On Fri, November 7, 2014 10:46 pm, Michael Scott wrote:
>
> No, I just don't believe that the definition of marriage should be
> changed so that same sex couples can have the same legal rights, which is
> what they're really after. Otherwise they're after imposing their beliefs
> on others. I have absolutely no problem with same sex couples having the
> same legal rights as heterosexual/married couples. What I don't want is
> the legal definition of marriage being changed.

Right, so because you have a religious definition of marriage, which you
presuppose is enshrined in law, you don't want that changed. So why can't
your church/denomination/whatever have their own marriage requirements and
just leave everyone else alone? Why is that your definition of marriage
has to be enshrined in law?

1st Corinthians 6: 

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality


> I don't know what that word, mutuable, is, but the definition of marriage
>  is actually biblical.

s/mutuable/mutable

Which biblical definition of marriage? Polygamy, as practised by Abraham,
Jacob, and David (c.f., 2 Samuel 12:8)?

 
Or maybe you think think that rape victims should be forced to marry their
rapist? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)


Or that a man must marry his brother’s widow? (Deuteronomy 25:5-10;
Genesis 38; Ruth 2-4)

> Whatever they have a "concept of", it's either Biblical or it's not.

Which is subject to editions, interpretations, and context. It's biblical
to own slaves, biblical to execute people who work on the sabbath, and
it's biblical that eating shellfish is an abomination.

It's interesting that you mention "context" yet bring up many topics which require context to make any sense.

Slaves, as an example, didn't have Centrelink. They could be slaves or starve. It was economically better for them to be slaves. Please don't plead context and deliberately comment out of context.

Current translations of the Bible are considered to be quite accurate, though different translations of different sentences are slightly different, given the difference between literal and meaningful translation from ancient Hebrew and Greek to modern English.

The execution of people who worked on the Sabbath was based on a tradition of Jewish law, not Christian. If you had any idea about Christianity, Jewish tradition, you would find that Jesus frowned on the legalism of Jews, that they had developed laws based on their traditions over the centuries which did not glorify God, but their own traditions.

> Do you know anything about Jewish and Christian background. Of course if
> she's of Jewish heritage she's Jewish. I'd never deny that of her. That
> has nothing to do with her religious beliefs.

So you think that Jews can be secular, but Christians can't?

Jews are of Israeli heritage, whether of the Jewish faith or not. Christians do not have an ethnic heritage. 

> There are 2 commandments. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
> all your mind and all your soul and all your strength. And Love your
> neighbour as yourself.

Apparently you don't love your gay neighbours enough to accord them the
same legal certificate that you demand as a right for yourself.

I have made my position quite clear on this. As a Christian I cannot SUPPORT same sex marriage. I support their legal rights as much as any others.

--
Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech
Mngmnt) (Chifley)
mobile:  0432 255 208
RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

_______________________________________________
luv-talk mailing list
luv-talk@luv.asn.au
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk