- Joined
- Jul 2, 2014
- Messages
- 21,055
- Reaction score
- 3,212
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/f...-t-wrights-argument-against-same-sex-marriageNow, the word “marriage,” for thousands of years and cross-culturally has meant man and woman. Sometimes it’s been one man and more than one woman. Occasionally it’s been one woman and more than one man. There is polyandry as well as polygamy in some societies in some parts of history, but it’s always been male plus female. Simply to say that you can have a woman-plus-woman marriage or a man-plus-man marriage is radically to change that because of the givenness of maleness and femaleness. I would say that without any particular Christian presuppositions at all, just cross-culturally, that’s so.
...
The other thing I find worrying is that I was struck this week—this is a memory, and you may not agree with the judgment that precedes it—but eleven years ago, no, actually ten years ago, almost right now, we were about to go to war against Iraq. I sat in my kitchen and I listened to Tony Blair making the great speech on how we should go and bomb Iraq (it was the day before they actually started). I thought at the time and I still think that that speech was absolutely full of holes. It was begging questions, it was missing points, it was slipping cogs in the logic. Yet all the papers were on board, almost everyone in Parliament was on board, with only a few grouchy people, and I remember thinking at the time: This is absolutely crazy. We should not be doing this and there’s all sorts of what-ifs which we haven’t thought through. I have to say, over the last ten years I have seen no reason to change that judgment at all.
If one is going to go with the "this is what it is" first sentence "authentication" what marriage has to be about (everything else thus invalidated), I guess a thousand or two thousand years of gay marriage will then serve as better validation of the concept.I heard a sermon yesterday with several of these points in it, but what was of particular interest to me was at the end, which states:
"All the press is on-side, most of Parliament’s on-side, and people are saying—get this—that unless you support this, you’re on the wrong side of history. Excuse me. Did you see University Challenge last night? There was a nice question: Somebody said, who was it who said in 1956, “History is on our side and we will bury you”? One of the contestants got the answer right: It was Nikita Khrushchev. When people claim, “We’re going with the flow of history,” that’s just a rhetorical smokescreen. So, that’s where I am."
On to the main point:
In another thread there is an argument going on over what the New Testament says about homosexuality. by parsing one verse or another. To do so is to miss the big picture, as Wright points out here.
Just say no to sticking your nose in to other people's business and quit trying to dictate how other people should live up to what you find "acceptable." Who the **** are you?
Problem solved!
I don't know which part of the world you live, but......
In our society......."saying no...." translates to votes!
Who are we? We are voters!
We can make changes, if we win.
No... votes can't. This is a constitutional republic not a democratic republic.
Don't you have elected representatives?
What is the supreme law of the land?
You tell me. Cite your source, too.
If one is going to go with the "this is what it is" first sentence "authentication" what marriage has to be about (everything else thus invalidated), I guess a thousand or two thousand years of gay marriage will then serve as better validation of the concept.
I can understand that traditions have their values and that one had better have something of equal value to replace one or many of them (if inclination for replacement exists), but the argument of "that how we've always done it" is as useless here as invoking either ole Nikita's blather or the stupidity of having gone to war with Iraq.
IOW silly equations trying to create equally daft equivalencies do not serve in argument for or against anything and serve mostly rhetoric designed to obfuscate.
History continually evolving as it does, I don't place particularly much emphasis on it as a parameter for determining which side of it is right or wrong.It sounds like you are saying "we are on the wrong side of history" - again. Why? Because it"s the thing to say?
Say no to same sex marriage.
Sad to say my attempt in stopping one in 2016 failed.
Oh well...better luck next time I hope.
History continually evolving as it does, I don't place particularly much emphasis on it as a parameter for determining which side of it is right or wrong.
In conclusion of which arguing FOR gay marriage would seem pretty pointless to me as well if gay marriage had been practised for thousands of years and that fact alone were to be invoked in its support, especially if it were designed to exclude all other possibilities.
Leaving aside the fact that such an exclusion would have effectively ended pro-genitation altogether, thus solving the issue. Unless, of course, gene-labs were conveniently used to guarantee the continued existence of the human race.
I can rule out the possible influence of public opinion on what is the right thing to say (or not) as little as anyone else can, but prefer to think/hope that with me (and hopefully most others) more deciding factors serve as a determinative.
And where, pray tell, did you see me expressing any such agreement?Well, I am glad you agree on the necessity to propagate our race.
The constitution (both the supreme law and source)
You should read it.
The constitution (both the supreme law and source)
You should read it.
If one is going to go with the "this is what it is" first sentence "authentication" what marriage has to be about (everything else thus invalidated), I guess a thousand or two thousand years of gay marriage will then serve as better validation of the concept.
I can understand that traditions have their values and that one had better have something of equal value to replace one or many of them (if inclination for replacement exists), but the argument of "that how we've always done it" is as useless here as invoking either ole Nikita's blather or the stupidity of having gone to war with Iraq.
IOW silly equations trying to create equally daft equivalencies do not serve in argument for or against anything and serve mostly rhetoric designed to obfuscate.
WTH does any of that or what you then let follow (edited by me for sake of brevity) remotely have to do with what I've written on the matter?Honestly there is a reason for that command in the bible more so if you think about times back then............................~
WTH does any of that or what you then let follow (edited by me for sake of brevity) remotely have to do with what I've written on the matter?
Equating times of 2000 years or more ago to today is as absurd an attempt at creating an equivalence as is the equivalency itself. That goes for the people of then and there as well as much as it goes for geography.
As for the rest, if you want to embark on a journey of expression of homophobic sentiments, kindly don't quote any post of mine that has nothing to do with what you clearly want to get off your chest.
In other words do it under your own steam.
I didn't raise any questions, buddy. I addressed the falsity of a premise, leastwise what I hold to be a falsity. A premise that (as per OP) didn't even address the bible in any pertinent way but rather the (indeed questionable) fashion of deeming to speak on the wrong or right side of history.Not really.
I even posted the STD rates among other things.
1 in 4 people has an STD.
among the gay population it is way way higher.
They end genetic lines because they cannot have offspring.
this is the theological forum and we are discussion reasons that the bible speaks against it.
so it is you that needs to get over it and find another forum.
there was nothing homophobic about what i said. it was all fact. you might not like it but that is not my problem.
you where the one that raised the question i simply answered your question.
if you don't like the answers then don't post the questions.
I didn't raise any questions, buddy. I addressed the falsity of a premise, leastwise what I hold to be a falsity. A premise that (as per OP) didn't even address the bible in any pertinent way but rather the (indeed questionable) fashion of deeming to speak on the wrong or right side of history.
If anyone derailed it it was you with your "homosexuality is bad and harmful" rant.
Try to keep up, eh?
I heard a sermon yesterday with several of these points in it, but what was of particular interest to me was at the end, which states:
"All the press is on-side, most of Parliament’s on-side, and people are saying—get this—that unless you support this, you’re on the wrong side of history. Excuse me. Did you see University Challenge last night? There was a nice question: Somebody said, who was it who said in 1956, “History is on our side and we will bury you”? One of the contestants got the answer right: It was Nikita Khrushchev. When people claim, “We’re going with the flow of history,” that’s just a rhetorical smokescreen. So, that’s where I am."
On to the main point:
In another thread there is an argument going on over what the New Testament says about homosexuality. by parsing one verse or another. To do so is to miss the big picture, as Wright points out here.
To begin with, Wright is wrong. He claims that all marriages were historically opposite-sex marriages, but that isn't the case. You can read about some historical same-sex marriages here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
That said, society has no business using an antiquated myth (the bible) to form law or domestic policy. It'd be like someone trying to use the Harry Potter books as a basis for law. It's just not acceptable in today's Western society, no matter how many people may believe the myth.
What we have to do -- and what we are doing -- is making laws based on the good of society and its members.
the numbers speak for themselves they are fact. you can't ignore it nor can you deny it.
and no where did i say that. i said there is good reason that it was not permitted in the bible.
i listed those reasons up front.
this is the theology forum.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?