Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
Basing your Life on a single book? That almost makes one wish it was Galaxy Quest instead.
Basing your Life on a single book? That almost makes one wish it was Galaxy Quest instead.
The actual problem with the gay subject is in the meaning of the word marriage. There is no patri and no matri. There is no marriage. It should be called only a legal relationship and fully accepted as such. And it should have all the legal rights of any actual relationship. The word marriage is not appropriate, but the relationship is so.
As this thread has reached now nearly to one third of a thousand posts, it gives one pause to consider which is more "important" - a vehicle providing someone with a voice, or one which provides the voice of Reason? Please vote now in the unofficial poll!
□ Balance is everything.
□ Shut up; I'm trying to read Hosea 4:6.
□ Bananas in pajamas are coming down the stairs.
I voted: bananas in pyjamas coming down the stairs only because I seen them on telly
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Agreed in principle - any civil union between consenting adults should be recognised, and should be accorded any benefits otherwise reserved for "married" couples.
The words "Holy Matrimony" when viewed as being Sacramental are certainly not appropriate, but the English word "marriage" as taken from the Middle French, and beforehand, from the Latin "marito," had, by about 1375, already ceased to mean "a dowried agreement" even within the legal confines of the Quittances de Dots, and the vernacular use of "married" was widespread by the end of the Medieval period, including in English language legal documents regarding the joining of two properties (e.g. "the court hereby does marry one half hide of land with these boundaries to this adjoining parcel..."), and today the word "married" is applied to any two objects not originally together - "a marriage of a first edition book and a later dustwrapper" as a very common usage. If we can see a book and a dustwrapper as being "married" perhaps we could concede that two women or two men might likewise be seen as being "married?"
you can't have a marriage without a relationship but you can have a relationship without a marriage which means marriage is neither here or there.The word marriage is not appropriate, but the relationship is so.
relationship comes first of course.
holy matrimony or not it boils down to having a relationship first.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
If you mean a physical relationship, this isn't true; many Catholic Orders consider their Nuns as being, quite literally, the "Wives of Christ."
Correct. Forget the brainless pricks. We already won this argument many times.
oh my. are they? a marriage without physical contact. I feel sorry for Jesus.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
You're 40 years older than me, so don't be acting like a snot.
And why does someone have to go to the "top" schools? Why can't they just settle for a local one? That's what I did, and tuition is cheap. Not only that, but my tuition is paid for with grants. If you're a good student, usually the government or private sources will help lend the money. It's also a good idea as well (if you're going to blow tons of money on tuition) to major in something that will pay a lot so you're not in debt all your life. I just don't get the people who major in creative writing or women's studies and wonder why they can't find a job.
I don't even know why I'm talking about this. It has nothing to do with the thread...
Last edited by SentimentalSlop; 10-27-2013 at 02:29 PM.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Hopefully, you'll learn before Life grows too old why one should never "settle."
Every word no matter what it is will have several synonyms. But synonyms are tied to contexts. The marriage of straw and manure, for example, in growing garlic. But the marriage of two people is Biblical and that’s its genuine context.
Biblical? How is that? Exodus was revealed to Moses, as near as we can tell, some time between 1440 and 1400 BCE. The Third Tablet of Urukagina, which has long passages regarding marital laws and monogamy statutes, was written a thousand years before Exodus. Please explain to us how marriage is, "Biblical and that’s its genuine context." Please - no time machine paradoxes, although the standard answer, "I fell asleep during Mesopotamian History class" will be accepted.
.
As Christians, we believe marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and he should be present in that relationship. It's like a love triangle. God is at the top, and man and woman at the bottom.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Wrong; dead wrong. Baptists are Christians, and beyond not even using the word "Sacrament" for the two ordinances which they recognise, "marriage" certainly isn't one of them. Back to Sunday school for you until you can tell the difference between a Catholic and a Christian.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote