youtube.com— America's Best Christian takes time to explain to less informed Christians the curious details of the Lord's concept of marriage.
Jun 3, 2009View in Crawl 4
Go look at your history for what marriage is about.Marriage as the *government* sees it has traditionally been a purely contractual and civil matter designed to best foster the creation and raising of the next generation of citizens that will inherit and carry on the needs of the country and its citizens. It's not good for people to have lots of children and not take care of them. Children require a great deal of education and work to become productive citizens. That's why there are tax breaks and so forth.However, marriage as a religious matter is something quite different and based on the ontology of the human person. I think a lot of confusion and argument comes from the fact that people argue from opposite sides of that gulf; and even if you're on the same side, you argue against others on the same side (Catholic view of marriage is much different than a fundamentalist view of marriage and an lawyer vs civil rights person would also argue)
"uh, majority rules, dude!" - I was hoping to act a bit more mature and civil, so I won't merit that one. It's easy to make those kinds of remarks behind the curtain of the internet. I didn't think the "reading everyone's thoughts" response seemed condescending, but I guess you did. I feel I have clearly illustrated my point and this seems like an argument that is going to go on and on. Frankly this seems just like a waste of time to keep going (esp. since you are still being condescending) and I have better things to do than blab on a digg forum. So I'll be the bigger person and move on. I'll leave the last comment for you since I know you'll probably remark. Enjoy writing it, but I can't promise I'll read it.
Wow, I have to say this is probably the biggest douchebag comment I've seen in a while. Over and over you claim the high ground while taking the low road. In your fairly short post you manage to go through many points on the douchebag checklist:- claim to be a "bigger person": check- complain about the tone while avoiding the subject..."hoping to act a bit more mature and civil": check- suggest opponent is cowardly for writing anonymously while you do the same: check- repeatedly refuse to clarify yourself and then claim that you have: check- claim your time has been wasted in a discussion you chose to participate in: check- when unable to defend your argument, claim the discussion is going nowhere: check- claim you have "better things to do": check- try to claim the last word while suggesting opponent would immaturely do the same: check- try to claim the last word by suggesting you'll abandon the post: checkFunny thing is, I know you. Not you personally, but your type. You'll be back. You'll read this. Enjoy!
Closed AccountJun 4, 2009
I'm not paying for my mistakes. I've been doing that since I got married.
taiyoryuJun 5, 2009
@enicholasThat's one of the reasons why the burden of health care should not be shouldered by businesses.
cranJun 5, 2009
I must have read that last sentence 10 times and I can't make heads or tails of it.
mattropolisJun 5, 2009
Bah - that's why there shouldn't be marriage. There's no need in our society for it anymore.
mattropolisJun 5, 2009
Go look at your history for what marriage is about.Marriage as the *government* sees it has traditionally been a purely contractual and civil matter designed to best foster the creation and raising of the next generation of citizens that will inherit and carry on the needs of the country and its citizens. It's not good for people to have lots of children and not take care of them. Children require a great deal of education and work to become productive citizens. That's why there are tax breaks and so forth.However, marriage as a religious matter is something quite different and based on the ontology of the human person. I think a lot of confusion and argument comes from the fact that people argue from opposite sides of that gulf; and even if you're on the same side, you argue against others on the same side (Catholic view of marriage is much different than a fundamentalist view of marriage and an lawyer vs civil rights person would also argue)
amuricanJun 5, 2009
"uh, majority rules, dude!" - I was hoping to act a bit more mature and civil, so I won't merit that one. It's easy to make those kinds of remarks behind the curtain of the internet. I didn't think the "reading everyone's thoughts" response seemed condescending, but I guess you did. I feel I have clearly illustrated my point and this seems like an argument that is going to go on and on. Frankly this seems just like a waste of time to keep going (esp. since you are still being condescending) and I have better things to do than blab on a digg forum. So I'll be the bigger person and move on. I'll leave the last comment for you since I know you'll probably remark. Enjoy writing it, but I can't promise I'll read it.
pp7kJun 8, 2009
Wow, I have to say this is probably the biggest douchebag comment I've seen in a while. Over and over you claim the high ground while taking the low road. In your fairly short post you manage to go through many points on the douchebag checklist:- claim to be a "bigger person": check- complain about the tone while avoiding the subject..."hoping to act a bit more mature and civil": check- suggest opponent is cowardly for writing anonymously while you do the same: check- repeatedly refuse to clarify yourself and then claim that you have: check- claim your time has been wasted in a discussion you chose to participate in: check- when unable to defend your argument, claim the discussion is going nowhere: check- claim you have "better things to do": check- try to claim the last word while suggesting opponent would immaturely do the same: check- try to claim the last word by suggesting you'll abandon the post: checkFunny thing is, I know you. Not you personally, but your type. You'll be back. You'll read this. Enjoy!
Closed AccountJun 10, 2009
shows how stupid you are
jehan60188Aug 7, 2009
shadewell, isnt' that what mutations are essentially about?