Gay marriage is adult's pretending

The history is that the word marriage originated in the 1400's, in France. The words marry, married, and marriage didn't exist when the Bible was written. But that advice about learning another language, that might be useful to you.

The word referred to in the Bible is נישואים.




​

 

No they are not as Deists reject the dogma of religion and Christianity is rife with dogma. A Deist can hold in high regard the non dogmatic teachings of Jesus though.

 

Not at all.

No, that's an arbitrary condition you're trying to impose in the hope of creating confusion.

A mortal can hardly establish a truth that predates the advent of mankind.

Believe me, I get it. The very idea of self-evident truth is anathema to your ilk.

More to the point, when what is being denied is glaring lunacy, it isn't a problem either.

 

So you're retracting your claim that Jefferson was a Deist. Right?

 

My ilk? You've decided what my 'kind' is? ... hm.

I didn't add any requirement. You are asserting your claim is "evident in itself" .... which is fine with me. I'm just asking you to point to that evidence you're saying is within your claim. 'Cause I don't think anyone else is seeing it.

Were someone to claim they witnessed the moon landing, that knew about the moon landing would be self evident. Were they to strike someone, that they were capable of violence would be self evident. I have no problem with self-evidence... but I don't think you understand the term.

And mortals can provide demonstrations of truths that predate the advent of mankind. Digging up dinosaur bones demonstrated a few. Do you not believe it's true that dinosaurs existed?





​

 

No as Jefferson rejected the dogma of Christianity.

 

They are called Christian Diest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

 

The Supreme can't make decisions, they offer opinions, to wit:

"Supreme Court of United States.
Argued April 1, 1936.
Decided May 18, 1936.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA.

Mr. Joseph W. Hutchinson, Assistant Attorney General of Indiana, and Mr. Leo M. Gardner, with whom Mr. Philip Lutz, Jr., Attorney General, was on the brief, for appellants.

Messrs. John Thomas Smith and Phillip W. Haberman, with whom Messrs. Duane R. Dills, Stanley B. Ecker, and Paul Y. Davis were on the brief, for appellee.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court."

Only a petite jury of one's peers in a court of record may make decisions, both fact and law.

 

Then point to the evidence within these claims.

The difference between that and "the doctrines of Jesus Christ" being what, precisely?

 

Wrong on most accounts, as to the actual original word, I care not, that part of the bible is but jewish mythology anyway. But otherwise,

"marriage (n.) c. 1300, "action of marrying, entry into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife, matrimony, wedlock;" from Old French mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus, past participle of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry (v.)). The Vulgar Latin word also is the source of Italian maritaggio, Spanish maridaje."

Seems it has been in the English language since the 1300s but was derived from Latin both in a vulgar and non-vulgar sense. When you read the various passages, and there are many, marriage is described in so many ways that the translation to the King James Version can hardly be misunderstood. As to when the word existed, that is posted above but is immaterial, the translation into English is what is being used here.

I comprehend many dialects of English except for slang and politically correct which are disgusting unto themselves. The real discussion is the word marriage which IS being hijacked by the politically correct crowd. I have nothing against anyone being united with any other person or animal if that is their desire but to try and displace anothers beliefs in the process is an injury, that I can't and wont accept no matter how many of the ignorant masses insist otherwise.

 

You're very close however slightly off. Deist are ones that cannot deny the existence of a higher power, a creator or to some a god. Most believe in some version of a bible or other moral philosophy as their philosophy of life but disdain from believing it as a practice of religion. The main concept is freedom from any form of slavery including theological. Man being able to pursue life as he pleases so long as one does not infringe upon another's ability to do the same, the whole point of this thread.

If gays want to enjoin with a state license, so deemed a "marriage" license, so be it. But to try and force the religious to accept it as a marriage is to do harm to another. But on the same hand, let no man deny it as a union as valid as marriage as that would do harm to the other.

 

Sorry, but unless you can point to some passages that validate that claim, you're barking up the wrong tree. Jefferson along with several of the founders where indeed Deist. But none had the distaste of rejecting Christianity on another's behalf.

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

But more to the point:

THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION Compiled by Jim Walker

"Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus."

 

If someone actually believes that the "hijacking" of a word is going to affect their own relationship, they most likely have a pretty crappy relationship and might do better by seeking couples counseling.

OMG...the word "marriage" is even used in the context of paring foods with wine and in interior design. Are you this aggravated by Gourmet Magazine or Architectural Digest?

 

Not a clue about the topic of discussion, have you. No wait, forgot, liberal, just change the topic.

As to gourmet and designers, they know not what they do or say anyway so they must abuse something or they would never get hired. So many of those "intellectual" phonies need to be politically correct and need such people.

"mar·riage ˈmerij/ noun
noun: marriage; plural noun: marriages

1. the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.
"a happy marriage"
synonyms: wedding, wedding ceremony, marriage ceremony, nuptials, union
"the marriage took place at St. Margaret's"
antonyms: divorce, separation
the state of being married.
"they were celebrating 50 years of marriage"
synonyms: (holy) matrimony, wedlock
"a proposal of marriage"
2. a combination or mixture of two or more elements.
"a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel"
synonyms: union, alliance, fusion, mixture, mix, blend, amalgamation, combination, merger
"a marriage of jazz, pop, and gospel"

Of course the second version of the word is a slang version as it has no basis in the etymological determination of the word, sort of like the concept of gourmet and designer.

 

Throwing a hissy fit and getting bent out of shape, as some conservatives are known to do over a word, is about as sensible and logical as the Lilliputians feuding over which side of the egg to crack...LOL

Yes, Lilliputians were very small people.

 

Your religion doesn't own the concept of marriage. Thus, no reason for me to care what your precious holy bible says about marriage, or anything else for that matter.

No, I made a promise to my husband. No God needed.

Again, that's your religious belief that no one has to share nor care about. Why you think it makes for a persuasive argument I can't fathom.

It's nothing like that. You're entitled to your asinine opinion, but that's all it is.

Because you say so? Who died and made you God? Who made you the judge of anyone else' marriage? Nobody. You appointed yourself, and I refuse to be ruled by you and your absurd opinions.

I'm not pretending anything. I take my marriage to my husband VERY seriously. Claiming that we're 'pretending' is nothing more than an attempt to belittle something WE hold sacred. The only one pretending here, is you - you're pretending that you have the authority to speak in place of your God, and to be our judge. But you're nobody to me; nothing more than a momentary annoyance.

 

No idea what you're on about now.

 

Your Bible wasn't even originally written in the English language, so the true words aren't "marry, married and marriage". Talk about not knowing history!

As for you demands that the law conform to your religious beliefs, that people use the language only in ways that you approve, or that we should move elsewhere...

Well, I think the rude comment you made earlier you can take as mutual. You aren't the boss of us. You don't own marriage, you don't own the language, you aren't in charge of anyone else' religious beliefs, and you don't own this country. If you don't like the changes that are happening, then maybe you should be the one to leave.

 

Let's see...we've got sour grapes, hyperbole, ignorance of the facts, and a meaningless opinion. Your posts really are the whole package, aren't they?

Hint: Don't confuse your opinion with fact.

 

Nothing of the sort.

Yes, the Court issues an opinion concerning the law - as part of their decision. They also issue orders concerning the interpretation of the law. If you don't believe it, read to the bottom of any majority opinion, and you'll likely find words to that effect, such as "it is so ordered."

 

Redefining words is cultural-marxism, changing the definition of words to further a radical leftist political agenda.

There are hundreds of words that are now politically incorrect to use, many where a white beard scratching liberal would decide what words can be spoken or even going further changing the meaning of words in the name of political correctness.

In layman terms, one thought, one mind and political correctness is totalitarian.

It's where the historical correct phrase comes from, "Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out."

 

Newsflash: We're all perfectly entitled to hold beliefs contrary to yours, to conform our lives to them, and more to the point - your beliefs aren't superior to those of anyone else, legally speaking. You and your religion don't own the word 'marriage'. You religious beliefs don't control the laws.

 

Who is forcing religious people to accept anything as a marriage, apart from legal matters, to which religious people don't have some special immunity. Holding a religious belief does not place anyone above the law.

 

Not considered a slang usage. Moreover:

Oh, and for good measure:

(emphasis added above)

 

No, it doesn't. What I was trying to say is that old definitions and old customs...change. Marriage then and now are not exactly the same. The meaning and significance alters with time.