I'm not certain how you can state it predates the Bible. Moses compiled Genesis which defines it, but we do not know who originally wrote Chapters 1-11, nor when.
It certainly predates US law.
If it predates the Bible too, how can you claim that the Bible defined it for everybody?
It goes as far back as Mesopotamia AND was used in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. It was used to determine lineage of offspring as well as estate rights. It is NOT a biblical invention (not the practice or definition). The Bible and Christian theologians placed upon it the Christian definition of the practice to be sure. But like I said, that book isn't seen as the center of all truth by every American. The practice and definition of marriage has been in existence and altered by societies prior to Christian doctorine, and the Christian "take" on the institution shouldn't have influence on the US governments definition of it at all.I'm not certain how you can state it predates the Bible. Moses compiled Genesis which defines it, but we do not know who originally wrote Chapters 1-11, nor when.
It certainly predates US law.
It goes as far back as Mesopotamia AND was used in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. It was used to determine lineage of offspring as well as estate rights. It is NOT a biblical invention (not the practice or definition). The Bible and Christian theologians placed upon it the Christian definition of the practice to be sure. But like I said, that book isn't seen as the center of all truth by every American. The practice and definition of marriage has been in existence and altered by societies prior to Christian doctorine, and the Christian "take" on the institution shouldn't have influence on the US governments definition of it at all.
Again, exactly who wrote the first 11 chapters of Genesis and when? Predating the Bible is one thing. Predating the Biblical beliefs and ideals handed down generation after generation before Moses is something you cannot define. You can say it over and over, but it doesn't change that you cannot define how old nor even where those beliefs and ideals came from.
I never said that Christian doctrine is considered truth by all American. I don't expect them to. I also expect the state to stay out of religious beliefs and moralities. That is not going to happen.
By the government defining marriage you will create a situation where all churches will be forced to marry anyone/everyone coming in the door at some point. To say otherwise means you haven't been paying attention. I'd rather government stick to unions, and let you get married in the church of your choice, even if that is a liberal church "marrying" a gay couple.
You both have a different perspective, I'm not wise enough to say it's wrong. I will say that my perspective allows me to see that Judeo-Christian principles could simply be derivative from societal values that existed prior to the formation of the Christian religion, and those values were arranged in a narrative that was created to establish an order and a hierarchy. Broken down: you think it's the word of god, I think it's an attempt at subjugation. You think all principles listed within the doctorine are absolute, I think they are just the desired social controls of the time. Either way you slice it....the American mindset and our nations laws should provide room for both perspectives to exist. Once your perspective is the one used to write law....there's no room for mine. If my perspective is used to write law....there's still plenty of room for yours. And I think a church should be free to refuse to marry anyone they so choose, but city hall shouldn't have the choice.The only thing I would add is that this country was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. There's a reason the 10 Commandments are hanging on the walls of the Supreme Court.
It does not mean that this nation is Christian it simply means that the principles upon which this nation was founded are Judeo Christian.
You both have a different perspective...
Once your perspective is the one used to write law...
The recent Religious Freedom Restoration Act in my opinion is a perfect example. This Act basically allows discrimination. I feel the Act is aggressively an attempt by congress to alter the equal protection clause of the constitution in order to accommodate individual religious ideology. If that was a basis for allowing southern white religious extremists from extending equal rights to African Americans, it would be struck down by the courts. This calls for the court to protect the rights of homosexuals, transsexuals and non believers.
Democrats need to come to my lecture today. I am speaking on the history of logic (mostly, by not entirely western history).Democrats and freedoms don't go hand and hand .....unless you agree with them ......Democrat logic = socialist
I would enjoy watching that .Democrats need to come to my lecture today. I speaking on the history of logic (mostly, by not entirely western history).