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.
Scientists who take a genetic view of when life begins..fertilization of egg and sperm as well as people who still maintain religious faith.
The Supreme Court ruled on fetal viability outside the womb as to when "life begins" which is further along in pregnancy. And for you that's all that matters.
The Catholic Church used to have a rule about fetal viability as well. They referred to it as when life "quickened" in the womb. Mother Nature is still the most prolific abortionist, if we are to take your point of view.
Marriage didn't have that status since it was created. That's your fantasy speaking. Marriage initially was a contract between landed families to unite property. When property was not involved, there wasn't a need for such contracts, and the "unions" were much more casual. When societies evolved, and religion allied with the state as a mechanism to control the members of a society, then each society defined marriage, and other types of unions as each society needed to do so. It's only been during the last couple of centuries that the word "homosexuality" has even existed as a label. Historically, sex has always been sex. When Alexander the Great had sex with other men, it didn't raise an eyebrow. When Richard the Lion-hearted had sex with other men, the only interest his kingdom had was whether he would have an heir, or, when he died, if his kingdom would end up in the hands of his much-disliked brother.
Why should newborns have a different status from, say, a five-year-old? You're the one using SHOULD by the way, so don't chicken out now. Offer up an argument.
Up until recently, marriage was always between a man and a woman.
The Catholic Church used to have a rule about fetal viability as well. They referred to it as when life "quickened" in the womb. Mother Nature is still the most prolific abortionist, if we are to take your point of view.
No one is asking you or forcing on you. The Supreme Court ruled and told when legally when life begins.
It begins at "x" for abortion but at "y" for homicide.
No one is asking you or forcing on you. The Supreme Court ruled and told when legally when life begins.
It begins at "x" for abortion but at "y" for homicide.
Why is that fetus treated differently ?
You evidently are asking me.
The Supreme Court didn't rule that life begins at different times for different fetuses. The Supreme Court ruled on the state's interests in unborn fetuses. In the case of a mother seeking abortion, the state's interest in the fetus outweighs the mother's rights at the point when the fetus becomes viable, able to live outside the womb. In the case of a pregnant woman being murdered, the state presumes that, without the intervention of the murderer, the fetus would have reached that point of viability, and therefore the state has an interest in that fetus.
Up until recently, marriage was always between a man and a woman.
Actually, no. There are records in the Catholic Church of marriages between same-sex people. While the state's interest in unions is essentially financial, and so states have little reason to maintain records of same-sex marriages in historic times, the idea that marriage was always between a man and a woman is based on the state's records. When people married one another in ancient times, but the state had no responsibilities or interests in the marriage, there simply weren't any state records of those marriages. The marriages of peasants and serfs were rarely recorded, for instance. And in non-European cultures, who knows what kind of marriages existed?
I hear this all the time and nobody can produce and credible documentation.
Even if that were true, the church never sanctioned same sex marriage and the priest who did it was most likely defrocked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Actually, no. There are records in the Catholic Church of marriages between same-sex people. While the state's interest in unions is essentially financial, and so states have little reason to maintain records of same-sex marriages in historic times, the idea that marriage was always between a man and a woman is based on the state's records. When people married one another in ancient times, but the state had no responsibilities or interests in the marriage, there simply weren't any state records of those marriages. The marriages of peasants and serfs were rarely recorded, for instance. And in non-European cultures, who knows what kind of marriages existed?
I hear this all the time and nobody can produce and credible documentation.
Even if that were true, the church never sanctioned same sex marriage and the priest who did it was most likely defrocked.
While I'm sure you don't consider Mr Boswell's work credible, the fact remains that he did find very suggestive records.
And the fact that the early church would have reflected the mores of Rome at its inception regarding same-sex relationships. Which were not condemned in any fashion. Times change.
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.
