For one thing, marriage between a man and woman - and the subsequent family that usually results - has been the social norm for millenia. The family is the building block of society. But now, because of these newfound rights gays have, the definition of marriage is supposed to be turned on it's head? I've already gone on many times before how this country long ago outlawed polygamy, though that actually did have Constitutional protection due to religious freedom, unlike gay marriage. So what makes gay marriage any different? How long before we have people wanting to marry their dog or their car? How far do we stretch the definition of marriage to suit people's claims about their "rights."
So marriages that don't produce children are not part of the social norm and therefore shouldn't be allowed? So much for adoption. Its a good thing we don't allow older couples to marry and sterile people are prohibited from marrying also.
People marrying dogs is a stretch, I know that exist but it is not really a rational argument since animals can't think like us and have no choice in what they can do. Where marriage between two consenting adults who should not be restricted.
If gays want to do their thing behind closed doors, that's one thing. Them trying to get government sanction for it, and changing the definition of marriage in the process, is another. That's when it becomes other people's business. A woman having an abortion is automatically somebody else's business - the child inside her. But, like the gay marriage issue, liberals are all about changing the definition of things, i.e. it's "not a child" or worthy of protection until it's crossed that magical second trimester line if not even later.
What business is it of anyone's if Rob and Joe or Jane and Mary decide to get married they aren't interfering with your life at all but, people have no problem telling someone them they can't do something because of a word. Marriage. Don't ideas and definitions change all the time? Words we use today have had different meanings during different periods of time.
You are taking these words and stretching them extremely far in order to justify whatever suits you. Unless we're talking about freedom of speech, which is another matter, there's nothing in the Constitution about "freedom of expression." And, using your logic, anyone could use the excuse of having the right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" to justify almost anything.
Well if believing that no one has the right to restrict you from doing what you want as long as it
does not interfere with the rights of another then I guess I am stretching these words. Using that logic does not justify almost anything.
I am talking about the
freedom of speech, but also Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression"
This is why I don't think secular liberals should be quoting scripture - they don't understand it, much less believe it. Matthew 7:1 and Luke 6:37 are two translations of the same utterance by Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount. The correct translation I posted above applies to both.
Having a little trouble mentioning religion without mentioning
politics.
By your logic a Democrat could never write a book on Reagan because they don't understand being a Republican. Just because you like to classify someone as secular doesn't automatically make you the for most authority of religious doctrine
How do you know Matthew 7:1 wasn't a paraphrase of what was actually said? Perhaps Luke is elaborating on Jesus's words which you seem to have no problem discrediting to suit your purposes.
It is the correct translation because you say so, interesting analysis. Because I am a Christian, I am right and you are wrong. Doesn't necessarily work that way
