[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="Philokalia"]
Now out of context cherry picking is accused of me many times, I am of course referring to in the first the legal requirements for marriage which does not require love and then telling what the church says of marriage which does recquire love, at least in order for it to be sustained, that the husband should the time come should die for his wife and the wife be loyal the husband and vice versa, that the husband should be loyal to the wife.
nocoolnamejim
I can only assume this makes no sense because you hastily scrambled together whilst in damage control mode.
$20 to the first person who makes this legible.
As I said to my little brother when he was learning to talk: "Think about your words".
Taking a stab at it: He believes that LEGALLY everyone has the exact same rights currently because everyone can marry any person of the opposite gender that they want, but philosophically he believes that god intended marriage to be something that is based on love and for the purposes of procreation. Therefore, he's using a clever legal strategy to impose what he believes to be god's will upon same sex couples that they should not be allowed to be married and justifying it with a legal/lawyer argument that at present, even gay couples have the legal right to get married...so long as they marry someone that they don't love. Which is a neat little roundabout way of making the argument that straight people should marry for BOTH love/procreation and gay people should suck it up, marry and create babies with people that they don't love.Quite the conundrum this leaves for him then.
If only the legal status of marriage is binding, this means that the law is infallible, and considering our seperation of church and state this gives the law greater or equal power to God.
If the law is NOT infallible, it means that it falls short on areas, and means his witholding of gay marriage on legal grounds is rendered moot.
So who is wrong Philokalia, you, God, or the law?
Log in to comment