tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post5204952841967528924..comments2024-03-01T21:01:15.174-06:00Comments on Biblical Christianity: On squaring circles and the loss of libertyDJPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-32272676979113297372013-04-02T07:29:09.321-05:002013-04-02T07:29:09.321-05:00Things like no-fault divorce laws redefined marria...Things like no-fault divorce laws redefined marriage well before the gays ever came along. And birth control, something that the mainstream church until recently was vehemently against, has meant that children are not necessarily seen as a byproduct of marriage, but rather something you plan out. If anything we should be asking why gay "marriage" hadn't established itself much earlier, and how long it will take for polygamy to become legal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-31729481725608812082013-03-28T17:18:52.942-05:002013-03-28T17:18:52.942-05:00You're right, of course. And the first essay ...You're right, of course. And the first essay you linked to is probably the best I've read on the subject.jmbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07164857192077648887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-74612717862463137032013-03-28T09:49:01.811-05:002013-03-28T09:49:01.811-05:00You are right of course that neither individuals n...You are right of course that neither individuals nor government can re-define that which God has already established; or rather that such re-definitions are without meaning in God's economy. It is also perfectly clear that (aside from an occasional dabbling in polygamy) God appears to regard marriage as being between one man and one woman. Any other relationship, whether recognized by government or not, is simply not marriage. The problems begin mounting however, when government, as it is wont to do, starts attaching rights and privileges to relationships - whether called "marriage" or "civil union" or what you will, because then everyone wants to get in on the act and get his or her (or his or his for that matter) fair share of the government's largesse. The awkward thing is that our constitution seems to require that if we give out rights and privileges then we need to give them out "fairly" (whatever that means) and we can't, as individuals, discriminate even in deference to our own consciences. If, for example, you are a business owner and you take Matthew 5:32 seriously you are just as much under the government's scrutiny for refusing family health insurance in that case as you would be for refusing it to the "spouse" of a same-sex relationship. Either way, the government has chosen to call something "marriage" that you believe is either adultery or perversion and so you provide the health insurance or you close your doors. Really it is the unholy alliance between government and the Church in the so-called "defense" of marriage that has caused the problem in the first place. Marriage is a divine institution and belongs in the Church. The state should neither define nor defend marriage, whether as a union between a man and a woman or a man and a wombat. Asking the state to defend the institution of marriage is to throw oneself into the arms of the devil in fear, evidently, that God is incapable of defending Himself and His own institutions.RThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08285891444546787144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-78036016299841752242013-03-27T19:12:22.228-05:002013-03-27T19:12:22.228-05:00I'm wondering... can there be domestic abuse c...I'm wondering... can there be domestic abuse charges filed in a SMM(sadomasochisticmawage)?Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-69279218097453483142013-03-27T16:06:29.594-05:002013-03-27T16:06:29.594-05:00Just heard an interesting comment on the recording...Just heard an interesting comment on the recording before SCOTUS reguarding DOMA. It is not that the federal govt. cannot define a term, it defined child. Huh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-25555906377499595812013-03-27T11:39:31.071-05:002013-03-27T11:39:31.071-05:00A pastor friend of mine shocked me the other day w...A pastor friend of mine shocked me the other day when he said he told his son (the father of his three grandchildren) that he (his son) was raising future martyrs.<br /><br />I hadn't thought of it that way before but I suppose we had better start real soon. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.Kerry James Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083436735702873300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-82135413010396240562013-03-27T11:26:09.369-05:002013-03-27T11:26:09.369-05:00Right, Jaci. You prompted me to add an earlier exc...Right, Jaci. You prompted me to add an earlier exchange at the end of the post.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-85817743473694169802013-03-27T11:18:44.686-05:002013-03-27T11:18:44.686-05:00What I find revealing is that SSM proponents are l...What I find revealing is that SSM proponents are limiting their proponing strictly to relationships between 2 adults. Why aren't they championing for polygamists as well? They are also "hurt" by current marriage laws with regards to inheritance and parental rights, especially the women. If they want true "marriage equality," why not marriage equality for everyone? It's inconsistent. JGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03116405895683599572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-1228067508651497742013-03-27T09:01:12.843-05:002013-03-27T09:01:12.843-05:00In the UK, the legislation going through at the mo...In the UK, the legislation going through at the moment, they couldn't work out what consummation or adultery was for same-sex couples, so there will be two different definitions of 'marriage', depending on whether there's one or two genders in the partnership.<br /><br />When I raised this on a secular forum after lots of "who wouldn't be against equality" comments, no one for the bill cared that it did nothing.<br /><br />When pushed as to why they didn't care, those for it said it was about denying intolerant, anti-diversity bigots the get out clause of 'civil partnerships aren't marriage' (the case law says they can't do that to deny service to someone, other than a religious marriage ceremony, but anyway).<br /><br />Someone else posted the definition of bigot "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." in response to someone talking about denying a language and that went woosh over their heads. My comment about the bill being purely about hating others and suppressing 'diversity' (which now means uniformity on the issues of GLBTXQDZ - my university's diversity fair was LGBTsoc putting on a couple of things, including a guy from Stonewall taking questions on gay marriage and religion - no debate, just one view being put forward) were met with 'you can't have anti-diversity views in a diverse society'. They didn't get irony.<br /><br />Apparently 'no one is forcing anyone to do anything', when those who don't hold the state-imposed orthodoxy will be forced by law to keep silent and even perform ceremonies against their will.<br /><br />Apparently we should 'live and let live' - when I say that that works both ways and seeking to deny a view language isn't live and let live, I always get the answer back 'well we shouldn't let those views exist'.<br /><br />I wouldn't mind so much if the pro- side were more honest that what they are proposing, if it was the other way around, they would be screaming 'hate crime'.<br /><br />In other words, this article is spot on.Si Holletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928376477302729848noreply@blogger.com