Robdawg invited to a GAY wedding in Connecticut!!!

Solitary said:
I thought you were referring to some other post you had made. Because you said "The religious definition has always included one man and one woman as equals..." and that is what I addressed.

The fact that your statement also included what marriage has never included does not change what I said one bit.
Click to expand...

Solitary said:
And just as an FYI, insults don't help your debate.
Click to expand...
Not an insult as I was giving you the benefit of doubt. My statement that has you so riled was not 8 pages down as you stated. Would you rather I called you a liar?

You'll have to read the post again because the wording is precise along with being 100% correct.
 
Southern Man said:
Not an insult as I was giving you the benefit of doubt. My statement that has you so riled was not 8 pages down as you stated. Would you rather I called you a liar?

You'll have to read the post again because the wording is precise along with being 100% correct.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the definition of marriage has had mand and woman as equals for 6,000 years?

Surely you are joking?
 
Southern Man said:
No I'm saying precisely what I said in post 104. :)
Click to expand...

Precisely what you said in post 104 was "The religious definition has always included one man and one woman as equals and has never included two men or two women."

Now, since the word "and" is in that sentence, BOTH sides must be correct for it to be the "religious definition.

And since the definition has NOT always '...included one man and one woman as equals" then your statement is false.

In order for your statement to have been true, both "...always included one man and one woman as equals..." AND "...has never included two men or two women." would have to be true. Since we know the first phrase of the sentence is incorrect, the entire statement is incorrect.

Marriage has not been about equals until recently.
 
Southern Man said:
Name one that has.
Click to expand...

"... The reasoning goes, "God is perfect, therefore what God said to people in the past is the epitome of perfection. The original Christians, being close in time to Christ and the Apostles, must have had the more perfect knowledge. So the best that we can ever do is to swear allegiance to the original words and emulate the original Christians in action."

This line of thinking leaves out something very important. While God doesn't change, and basic human nature doesn't change, some things do change. Civilization does change in its ability to be a benchmark of moral behavior. Civilization changes in its ability to understand the ins and outs of moral behavior. Civilization changes in its needs, with government, education, and science minimizing needs." (link below)

I would add to that so does religion because it is part of civilization. Religion follows along with society, sometimes ahead sometimes behind. We are a tolerant nation and people (some are) that no longer kills heretics for beliefs that once seemed so real. So in a real sense religion has changed greatly and continues to do so as the Episcopalians proved not long ago. Consider the changes concerning the following.

Role of women
Gays
Judging others OT NT
Murder
Sabbath Day
Divorce
Money / riches
Witches / devils / crusades

Or consider the church's attitude towards children. "If the Church continues singing the same song, "be fruitful and multiply," with no responsible concern for population control, then we are on a collision course with reality. It is up to the Church to provide us with sound moral advice that works for today's world - or stand aside and become insignificant." This has changed greatly in our lifetime and except for orthodox religious hardly gets notice.

"Are the Scriptures books of pat answers, or do they tell experiences that help us consider various responses to problems in a caring setting. The fact that we do change is illustrated in our looking back at things in the Bible and finding them immoral. Today such things as slavery, taking multiple wives, stoning to death misbehaving children and other minor offenders (prostitutes), and divorcing over failure to produce children, are recognized as harmful actions and are not tolerated or are banned. Society and people grow in understanding, and their needs change, but the past can't change, nor can the past get better informed or any smarter than it was."

quotes from
http://www.visualwriter.com/HumanCond/Morality.htm
 
Solitary said:
Precisely what you said in post 104 was "The religious definition has always included one man and one woman as equals and has never included two men or two women.".....
Click to expand...
You really are having a problem with English comprehension. You seem to think that my sentence says something other than it does, as: "The religious definition has always been one man and one woman as equals and has never included two men or two women." By substituting "been" for "included" the actual meaning changes, perhaps too subtle for you, but a change nonetheless.

Words have meanings.
 
midcan5 said:
"... The reasoning goes, "God is perfect, therefore what God said to people in the past is the epitome of perfection. The original Christians, being close in time to Christ and the Apostles, must have had the more perfect knowledge. So the best that we can ever do is to swear allegiance to the original words and emulate the original Christians in action."

This line of thinking leaves out something very important. While God doesn't change, and basic human nature doesn't change, some things do change. Civilization does change in its ability to be a benchmark of moral behavior. Civilization changes in its ability to understand the ins and outs of moral behavior. Civilization changes in its needs, with government, education, and science minimizing needs." (link below)

I would add to that so does religion because it is part of civilization. Religion follows along with society, sometimes ahead sometimes behind. We are a tolerant nation and people (some are) that no longer kills heretics for beliefs that once seemed so real. So in a real sense religion has changed greatly and continues to do so as the Episcopalians proved not long ago. Consider the changes concerning the following.

Role of women
Gays
Judging others OT NT
Murder
Sabbath Day
Divorce
Money / riches
Witches / devils / crusades

Or consider the church's attitude towards children. "If the Church continues singing the same song, "be fruitful and multiply," with no responsible concern for population control, then we are on a collision course with reality. It is up to the Church to provide us with sound moral advice that works for today's world - or stand aside and become insignificant." This has changed greatly in our lifetime and except for orthodox religious hardly gets notice.

"Are the Scriptures books of pat answers, or do they tell experiences that help us consider various responses to problems in a caring setting. The fact that we do change is illustrated in our looking back at things in the Bible and finding them immoral. Today such things as slavery, taking multiple wives, stoning to death misbehaving children and other minor offenders (prostitutes), and divorcing over failure to produce children, are recognized as harmful actions and are not tolerated or are banned. Society and people grow in understanding, and their needs change, but the past can't change, nor can the past get better informed or any smarter than it was."

quotes from
http://www.visualwriter.com/HumanCond/Morality.htm
Click to expand...

Episcopalians are wrong. Catholics have it right.
 
Southern Man said:
You really are having a problem with English comprehension. You seem to think that my sentence says something other than it does, as: "The religious definition has always been one man and one woman as equals and has never included two men or two women." By substituting "been" for "included" the actual meaning changes, perhaps too subtle for you, but a change nonetheless.

Words have meanings.
Click to expand...

Yes, words have meaning. And you seem to have difficulty with these meanings.

The fact that you substituted "been" for "included" changes nothing in my post.

I am saying that the religious definition has not always had one man & one woman as equals.

The religious definition has not had them "as equals" for most of the time religion has existed.

And that is not even delving into the multiple wives section of religious marriages.
 
Solitary said:
....
The fact that you substituted "been" for "included" changes nothing in my post......
Click to expand...

Wow. The word I used was "included". As in :the group composed of A, B, C and D includes C". I find it incredible that I have to explain the English language to you like this.
 
Southern Man said:
Wow. The word I used was "included". As in :the group composed of A, B, C and D includes C". I find it incredible that I have to explain the English language to you like this.
Click to expand...

Ok, point blank, did you or did you not say that the religious definition has always included one man and one woman as equals?

Now, again point blank, did you mean to say that they had always been equal? To say that they had always been ONLY one man and one woman?




Since, in another thread you have continued to say that words have more than one definition, and since you are the only one who knows your intent, clarify what you meant.
 
Solitary said:
Ok, point blank, did you or did you not say that the religious definition has always included one man and one woman as equals?

Now, again point blank, did you mean to say that they had always been equal? To say that they had always been ONLY one man and one woman?




Since, in another thread you have continued to say that words have more than one definition, and since you are the only one who knows your intent, clarify what you meant.
Click to expand...
I gotta tell you man this is like arguing with a 9 year old.

My Post 104: "The religious definition has always included one man and one woman as equals and has never included two men or two women.” This was in response to:
Jarod said:
….

The defination [sic] of marriage has been changing for over 6000 years. At one time a man could marry several women, at another time a wife was considered property. Now its a legal relationship considered equal. At another time divorce was impossible [sic], now marriage can be considered a tempory [sic] or changeable state!

The defination [sic] of marriage will continue to evolve.
Click to expand...

Can you figure it out now?
 
If, instead of making snide remarks, you would clarify your position, it would make the debate easier.

But since you are having your ass handed to you, I can understand why you would want to remain vague.

Marriage has evolved and will continue to evolve.

At one time it was about the man owning the women and about men having more than one wife.

Now it is about only one man and one woman (with equality being a recent and not worldwide phenomenon). Soon it will be about two consenting adults.

Get ready for the social changes that come with fewer and fewer people being willing to accept outdated religious notions as laws.
 
Southern Man said:
Insult is the last refuge of a debate loser. Victory is now mine. :)
Click to expand...

LMAO!! You think so?

Lets see, the only thing you have claimed is that marriage is a 6,000 year old institution that shouldn't be changed. And yet it HAS changed.

Care to offer any other ideas as for why marriage shouldn't include gays?

Maybe because it will RUIN marriage for everyone? lol That one is my particular favorite. There is very little as ludicrious as that argument.
 
Solitary said:
...

Lets see, the only thing you have claimed is that marriage is a 6,000 year old institution that shouldn't be changed. And yet it HAS changed.

......
Click to expand...
Weakening your position by ignoring my earlier stated positions will not resurrect you. Nor is it my duty to repeat what I have earlier stated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top