To protect the sanctity of marriage, 'values' voters need to support anti-divorce legislation (i.e. heavy fines, prosecution, etc.) first.
IamFry said 03/07, 05:02 PM
While there are numerous examples in the Bible of marriage occurring in a dynamic other than "one man, one woman" (usually one man, multiple women), the Bible unequivocally states that the union is 'forever'. The number one priority of those who want to protect the sanctity of marriage should be preserving the permanence of it FIRST and the heterosexuality of it afterwards.
It should be obvious that I'm not looking for an opponent to say that the government should stay AWAY from legislating marriage; I want a v.v. (or a v.v. advocate).
IrrationalExistentialist said 03/07, 07:02 PM
That's a non-argument as governments have no business protecting the sanctity of marriage or even defining marriage. Marriage is a personal issue and the only role the U.S. Government has in that institution is the enforcement of property law. The bible has absolutely no place in a court of law or federal government. This is not now and has never been a Christian nation.
IamFry said 03/08, 05:51 AM
Welcome aboard, IE. Now, please direct your attention to the third and final sentence of my opening argument. I even capitalized the word AWAY for emphasis...
No matter; you took the debate, you're a values voter now. Convince the good people that banning gay marriage should be the 'moral majority's number-one priority.
IrrationalExistentialist said 03/08, 07:19 PM
I thought you were the one trying to convince me that values voters should ban gay marriage and work to end divorce?
But let's go about this a slightly different route. Modern day Christians primarily follow the teachings of Christ as put forth in the New Testament so try this; show me a verse that explicitly commands you as a Christian to impose your morals on the world. In fact, show me a verse that even remotely implies it.
Jesus said to be a "light unto the world" to lead by example as it were. If anything his teachings dictate a mutual respect for fellow man regardless of his moral standings. Yes there are plenty of examples of marriage being between just a man and often multiple women but no where does it say you should force the rest of us to live by your archaic standards.
IamFry said 03/09, 08:43 AM
New Testament, Shmoo Testament. Have you been reading the comments below? Skipper says you're wasting our time and I tend to agree. Now, if I want to debate a values voter who wants to ban gay marriage, I need to start a new thread, and it's unlikely that I'll do that.
The truth of the matter is, divorce is, by DEFINITION, a greater threat to marriage because it literally involves ending a marriage, yet the religious right is going after gay marriage first. For some reason, the divorce rate in a state seems to correlate directly with how '"red" it is. These are, of course, the communities most likely to clamor for a constitutional amendment which bans gay marriage...
The opposition to gay marriage is based on intolerance rather than reason or biblical precedent; the documentary film, "For Jesus Tells Me So" explores this in detail. It's a shame I couldn't have a real debate. Now it's time for your closing argument; go ahead and say whatever you want.
IrrationalExistentialist said 03/09, 08:57 AM
And I'm going to reiterate my first point, there's no reason to even debate this until you can provide a convincing biblical argument detailing why government has a role to play in protecting the sanctity of marriage...
If you want to argue the church should be taking steps to curb the divorce rate, or even that divorce generally is a greater threat to marriage than homosexuality go for it but please leave your morality out of my government.
Comments
Add Your Comment
well there's a basic problem with this argument, bligh. if i take everything at face value, it seems that you have to prove that divorce is a greater threat to the sanctity of marriage than homosexuals. I could see how you can make the case that it is an equal threat (granted it's a logic and belief that i don't subscribe to), but how do you prove that it represents a greater threat? and what's a v.v.?
Skipper04 | 03/07/08
Report Offensive Comment
oh well you should have let him have an actual argument on the subject, rather than wasting my time.
Skipper04 | 03/07/08
Report Offensive Comment
Skipper, a v.v. is a values voter. I clearly stated that the permanence of marriage, according to the Bible is the most important element thereof, and divorce threatens the permanence of marriage more than homosexuality. That's my case that divorce is a greater rather than equal threat. And... wasting your time? Lol, is someone forcing you to read this?
IamFry | 03/08/08
Report Offensive Comment
Listen, I agree that the government shouldn't legislate marriage, but that's not what this debate is about; this debate is about, IF they were to legislate marriage hypothetically, what they should legislate FIRST. Sorry if you don't like the position you signed on for, but you took the spot of someone I could have had a real debate with, so argue your position or resign.
IamFry | 03/08/08
Report Offensive Comment
yes, actually and they have a gun to my head. you don't think a I visit this site because i want to do you? =)
Skipper04 | 03/08/08
Report Offensive Comment
and you do realize the second message was directed at your opponent right?
Skipper04 | 03/08/08
Report Offensive Comment
I suppose I didn't. I thought you meant - let HIM, my opponent, have whatever argument he wants to have since he doesn't like the one he accepted. Sry bout that.
IamFry | 03/09/08
Report Offensive Comment
Iamfry, the bible also says that you may not divorce your wife except for marital unfaithfulness. It is true you should protect the permanence of it, because a marriage is a covenant with God that two people enter into. However, God has clearly stated that there are certain instances where you can divorce. Divorce, therefore should be a rarity and never entered into lightly.
Rightonthispoint | 03/09/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
And yes I know that's what you didn't want to happen but sorry, I had to say it. The government is not the morality police so there's no point in even debating whether or not voters should push for marriage laws.
IrrationalExistentialist | 03/07/08
Report Offensive Comment