Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's no more dragging the discussion off course than is your statement: "But what we do in my church is not what the state can or should do."
You claim to only want to discuss marriage and adulterers, but the statement, your statement"But what we do in my church is not what the state can or should do" is clearly far more expansive than merely marriage and adultery. So, in fact, it is you who have dragged this discussion off course by enunciating a broad principle as to why you do not think adulterers should be barred from civil marriage.
Now, confronted with the implications of that broad statement, you accuse another poster of doing what you yourself have done for no reason other than that you do not wish to deal with those implications - the ones of your own making.
If you have any consistency at all, it is solely in refusing to be consistent from one issue to another. Instead, you just glom onto whatever convenient notion supports your whim in one instance, then discard that principle as soon as it doesn't jibe with your desires.
You have no principles, only dictates centered around nothing but yourself.
I answered the question. I am a pastor, and I have a say so of what happens in my church. If another church wants to do it differently, so be it. If society wants to do it differently, so be it. But the question of adulterers marrying has nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage.
Even if the fetus is described as a person, that doesn't deny a woman's right to self-defense.
Normally people can use deadly force to protect themselves from anything that would threaten them with serious bodily injury. Serious bodily injury means "bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty."
Labor will require extreme physical pain, involves a substantial risk of death, while being pregnant causes disfigurement and arguably the protracted loss and impairment of bodily members and organs.
Thus, at least in some cases, Abortion would be justified under the traditional rules of self-defense.
It does seem the "side-note" about abortion in one of my posts has created a "branch" to this thread.
Your argument is a very old one Box...and it doesn't hold water.
So as not to take up a lot of space--Read this, and note the "Who's mugging whom?" part and the rest that follows. It will explain where your argument goes off the rails: Libertarians for Life - Abortion, Choice, and Libertarian Principles
It does seem the "side-note" about abortion in one of my posts has created a "branch" to this thread.
Your argument is a very old one Box...and it doesn't hold water.
So as not to take up a lot of space--Read this, and note the "Who's mugging whom?" part and the rest that follows. It will explain where your argument goes off the rails: Libertarians for Life - Abortion, Choice, and Libertarian Principles
The response linked wouldn't refute the claim.
Unless one wanted to create a special exception for women to the common law doctrine of self-defense, there are at least some occasions when abortion is justified under common law principles.
If one wants to argue from the philosophy side, the "violinist society" analogy is clearly the closest to the argument I was making. The fact that the linked article didn't reference this rather well known argument is surprising.
Start another topic and I will happily debate further with you. (But I'll be going out of town tomorrow, so it may be a limited time offer.)
Unless one wanted to create a special exception for women to the common law doctrine of self-defense, there are at least some occasions when abortion is justified under common law principles.
If one wants to argue from the philosophy side, the "violinist society" analogy is clearly the closest to the argument I was making. The fact that the linked article didn't reference this rather well known argument is surprising.
Start another topic and I will happily debate further with you. (But I'll be going out of town tomorrow, so it may be a limited time offer.)
I must say Box...I see a kinda different dude than the one previous. I like this new version equally as well...even better in some ways. The points and arguments are better than ever...and they were good before. But I do miss the superlative wiseguy...you were one of the best. Enjoy your trip.
I must say Box...I see a kinda different dude than the one previous. I like this new version equally as well...even better in some ways. The points and arguments are better than ever...and they were good before. But I do miss the superlative wiseguy...you were one of the best. Enjoy your trip.
Well, you know how it is. You come back, see a bunch of new people so you try to put on your best face for awhile. A kinder, gentler Boxcar for all my new friends.
But eventually all the arguments will start growing stale and I'll probably have to spice things up a little to keep amusing myself.
That's not my plan or anything, but I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends.
Well, you know how it is. You come back, see a bunch of new people so you try to put on your best face for awhile. A kinder, gentler Boxcar for all my new friends.
But eventually all the arguments will start growing stale and I'll probably have to spice things up a little to keep amusing myself.
That's not my plan or anything, but I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends.
And thanks for the kind words.
Well, you know how it is. You come back, see a bunch of new people so you try to put on your best face for awhile. A kinder, gentler Boxcar for all my new friends.
But eventually all the arguments will start growing stale and I'll probably have to spice things up a little to keep amusing myself.
That's not my plan or anything, but I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends.
I answered the question. I am a pastor, and I have a say so of what happens in my church. If another church wants to do it differently, so be it. If society wants to do it differently, so be it. But the question of adulterers marrying has nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage.
Of course it does not. But this statement of yours does: "But what we do in my church is not what the state can or should do."
Your statement is neither about adultery nor same-sex marriage. It is a statement of principle. Conveniently, and completely bereft of the most fundamental aspects of logic, you selectively insist that what you suggest are your principles should apply only when you find it convenient.
To top it off, you blamed someone else for going off topic when it was you who did so by broadening the discussion from one strictly about adulterers marrying to the more expansive principle of separating church law and civil law.
In the end, your 'principles' are only your shifting whims based on nothing but what you happen to want in a given circumstance.
Of course it does not. But this statement of yours does: "But what we do in my church is not what the state can or should do."
Your statement is neither about adultery nor same-sex marriage. It is a statement of principle. Conveniently, and completely bereft of the most fundamental aspects of logic, you selectively insist that what you suggest are your principles should apply only when you find it convenient.
The OP asked for opinions. I'm sorry if my having one bothers you.
Quote:
To top it off, you blamed someone else for going off topic when it was you who did so by broadening the discussion from one strictly about adulterers marrying to the more expansive principle of separating church law and civil law.
In the end, your 'principles' are only your shifting whims based on nothing but what you happen to want in a given circumstance.
No....the topic was about adulterers marrying. I'm allowed to have an opinion about that. I gave my opinion. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
Thread closed as it has veered too far astray in being off topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
