Marriage Reform

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:56 pm

I think the christian right is not going far enough on marriage reform according to scripture

Matthew 19:9

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.â€�

So those who divorce except for adultery should not be allowed to legally remarry.
After all with marriage equality we don't want to legalize gay marriage because we don't want the state condoning people living in sin so therefore we shall not condone hetero sin living as well. After anyone who remarries if their spouse did not cheat on them they are living in sin and further more anyone who remarries and they were the cheater are also living in permanent sin.

so for marriage equality this should be the case

Haven · Post by **Haven** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:31 am

Divorce laws actually used to be a lot more "Biblical" before the women's movement of the 1960s and 70s. Since evangelicals evolved on that, I see no reason why they can't evolve on marriage for loving same-sex couples.

JohnPaul · Post by **JohnPaul** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:48 pm

Haven wrote: Divorce laws actually used to be a lot more "Biblical" before the women's movement of the 1960s and 70s. Since evangelicals evolved on that, I see no reason why they can't evolve on marriage for loving same-sex couples.

I see no reason why anyone can't evolve. Just don't call it marriage. What is the problem?

Haven · Post by **Haven** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:04 pm

It is marriage, why shouldn't it be called marriage? That's not rational at all.

JohnPaul · Post by **JohnPaul** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:17 pm

Haven wrote: It is marriage, why shouldn't it be called marriage? That's not rational at all.

It is not marriage. Marriage has had a tradional and commonly understood meaning for millenia. The gay demand now to usurp this word is not a demand for equal rights, or even social acceptance. It goes far beyond that. It is an in-your-face demand to take away a cherished possession from the rest of us. If you take over the word "marriage" for your own specialized use, then every questionaire and ID in existence would have to be altered to include a third option for the rest of us, perhaps "hetero domestic union"?

If you drop your demand for the word "marriage" and only want equal civil rights, I will be happy to vote with you and even march with you, but if you insist on taking away my most cherished possession, I will do everything I can to oppose you. That is my bottom line, and is not debatable.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:39 pm

JohnPaul wrote:
Haven wrote: It is marriage, why shouldn't it be called marriage? That's not rational at all.
It is not marriage. Marriage has had a tradional and commonly understood meaning for millenia. The gay demand now to usurp this word is not a demand for equal rights, or even social acceptance. It goes far beyond that. It is an in-your-face demand to take away a cherished possession from the rest of us. If you take over the word "marriage" for your own specialized use, then every questionaire and ID in existence would have to be altered to include a third option for the rest of us, perhaps "hetero domestic union"?

If you drop your demand for the word "marriage" and only want equal civil rights, I will be happy to vote with you and even march with you, but if you insist on taking away my most cherished possession, I will do everything I can to oppose you. That is my bottom line, and is not debatable.

I absolutely think marriage should be totally biblical. That way I can buy a nice wife for 4 goats and a camel.

JohnPaul · Post by **JohnPaul** » Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:01 am

Goat wrote:
JohnPaul wrote:
Haven wrote: It is marriage, why shouldn't it be called marriage? That's not rational at all.
It is not marriage. Marriage has had a tradional and commonly understood meaning for millenia. The gay demand now to usurp this word is not a demand for equal rights, or even social acceptance. It goes far beyond that. It is an in-your-face demand to take away a cherished possession from the rest of us. If you take over the word "marriage" for your own specialized use, then every questionaire and ID in existence would have to be altered to include a third option for the rest of us, perhaps "hetero domestic union"?

If you drop your demand for the word "marriage" and only want equal civil rights, I will be happy to vote with you and even march with you, but if you insist on taking away my most cherished possession, I will do everything I can to oppose you. That is my bottom line, and is not debatable.
I absolutely think marriage should be totally biblical. That way I can buy a nice wife for 4 goats and a camel.

Good thinking, but it would probably be simpler and cheaper in the long run to simply purchase a slave, as the Bible instructs us.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:59 am

[Replying to post 3 by JohnPaul]

Well I hate to point out but christians don't have a monopoly on the word just saying.

but aside from that I really like biblical marriage from a male perspective.

Multiple wives and concubines
submissive women

lots of good stuff there

and since women are just property so long as I have enough cash I can purchase any woman I want.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:49 am

From Post 5:

JohnPaul wrote: ...
Marriage has had a tradional and commonly understood meaning for millenia.

Argumentum ad antiquatum. The definitions and uses of words are in a rather constant state of flux, and appealing to tradition is no reason to not allow an "evolution" of the definition here.

JohnPaul wrote: The gay demand now to usurp this word is not a demand for equal rights, or even social acceptance. It goes far beyond that. It is an in-your-face demand to take away a cherished possession from the rest of us.

If homosexuals are allowed to marry, you can no lunger utter a word?

JohnPaul wrote: If you take over the word "marriage" for your own specialized use, then every questionaire and ID in existence would have to be altered to include a third option for the rest of us, perhaps "hetero domestic union"?

Save the erasers! Save the ink!

JohnPaul wrote: If you drop your demand for the word "marriage" and only want equal civil rights...

The "demand" is that homosexuals are allowed equal rights, not that using some contrived "civil union" term is suddenly equal.

Separate but equal much?

JohnPaul wrote: ...I will be happy to vote with you and even march with you, but if you insist on taking away my most cherished possession, I will do everything I can to oppose you. That is my bottom line, and is not debatable.

I too fear creatures in the night who would steal my vocal chords.

JohnPaul · Post by **JohnPaul** » Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:13 pm

[Replying to post 9 by JoeyKnothead]

JoeyKnothead wrote:

Argumentum ad antiquatum. The definitions and uses of words are in a rather constant state of flux, and appealing to tradition is no reason to not allow an "evolution" of the definition here.

I am quite happy to use the words "gay couple" or "civil union" now, but please be assured (no pun intended) that I am old enough to remember other words if needed.