If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
"Douglas Berry" wrote in message ... Of course, the difference is that humans can clearly indicate that they understand marriage, and animals can't. You have a slight problem there. Actually, if all humans clearly understood marriage, there'd be no call for same-sex marriage! Because contract law depends on both parties being competent to understand the implications of the agreement. But we're talking about arbitrarily redefining marriage. Human-animal marriage wouldn't require the animal to understand the concept of marriage. |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Kessler" wrote in message ... Unwillingness to accept your premises and conclusions doesn't necessarily mean we don't understand your arguments and explanations. Actually, that's exactly what it means. |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Kessler" wrote in message ... You certainly seem to have lost your patience, at least, in post et: I've repeated the explanation over and over. Why are you unable to understand the explanation? Do you have an identified learning deficiency? Poor judgment on your part. That's what must have led you to the conclusion that anyone who doesn't accept your conclusions must therefore not understand them and might be learning-disabled. Marriage is a pretty simple concept. There's obviously something wrong with those that are unable to understand it. |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Larry Kessler" wrote: Unwillingness to accept your premises and conclusions doesn't necessarily mean we don't understand your arguments and explanations. Actually, that's exactly what it means. You certainly are impressed with the infallibility of those arguments. Tell me, are you perfect in every other way as well? Has it never crossed your mind that others may not find them as convincing as you? Isn't that what independent thought is all about? Listening to arguments from either side of a debate and drawing one's own conclusions? -- __________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________ "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." -- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148 |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Larry Kessler" wrote in message .. . You certainly seem to have lost your patience, at least, in post et: I've repeated the explanation over and over. Why are you unable to understand the explanation? Do you have an identified learning deficiency? Poor judgment on your part. I call 'em like I see 'em. "Poor judgment" is just one bigot's opinion of that perception. That's what must have led you to the conclusion that anyone who doesn't accept your conclusions must therefore not understand them and might be learning-disabled. Marriage is a pretty simple concept. No, it isn't. If it were, we'd have no need of alt.support.marriage newsgroup, marriage counselors, divorce lawyers, how-to books, or myriads of laws and customs relating to marriage. These laws and customs vary wildly from place to place and from one era to the next, by the way. Did you know that until the 19th century the Catholic church used to perform same-sex marriages, and until Utah wanted to join the USA it was legal there to marry several women? These laws and customs are not set in stone for all time and handed down on Mt. Sinai from the hand of the Lord; they are crafted by humans. There's obviously something wrong with those that are unable to understand it. Yup, I guess anyone who disagrees with you on this must be stupid, insane, or evil. No, the "something wrong" with those of us who don't see it your way is that we THINK FOR OURSELVES. Obviously, that's not OK with you. -- __________Delete the numerals from my email address to respond__________ "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." -- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148 |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Kessler wrote in message . ..
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Larry Kessler" wrote in message .. . You certainly seem to have lost your patience, at least, in post et: I've repeated the explanation over and over. Why are you unable to understand the explanation? Do you have an identified learning deficiency? Poor judgment on your part. I call 'em like I see 'em. "Poor judgment" is just one bigot's opinion of that perception. That's what must have led you to the conclusion that anyone who doesn't accept your conclusions must therefore not understand them and might be learning-disabled. Marriage is a pretty simple concept. No, it isn't. If it were, we'd have no need of alt.support.marriage newsgroup, marriage counselors, divorce lawyers, how-to books, or myriads of laws and customs relating to marriage. These laws and customs vary wildly from place to place and from one era to the next, by the way. Did you know that until the 19th century the Catholic church used to perform same-sex marriages What you must be referring to was something more like a sacrament of friendship to restore a broken relationship. It was something the church would referee between alienated friends, in my understanding. Besides, the modern concept of homosexuality was not very widely held in the 18th, 19th centuries. At any rate, the catholic church has never given approval to same sex sex, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his natural law theolgy, on which subsequent teaching have been based, a long time before that. And it categorically condemned all sexual acts that "were not open to the transmission of life". So, whatever the church did, it was not giving anyone permission for sex apart from unprotected piv. , and until Utah wanted to join the USA it was legal there to marry several women? These laws and customs are not set in stone for all time and handed down on Mt. Sinai from the hand of the Lord; they are crafted by humans. There's obviously something wrong with those that are unable to understand it. Yup, I guess anyone who disagrees with you on this must be stupid, insane, or evil. No, the "something wrong" with those of us who don't see it your way is that we THINK FOR OURSELVES. Obviously, that's not OK with you. |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
|
#228
|
|||
|
|||
Ralph DuBose wrote:
|| What you must be referring to was something more like a sacrament || of friendship to restore a broken relationship. It was something the || church would referee between alienated friends, in my understanding. I don't recall there ever having been such a sacrament. I don't doubt the Church might have mediated in friendships on an informal level, but in no way would such condone same-sex acts. "Homosexual persons are called to chastity.........CCC2359". There are 7 sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. Sacrament is formal, a mediation is informal, not a sacrament. The other poster, the only thing I've run across on the net about same-sex marriages prior to the 19th century was a generalized one not specific to the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, I've not seen anything that references the Church as having ever performed such a marriage. St. Thomas you mentioned, were you referrring to Summa Theologica? http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:23:14 GMT, "~Nins~" wrote:
There are 7 sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. You left out pedophilia. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
At Dear Ol' AVL Airport, Asheville, NC | jls | Home Built | 39 | May 2nd 05 02:20 AM |
From "Dear Oracle" | Larry Smith | Home Built | 0 | December 27th 03 04:25 AM |
About death threats and other Usenet potpourri :-) | Dudley Henriques | Military Aviation | 4 | December 23rd 03 07:16 AM |
Dear Dr. Strangewater | pac plyer | Home Built | 8 | August 20th 03 12:45 PM |