Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 166
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,622
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    You think Alito has to prove to you that polygamy is bad? ROFLMAO. Write him a letter and demand he support his opinion!
    No. Alito is not on ODN. You are. So instead

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that legalizing polygamy would be bad.

    If you cannot or will not support that legalizing polygamy would be bad, then you must retract that notion and any arguments that rely on that as a premise fail for being based on a retracted premise.

  2. #42
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No. Alito is not on ODN. You are. So instead

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that legalizing polygamy would be bad.

    If you cannot or will not support that legalizing polygamy would be bad, then you must retract that notion and any arguments that rely on that as a premise fail for being based on a retracted premise.
    I'm going to politely say that this challenge is misplaced. I reviewed the entire thread, and I didn't see anywhere that Evensaul claimed that polygamy is bad (I don't even see that he implied it). ODN's challenge rule exists to contend with supporting claims that are made, and so officially challenging a non-existent claim is unfair, I think.

  3. Thanks MindTrap028, evensaul thanked for this post
  4. #43
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    During oral arguments at the Supreme Court this week on homosexual "marriage", the attorney representing homosexual plaintiffs was asked why four adults of sound mind couldn't enter into a group marriage. This attorney had the unmitigated gall to respond that the state could step in and say that 1) such a union is not a marriage, and 2) such a union would be unhealthy for society. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsn...ry-one-another

    I echo the flaws that others are pointing out here but it isn't hypocritical to use those arguments in other contexts. Your fundamental thinking here is that the pro-gay argument is that all kinds of marriages possible (they're not - marrying toys is not married). You're OP is a straw man rebuttal of a straw man argument. It's as simple as that.

    Still, the straw grasping by the "Christian" news is quite hilarious to see. Please continue to keep posting examples, it's always interesting to see how odd the anti-gay arguments.

  5. #44
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Well if we go by what was actually said, that is the question being asked, even if it was about something else. But of course I do take your point about arguments. I can agree that the question can be regarded as implying a more far-reaching consequence.

    But even then, I don't see that the lawyer's response was hypocritical or even unfair, given that they hadn't been researching the grounds on which to legalize polygamy. They'd been focused on the grounds on which to legalize same-sex marriage.
    But the point of a reductio is that even facially-convincing arguments, if they imply an absurd result, should be rejected. (The natural question re: polygamy is, "So what? What's wrong with legalizing polygamy?", i.e. denying that the result is absurd. This is problematic from a legal perspective, since there's generally been bright-line distinctions between monogamy and polygamy.)

    Well, that's not exactly the context of the question I asked, is it? Yes, there are certain rights that are incidentally attached to people who choose to be baptized, but they're not attached because they got baptized; they're attached because the person is religious. Conversely, are also certain rights that are deliberately attached to people because they got married, whether they're religious or not.
    In an important sense they actually do attach because people got baptized. If nobody ever practiced religion, nobody would have bothered to talk about freedom of religion. The only reason that anyone talks about religious freedom is because throughout history people have been doing things like getting baptized, praying, etc.--engaging in religious expression.

    So, if there's some special characteristic about marriage as a practice among people that forces the state to bestow certain rights on people who take such an action, what is the special characteristic? Baptisms and circumcisions, like marriage, are indeed practices among people, but the state doesn't bestow certain rights because of the act of being baptized or circumcised. So should the state provide legal benefits to someone because they chose to be baptized or chose to have a circumcision?
    Well, married people tend to want to do things like:

    (1) Have children
    (2) Have sex
    (3) Share property rights
    (4) Give their inheritance to their children and/or family/extended family members
    (5) Visit their spouse in the hospital
    (6) Have long-running financial and emotional ties to their spouse
    (7) Live with their spouse, being willing to move to different locations with their spouse
    (8) Fight to protect their spouse

    etc.

    You don't see these sorts of features in, say, one-night stand relationships.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  6. Likes Squatch347, evensaul liked this post
  7. #45
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Your fundamental thinking here is that the pro-gay argument is that all kinds of marriages possible (they're not - marrying toys is not married). You're OP is a straw man rebuttal of a straw man argument. It's as simple as that.
    No, JJ, you are hopelessly wrong here. My argument is that the attorney advocating for homosexual "marriage" in the Supreme Court refused to admit that legalizing their unions would open the door to many other aberrant "marriages". She implied that the States would have legitimate reasons to prohibit polygamy. My argument is that she advanced a double standard in which same-sex "marriage" should be legal, while objections to polygamy may be legitimate. You're just 100% wrong.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  8. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    No, JJ, you are hopelessly wrong here. My argument is that the attorney advocating for homosexual "marriage" in the Supreme Court refused to admit that legalizing their unions would open the door to many other aberrant "marriages". She implied that the States would have legitimate reasons to prohibit polygamy. My argument is that she advanced a double standard in which same-sex "marriage" should be legal, while objections to polygamy may be legitimate. You're just 100% wrong.
    No, I am 100% right. Firstly, it is not hypocritical to use that argument because it is still a valid argument according to the lawyer's current moral framework. We are not contesting her moral framework with respect to polygamy; we are contesting the conservative "Christian" moral framework for objecting to gay marriage.

    She is completely entitled to use the same exact arguments that the anti-gays use against forms of marriages she disagrees with. And if she is ever the lawyer on the other side of the polygamy debate in the future then she will have to defend that position.

    Her job at the moment is to defend gay marriage on those terms. It is a red herring to say that she cannot have opposing opinions on other forms of marriage.

    I wouldn't be on the side of marrying animals or children either - I don't see how that prevents me from using the same metrics in determining whether or not they should be allowed. I don't see how I can't be on the other side of the argument.

    Your main flaw is that you see only one kind of marriage and all others are aberrant. Once you realize that there are other forms of marriage then you will understand how not all non-heterosexual marriages are the same.

    Another thing you might have forgotten was that Scalia predicted gay marriage would happen and it is also possible that polygamy might also be legalized. But you need to focus on the current matter at hand - being distracted by polygamy does nothing to forward the gay marriage debate at all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #47
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    She is completely entitled to use the same exact arguments that the anti-gays use against forms of marriages she disagrees with.
    And THAT is hypocrisy (or double standard, you choose) by you, JJ. That's exactly what the op was about.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  10. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,622
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I'm going to politely say that this challenge is misplaced. I reviewed the entire thread, and I didn't see anywhere that Evensaul claimed that polygamy is bad (I don't even see that he implied it). ODN's challenge rule exists to contend with supporting claims that are made, and so officially challenging a non-existent claim is unfair, I think.
    Fair enough.

    But I assume you will agree that unless whether one can show that legalizing polygamy would be bad, whether legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing polygamy is entirely irrelevant to whether we should or should not legalize gay marriage.

    So regardless, Evensaul has completely failed to present a supported argument against gay marriage by bringing up polygamy.

  11. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  12. #49
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    But the point of a reductio is that even facially-convincing arguments, if they imply an absurd result, should be rejected. (The natural question re: polygamy is, "So what? What's wrong with legalizing polygamy?", i.e. denying that the result is absurd. This is problematic from a legal perspective, since there's generally been bright-line distinctions between monogamy and polygamy.)
    I agree about the bright-line distinction, but I don't see how legalizing gay-marriage effectively erases the line between two-person couples and polygamists. If it does, does the line even exist now?

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    In an important sense they actually do attach because people got baptized.
    But that's not true, Clive. I agree that if no one practiced religion the conversation would be different, but people don't become religious by choosing to participate the act of being baptized. Sure, it's an expression of their faith, but their legal religious protection isn't contingent on them participating in the act. Hell, you don't even have to be religious to have certain legal protections related to religion. I'm not religious in the least, but all I have to do is say that I'm religious and then, as far as the law is concerned, I have those same protections.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Well, married people tend to want to do things like:

    (1) Have children
    (2) Have sex
    (3) Share property rights
    (4) Give their inheritance to their children and/or family/extended family members
    (5) Visit their spouse in the hospital
    (6) Have long-running financial and emotional ties to their spouse
    (7) Live with their spouse, being willing to move to different locations with their spouse
    (8) Fight to protect their spouse

    etc.

    You don't see these sorts of features in, say, one-night stand relationships.
    I don't understand how this addresses the question.

    To recap, I suggested earlier that marriage might be rightly regarded as strictly a religious institution and should therefore not award any special legal protections (apart from normal religious protections; I should have been more clear with that bit earlier). From that, you suggested earlier that the legal benefits of marriage are awarded because of "some sort of recognition of marriage as a practice among people". At that point, and still speaking in the context of marriage being strictly a religious institution, I contended that baptism and circumcision are also 'practices among people', but participating in those acts doesn't give any special protections in the same way marriage does. So, my question is:

    If marriage were strictly a religious institution, and if the state ought to be reward marriage with special legal protections because it recognizes marriage as a practice among people, then on what basis should those same protections NOT be awarded for other religious institutions like baptism and circumcision?

  13. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  14. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,622
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    No, JJ, you are hopelessly wrong here. My argument is that the attorney advocating for homosexual "marriage" in the Supreme Court refused to admit that legalizing their unions would open the door to many other aberrant "marriages". She implied that the States would have legitimate reasons to prohibit polygamy. My argument is that she advanced a double standard in which same-sex "marriage" should be legal, while objections to polygamy may be legitimate.
    How so?

    If one argues we have no good reason to ban same-sex marriage but we have a good reason to ban polygamy, then one is applying two different standards to two different things.

  15. #51
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So regardless, Evensaul has completely failed to present a supported argument against gay marriage by bringing up polygamy.
    You just did it again. I never made or implied an argument against homosexual "marriage" in this thread.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  16. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    And THAT is hypocrisy (or double standard, you choose) by you, JJ. That's exactly what the op was about.
    How is it a double standard? Are you suggesting that pro-gay marriage means that you're pro every kind of marriage!?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    How so?

    If one argues we have no good reason to ban same-sex marriage but we have a good reason to ban polygamy, then one is applying two different standards to two different things.
    More hypocrisy/double standard talk. You're making the same argument that one might use against homosexual "marriage" - that it is a different thing than real marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Why should anyone care that you're using Tapatalk on your iPhone to send your message? Are we supposed to be impressed, or is that supposed to excuse you from making short and really stupid arguments?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  18. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,622
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    You just did it again. I never made or implied an argument against homosexual "marriage" in this thread.
    You definitely implied it:


    "If the old definition of marriage is to be tossed out by the court, what new definition should take its place, and why? Is there any logical reason to exclude poly-marriage or human-pet unions in the new definition? (Is there any reason why a man who chooses a life-long loving relationship with his dog shouldn't have his canine spouse covered for medical benefits?)"

    I think we can assume that you are against pet marriage and figures everyone else is as well. Arguing that such a thing is a potential outcome is to argue against gay marriage.

  19. #55
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Why should anyone care that you're using Tapatalk on your iPhone to send your message? Are we supposed to be impressed, or is that supposed to excuse you from making short and really stupid arguments?
    Ease off the gas there, amigo. Tapatalk is an app for tablets and it adds that part automatically.

  20. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,622
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    You're making the same argument that one might use against homosexual "marriage" - that it is a different thing than real marriage.
    And if one is to make that kind of argument, they aren't necessarily engaging in a double standard either. They might be wrong (as in they are incorrect that the reason to ban gay marriage is a valid one), but the argument itself does not use a double-standard.

    Just because I disagree with an argument does not mean that I hold that the argument contains a double-standard.

  21. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Christian moral grounds...?

    Didn't Moses legally have two wives?

    Didn't David legally have 8 wives?

    Didn't Solomon legally have several hundred wives?

    Why was polygamy ok then, but not now?
    Matthew 19:1-12
    Jesus pointing to the orginal order of things to counter divorce (that origin was 1man to 1woman relationship)

    Titus 1:6
    Being beyond reproach required for a position, namely the husband of 1 wife.

    Timothy 3:2
    Same as titus.

    So some things were "allowed", but aren't how it is supposed to be. Many times because of sin.
    Beyond that, it is probably a deeper discussion than this thread allows.
    Suffice to say, there was a biblical change.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    What the words "actually mean" is what people hold that they mean.
    Not when it is legally defined. .. which it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If WE ALL decided to call boys "girls" and call girls "boys" then the definitions would change just like that and the words would actually mean the opposite of what they currently mean.

    So I hold that marriage actually means a union between two consenting adults of either the same or opposite gender. And we can agree to disagree but neither person is inherently correct.
    you are legally incorrect, when applied to legal matters.
    you can call yourself a cat all you like, but the courts will recognize you as a human.

    I agree that the people have the power to change it, so no argument there. Of course the power to change doesn't mean it should be changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But who's data is more up-to-date? I live in Michigan where there was a vote about ten years ago and, yes, the anti-gay marriage side prevailed. But I'm pretty sure that ten years later, there are more people for gay marriage than against it in this state.

    So regardless, I have supported that more people CURRENTLY support gay marriage than oppose it and therefore we can conclude that more people are fine with saying that gay couples are "married" than those who don't want to say that.
    Voting is not a poll. Polls may indicate how the people will vote, but that is not necessarily the case. And our laws are determined by voting not polls.
    So, in regards to what the people want legally.. voting is the most appropriate.

    Again, I have already recognized that you have supported your position, I have also supported my objection and given reasoning... so.. that is that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And let me state this clearly - the definition of words, first and foremost, are based on what people agree the word means. A definition that no one uses anymore is no longer a definition. The dictionary records our word usage and new words and definitions are added as people start using them widely.
    I agree, but don't equate a 48% or 42% usage as "no longer in use". That would be ridiculous.
    The dictionary add "Duh", and I don't think 48% of the people use that word.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Precision is no problem. If you need to be more precise, you just add a word. We even do it now. For example, if you have an interracial couple and in a certain context you need to be so precise that it is pointed out that they are interracial, you say "interracial marriage" and when you don't need to be that precise you just say "marriage".
    As we have the power to make up words as a society and ascribe them meaning... nothing is really a problem.
    It isn't a problem for gays to have their own term iether.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Good point. And I assume if you and your wife considered your marriage to be a religious bond in some respect, it would be seen as a violation for the government to say to you "You two are not actually married but those other people are" and refuse to recognize your marriage even if it did give you the appropriate legal benefits.
    The gov definition as it is exists because of what the religious definition has been. It is one of very few religious terms that have become a legal term as well.
    Because it is a legal term, whatever doesn't meet it the gov can not call it. How I feel about it isn't really relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So if a gay couple has a religious marriage ceremony, is it right for the government to deny them the religious recognition of their bond but give it to other couples?
    When it doesn't meet the definition, yes. The definition is not "a religious ceremony we recognize".

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Really, a very appropriate solution is that the government recognizes NO marriages and gives ALL who qualify the appropriate benefits under civil law and leave marriage as strictly a societal construct. But since they aren't doing that and marriage is BOTH a societal construct and something the government recognizes, the government should not pick and choose which couples it recognizes based on unjustifiably discriminatory criteria.
    I would be fine with that, just note that you would see people "marrying" their pets and group marriages, and marrying their kids, and underage etc.
    Because there aren't any laws against religious ceremonies.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So if the state chooses to no longer consider the marriages of your specific ethnicity to be "marriages" (like "italians cannot marry" and you are italian), you respect the state's right to do that?
    The problem with democracy is that when the people are evil, there is nothing to keep them in check.
    as it is it looks like the state is going to ignore what I feel on the issue of gay marriage.



    -------------
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So hypothetically I'm living with a girl but we have not decided to marry yet (maybe we will one day) and suddenly the state considers us married and treats us, legally, like any marriage couple?

    I'd reject it on a few grounds - the primary one is that the state doesn't have the right to define our relationship for us. It's up to us whether we will marry or not.
    Well, some states had common law marriages (not sure if they still do), and basically that was what it was (as I understand it).
    It is more the state recognizing the effects of your actions, even if you don't recognize them yourself. Because relationships create legal consequences, such as children. So these terms serve a specific function, to recognize those responsibilities and consequences. etc.

    I'm not arguing for it, or against it and I think your answer is just fine. But I can really see where the state is forced to apply terms that people don't accept on themselves (like criminal, or felon)
    I can just see a really complicated issue when the state is able to pervert relationships as a unintended consequence.
    Suddenly your room mate of 7 years, is your husband even if you are a guy. Or some such.
    To serve man.

  22. Likes evensaul liked this post
  23. #58
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You definitely implied it:


    "If the old definition of marriage is to be tossed out by the court, what new definition should take its place, and why? Is there any logical reason to exclude poly-marriage or human-pet unions in the new definition? (Is there any reason why a man who chooses a life-long loving relationship with his dog shouldn't have his canine spouse covered for medical benefits?)"

    I think we can assume that you are against pet marriage and figures everyone else is as well. Arguing that such a thing is a potential outcome is to argue against gay marriage.
    Your infer wrongly. In this thread I am addressing the arguments made in court, and where the ruling may lead. I'm not arguing about the merits of homosexual "marriage".

    But if you're really desperate, you might point out that I keep putting quotes around the word marriage when it follows the word homosexual. Regardless, disparaging homosexual "marriage" is not the point of the op, so attempting to sidetrack the thread in that direction is merely offering a red herring.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  24. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Ease off the gas there, amigo. Tapatalk is an app for tablets and it adds that part automatically.
    It also explains why random words are inserted or mis-spelled or cut off Most of all, it means you own the best phone and possibly superior in your choice of technology decisions.

    Actually, tapatalk is terrible there must be a better mobile client!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. Likes Dionysus liked this post
  26. #60
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Hypocrisy of Homosexual "Marriage" Argument at Supreme Court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Matthew 19:1-12
    Jesus pointing to the orginal order of things to counter divorce (that origin was 1man to 1woman relationship)

    Titus 1:6
    Being beyond reproach required for a position, namely the husband of 1 wife.

    Timothy 3:2
    Same as titus.

    So some things were "allowed", but aren't how it is supposed to be. Many times because of sin.
    Beyond that, it is probably a deeper discussion than this thread allows.
    Suffice to say, there was a biblical change.
    Yeah, that doesn't really help the case, bro. If polygamy was ok back then but it's not now, then marriage can and does indeed change. Moreover, if it went from one man and one woman to one man and several women, and it was allowable i.e. justifiable i.e. just, then you're either arguing that it's ok that marriage can and does change and/or (if you're arguing from the religious perspective) that relative morality is the way of things. I don't think you want to defend that, here. It's waaaaaay too easy to tear to pieces.

 

 
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 7th, 2005, 02:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •