Saying that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is no different than saying that the word wood is "the hard fibrous material that forms the main substance of the trunk or branches of a tree or shrub." Are we shaming rocks because we won't call them wood?
A pathetic attempt at false equivalence, not only trying to anthromorphize non-sapient objects but implying that the only allowed marriages are between man and woman is a scientific fact.
Christians have a definition of what marriage is. There is no shaming involved when we point out that a relationship between a man and another man does not meet that definition. Ala rock is not wood.
29 comments
"Christians", at least those ones that fit in your limited description, can have any criteria they choose. PEOPLE, however, have no real reason to give respect to those limited viewpoints, nor does the law of a secular society.
It's more like this: you define wood so only cedar wood counts. The accepted definition includes other kinds of wood, and when I say that balsa wood also counts, you, with sound and fury, complain that I'm trying to define wood to include rocks.
Saying that marriage is a union between an man and a woman is no different than saying marriage is a union between two human beings.
The law has a different definition of what a marriage is than your “Christians” do, and as marriage is a legal contract, the law’s definition trumps the definition of your “Christians”. Many Christians are fine with same-sex marriages, ya know.
Saying that marriage is a union between two men is no different than saying marriage is a union between two human beings, silly.
"Christians have a definition of what marriage is."
Christians also have a definition of what science is, yet they fail hard whan they do science.
"A pathetic attempt at false equivalence"
This is a pathetic attempt at a false distinction.
"Christians have a definition of what marriage is. There is no shaming involved when we point out that a relationship between a man and another man does not meet that definition."
Whoop-de-doo, you have an opinion. That's not the problem. THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU KEEP SHOVING YOUR DAMN OPINION DOWN OUR THROATS!
I'm sorry, I still can't get over how much I love your username.
Christians have a definition of what marriage is. There is no shaming involved when we point out that a relationship between a man and another man does not meet that definition.
But you don't get to set that definition for the rest of the country.
"Christians have a definition of what marriage is."
Yes, they have a definition. They do not have the definition. And what about those Christians that are fine with homosexual marriage?
wood is also a euphamism for an erection.
Since marriage in the USA is a secular contract it does not matter how christians define it, just the state where you live.
Wood is a specific physical entity. Saying "wood is wood" is a matter of identity. It's A=A. Wood can never be anything BUT wood. Marriage is a social construct that not only can change, it HAS changed. It used to be that only nobles could get married. It used to be that you could have multiple wives and concubines (yes, even in the Bible). It's more like calling black people and women eligible voters than calling a rock wood.
"Christians have a definition of what marriage is."
Yes, but your definition isn't the only allowable definition. See the problem here? You don't get to decide and then force that decision on everyone else.
Again, the biblical definition of marriage is
A man and a woman, or many women, or many women and their female slaves, or many women and any virgin the man rapes and their female slaves, or many women and rape victims and their female slaves and any females captured during war, or many women and rape victims war prisoners female slaves and their dead brothers many women rape victims war prisoners female slaves, or the above and concubines, or castrati which were considered women.
Want to run that traditional marriage definition by me again?
++"Christians have a definition of what marriage is. "
Which is wholly irrelevant as marriage is a concept which predates not only Christianity but also the religion from which it sprang. It's a concept that has in some fashion existed in every human culture throughout recorded and even oral history. That you tried to claim ownership of the concept does nothing more than provide yet more proof that Christianity is a religion utterly incapable of creating anything for itself. A religion so utterly bereft of even the barest hint of intelligent creativity that it must resort to stealing the whole of its mythology, ceremony and even imagery from other, older religions while screaming "MINE! " like a petulant two-year-old stealing from its playmates.
Marriage is also not a physical substance. It's a concept which exists solely within the human mind. Thus its definition changes as our minds change in the same way our ideas regarding fashion and music change. And even ignoring that fatal flaw in your logic, there's still the fact that the very book you're basing your argument on doesn't even agree with you. According to the Bible, polygamy has always been the norm. Why are you trying the change the definition of marriage to your strange new "one man, one woman" ideal?
Christians have a definition of what marriage is
And right up until the Loving decision, that was also a man and woman of the same race. You can have whatever definition you like. The law doesn't have to agree.
I pine fir yew and balsam, too.
Also, when I want your definition of something, I'll ask for it.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
