Marriage - secular or religious

Remove all ads!

No short term memory, either, eh?

I shouldn't have to make the same point twice, especially when the first time I made the point can be found on the same page, posted less than 3 hours earlier, and five posts above the one you quoted. You do this all the time, Gnarff. I've left the rest of your comments alone primarily because I already know that you will completely ignore any points I've actually made, taking a well crafted argument apart line by line, twisting each line into it's own little strawman, and tearing it down - and all this without even addressing the actual argument that was presented . I've had my fill of it, and if you still can't even see that you habitually do this, we really don't have anything to talk about. I don't talk to people who don't listen.

 

If the word "marriage" has religious connotations, then if someone started a religion in which gay unions were celebrated, would it still be "wrong" to call them "marriages?"

Why should Christians have the sole claim to the word "marriage?" Did they invent it? Or are their beliefs just so head and shoulders above those of any other religion that they simply deserve it?

 

They could, but the majority of mainstream religion would not acknowledge them as a religion.

By our theology, God invented it--the same God that has forbidden homosexual activity. By this logic, we don't want Gays married. When the state started making laws around this divine ordinance, they opened a can of worms. That can of worms is THEIR problem. They must then find a solution that does not redefine religious doctrine...

 

Mr. Death, you just had to start it up again, didn't you?

Corrected.

 

No, Drew, that's pretty much by any historically legitimate religion's theology. The forbidding homosexuality may not be 100% accurate, but it is pretty standard. I think Buddhism and maybe Shintoism are the only established religions that don't specify a god or gods establishing religion, and I'm not sure about Shintoism.

 

Sorry, but I had homework. Therefore I was on here.

If I supported a religion, I probably wouldn't "recognize" an opposing religion, either. Fortunately, however, we have the state to do that for us.

 

NOG, this isn't a matter of what people believed historically, but of what people believe now. While many religions claim that marriage comes exclusively from God, this does not mean that their adherents actually believe it or that it is actually true. A much larger number of Christians than many of the more orthodox (conservative) Christians would care to admit not only believe that homosexuality is acceptable, but that gay marriage - or, at least, gay civil unions - should be legal...and that their churches should practice them. A growing number of mainstream denominations (the evangelical wing of the Episcopal Church, for example) already do.

Anyway, this misses entirely the larger point I was circuitously trying to make. Just because your religion says that it created marriage doesn't make it true. It can no more be proven that marriage was originally a religious institution than it can be proven that it was not. Just as marriage cannot be claimed to have exclusively non-religious roots, it cannot be claimed exclusively for religion, either.

 

I'm a Christian but i'm having a civil ceremony when i get married (next year, don't send cards, money is fine! lol) because my fella isn't religious.

It doesn't matter how you do things, God teaches us to love each other and vowing to spend your life with somebody because you love them is the epitomy of Gods teachings.

However you want to declare your love for somebody shouldn't matter. The important thing is that you do it

 

Do you know nothing of grammar? I was speaking for a group which I consider myself a part of. Thus the grammar in my original statement was correct. Your arrogant attempts to paint me as an isolated nutter are NOT APPRECIATED.

Actually, it is explicit in Leviticus.

But there would be a lot of flak from more established religions. It has happened to the Mormons, you see it with Scientology. Religions that do recognize Gay Marriage draw some fire from other Christian denominations.

And what if that hasn't necessarily changed? The docrtine of creation hasn't changed. The teaching that Adam and Eve were the first humans hasn't changed. As a result, the teaching that God instituted Marriage hasn't changed. And I am NOT the only person that believes that...

But that number would not be nearly as large as you try to represent. The largest faith represented in the US is the Roman Catholic church. They will NEVER recognize gay Marriage. There is a larger number of Evangelical faiths that likewise will not relent. There may be more faiths that my be more sympathetic the gays on this issue, but cannot support the redefinition of Marriage or it's impact on the Family.

But what about the actual numbers of the faithful? Just listing the denominations is not necessarily accurate unless you get an idea of how many people they list as supporters. 100 denominations that list a few hundred members each pales in comparison with just one that lists 6 million just in the US.

But remember that the Religious side of the debate is NOT going to abandon their claims of a religious origin of Marriage. And despite the schism between Christian faiths that you gleefully overrepresent, the majority WILL support that traditional definition of Marriage. You are the one bucking the established trend, therefore the burden of proof is on you, not us.

Yes and no. Yes, it's important to Love one another, and to make and honour the covenent of Marriage, but This, like all things, should be done within the bounds that the Lord has set. Namely Heterosexual unions. I know that my faith has no problem recognizing you as married, but other faiths don't count it...

One more thing: I've re-though my position on Civil unions. Why should I support any attempt to redefine marriage or the family? I can't on clean conscience do that. But the rights that gays seek can be granted without such cataclysmic change, and I believe that Gays will NOT get any such rights until they abandon their current strategy. And since I'm not the one that wants these rights, that's their problem. I can just tell them why it's not getting supported.

 

Leviticus also says a lot of stuff about girls periods, but you don't see those practiced anymore by most religious groups. So using Leviticus (and much of the Old Testament) as a way of describing something as explicitly forbidden usually doesn't hold up to detractors... Just my

Anyway, looks like you had something to finish at the bottom too... *whistles while thread proceeds*

 

Over-react much? The point wasn't that you are the only person that holds such views, but that you do not speak for all of Christendom (as you were purporting yourself to do) and should back off from making absolute statements about what all other Christians do or do not believe.

Christians are a much larger group than you seem to think. There are Conservative, Moderate, and even Liberal Christians. There are pro-choice Christians. There are pro-life Christians. There are Christians who's beliefs don't quite fit as either pro-life or pro-choice. There are Christians who support gay marriage. There are Christians who denounce it. There are Christians who support gay marriage but don't want to see it practiced in the church. There are Christians who denounce gay marriage but want to see it legal. Some Christians even perform gay marriages.

There are Christians who believe Jewish law is still in effect and still mostly adhere to it (with exceptions, of course, for things that are blatantly illegal or too impractical to be followed in modern society). There are Christians who believe that, since the death and resurrection of Christ "fulfilled" the law, that the law no longer applies (except, of course, where it is convenient). There are Christians who place great emphasis on Old Testament teachings. There are Christians that completely disregard them. There are even a few Christians out there who believe that - gasp - they don't have the right to force people of other sects or faiths to follow and live by their religious edicts. My point was that you do not speak of all Christians. As to whether or not you appreciate it...frankly, I don't care.

 

That derisive tone is all too common in discourses like this. There's more than "a few" Christians who respect other people, and opposition to gay marriage does not equal a totalitarian mindset.

Surely we can all try to be civil?

 

I was fairly certain, LKD, that my little comment about "those few Christians" who actually recognize that they don't have the right to force other people to adhere to the strictures of their faith would be recognized for the sarcasm that it was. By far the vast majority of Christians do not try to force their beliefs or lifestyle onto other people and would never try to (just as the vast majority of vegans will never "try to use legal or illegal means to impede [your] ability to access meat"). I've never denied that, but Gnarff appears to.

n the case of vegans, I do not trust them in general because I fear the activists who will use either legal or illegal means to impede my ability to access meat. The activists' behaviour tarnishes my view of the community in general.

 

No drew, he isn't overreacting when you have went out of your way to offensively criticize him & his religion numerous times (without any notes on your post about getting warnings for it from mods i notice, hmmm wonder why that is)
Others have been able to debate with him intelligently without resorting to personal insults, so how about giving that a try?
You know the old belief of " don't raise your voice, reinforce your argument" personal insults are just another way of raising your voice.

As nakia has stated, the chance of a majority of states legalizing gay marriage OR the country passing an amendment to legalize it wll NEVER happen in our lifetimes(personally, i don't see it happening within the next 100 years)

 

Actually, Martaug, I haven't criticized his religion in this thread. I have admittedly criticized it quite a bit in other threads where such criticism was pertinent (in other words, where the veracity of the Book of Mormon actually had something to do with the thread), and I make no bones about the fact that I consider men like Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, and even John Edward (the psychic, not the politician) charlatans.

As I have said time and time again, Gnarff can believe whatever he wants. He can practice his faith and worship his God however he wants, too. Neither he nor his faith have to like, practice, condone or allow gay marriage within its ranks. They don't (and shouldn't) have to allow anyone living a lifestyle of which they do not approve within their ranks, and they should be able to marry or just as importantly not marry anyone they choose. What I and many others have given Gnarff **** for has nothing to do with his religious convictions.

He's taken crap for his constant repetition of the argument that allowing the people who do not share his religious beliefs and convictions to have their own civil ceremony somehow violates his civil rights, and that his narrow view of marriage is the only possible and valid point of view. I don't need to look to adherents of other religions, agnostics, secularists or even to atheists to find people who disagree with his religious views. There is already plenty of dissent on such matters within the Christian community.

 

dmc, I just want to toss in here that the vast majority of the items mentioned in that quote are not laws for the religion, but laws for the nation. Much of the Old Testament was provided for history, not teaching what was moral or not. Just look at the Judges if you want confirmation. Much of the rest of that pertains to the Holy Temple of God in Jerusalem. As there isn't such a thing at the moment, I consider them moot points.

I hate it when people take things like this out of context. Yes, the Old Testament allowed slavery, even child slavery, but have you read the laws governing it? The 'slaves' had more rights than most immigrant workers in the US do today, and they were even freed at the end of a 7-year period (regardless of when they started the job in that 7-year period).

 

Since, you asked, dmc:

As long as your observance does not directly endanger him or those in his stewardship, his complaints have no bearing on you. You have no obligation to curtail your observance on his request. You reserve the right to request that he mind his own business as long as you don't take the Lord's name in Vain.

b) and d) represent the Lord's laws regulating the civil practice of Slavery. Please consult civil laws before embarking on such endeavours.

If she takes offense, then it is unlikely that you will be allowed to make contact with her. If she slaps you, then it is her making contact with you, thus clearing you of any wrongdoing. You are on the right track...

As for e), h) and j), I remind you that the lord has also forbidden killing, and that you should defer to civil procedures in regards to capital punishment.

I'm sorry, I assumed that it was common sense that you should not eat anything that looked like it came out of an ox's nose. Remembering that God is omnicient, and sees all, I would have presumed that this woud be common cuourtesy. But he is right that homosexuality is a sexual sin and thus a greater abomination than simply a dietary abomination.

I believe the actual word is blemish in your eye. As a health concern, it would be advised that you avoid the altar of the Lord when afflicted with diseases like conjuntivitis, or a foreign object imbedded in your eye. This does not apply to less than perfect vision.

Modern footballs are no longer made from the skin of a pig, but from a vulcanized rubber, which is not forbidden. You have nothing to worry about as long as you don't play on the Sabbath, or take the Lord's name in Vain when you get tackled. Please take care not to kill anyone while playing too. I would hate to see a loyal reader executed for carelessness...

Actually, I wanted to simply call you an idiot after your offensive editing of my statement, but I thought that would be inappropriate.

I was going to the source document of the faith. All these faiths believe the Bible to be the Word of God. Whether or not they choose to obey or not is of no concern. While the Atonement of Jesus Christ is the unifying factor of all these faiths, the variant behaviours are not as prominent as you represent.

There is a big difference here. I'm not going to demand that you ship 10% of ALL your gross income to Salt Lake City. I'm not going to demand that you abstain from alcohol, tobacco, coffe, tea and Illegal drugs. But I do reserve the right to defend that which I believe to be sacred--especially when I truly believe it best for the society in general.

And my point is that the dissention amongst the Christian faiths is not as significant as you try to represent it to be.

You can call them charlatans, but I will take my faith which can neither be proven or disproven over a belief that puts it's faith in something that's been proven faulty--the Human Intellect. Sure you get a lot of good points, but there are critical flaws in what is taught...

Right, it's my refusal to abandon them to a flawed definition of tolerance...

I'm taking the same definition of marriage that was affirmed by the SECULAR courts in 1878. These courts ruled that the definition of Marriage was so important that the first ammendment had to be ignored to maintain that definition. I am simply arguing that that definition is so important that it must be maintained in the face of another challenge to that definition.

The numbers don't support that assertion. Until you produce statistics that suggest otherwise, I'll hold to the fact that I speak for enough of the Christian faith to be accurate.

 

But come on Gnarff, didn't you yourself in that very post make light of some of the guidelines in the bible? Every single person who claims to be a Christians pick and choose what of the bible they are going to follow often changing from day to day. It is not even possible to follow it all as there are plenty of things contradicting each other. You say you go to the source (heavily edited, massively influenced by politics, marred in translation and interpreted by as you yourself claim faulty human intellects) but you still pick and choose what you find important. You find the condemnation against homosexuals to be important so you follow that and fight for it but you do not find the condemnation against eating shellfish to be important so you make light of it.

I know we won't get anywhere, from where I am standing your stand point is so bizarre that I can not even grasp it and your ability to twist your mind around the most outrageous beliefs and statements is truly astounding but I would like an honest answer to how you in good faith can say that statement X from the bible is relevant and true and should be followed while not statement Y and Z. If the book is holy isnt all of it holy? Or is it human beings with faulty human intellects who decide which of hte lord's words are important and which arent or even which of the words in the bible are the words of the lord and which aren't.

I do not have the numbers but I know that a majority of the members of the old Swedish state church supports gay marriage. The leadership is even pushing for making it almost mandatory for priests to perform gay marriages in their churches. You are more likely to find opposition against gay marriage among religious people but it is by no means a homogenous block. I must also say that in my personal experience I have encountered a disproportionate amount of homosexual men within the Christian religion and the clergy. Purely anectdotal but I find it interesting.

 

Gnarff, 72% of Canadians are Christian. Gay marriage is legal in Canada. Of the 28% of Canadians who aren't Christian, only 16% of them are agnostics, atheists, or humanists. Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism all share the same documented stance on homosexuality and marriage. I shouldn't have to tell you that the 16% of Canadians who are agnostics, atheist, or humanists don't have the numbers to legalize gay marriage on their own, nor should I have to tell you that not all of that 16% wants gay marriage legalized, themselves. To pull off that legalization, a great many Christians had to play ball.

That said, I'm not arguing that a majority of American Christians want to see gay marriage legalized. To put it mildly, that would be stupid, since a majority of Americans don't want to see gay marriage legalized. The point you seem to be missing is that whether half, an eighth, or even a twenty-fifth of people hold a certain religious belief has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the government should limit their right to believe it.