Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[99percentatheism]

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

And why would you NOT support individuals who might not even consider themselves to be Christians entering into committed legal relationships? Fighting tooth and nail to prohibit such individual decisions might very well give a clue as to why some good bit of annoyance is being directed at Christians for failing to love everyone as advertised and for failing to live their own lives according to their own beliefs while at the same time stoutly refusing to allow others the option of doing the same.

It doesn't exist in my world or worldview. It would be the same as standing against voodoo worshippers getting married.

The "love" you mention would fall under the classification of loving our enemies.

That the secular world wants to redefine marriage, well that ridiculous endeavor is something to sit back and watch. Like the building of a strip club in the city. You don't have to support it or get involved with the people that do.

The end result of this thread is that Christians that oppose redefining marriage are not in any way hateful, bigoted or irrational about that opposition. The Christians opposing it are simply correct.

And it is not unloving to declare something antithetical to Christian truth. In fact it is a very Christian loving thing to do. How does someone know what is wrong unless they are told. And if their is a thought that alternative marriage definitions will somehow muzzle its opposition, exists in a fantasy. Suing and arresting Christians for standing up against bullying them and lawsuits to demand acceptance are just persecution that will be endured. No different than Nero, hadrian and the rest.

What goes around comes around eh?

[Goat]

Although I support gay marriage, church's should not be forced to marry gay couples. It should be a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony, and I surmise that most gay couples would support that position.

I somewhat disagree. If a church wishes to perform a same sex ceremony, they should be allowed to. They should not be forced to.

[99percentatheism]

From the OP:

Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

That'd be all swell and all, if they wouldn't demand others toe their theistic party line.

Charging hate towards Christians should be a crime.

Then so too should it be a crime for the Christian to "charge hate" against any and all who disagree.

Reckon the Christian is willing to change his "holy text" in order to comport with the new law?

How might that work with Jesus saying folks oughta hate their parents in order to be more like him, or to be a follower?

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife.

If only so many Christian's'd quit trying to "challenge" any law that says one need not be a Christian to have a succesful, happy marriage, and that such marriages may include two hot chicks, and we're within our rights to watch 'em go at it if only they'd let us, even if we hadda pay 'em, and we couldn't touch 'em, or ourselves, and we hadda be quiet and couldn't tell nobody, and ya know there ain't a man on the planet that he wouldn't watch 'em, and then run into work the very next day bragging all about how he had it on with the two hot libians and it didn't cost him nothing, but could ya loan me rent money for the next six months.

Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

Whew... For a minute there I thought you were gonna outlaw any mention of how goofy, and unproven the many Christian claims and such can be.

I don't doubt for a minute the Christian prefers a world where they are not challenged on the dooficity of their pronouncements.

Is is the fault of others the Christian god is seen as hateful, or is it the fault of those who spread a hateful message in the Christian god's name?

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

I've see nothing in this OP that shows you've established this Jesus feller ever existed, or uttered him an utterance, or that folks accurately recorded any utterance he may or may not have uttered. I'm utterly disappointed in you.

All I'm getting is, "Y'all ought'n get onto us Christians, knowing full well so many of us Christians'll be a-getting onto y'all".

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

'Cause so many of 'em seek to have their goofy beliefs put upon my fellow humans through force of law. Beyond that, there's your unproven insistence this "teaching" is "consistent and immutable".

You've got your preaching down, but I can't tell where you've done you the first bit of facting.

well, I can see why you're on probation. What spew you waste your time on.

But once you offer up the "Jesus didn't exist" mumbo jumbo, you have just exited serious consideration.

Yours is canned comeback and little else.

[99percentatheism]

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

Christian denominations may restrict marriage for Christians in any way that they want, consistent with the laws of our land. However, if their only objection to gay marriage is based on their religion, then they cannot in a secular society bind their particular restrictions on the members of society who do not claim to be Christian. To do so would be a violation of the separation of religion and state.

I don't know about Canada's laws about religion. Isn't Christianity outlawed in Canada? Or the kind that isn't exactly like secularism? But I do know that in the USA, there is nothing in the Constitution that referes to seperation of Church and State. Historically it looks the exact opposite than the factoid or urban legend that has grown around the lie told long enough about some kind of separation clause that the duped believe it.

You have read the First Amendment haven't you? I mean you have all those awards so I'm thinking you are quite the learned fellow.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 11:

...
That the secular world wants to redefine marriage, well that ridiculous endeavor is something to sit back and watch.

That you'd consider, in debate, any opposing view to be "ridiculous" indicates to this observer that you don't know how much of it you are for the having done it. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Like the building of a strip club in the city. You don't have to support it or get involved with the people that do.

But I'm sure hoping I can.

The end result of this thread is that Christians that oppose redefining marriage are not in any way hateful, bigoted or irrational about that opposition.

Plenty fair.

The Christians opposing it are simply correct.

Alas, "simply", and "Christian", fit together like "Joey" and "Dooficity".

I find within the god concept this goal of finding "simplicity", and find such a goal common among the "simpleton".

And it is not unloving to declare something antithetical to Christian truth.

So we ask the Christian to show he speaks it.

In fact it is a very Christian loving thing to do. How does someone know what is wrong unless they are told.

Decency comes to mind.

And if their is a thought that alternative marriage definitions will somehow muzzle the opposition to homosexuality, it exists in a fantasy.

There's no "opposition" to homosexuality, near as much as there's a bunch of religious zealots declaring they's upset about it.

How dare you invoke the term "fantasy" in the name of a god you are entirly incapable of showing exists, or that you know his thoughts on the events of the day.

Suing and arresting Christians for standing up against bullying them and lawsuits to demand acceptance are just persecution that will be endured. No different than Nero, hadrian and the rest.

Agreed.

Let's just dunk 'em like they did the witches.

What goes around comes around eh?

I propose that such a statement could only be presented by the blissfully unware.

[99percentatheism]

From Post 11:

...
That the secular world wants to redefine marriage, well that ridiculous endeavor is something to sit back and watch.

That you'd consider, in debate, any opposing view to be "ridiculous" indicates to this observer that you don't know how much of it you are for the having done it. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Like the building of a strip club in the city. You don't have to support it or get involved with the people that do.

But I'm sure hoping I can.

The end result of this thread is that Christians that oppose redefining marriage are not in any way hateful, bigoted or irrational about that opposition.

Plenty fair.

The Christians opposing it are simply correct.

Alas, "simply", and "Christian", fit together like "Joey" and "Dooficity".

I find within the god concept this goal of finding "simplicity", and find such a goal common among the "simpleton".

And it is not unloving to declare something antithetical to Christian truth.

So we ask the Christian to show he speaks it.

In fact it is a very Christian loving thing to do. How does someone know what is wrong unless they are told.

Decency comes to mind.

And if their is a thought that alternative marriage definitions will somehow muzzle the opposition to homosexuality, it exists in a fantasy.

There's no "opposition" to homosexuality, near as much as there's a bunch of religious zealots declaring they's upset about it.

How dare you invoke the term "fantasy" in the name of a god you are entirly incapable of showing exists, or that you know his thoughts on the events of the day.

Suing and arresting Christians for standing up against bullying them and lawsuits to demand acceptance are just persecution that will be endured. No different than Nero, hadrian and the rest.

Agreed.

Let's just dunk 'em like they did the witches.

What goes around comes around eh?

I propose that such a statement could only be presented by the blissfully unware.

Post something with some substance and less attempts to just insult and I'll toss them your way.

I'm keeping my pearls safe for now. No need to watch them get trampled in your present wallow.

[McCulloch]

I don't know about Canada's laws about religion.

Clearly you do not.

Isn't Christianity outlawed in Canada?

Our current Prime Minister is a Christian. And not a liberal one. He is an active member of the Christian Missionary Alliance Church, an Evangelical denomination. Their statement of Faith. So, no, Christianity is not outlawed in Canada.

Or the kind that isn't exactly like secularism?

In political terms secularism is the idea that religion and politics should be kept separate. Our governments can neither promote nor prohibit religions. And religious doctrines are not to influence law makers. The USA is the first constitutionally secular nation in the world.

But I do know that in the USA, there is nothing in the Constitution that referes to seperation of Church and State.

Thomas Jefferson, you know, the guy who wrote much of your Constitution, disagrees with your analysis. So does your own Supreme Courts.

You have read the First Amendment haven't you? I mean you have all those awards so I'm thinking you are quite the learned fellow.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yes you are right, it makes no reference to church. It refers more generally to religion. It implies a separation of religion from legislation. Your government cannot pass laws which establish religion nor can they pass laws which prohibit religion. That looks a lot like a separation to me.

[99percentatheism]

McCulloch:

99percentatheism

I don't know about Canada's laws about religion.

Clearly you do not.

I'm still a happy person. Canada seems a rather oppressive place to me. The standard "progressive" world and worldview fruit and all.

Isn't Christianity outlawed in Canada?

Our current Prime Minister is a Christian. And not a liberal one. He is an active member of the Christian Missionary Alliance Church, an Evangelical denomination. Their statement of Faith. So, no, Christianity is not outlawed in Canada.

For now I'm sure. You got that Muslim and LGBT community thing growing like crazy don't you?

Or the kind that isn't exactly like secularism?

In political terms secularism is the idea that religion and politics should be kept separate. Our governments can neither promote nor prohibit religions.

Tell that to "The New Atheists." The "Brights" seem to want religion as dead their old Eugenics movement under the German Nazi's. But still death follows secularization en masse.

And religious doctrines are not to influence law makers.

So are you proclaiming that people of faith are to be disqualified from a democracy? It sure seems you are.

The USA is the first constitutionally secular nation in the world.

Agreed. It is also a morally filthy society. Of course. And it would be worse if the Christians that made up a large number of those founding fathers were driven out of its creation altogether and not just marginalized. Some goodness got through.

And you do realize that the hero's of secular America were european white men that owned slaves and such? So the horrors of genocide and imperialism can be laid at the feet of the secularists. At least our secularists were kept in check unlike the French madmen of the same ilk. Interesting that Paine's life was better under a "Christian nation." How ironic huh?

But I do know that in the USA, there is nothing in the Constitution that referes to seperation of Church and State.

[/quote]
Thomas Jefferson, you know, the guy who wrote much of your Constitution, disagrees with your analysis. So does your own Supreme Courts.[/quote]

History says otherwise. Our Congress was a most religious body only up until the influence of 20th century Humanists. You need to start reading William Federer books a bit.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

You have read the First Amendment haven't you? I mean you have all those awards so I'm thinking you are quite the learned fellow.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yes you are right, it makes no reference to church. It refers more generally to religion. It implies a separation of religion from legislation. Your government cannot pass laws which establish religion nor can they pass laws which prohibit religion. That looks a lot like a separation to me.[/quote]

Antidisestablishmentarianism

America was founded by many, many, many Christians with the incredible intelligence to see the dangers in religion and the intense foresight to know of the uncountable horrors inherent of a perfectly proclaimed atheistic government.

Now, how about agreeing that there is nothing bad or wrong, phobic or hateful, about Christians opposing homosexuals and the rise of celebrating homosexuality, including the redefining of "secular" marriage as same gendered being ill-fitting to Christian truth?

Here. I'll bold that question.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 1 by 99percentatheism]

Who is making such a charge? This is a legal issue that religion is butting into for no reason. These people should be allowed to get legally united. If they call it a marriage and you disagree, so what? They aren't imposing anything on you by being married according to the law.

How does this issue have ANYTHING to do with religion? Could someone please tell me?

Apologetics.

It's in the right section.

Marriage has always been, first, cultural and religious...and THEN the government appends rights and responsibilities to it. When the government tells a church/belief system/culture that IT must change the way it defines marriage in order to accomadate the government view, it certainly has an impact on (and therefore 'has to do with') religion.

...and before you get all strawman-y about this, this is NOT about forcing preachers to perform wedding ceremonies. It's about forcing religions to recognize marriages WITHIN THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM that are performed contrary to their doctrines.

You know...like forcing them to support such marriages with goods and services, even as the people they are being forced to support are operating directly against the rules of the religion in ways, if it were not about 'marriage,' would NOT be required of them had the actions been against other aspects of the religion.

For instance:

You have a church school that says...no drinking on campus, no drugs, no smoking anywhere...and, oh, there's a dress code. No bare midriffs, everybody wears shirts, and if you race naked through the quad on game day you'll get kicked out. Oh, yeah...and if you ain't married, you ain't living together as if you were.

Now, the church that owns this school might be laughed at. It might be criticized...but nobody will argue that it's not the school's right (if church owned) to enforce such things.

Ah, but enter the government redefinition of marriage, and suddenly, while the church can still tell the students that they have to dress modestly, not drink, not smoke and generally behave themselves, they must NOW allow people to live together if they are married in the eyes of the government--whether or not they are in the eyes of the church.

The church which provides use of its facilities (for free or for a small fee) for weddings must now be forced to show that it approves of marriages it does not recognize by forcing said church to provide those facilities to weddings which violate doctrine.

The church which provides services (for a fee or free volunteer) to church members for any reason must now be forced to show support for marriages it does not recognize by forcing it to provide those services to weddings which violate doctrine.

....and the thing is, all this is applied with considerable bigotry and discrimination; no Catholic church is required to allow divorced heterosexual couples to use facilities and services that the church doesn't want it to...but let this couple be GAY, and everybody will be forced to it. That's discrimination against heterosexual marriages, and puts the lie to all the bushwa about how the government isn't interfereing with the free exercise of religion.

The whole thing is.

Get government out of marriage altogether. Period. [/u]

[Peter]

Religion will evolve with mankind or it will become extinct.
Another very real possibility is that religion will extinct mankind.