-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Equal Rights
- Thread starter pekkle
- Start date
Secular outrage? Are you referring to the high financed political groups which are pushing for 'tolerance'. The blitzkreig which is taking down morality has nothing to do wtih Jack and Jill American so much as it has to do with George Soros et al wanting a weak population they can enslave under the North American Union like they did the EU.
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
B
BigBadWlf
Guest
The harem, concubines, polygamy and the owning of slaves are all biblically supported
Upvote
0
TheManeki
Christian Humanist
Gotta love that slippery slope argument...if two men or two women are allowed to marry, then what's next? Cats and dogs? Man, that sounds familiar:
“[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.”
Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case)
“The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.”
Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case)
“[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”
Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton, eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage
Like I have said before, it is amazing that those opposed to same-sex marriages are using the same arguments that those opposed to interracial marriage used. It's like cheating on a test, but choosing to copy the dumbest kid in the class' paper.
For more quotes, look here. (.pdf format)
“[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.”
Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case)
“The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.”
Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case)
“[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”
Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton, eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage
Like I have said before, it is amazing that those opposed to same-sex marriages are using the same arguments that those opposed to interracial marriage used. It's like cheating on a test, but choosing to copy the dumbest kid in the class' paper.
For more quotes, look here. (.pdf format)
Upvote
0
B
BigBadWlf
Guest
So what did the author of the bible call the third and fourth and fifth wives of a good Hebrew man? God called them wives thus Godly support.
Upvote
0
B
BigBadWlf
Guest
Great post.Gotta love that slippery slope argument...if two men or two women are allowed to marry, then what's next? Cats and dogs? Man, that sounds familiar:
[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.
Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case)
The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.
Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case)
[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.
Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton, eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage
Like I have said before, it is amazing that those opposed to same-sex marriages are using the same arguments that those opposed to interracial marriage used. It's like cheating on a test, but choosing to copy the dumbest kid in the class' paper.
For more quotes, look here. (.pdf format)
Thanks for the research and the link
Upvote
0
B
BigBadWlf
Guest
And there were many Ministers and theologians who supported slavery and opposed the emancipation of women and many who opposed civil rights.
Upvote
0
gengwall
Senior Veteran
When God called them wives he was calling them what they were. It's hardly a difficult concept. It doesn't mean that God approves of every marital configuration. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you may rightly calll it a duck. That doesn't mean you have to approve of all ducks.
Upvote
0
gengwall
Senior Veteran
Very true. But the OP contends that the church in toto always needs to be "dragged kicking and screaming (by secular outrage) towards...tolerance and compassion ". That is simply and demonstrably untrue. A great portion of the church has ALWAYS opposed slavery and was instrumental in the progress of women's rights.
Upvote
0
B
BigBadWlf
Guest
And you claimed the church (in toto ) led the fight for the abolition of slavery and equality for women, and that anyone saying differently was guilty of revising history to suit some agenda. Yet how is your claim possible when obviously a significant portion of the church was supportive of slavery, racism and sexism?
(I notice you chaged goalposts here…downgrading it to a “great portion”
Upvote
0
TheManeki
Christian Humanist
And a great portion of the church -- the conservative, fundamentalist part -- had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the other portion -- the liberal, progressive part.
Now, it may not have been that way in Minnesota, but down here in the southeastern US the most vocal part of the church (and possibly the most numerous, at least among whites) was the conservative, fundamentalist part that did not want equal rights for non-whites and could quote scripture backing up their position.
Upvote
0
