Started By
Message
re: "Christians didn't invent marriage. Why do they think they can define it."
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:25 am to antibarner
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:25 am to antibarner
quote:
So let's just let anyone do anything
Where did I say that? Where did I so much as infer anything even remotely like that?
1
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:26 am to the808bass
quote:
Not sure why they should care about my theological opinion of them in some emotional way.
Because your theological opinion is the very thing that they are fighting against, that's the point. Without your theological view, there is no gay marriage debate.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:28 am to the808bass
You have no idea what that quote means, do you? Because it certainly isnt applicable to this discussion 
This post was edited on 4/23/14 at 1:29 am
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:30 am to Roger Klarvin
That's incorrect.
My theological view is separate from my legal view. I see no legal reasoning to disallow homosexual marriages even though I disagree with them theologically.
So while I disapprove of divorce (in the main), I recognize the legal necessity of it. No one who gets divorced needs to be especially concerned about my theological interpretation of divorce. Unless they're extraordinarily sensitive.
My theological view is separate from my legal view. I see no legal reasoning to disallow homosexual marriages even though I disagree with them theologically.
So while I disapprove of divorce (in the main), I recognize the legal necessity of it. No one who gets divorced needs to be especially concerned about my theological interpretation of divorce. Unless they're extraordinarily sensitive.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:34 am to the808bass
quote:
My theological view is separate from my legal view. I see no legal reasoning to disallow homosexual marriages even though I disagree with them theologically.
It doesn't matter. I wasn't referring to you PERSONALLY being the hangup with gay marriage, I said your theology is.
The people who DO oppose gay marriage hold the same theological position as you and whether or not you are for or against gay marriage rights is irrelevant. Enough people are against it, and those who do take your position theologically. That is why people care about your theology.
quote:
No one who gets divorced needs to be especially concerned about my theological interpretation of divorce.
I agree, because divorce is legal in every state.
This post was edited on 4/23/14 at 1:35 am
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:34 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
You have no idea what that quote means, do you? Because it certainly isnt applicable to this discussion
No progressive ever understands Chesterton. I see no reason for that to change here on the OT.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:36 am to the808bass
Good thing no progressive would ever think to claim me then.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:36 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
That is why people care about your theology.
Why can't people have differing opinions? Why must we force some modern hegemony of thought on every single issue? It's quite boring.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:42 am to the808bass
quote:
Why can't people have differing opinions?
Who said they cant?
quote:
Why must we force some modern hegemony of thought on every single issue?
We shouldn't, think whatever you want about gay marriage. The issue is its legality, and once it is legal everywhere people will care significantly less about opinions such as yours.
The issue is that your theology, at present, is the reason why gay marriage is still illegal in most places. I'm not asking anyone to change their thoughts, I'm asking the laws to be changed. Think whatever the hell you want, but enough people want to legislate their own thoughts on morality and that is the issue.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:44 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Think whatever the hell you want, but enough people want to legislate their own thoughts on morality and that is the issue.
You seem to have a strong antipathy to my overarching agreement with you.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:59 am to the808bass
You asked why anyone should care about your theology, and I'm explaining why. the fact that you personally agree with making it legal is irrelevant to the question you asked. You didn't ask why people should care specifically about YOU.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 2:02 am to Roger Klarvin
Still at it.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 2:09 am to the808bass
So you asked a poor question, which was then pointed out to you and you are now playing dumb insisting you agreed with me all along.
Alright
Alright
This post was edited on 4/23/14 at 2:11 am
Posted on 4/23/14 at 2:35 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Where did I say that? Where did I so much as infer anything even remotely like that?
If we're goin to let them queers marry, might as well let my dead grandmother marry my niece.
spits tobacco
Posted on 4/23/14 at 4:56 am to sorantable
All religions, especially monotheistic ones, have their own definition of marriage, not just Christianity, sorantable. A better question might be (will one day likely be) "Where does the Federal Government get the power to force the States to accept gay marriage, or multiple marriage or any other type marriage one might design?"
Just saying...
Just saying...
Posted on 4/23/14 at 7:08 am to sorantable
quote:
Do same-sex couples not reflect this same love?
No, they don't reflect God's definition of marriage.
Same sex attraction reflects the brokenness of man. Christ died to set us free from the brokenness.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 8:58 am to sorantable
quote:
Do same-sex couples not reflect this same love?
Paul would argue, rather vehemently, that they do not in Ephesians 5. As Pope Francis said, it's not for me to say.
I'm in the same camp that several people have already mentioned so far. I'm against homosexual "marriage" in a theological sense, and do not want the state forcing churches who oppose it to perform these unions. From a legal standpoint, two people should be legally allowed to enter into a civil contract. Marriage is not performed at a courthouse, but in a church.
As an extension of this, however, I do believe that business owners who run floral shops or reception venues, etc., should be legally allowed to provide services to whomever they wish without legal repercussions. It's ludicrous to think that a caterer can be sued because the owner doesn't want to be involved with a homosexual ceremony, if he has a theological aversion to it.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 9:02 am to RoyalAir
quote:
Marriage is not performed at a courthouse, but in a church
My wedding wasn't in a church. Does that void it?
Posted on 4/23/14 at 9:06 am to sorantable
P and the V not P and the P
Posted on 4/23/14 at 9:07 am to The Spleen
quote:
My wedding wasn't in a church. Does that void it?
Who was your marriage officiant? A judge or a pastor?
Page 11 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News