A biologist does not care how a country chooses to define its unions.Sure but I'm not sure how a biologist would feel about that idea, being a scientist.
Upvote
0
A biologist does not care how a country chooses to define its unions.Sure but I'm not sure how a biologist would feel about that idea, being a scientist.
A biologist does not care how a country chooses to define its unions.
The thread there is posted in a philosophy section, there's a reason why this is appearing in the American Politics section, I would say that philosophy is not the big driving factor for changing the role of government in marriage.
I'm curious about the Amish, can you elaborate please?
I would say that philosophy is not the big driving factor for changing the role of government in marriage.
There is an outstanding issue, at least from conflicting sources, that bring into question whether or not the Amish actually get legally married or if they forgo that practice.
If anyone has any real world knowledge of whether they do or not I'm all ears.
Last I checked, there are many species in the world that are sustained without "man and wife." In fact most species are not human; there are also many species that sustain themselves even with same-sex relationships. Some species also change sex (e.g., clownfish).Well I would think a biologist would care about creation of life and the sustaining of species. Which is only allowed between man and wife? What do you think?
Last I checked, there are many species in the world that are sustained without "man and wife." In fact most species are not human; there are also many species that sustain themselves even with same-sex relationships. Some species also change sex (e.g., clownfish).
What are you curious about? Biology is the study of life and living organisms. Simple. What do biologists have to do with marriage? Nothing (although I am sure there are many biologists who have married their partners).So does that include human? Curious.
What are you curious about? Biology is the study of life and living organisms. Simple. What do biologists have to do with marriage? Nothing (although I am sure there are many biologists who have married their partners).
Sure but I'm not sure how a biologist would feel about that idea, being a scientist.
I don't see what relevance science or biology has to the question of legal benefits to married couples.
Are you calling for civil disobedience because gay folk are allowed to marry one another*?As Christians, should we be refusing and opposing the state's legalities on a union by which only God has formed, and not man?
Who said anything about civil disobedience? Besides you, I mean.Are you calling for civil disobedience because gay folk are allowed to marry one another*?
Sounds rather counterproductive to my Deist ear!
*Back-in-the-day, one of the arguments was that “gays are promiscuous”, (which was true to a certain extent), but when activists countered with, “that’ll go away once we are given the right to marry”, that, of course, was rejected.
Placing people in a “no-win” situation to appease your God doesn’t sound just.
1) If God has formed the union, then stability is assumed
Or allow people to marry whom they desire and take the benefits that are already in place?2) Homes can go into more than one person's name, so both interests are satisfied.
Who said anything about civil disobedience? Besides you, I mean.
As Christians, should we be refusing and opposing the state's legalities on a union by which only God has formed, and not man?
Ah.The way this is written, suggests that the “redress of grievances” should begin with refusal to subject oneself to secular law, (okay, I’ll give you that it’s rather a hyperbolic slant, but could be a valid interpretation of the quote).
It has religious implications, when you put religion into the equation. What is marriage if it isn't being one flesh Genesis 2:21-24.
Why are we all of a sudden concerned about the government's role in connection to marriage? I also think it's odd to ask this question of legal unions as "legal" is the operative word. Why is this an issue now? It didn't seem to be a problem 20 years ago.
I'm definitely not the first to ponder this: Marriage w/o a license?
And then there's the Amish....
Ah.
No, I can see that. I guess I interpreted her idea as advocating for Christians to not seek civil recognition of our unions. My reply on page 1 is predicated on that interpretation.
Wouldn't it be funny if you understood her properly and I'm the one who misunderstood her? I'd have egg on my face.