liberal definition

Not those in the mainstream LDS church, but that isn't the point. Taking the argument to the sublime doesn't address the issues in any case.

Then speak to your state legislature about submitting a bill to change the law.

Yet the dog's access to the venue in the first place has to do with need. Your argument is flawed because it insists that the obvious be ignored.

Yes. All ten-year-olds should be treated as well as all other ten-year-olds. All Mormons should be treated as well as all other Mormons. Persons with service dogs should be treated as well as all other persons.

And gay couples should have the same legal rights as all other couples.

 

Well, then the government has violated its own laws. The US Government cannot make a law with respect to a religion, and if it defines marriage Biblically, it ignores the myriad other belief systems it represents.

 

The Biblical definition of marriage is the norm in Western cultures and therefore it is not a violation of the first amendment for the American government to honor Biblical marriage (ie...the norm). The American government does not honor multiple marriages, marriages between adults and children, brothers and sisters, or humans and animals. It only honors the normal definition of marriage which is one man and one woman. That norm just happens to be Biblical. Homosexuals have no more right, Biblically or legally, to demand marriage than any of the groups I have listed above.

 

Hmm, what do you suppose our laws are based on? If they are not based upon the mores of Judeo-Christian principles then what are they based upon? Why is Moses holding the 10 Commandments on and in the US Supreme Court? Did they (our founding fathers) dare believe our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian principles?

No doubt we have strayed from them, especially in the last generation...thanks liberal hippies growing up! But that does not negate the fact of where are fundemental laws and conscience of right and wrong originated. Just because we have strayed from them does not mean we have to at every corner ignore God in this country.

Oh I just have so much more to post and not enough time right now...so sorry!

 

As long as the ten year olds stay off public streets and only drive the tractor on the family farm, they don't need a license.

The Bible doesn't actually define marriage. As it is, it does seem to condone polygamy - King Solomon, David, etc.

A combination of English and Western European jurisprudence, common law and certain principles of the Enlightenment.

Um, why is Moses flanked on either side by Confucious and Salon, neither known for his adherence to Judeo-Christian principles?

 

==Actually that is false (Gen 2:15-25, Matt 19:3-9, 1Cor 7:2, etc) the Bible defines marriage very well. The problem is that many people don't want to accept what it says. As for Solomon and David can you show me where the Bible endorsed polygamy? Or is it the case where it just records what these men did?

 

You've given passages that talk about the first man & woman (Gen 2:15-25), divorce (Matt 19:3-9) and refers to marriage in rather distainful terms (1Cor 7) - but none of those define marriage.

It mentions their multiple wives without condemnation. It says they have plural wives, not one wife and concubines or serial, successive wives. There are others as well, but not so flagrant.

 

Actually, I believe God brought sometimes severe marital discord into the lives of his servants who practised polygamy. To show his displeasure?

 

Is it really possible that you believe what you wrote?

Sometime, Daisy, you really go off the deep end defending the indefensible.

 

Example? Was it for the practicing polygamy or was it for murdering a man?

Is it possible for you to argue a case without personal attacks?

How about making an argument rather than indulging yourself with insults?

 

All very valid, well thought out points, Daisy.

You win 1.75 internets.

 

==So you are telling me that you don't see a definition of marriage in any of those verses? One man, one woman, for life? You don't see that? If this is the case with you then we are not even on the same plane.

==Again, where does the Bible say that such a thing is ok/good? Please show me. Saying that it does not directly condemn it is not enough. Btw, I think in Solomon's case you are wrong in your assertion that there is no condemnation given. The Bible lays out how God defines marriage and it is clear through Jesus preaching on marriage, divorce, and adultery that God allows no room to compromise on this.

Question for Daisy. Do you believe that God approves of and blesses homosexual "marriages", "unions", or whatever you want to call it? Yes/No and why?

 

Have a nice day today, Daisy.:flower:

 

Shocker!from the common sense of the Holy Spirit

Gays are born Gay.......is so obvious


Now for marriage it belongs to Christendom that is the genisis of it and churchs should fight tooth and nail to keep it...now civil unions are okay...why? because gays pay taxes
that is why....I have put forth this example before.

If two gays were to walk into Martins church and demand to be married ...I would be first to ask them kindly to leave.

Now if Al Mohler or a Jerry Falwell was to block two gays in going into a courthouse for a civil Union then I would kick their butts down the courthouse steps.:smilewinkgrin:

that is the way I see it

Do you really want a taxpayer revolt from 10 percent of the population or gay soldiers to all of a sudden drop their weapons and refuse to fight.

In this country it is really ethced in our history.

No taxation without representation.

Churches and congregation can hold on to their marriage and gays should not over reach and demand the word marriage like I said it belongs to Christendom(the church) but as for civil unions it is completely doable.

sincerely from a straight person who have observed over the years(airline industry) that gays are really who and what they say they are and that is born genitically gay. We should respect that and their wishes and not fearmonger them...they are no threat to Jesus Christ and His Church period...have faith not fear.

 

That's what I call willfull blindness. If what the Bible says does not match your worldview, pretend it's not there.

Don't expect a straight up answer to your question. Obfuscation is the order of the day for Christian liberals who deny the teachings of the Bible.

 

APAL is screaming for attention again.

 

I have no problem calling it "civil union" rather than "marriage" as long as the tax breaks and other civil rights are extended to these couples.

 

No, we deny your personal interpretation of the teachings of the Bible.