as a whole. <br /><br />You said - "But it is homosexuals' rights to believe and practice otherwise as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights."<br /><br />I agree with you. One does have a right to engage in whatever behavior they want (as long as it does not interfere with others rights) and they can believe it is morally acceptable while I will continue to believe it is wrong.<br /><br />But no one has the "right" to have their behavior deemed acceptable, normal or beneficial by society. <br /><br />I also don't think you can bring the racial issue in because it isn't really the same. Unlike what you say - Marriage is not a agreement between two consenting adults, marriage is a contractual agreement between one man and one woman. Marriage wasn't being denied to those of different races because they didn't fit the definition of the institution of marriage, it was denied to them because of their race. In the case of "homosexual marriage" they don't fit the definition of the institution. <br /><br />Legally, a homosexual man can contractually obligate himself to a woman as much as a heterosexual man can (that is, if he fits in the other qualifications the state has outlined i.e. he is old enough, not too close blood relation, gotten whatever blood test, etc) He just doesn't want to. He wants to bind himself to a man. Well, that isn't marriage. <br /><br />But enough about that, I'm home on a sick day today so I'm going to go back to what sick days are really for - sleeping, resting and getting to feel better.MacKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04018963981535476477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2657912610170806601.post-41758972344445952112009-04-20T15:46:00.000-05:002009-04-20T15:46:00.000-05:00But, I was never arguing heart or church, I was di...But, I was never arguing heart or church, I was discussing law. As far as church goes, I am bound to the Discipline. As long as it prohibits me from performing same-sex unions, I will abide by that because I made a vow, whether I agree with the decision or not.<br />But law is another issue. I disagree with you. Marriage IS a right between two consenting adults. The same argument: it's wrong, it's unnatural, it's sinful, it will damage society, etc., was used by those wishing to continue prohibitions of interracial marriage. Society could decide who could and could not get married, and society had decided that blacks couldn't marry whites. However, this was an abrogation of their rights. And the state has no business enforcing religious values. It's job is to protect rights. If a Church wants to continue to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, that's the Church's right. No one has to agree with it that doesn't want to. But a legal system based on rights, such as ours, should never make laws saying that one group of consenting individuals have lesser rights because they don't follow another group's value system. <br />You may believe that homosexuality is inherently sinful, and that is your right. But it is homosexuals' rights to believe and practice otherwise as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights. And, contrary to what the Stephen Colbert commercial says, if gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states, straight marriage is still valid. <br />Any good Republican should be against the government making heavy-handed laws infringing on individual rights.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12096059535148777683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2657912610170806601.post-14634327026600902052009-04-20T11:07:00.000-05:002009-04-20T11:07:00.000-05:00I'm glad we agree. And that is one of the reasons ...I'm glad we agree. And that is one of the reasons I moved to church from legality, I don't know what the legal answer is. I guess it is because you can't really use the law to fix what is, at it's root, a heart issue.MacKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04018963981535476477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2657912610170806601.post-73021929510599367832009-04-20T10:53:00.000-05:002009-04-20T10:53:00.000-05:00I think I agreed with everything you said here. I...I think I agreed with everything you said here. I think divorce is too easy to get in this country (see: celebrity disposable marriages) and that it is a legitimate threat to the institution of marriage but, on the other hand, I don't know what exactly should be changed about it. <br /><br />It's important that an abused spouse (whether physically or "just" verbally or emotionally abused) be able to get out of a toxic marriage, but trying to make them prove the other spouse's faults in front of a judge would create a lot of problems, I would think.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10465697598410731794noreply@blogger.com