My reply to Clownfish @ Friday, 10 February 2012 1:24:39 PM

Your premise is wrong in that for the most part interracial marriage has always been a part of the life of the church. The church was multiracial from the beginning: Jew and Gentile, and those Gentiles came from all around the Mediterranean. There was the unfortunate and morally wrong segregation of blacks and whites in South Africa and America, but these were the exception not the rule. A typical suburban church in Melbourne or Sydney (and the same can be said of mosques) has persons from quite a number of different racial/national backgrounds. I’m attending the global atheist convention and I’m certain that I will find that racially far more monochrome than any of the churches I’m familiar with.

“Therefore your whole argument against same-sex marriage fails” – nonsense, you’ve just playing word games

Next AJ Philips

I would never refer the God of creation, redemption and judgment to whom we are all accountable as Sky Daddy.

If you check the thread, Sky Daddy was first used by Jon J on 9 February 2012 6:26:45 AM. I then responded to Jon J on Thursday, 9 February 2012 12:30:05 PM dissociating myself from his use of the word by saying “or the one whom I would call the mighty Creator God and Judge of all”. You then quoted my use of Sky Daddy on Friday, 10 February 2012 1:10:20 AM but in doing so you failed to include my words as I have just quoted them. By removing these words and then saying “”Sky Daddy” was actually in your quote” you are being quite deceitful and I refuse to be taken in by it.

You say “No, I’m just one of these people who realises that there’s no reason to believe that those words actually came from a God.”

Well that is your entitlement, I think differently but I remind you again that the argument of my article is advanced not on Biblical teaching but the things known to all of us.

"If the Bible really was written by a God, then there’d be no competing holy books".

No, this doesn’t logically follow – there can be one authentic book written by God and other books that fraudulently pretend to be so.

Since I have not presented a Biblical case against same-sex marriage but rather the natural law case, I won’t respond to these anti Christian, anti God points – that would be a different article. I have already indicated that I am attending the global atheist convention which no doubt will give me ample opportunity to critique atheism and advance Christian teaching and then we can really have some fu

Reply to individual, posted at Friday, 10 February 2012 3:48:08 PM

“I don't believe marriage is to have children. I believe marriage to be between two people of opposite sex.
If you want some sort of union between the biological challenged then go forth and find another word. Do not use marriage, you're offending normal people.”

History and the common experience of people around the globe is against you on this one, individual. Marriage historically has always inextricably been linked to children. I suggest you are the one needing to find a new word.

marriage historically has always inextricably been linked to children.
david Palmer,
I interpreted marriage for a man & a woman to unite thus living together without committing a sin of the flesh in the eyes of God. The little terrors in general came as a result of God's consent for the couple to have a roll in the hay.
Now I'm so not religious but that's how I see it. As far as I know most religions have a similar stance.

In Malaysia a man & a woman can not marry if one is not muslim. If they are married & visit Malaysia then they are not permitted to sleep in the same hotel room.

David Palmer,

You don't need to remind me of the events surrounding the use of the term "Sky Daddy". I'm well aware of what happened. 

My shortening of the quote was purely to do with brevity and readability; the original edit of my post exceeded 350 words and let's not forget the complete irrelevance to my point that the omitted words bore.

The sheer creativeness of your misinterpretation, and the delay in your display of frustration with the use of term, is indicative of who here is really being deceitful (exactly the kind of deceit I was mentioning to Trav), especially when one considers just how much impact your quotation marks around "Sky Daddy" would have sapped from such an obscured and silly trick. 

<<...I remind you again that the argument of my article is advanced not on Biblical teaching but the things known to all of us.>>

Yes, and again, I got it the first time. Thank you.

I remind you again of your use of the terms "one flesh" and "mystical" and the point that I made about it not mattering if everyone knows what "one flesh" is, only whether we all share the sentiment behind it or not. Because, if we don't all agree on the validity of the term "one flesh", then it's not something that we all "know" now, is it?

So no, your article wasn't just advanced on what we all know, a part of it was advanced on a concept that requires God to validate it and this is where you snuck him in under the radar. 

<<Since I have not presented a Biblical case against same-sex marriage...>>

Well, not entirely or overtly anyway.

<<...I won’t respond to these anti Christian, anti God points – that would be a different article.>>

The question of God's existence became relevant because of the questionable validity of the term "one flesh" and the non-religious value of the word "mystical", but was really triggered by the matter-of-factly way in which you said what you said in the quote that you took so much offence to my abbreviating of.