Chick-fil-a

[squidmaster]

lol using the bible defense lololol

[Kershaw]

I know, this doesn't necessarily have to do with the thread haha. My point is simply that those are in the bible, just as every sin is. It isn't necessarily the "biblical definition" of marriage. But I digress.

[rwh11385]

I know, this doesn't necessarily have to do with the thread haha. My point is simply that those are in the bible, just as every sin is. It isn't necessarily the "biblical definition" of marriage. But I digress.

Actually, God is telling the slave of the barren wife to have the husband's children... it is not a sin or looked down upon, but rather encouraged.

7 The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. 8 And he said, “Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?”

“I’m running away from my mistress Sarai,” she answered.

9 Then the angel of the Lord told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” 10 The angel added, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.”

[FunfGan]

It's more about the fact that there is not one definition of marriage, but maybe examples of marriage in the Bible - and some are not so pleasant.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:28-29&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2031:1-18&version=NIV

But again, we're off course because we're talking about some people's religion being used as a basis of an argument for defining marriages in a country that has a "separation of church and state".

I know, this doesn't necessarily have to do with the thread haha. My point is simply that those are in the bible, just as every sin is. It isn't necessarily the "biblical definition" of marriage. But I digress.

[rwh11385]

Are those simply cases which are mentioned?

It's more about the fact that there is not one definition of marriage, but maybe examples of marriage in the Bible - and some are not so pleasant.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:28-29&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2031:1-18&version=NIV

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

But again, we're off course because we're talking about some people's religion being used as a basis of an argument for defining marriages in a country that has a "separation of church and state".

[FunfGan]

Are those simply cases which are mentioned?

[rwh11385]

Interestingly CFA supports a "biblical definition of marriage."

Just saying...


Also saying:

[FunfGan]

Group hug everyone, gather round.

[rwh11385]

I'm a white, middle class, male, Christian. How more of a minority could I be? ;)


Also, after spending most of the day researching and reading blah blah blah, here is my revised stand on this issue:

While I still do not agree with homosexuality in a numerous amount of ways, it seems hypocritical to consider them equal, and to treat them the same etc etc, yet deny them a simple right like marriage, or any sort of right in this kind of sense. Especially when it does nothing but create controversy on both sides of the issue. And although this country has many seemingly theistic elements in its Constitution and laws, the fact that I don't necessarily agree with homosexuality, there is nothing that explicitly denies that freedom from a political perspective.

See, I'm not close minded or bigoted, it just takes personal research to convince me :D

There we go. You're human, so you are capable of learning, reasoning, and adapting. Good job. :)

[DaveNorCal]

Point is, there is no consistent biblical definition of marriage. CFA's definition of "marriage" is what CFA wants it to be and they justify it by calling it "biblical." CFA is entitled to its opinions and to support them with money but they won't be using my money. Boycotting is also a protected form of speech, one that was eventually heard loud and clear by Coors.

[FunfGan]

Interstingly CFA supports a "biblical definition of marriage." Throughout most of the bible, polygamy was the definition of marriage. Just saying.

Hmm, really? I seem to recall an entire town that was wiped out for their sins, including polygamy, that they were given many chances, and shown many times that God was real. Albeit, that was the OT. But even in NT books, polygamy is punished many times...

[FunfGan]

But those who think gay marriage shouldn't be legal are a minority these days.


Not that you ought to have to have a majority support to allow minorities to have equal civil rights...


Maybe if he was in a minority social group, or had an ability to empathize, then he could understand this topic greater.

I'm a white, middle class, male, Christian. How more of a minority could I be? ;)


Also, after spending most of the day researching and reading blah blah blah, here is my revised stand on this issue:

While I still do not agree with homosexuality in a numerous amount of ways, it seems hypocritical to consider them equal, and to treat them the same etc etc, yet deny them a simple right like marriage, or any sort of right in this kind of sense. Especially when it does nothing but create controversy on both sides of the issue. And although this country has many seemingly theistic elements in its Constitution and laws, the fact that I don't necessarily agree with homosexuality, there is nothing that explicitly denies that freedom from a political perspective.

See, I'm not close minded or bigoted, it just takes personal research to convince me :D

[rwh11385]

[DaveNorCal]

If all the government offered to anyone was domestic partnership and "marriage" was strictly a church thing, if all the rights of that currently are defined as being the rights of married people went to domestic partnerships, and if government did not use the word marriage at all, then everyone's domestic partnerships or civil unions would be equal. Equal is equal. Unequal is not equal.
Regardless, the trend is inexorable and people fighting against marriage equality are on the wrong side of the tide of history, just like poeple who oppose interracial marriage.
Interstingly CFA supports a "biblical definition of marriage." Throughout most of the bible, polygamy was the definition of marriage. Just saying.

[rwh11385]

and i should have clarified, "sadly, i dont think funfgan is a minority."

But those who think gay marriage shouldn't be legal are a minority these days.


Not that you ought to have to have a majority support to allow minorities to have equal civil rights...


Maybe if he was in a minority social group, or had an ability to empathize, then he could understand this topic greater.