Polygamy

[Slytovhand]

Especially when your viewpoint is contrary to the teachings of the most common religion in that country.

I didn't think JC had any sort of issue (or even comment) on the subject... other than 'love your neighbour'.... did he elaborate on that??

[anriana]

Originally Posted by Slytovhand

I didn't think JC had any sort of issue (or even comment) on the subject... other than 'love your neighbour'.... did he elaborate on that??

Jesus said that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

[AFPheonix]

Care quoting which passage? The only one I recall him mentioning marriage in any depth was in Matthew 19, and that was more of a case against frivolous divorce than gender of the people getting married.

[Flyndaran]

Huh, strangely, as a born atheist, I don't care what some specific hypothetical religion founder may have said.

If one can't defend a governmental limitation of freedom in non-religious terms and has real beneficial effects on the public at large, then it has no business in law.

[Boozy]

I'm pretty sure Anriana was not saying that the Bible should be considered when creating laws. It doesn't sound like something she'd say. I think she just had some information that answered Slyt's question.

So let's not get too side-tracked with this line of debate.

[anriana]

Originally Posted by AFPheonix

Care quoting which passage? The only one I recall him mentioning marriage in any depth was in Matthew 19, and that was more of a case against frivolous divorce than gender of the people getting married.

I was referring to Matthew 19: 4-6 where he quotes the Genesis description of man and woman leaving home and mutating into one person. I've always read it as very specifically gendered and limited to two people.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-6&version=50;


And I only care about this because xtians care about it, not because I think it's important. If you're going to debate people who insist on bringing their religion into everything you have to debate on their terms if you want to have any effect.

[Sylvia727]

Excessively religious people generally want the USA's laws to be founded on Judeo-Christian traditions. When confronted with "separation of church and state", they claim that they don't want religion in the law, they just want morality in the law. There are people out there who honestly can't tell the difference between outlawing homosexuality or polygamy and outlawing child molestion or rape. As if they're based on the same foundation. With these people, one has to prove that they are not on the same grounds, that they are fundamentally different. One involves consenting adults and the other does not, which I personally would think is glaringly obvious but apparently isn't to some folk.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by anriana

...
And I only care about this because xtians care about it, not because I think it's important. If you're going to debate people who insist on bringing their religion into everything you have to debate on their terms if you want to have any affect.

That is lowering yourself to their level and trying to win playing their own game. I may laugh at super religious people that know less than casual reader atheist I do. But I don't let myself get caught in their web of self-delusion. I argue my non-religious points.

[Slytovhand]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That is lowering yourself to their level and trying to win playing their own game. I may laugh at super religious people that know less than casual reader atheist I do. But I don't let myself get caught in their web of self-delusion. I argue my non-religious points.

While that's all well and good for a straight debate with people willing to listen, and perhaps even admit they may be wrong, not going to happen when it comes to religion.

I agree with Anriana - if you want to debate religion (or really anything), best starting point is something the other person can agree with.. then lead them to the conclusion you want. It's not getting caught in their self-delusion, but trying to find the chink in the wall to let the light in on them..

[AFPheonix]

Originally Posted by anriana

I was referring to Matthew 19: 4-6 where he quotes the Genesis description of man and woman leaving home and mutating into one person. I've always read it as very specifically gendered and limited to two people.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-6&version=50;


And I only care about this because xtians care about it, not because I think it's important. If you're going to debate people who insist on bringing their religion into everything you have to debate on their terms if you want to have any affect.

I always considered that to be less that Jesus was mandating specific genders for marriage and more that if you're gonna marry somebody, it's going to be a bond that should not be sundered. He says man and woman because, well, there really wasn't sanctioned same sex relationships in that part of the world (with the exception of ancient Greece, but they were pretty much over their heyday by then).
I can see how someone could twist that into saying that Jesus said marriage is only between a man and a woman, but when they do that they've lost sight of what the whole passage is about, which is about a far greater threat to the idea of matrimony than same sex marriage.