But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

[Damocles]

Post 436 argues that morality is irreligious.

The Christian Bible doesn't state that a man must only have one wife, yet society does. In this case society's morals supersedes Christianity.

Post #436 does nothing of the sort. It simply recognizes where you say your argument is coming from and then argues to that point.

Society's mores do not argue that open marriage is immoral, so long as both parties know about it and agree to it there is no victim. There is no "secular morality" that could argue to make it a crime to be in an open marriage, or even one with a partner of the same sex.

An attempt to argue that they are "immoral" is based solely on your religious set of dogmatic rules.

It is not the government's place, whether state or federal, to enforce the dogmatic rules of morality set by your religion. If you are truly arguing solely "morality" then you have argued yourself out of an argument against both open and homosexual marriages as society's mores that are not based in the majority religion do not say that either are immoral and such "morality" as defined by religion cannot be enforced through the power of government, they are specifically proscribed to stay the heck out of it.

 

[Timshel]

Post 436 argues that morality is irreligious.

The Christian Bible doesn't state that a man must only have one wife, yet society does. In this case society's morals supersedes Christianity.

As if the bible is the whole of the religion. If this were true there would be ONE Christian faith instead of the many sects. Religion is based on more than the bibles of it's practitioners.

Augustine excluded polygamy from Christian marriage, not the bible.

 

[Jarod]

The defination of marriage, just like most words... Changes constantly.

Marriage is not universal world wide, and 50 years ago it was something very different than it is today.

In the time of Christ, Marriage was one man and as many women as he could afford. It was a power position where the man owned the woman....

50 years ago in the United States, it was one man and one woman, yet the power positions were not much changed and divorce was almost impossable.

Now days you can get married and divorced as many times as you want. Should the government stop reconizing divorce?

 

[DamnYankee]

Post #436 does nothing of the sort. It simply recognizes where you say your argument is coming from and then argues to that point.

Society's mores do not argue that open marriage is immoral, so long as both parties know about it and agree to it there is no victim. There is no "secular morality" that could argue to make it a crime to be in an open marriage, or even one with a partner of the same sex.

An attempt to argue that they are "immoral" is based solely on your religious set of dogmatic rules.

It is not the government's place, whether state or federal, to enforce the dogmatic rules of morality set by your religion. If you are truly arguing solely "morality" then you have argued yourself out of an argument against both open and homosexual marriages as society's mores that are not based in the majority religion do not say that either are immoral and such "morality" as defined by religion cannot be enforced through the power of government, they are specifically proscribed to stay the heck out of it.

Again, this is not my religious but society's morals. States mandate that a man must only have one wife. Perhaps in your town an open marriage is considered cool, but I assure you that most folks think otherwise.

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, this is not my religious but society's morals. States mandate that a man must only have one wife. Perhaps in your town an open marriage is considered cool, but I assure you that most folks think otherwise.

The fact that states mandate a man must have only one wife is all well and good.

Is it illegal for a married man to have sex with a woman who is not his wife, if his wife knows about it? Is it illegal for unmarried persons to have sex?

Also, why do you think that you (or society) would have the right to decide what does or does not happen in the privacy of my bedroom or between consenting adults?

 

[Damocles]

Again, this is not my religious but society's morals. States mandate that a man must only have one wife. Perhaps in your town an open marriage is considered cool, but I assure you that most folks think otherwise.

No, it is not, what you attempt to call "society's morals" are specifically the set of dogmatic rules laid down by the majority religion. It is simply an end-run around what you clearly think is "the problem" of the 1st Amendment.

This is a guaranteed freedom for all people, morality is not supposed to be "given" us from the government.

 

[DamnYankee]

No, it is not, what you attempt to call "society's morals" are specifically the set of dogmatic rules laid down by the majority religion. It is simply an end-run around what you clearly think is "the problem" of the 1st Amendment.

This is a guaranteed freedom for all people, morality is not supposed to be "given" us from the government.

Again you ignore the fact that Christianity does not forbid a man having more than one wife. In fact polygamy was practiced in this country for a long time before it was considered detrimental to society, then banned. Queer marriage is banned for the same reason, so to argue for one you must argue for both.

 

[Damocles]

Again you ignore the fact that Christianity does not forbid a man having more than one wife. In fact polygamy was practiced in this country for a long time before it was considered detrimental to society, then banned. Queer marriage is banned for the same reason, so to argue for one you must argue for both.

Again, you refuse to recognize that since Augustine the "morality" of that specific religion was set to one wife per man. Ignoring dogma set in the religion itself and not from the book they are supposed to follow is laughable when one is saying they are specifically arguing "morality".

First you argue your specific set of "morality", the one wife, one man rule was set in that specific religion's "morals" long before the US ever made it a law across the land as an attack against the LDS church. It is specifically one of the dogmatic rules set down by the majority religion specifically against the constitution in order to battle a less popular religious morality set. That they made the mistake so long ago does not mean we as true conservatives shouldn't fight to correct it and that only the religious radicals support the continued violations of the government on individual freedoms.

 

[Canceled2]

Again, you refuse to recognize that since Augustine the "morality" of that specific religion was set to one wife per man. Ignoring dogma set in the religion itself and not from the book they are supposed to follow is laughable when one is saying they are specifically arguing "morality".

First you argue your specific set of "morality", the one wife, one man rule was set in "morals" long before the US ever made it a law across the land as an attack against the LDS church. It is specifically one of the dogmatic rules set down by the majority religion specifically against the constitution in order to battle a less popular religious morality set. That they made the mistake so long ago does not mean we as true conservatives shouldn't fight to correct it and that only the religious radicals support the continued violations.

You are both wrong...polygamy was always antihetical to Judaism and to Christianity. That numerous biblical figures practiced polygamy is not the same as it being acceptable. In every instance where a man had more than one wife there was a biblical emphasis on the curse it brought.

 

[Timshel]

Again you ignore the fact that Christianity does not forbid a man having more than one wife. In fact polygamy was practiced in this country for a long time before it was considered detrimental to society, then banned. Queer marriage is banned for the same reason, so to argue for one you must argue for both.

Are you saying you share the faith of Mormons? No, of course not. That's a different religion just as the Lutherans/Protestants are. But the dominant position of Christian sects on that issue was against polygamy. It has been for a long time and so it is against their religion and yours. That is why polygamy was barred. To pretend it was some sort of secular position on the issue is absurd.

 

[Timshel]

You are both wrong...polygammy was always antihetical to Judaism and to Christianity. That numerous biblical figures practiced polygamy is not the same as it being acceptable. In every instance where a man had more than one wife there was a biblical emphasis on the curse it brought.

This is your reading of the bible. It is why you have a different faith than Mormon's. You can pretend there is only one possible reading of the bible if you like, but that is the antithesis of the teachings of the man behind this faith you claim to share with all Christians.

 

[Canceled2]

This is your reading of the bible. It is why you have a different faith than Mormon's. You can pretend there is only one possible reading of the bible if you like, but that is the antithesis of the teachings of the man behind this faith you claim to share with all Christians.

No, it is not "my" reading of the bible. It is the historical theological scholastic study of the scriptures. It is actually a junior study to be exact. It is neither difficult nor mysterious to biblically support what I have said.

 

[SR_]

There is nothing odd about what I am asking. SM made a claim, and I am asking for an explanation, which he has been unable to provide. He made the claim that it would harm society. I asked him to explain how it would harm society. The answer is not in the question, and your analogy is goofy.

And the answer to the question of molesting children can be answered quite clearly. There is obvious harm to the children.


If we are going to define the morality of society based on a single (or even a limited number of) religious beliefs, then we need to amend the US Constitution.

Morality is not an issue on this topic, unless you wish to quote the bible or quran. And since sodomy is not illegal, banning gay marriage based on it is ridiculous.

Besides, until straight marriages are held to the same standards, it is bigotry.

Winter,

Again.... you miss the larger point.

We have accepted that its clear harm to children based on our societies view of morality. There are other societies and tribes that do not share in this view... and even this is subjective to different regions of THIS country as to what age constitutes sex with a minor.

Sodomy was illegal because of moral standards accepted and EMBRACED by society. Not because someone that it was harmful to two consenting individuals.

It is true that religion plays a role in a societies moral acceptance of what is right or wrong... but religion doesnt have to be the catalyst that upholds traditions and beliefs especially as they pertain to morals.

Otherwise that might suggest that a nation of atheist would have no morals. I dont think thats the case.

One can argue that a dissolution of the family unit, the monogamous bonds that exist as a part of our traditions and moral upstanding.. if these no longer meant anything.. then the core foundations of how we treat each other, how our nation survives in the context of rearing children, of the obligation to provide for a family.. etc.. if these positions are reversed then society as a whole will suffer. Everything from crime rates to population decline... its all connected and always has been to... the family unit.

The further we get away from being able to take firm positions on what is right and what is wrong, in favor of arguments such as yours.. such as saying that nothing matters because you dont think its wrong and can not easily understand or see an immediate impact on your OWN life.. the further down a degrading existence we travel.

History of great civilizations are testament to this very fact.

Our own moral history nearly destroyed us 150 years ago..

This isnt to say that challenging the merits of an accepted moral imperative is wrong. All im saying is that asking questions that are in effect the source of the answer is counter productive. What you think is goofy is exactly what youre continuing to do. lol

SR

SR

 

[Timshel]

No, it is not "my" reading of the bible. It is the historical theological scholastic study of the scriptures. It is actually a junior study to be exact. It is neither difficult nor mysterious to biblically support what I have said.

I did not say you could not support it. But one can support the opposite view, just as well. Opinions on the bible are like as....

 

[Timshel]

I understand Augustine's arguments against polygamy and his reading of the biblical support. I just don't care based largely on my own reading of the bible. That is, my biggest take away from it was always the teachings of Christ on the personal relationship with God. That means to me, Augustine can suck my D as can the other scholars, preachers, rabbis, priests, witch doctors, etc. My reading is that it is up to me to find my own understanding of God. But then I was raised Southern Baptist and that explains my "bias."

 

[DamnYankee]

Again, you refuse to recognize that since Augustine the "morality" of that specific religion was set to one wife per man. Ignoring dogma set in the religion itself and not from the book they are supposed to follow is laughable when one is saying they are specifically arguing "morality".

First you argue your specific set of "morality", the one wife, one man rule was set in that specific religion's "morals" long before the US ever made it a law across the land as an attack against the LDS church. It is specifically one of the dogmatic rules set down by the majority religion specifically against the constitution in order to battle a less popular religious morality set. That they made the mistake so long ago does not mean we as true conservatives shouldn't fight to correct it and that only the religious radicals support the continued violations of the government on individual freedoms.

You appear to be arguing that the US based a law on Augustine's writings, and wrote this law specifically targeting the LDS Church. Please cite evidence other than your opinion.

 

[DamnYankee]

Are you saying you share the faith of Mormons? No, of course not. That's a different religion just as the Lutherans/Protestants are. But the dominant position of Christian sects on that issue was against polygamy. It has been for a long time and so it is against their religion and yours. That is why polygamy was barred. To pretend it was some sort of secular position on the issue is absurd.

I certainty do share the Faith called "Christianity" with the Mormons. In fact, every one of them who I have known personally, without exception, has been a fine example of a Christian.

 

[Timshel]

You appear to be arguing that the US based a law on Augustine's writings, and wrote this law specifically targeting the LDS Church. Please cite evidence other than your opinion.

LOL. Non-sequitur strawman. The laws are based on the teaching of Augustine. Neither the teachings nor the laws were targeted against LDS since it did not exist at the time of either. The LDS was just one example of faith that has disagreed with those teachings.

 

[DamnYankee]

The laws are based on the teaching of Augustine.

Please cite evidence other than your opinion.

 

[Damocles]

You appear to be arguing that the US based a law on Augustine's writings, and wrote this law specifically targeting the LDS Church. Please cite evidence other than your opinion.

The US based a law on the majority religion's morality to specifically attack another religion, unconstitutionally. The evidence is in history. It wasn't until the LDS church began some rise in popularity that these laws were passed, specifically in Illinois, then later recognized by the Federal Government to restrict this particular religion from a practice it didn't find immoral. That the Federal Government refuses to "recognize" this particular type of marriage was set specifically against the Mormons, who at that time were setting up Utah, the laws were passed in the hopes that they would be unable to create their own state (which they wanted to name Deseret)...