Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
Note the first sentence of the third paragraph from the bottom. So far, that exemption is the clearest refutation of Irate's point I have found so far.
|
It is not exactly a refutation of irate's statement, as his statement does not claim that all non-biblical cultures define marriage as between a man and a woman. But it does point out that although there may be other cultures that have that definition of marriage, there are also apparently cultures that include same sex couples in the definition. Which is interesting all by itself.
But all of that is beside the point of this discussion, as far as I can tell. Irate seemed to be making a point about Bush's desire to define marriage as heterosexual. I would like to know why Irate feels that other cultures, with restrictive definitions of marriage, have much if anything to do with the culture from which Bush derives his moral evaluations. Is it to claim that Bush is basing his belief system on some other culture than the one that is based on the Bible?
That would seem to be the purpose of Irate's statement. But I find it to be an odd opinion, the man is after all a Born Again Christian.