Homosexuality and Religion #2

Remove all ads!

because that is basing your intire life on blind faith...oh some dude said i should do so 3500years ago, i have no reason to do so other then his word on it that he got it from an all powerfull god, who apperently is so all powerfull that he has to follow the laws of physic

...well that clearly makes scence

i meen anything in the bible boils down to a fictive person, telling you to do so, because he says so. thats not even answers, thats silly orders from a fictive fatherperson.
Sorry but obaying such a silly thing on everything in life, without asking why, seems to me like an easy way to push away responsebility.

I meen no mather what you do, you can allways hide behind the bible and say, god told me its true and i should do so.
and if anybody push the question, onto why does god says so. your allways left witht he unsatisfieigng answer "you cant undestand god, but clearly he ment the best for us" or "its the will of god". Neither of them is forfilling my need for knowdledge. and then there is the ultimate answer "trust in god" where is must ask, why? he has so far given me no reason to trust him, hell he has given me no reason to believe he excist, so why oh why should i follow the laws of the bible.

 

But would God hold credibility if he set forth his laws then broke them at whim because he could?

Actually as far as teh mandate of Religion goes, he did. Even if he did tell us everything, would it be accepted?

You're mistaking me for Pat Robertson again. The Bible simply says that having sex with one of your own gender is an abomination, a grievous sin against the Lord.

Moses simply witnessed teh red sea parting to allow the Lord's people out of Egypt. He was too busy running from the Pharoah's troops to ask questions. It would be like me asking you, an identified sociologist detailed questions about quantum physics and calling you an idiot when you don't know.

I've heard from both sides on that issue. I'm not an expert in science so I won't comment on the science half of it. I'm just working off the logic side of the arguement. If your premise is wrong then the findings are not guaranteed accuracy. If approached from the assumption that religion is baloney (and some do make that assumption), then if it is right, their findings may be questioned. Like it or not, scientists are human, and are prone to have some pre-conceived notions slip through and influence the results of their studies...

But if you are pushing that in our face, then there's a problem. That's why I want seperate terms. Seperate church and state or risk electing a theocracy to protect the religious values...

Then waht about the studies linking higher rates of depression and suicide to homosexuality? Further, how many parents out there are happy with their decision to reproduce? How many married couples out there are happy with the decision to marry? They followed God's plan and are happy. How about those that rejected God's plan?

This is not stagnation. If this was the case, I'd be excommunicated for using the internet, or it would be a scandal for me to have running water in my house or electricity in my home, let alone a TV, X-box or computer...

Yeah, I've seen your society change. STD's run rampant like a plague because people care more for a moment's pleasure than their own or other's long term well being, people do as they please with little to no regard for the desires of others because they are not taught to give a damn about anyone but themselves. Why to people steal? To get what they want without having to work for it. This is the work and glory of your secular humanism, which exalts the human above God. The problem is that everyone wants to exalt themselves, and it betters nobody. If you enjoy wallowing in this, then by all means, do so. I hope that you are as happy as a pig in his own manure. I on the other hand am holding out hope for a better society, where we develop our sense of fulfillment by doing God's will, and in doing so, improve the world for all...

Again, it's not blind faith. I go in with my eyes open, and see the deterioration in the world around me...

Again, if you truly look for it, the logic in the doctrine is very consistent. Man is that they may have joy. Joy being long term happiness as opposed to a string of fleeting moments of pleasure. Don't look at religion as arbitrary rules, but as a guidepost to this joy. I'm happier now that I'm not getting drunk regularly or smoking weed. I feel better about myself now that I no longer feel as much pressure to have sex outside of marriage. Following the Bible can bring happiness above and beyond any fleeting pleasure that sin can yield.

Ironically, we ARE accountable for everything we do. We have more accountability than most people express in their daily lives...

The reason my answers are unsatisfactory is because you don't see them from the perspective of the believer. If you look down from a soap box and believe yourself above the faithful, then what they do will make no sense to you. But if you actually read the bible, and seek to obey and prayerfully follow it's counsels, you see it fromt he perspective it was meant to be read from--that of someone working out their own salvation.

 

If He is all powerful and is the divine creator of the universe I don't think He could give two monkeys if we don't think He's credible or not. The question about the omnipotent issue is that it's used as an argument to prove God's divine hand in things but then we're hearing that He isn't omnipotent. He either is or He isn't.

And the mandate of religion has been proven to be wrong. If Genesis is the mandate then God got it wrong, the world wasn't created in 7 days, it's far older than claimed and there were never only two humans. As for if it would be accepted or not, I'm certain it would be, provided God would get off His arse and prove He exists.

So why try to stop them from getting married or lay claim to the word marriage? The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination but it doesn't say that you should persecute homosexuals. Just because somebody sins in one area doesn't mean they will fail in another.

Not quite, since Quantum Physics isn't a person/entity that claims to know everything. As for Moses being too busy running then how can we trust anything that is written down?

Certainly there could be a few scientists with pre-conceived notions yet there is so much evidence indicating that Genesis is a load of hoo-hah that it would be almost statisically impossible that all of those researchers had pre-conceived notions.

1. Nobody is pushing anything in your face. Somebody wanting to live their life, their way, has NOTHING to do with you. I still can't believe this argument is being used that they're pushing their abomniable, immoral, sinful lifestyle in your face when it is anything but.
2. Religious values don't need protection. Unless you want to force YOUR religious values upon people who don't follow your religion would there be any need to protect those values. That is not the case and the only people who have religious values are RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. How is a homosexual adopting/having a child or getting married an attack on somebody else's religious values? It just makes no sense. The values are held by the religious person, not the homosexual, if the homosexual does this thing that the religious person consideres a sin then the religious person WILL STILL CONSIDER IT A SIN. You can still call it a sin all you damn well please, just don't try and stop people from sinning when they don't harm anybody else in the process.
3. Theocracy? I'm certain that'll be the most democratic nation on the planet.

There are happy homosexuals and unhappy parents/married couples. The cause for their unhappiness/happiness doesn't always have something to do with accepting God or whatever. The lead cause of homosexual suicide was the persecution and rejection they faced from society for being homosexual. The homosexual lifestyle is actually the most happy lifestyle they could possibly have had, it was that they were treated so poorly by society that made them want to top themselves - imagine your own family turning its back on you, your parents ashamed to call you their child etc. THAT is what made these people miserable, not the fact they don't follow God.

He's not talking about technological stagnation, he's talking about not allowing morals or values to change over time as new ideas/situations develop.

If I remember correctly STDs aren't running rampant in New Zealand despite the fact that most Kiwis couldn't give a damn about religion. I have no religious upbringing yet I treat others very well no matter their sexual orientation or religion. There has always been bad people doing bad things to other people, when religion was at the height of its influence and other times.

Or it's just some people who don't give a damn about others. I wouldn't group all non-religious people together like that. I feel like you're calling every athiest/agnostic a theif/murderer/criminal.

Apart from those damn homosexuals, obviously .

Everyone sees it, everyone has a different method of dealing with it. Homosexuals aren't the cause for deterioration in the world.

No, you don't. You have no way of proving that till you die and when you die you can't prove it to anybody... that doesn't make sense but neither does claiming you have more accountability. The claim "God says it's okay" removes one from personal responsibility. The persecution and discrimination against homosexuals based on an unproveable source is a way of being unaccountable for the pain and suffering you cause to those people, especially when you discover that you were wrong and when that's the time there'll be no way to make amends, you'll be dead.

Been there, done that, it didn't work and I'm a far better person now that I've stopped basing my life on millenia old principles and rules that are unchanging and based on false information.

 

Sorry, but it is. the existence of the Bible is not substantive enough evidence for the existence of God. You are placing your faith in a being that is utterly intangible.

(Edited for swearing, baseless accusations and emotional outbursts. My bad.)

[ December 08, 2006, 17:23: Message edited by: Clixby ]

 

But if he didn't follow his own laws, then why would we follow them? The idea of a covenent is that it is a sacred promise between man and God. If God will not abide his own rules, then what good is a covenent with him?

The point is that the mandate of religion is the spiritual salvation of mankind. That's found throughout the rest of the Bible...

We don't want what we consider to be sacred to be defaced by their abominations. By using different words, it recognizes that they are getting their rights from teh state and that the church has washed their hands of them. We don't persecute them, we just want them to stop defiling what we consider sacred.

One, Moses did get the big point--that the Red Sea parted to allow the people of Israel to flee Egypt and the sea swallowed up the Pharoah's army. Two, I was referring to people asking me for all these details. I am not privy to all that information, and thus do not hold the expertise required to speak on such matters.

When they come out and try to say that their way is acceptable, when it clearly is not (to our perspective), then want the same word, which is sacred to us, used to describe what they do, that is an attack on our beliefs. It is just as reprehensible as urinating in a font of holy water or vandalizing a church with obscene and hateful graphitti. Lose that notion that they aren't hurting anyone, because it's wrong.

To have our way of life overruled in favour of some politically correct hooey to avoid offending another minority that CHOOSES to refuse what we want, who then demand that we change to accommodate them is what we need protection from. We don't like having the state come right out and contradict our beliefs. While the state can't support us on all things, they should make it perfectly clear that they are seperating the Chruch and State...

We just want the state to make it clear that the state grants them that right and that religion wants nothing to do with it. That's why we want to call it Civil Unions...

And the opinion of the people will matter just the same in any form of Government. We elect the politicians based on the talk in the elections, but they do whatever they bloody well please anyway. Democracy is an illusion. The people don't matter...

But they are rejected by society because of their sins. Even if the state gives them what they want, the people will still look down on them becasue it is abnormal or a sin. The State won't change that.

But they can't expect that religious family or friends will accept their choice. They are shunned because they commit greivous sins and refuse to repent. It's a vicious cycle that will never stop for them.

And what is wrong with being a little slower ro respond to such changes and evaluating these things more carefully? I think you'll find that these changes are not as good as they appear...

Okay, I'd switched from religion itself to a general care and concern for someone other than one's self. Please try to keep up...

A dying breed I'm afraid. The more people start to put themselves first, the less other people matter.

It's becoming a lot mroe common now. 30 years ago, did you ever hear of kids taking guns to school to kill their classmates? Does anyone feel safer on the streets at night now than they did 30 years ago?

That's the point I'm trying to make there. With the rise of humanistic doctrines, people are putting themselves above all others, and that's not good for society...

They aren't doing God's will, therefore they won't receive that fulfilment...

No, but they take a part of the blame, along with any group that places the individual above society's norms and the welfare of others, or who seek to tear away the existing moral fabric to accommodate their sins.

Wrong. Most cases, such as seeing to the welfare of others, we are REQUIRED to do, and are accountable for whether we do it or not...

Persecution? Discrimination? We merely wish to deny sacred ordinances to those who are not worthy to receive them. When I sought to receive certain ordinances in my church, I had to be interviewed by two different clergy to be deemed worthy to receive these ordinances, and were I still drinking, using drugs or if I were sexually active outside marriage, I would not have been deemed worthy, and thus would not have received these ordinances. That's not discrimination, it's part of the requirements of my faith. Asking them to use a term other tham marriage for their unions is not discrimination either, it's preserving that which is sacred. And as for persecution, talk to me when any mainstream Christian chruch requires their followers to beat, harrass, rob or murder homosexuals. As opposed to the Governor of the State of Missouri signing an Extermination Order for the Mormons in the 1830's. What religion does is not persecution...

My experiences, though personal, confirm to me that it is true. These are not blind acceptance, but with eyes open, fully aware of what I am doing.

 

That is absolutely correct, and I don't think that anyone here is saying that your church should be forced to grant single sex marriages.

Let's try putting it this way though. Let's say a new religion is introduced to the country - let us call it Rotkuism, just for simplicity. Now, in this religion they have a sacred marriage, which comes from some holy doctrine, just like you do. Yet their marriage is only allowed for single sex couples.

Following on from the logic used above, by allowing hetrosexual marriages it is removing the sacradness of their ceremony. Do they have grounds to stop all hetrosexual couples getting married?

 

That would piss off the Christian right to no end...

Some compromise would have to be reached over the name of the ordinance to accommodate the Rotkuists and those that would be offended by their practices...

Freedm of religion means that heterosexual marriage is untouchable. By that, some means of accommodation would need to be made for the new religion on the block however. I would like to think that the new religion could take a different name for the ordinance...

 

But let's for now say they don't. They want to stick with the word marriage. As Freedom of Religion means that hetrosexual marriage is untouchable, can I follow on from this and say that homosexual marriage would also be untouchable, if it was what this new religion believed in?

 

That's a touchy subject. I'm not versed in Law well enough to know that.

I just know that it will be a huge fight on your hands, and those that spend more time thumping bibles than reading them may actually persecute this group...

I also don't know that such a doctrine could get recognition legally as a religion. Further, there are some curtailings on religious freedom. Muslims in western society cannot wantonly kill non-believers despite it being in their holy book...

 

So do we have to go through EVERY single religion in the whole world to see which ones have which views on the use of the term "marriage"? Remember that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world, although sometimes some of the people posting here seem to think it is.

What about if there are different languages that have a different set of words to describe marriage. Do we need to go through all those as well.

Just get over it. If a homosexual gets married, it makes no difference to any other marriage. My marriage is not cheapened or impacted, no matter how many other people I don't like go through a ceremony with the same name.

 

Oh, I'm not asking for a legal opinion, Gnarf. I'm just asking whether, following the logic you use to support keeping marriage to hetrosexual couples (even if it isn't a marriage associated with your church), would you let another church preform homosexual marriages?

And yes, I am pretty certain that such a doctrine would be legally recongised as a religion. And I'm even more certain that it would be persecuted

BUt you have, perhaps unknowning, raised an interesting point in bringing a doctrine of killing non-believers into the picture. I'm not going to use Islamic beliefs, as I am sure what you say will be contested by others, but let us say this Rotkuism, as well as beleiving no hetrosexual couples should be married, they also believe that anyone who doesn't believe in the great Rotku should be burnt alive.

As you rightfully pointed out, dispite freedom of religion, this would obviously not be allowed. That makes perfect sense, and I think we can all agree there. But why is this? Would you agree with me if I said that it's because it under cuts someone else's freedom? Or that it is because it has a negative impact on others?

 

The point is still moot since, according to Christianity, God is the all-powerful master of the universe and things are good and holy because He says so.

I fail to see what this has to do with the section you quoted bar the word 'mandate'.

A WORD is sacred? Believe it or not but people are still going to called a homosexual couple who have undergone a civil-union to be married. Over time the word marriage has evolved to actcually mean a 'union' and not just a union between man and woman. Better to call a marriage a 'Mormon marriage' or an 'Islamic Marriage' or a 'Bhudist Marriage' or a 'Civil Marriage' than to claim that Christianity has the soul ownership of the word Marriage. It's a word for crying out loud, how can that possibly be scared?

Well perhaps you'll understand why people become so frustrated with religion that seeks to deny people something but that religion can't explain why they should be denied something short of saying "Because He says so".

So anyone who says you are wrong is vandalising you and should be shut up? To argue with you is obscene and hateful? To not do as you say should be considered the same as a crime? I'm sorry Gnaff but you really need to realise that there are millions of other points of view and beliefs and that if you don't want yours to be considered wrong then you have to let theirs not be considered wrong either.

Your live isn't going to be overruled in any way. You can still be married according to mormonisim in a mormon church with mormon values. But Charles and Harry are going to be able to get married by a Justice of the Peace or at least a representative of the state down at the local town hall. You don't need to accomidate them, you don't have to do anything in regards to their ceremony, don't go, don't even look at it and it'll still happen. On the other hand they don't need to do anything with reguards to you in order to have it happen. Get used to the state contridicting your beliefs, alcohol and smoking are legal yet it doesn't attack your religion in any way. Separation of church and state means that the state can't get involved in church affairs and the church can't get involved with affairs of the state. If the state wants to allow homosexuals to get married OUTSIDE OF A CHURCH then it dosen't affect the church any way. Your lives are not being overrulled, they're not saying you can't get married, your church can choose to not consider the homosexuals married or even claim that their marriage is an abomination, horrible or whatever you damn well please but you have no grounds to stop it from happening.

You mean YOUR religion wants nothing to do with it. Another religion is fine and dandy to marry homosexuals. Just because its called marriage does not affect your religion IN ANY WAY. By all the gods IT IS JUST A WORD! A LEGAL TERM.

The people? Who are these people? You mean the Christian/Muslim religious right? In New Zealand we don't look up to or down on homosexuals, they're normal people who just happen to prefer the same genders for their sexual partner. They do what they want without affecting the rest of the country. We let them. Everyone gets along fine.

No, it is. No bull**** there. Ask any homosexual if he/she is more happy now that he/she has come out of the closet and if he/she is more happy as a homosexual than trying to be a heterosexual and he/she will will tell you that they are very happy. Don't give me "They'd be more happy in God's loving embrace" crap because you aren't them, you don't know what it's like to be them and people, as you said, have a habit of doing what makes them the most happy.

Right about the first thing. They can't expect everyone to be happy with their lifestyle choice. They are shunned because according to some religion they should be shunned because according to some religion they're committing some horrible sin. It's a cycle that will stop for them when those religious holier than thous realise that not everyone wants to conform to their ways and they should just let people get on with their lives. According to a religion they do wrong. It's not that they're sinning and know it that makes homos top themselves but the fact that people harrass, shun and make their life miserable because they're homosexual.

There is nothing wrong with taking a step back and evaluating the situation before jumping in feet first. But this homosexuality debate has been going on for years now and there is nothing that shows homosexuality to be bad for society.

Your argument was the lack of religion being the cause for people not showing concern for others. I believe the whole reason people think homosexuals should be allowed to be married and to be recognised as normal people in society is that people CARE about homosexuals and want them to be happy. Otherwise why would we try to make them happy?

How about the more people start putting their beliefs first the less people of other beliefs matter?

I wasn't alive 30 years ago but if I remember correctly 30 years ago America was invading other countries and the world was in nuclear-holocost crisis mode, it was the 70s and sex/paganisim was everywhere, so was drug useage. 30 years ago was a harsh time as well, there were just as many problems, they were just as severe just they were different problems.

and

Just made me chuckle. It's not good for society that one group of people puts themselves above all others. Strange that these humanistic doctrines are trying to put everybody on the same level playing field but you claim they're encouraging people to put themselves above all others.

A sin is a religious term for something that is deemed immoral by that religion. The basis for it being a sin is because the religion says so. The actual harm the sin has on society needs to be viewed from outside of the religion. Homosexuality has no negative impact on society - NONE. The claim they're trying to tear away at the welfare of others is an insane notion. They just want to have a family like any other person but other groups are saying they shouldn't be allowed to. They're not trying to remove the welfare of others, they just want the same as everybody else.

They don't want your fu*king sacred ordinances. They just want to get married and be considered normal in the eyes of the state. You seems to want a Christian marriage to be 'better' than a homosexual marraige.

It IS discrimination. You're happy to allow heterosexual couples who are married outside of your religion to have a marriage but not a homosexual couple BECAUSE THEY ARE HOMOSEXUAL. That is discrimination.

Right, so being denied the same rights and responsibilites, being told they're not worthy of marriage or having children isn't persecution because nobody's hitting them or telling it to their face on the street?

But you're not aware of the affects your actions have upon others and you're not willing to question outside of your doctrine or even acknowledge that parts of your doctrine could be wrong even when the evidence against something in your doctrine is shown to you.

 

I believe that I alluded to this on the last thread for this topic. It seems to be the only solution that with (almost) satisfy (nearly) all sides of the argument.

 

That's crazy. Do Christians have a trademark patent on every single word used in the Bible? Oh no, I think I heard a homosexual use the word "created" on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy! What an abomination! What an insult to the heaven and earth that God created!

Clearly that's ridiculous. And in any case, the Bible was written in ancient Hebrew or something, so even if you did own all the words in the Bible, you only own the ancient Hebrew ones, not modern English ones like "marriage".

 

But parents make rules for their kids that the parent doesn't have to follow, like going to bed at 8 and whatnot, and apparently God is the father of us all, so why is this any different?

But the mandate is WRONG in Genesis. What does that say about the rest of the Bible? the fact that Genesis, which is divine mandate, is wrong causes the rest of the book to lose credibility.

And that's my point. Just because it's offense to YOU and your little clique doesn't mean that the entire world should bend to your needs. Most Christians really don't have a problem with the use of the word "mariage", since they recognise that a word can be used by anyone, and I'd go so far as to say a lot of Christians don't actually have a problem with gays at at all.

Once again, the State does not use the term "marriage". It's officialy termed a civil union. We've gone through this oh so many times. Unless of course you actually want the Government to impose a ban on homosexuals using the word "marriage". Oh, and they refuse what YOU want, oh, boo hoo. Obiviously the world should function exactly according to the way you think it should.

That's what they're called. HOORAY, YOU WON!

Mmm-hmm. Did you know, perchance, that in a theocracy the word of God is basically law? so, no. No free will, no elections. Just absolute, unchanging rules.

"The People"? No, I don't think so. The only people who have a problem with homosexuals are the ignorant rednecks and religious bigots.

For Christ's sake, THEY DON'T WANT A RLEIGIOUS ORDINANCE! HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDESTAND?!

 

If I could intervene, the word 'Marriage' was not formed by Christians anyway, but Pagan Brits as a referral to the rite of Handfasting. Actually, the vast majority of Christian beliefs came from the Pagan or Druidic beliefs before them. Even Satan himself was a perversion of their own God to discredit 'Witches.' Look it up, it's proven historical fact.

Incidentally, Pagans and Druids have no problem with Homosexuals...

 

Perhaps Pagans should begin a campaign to reclaim the term and deny the use of the word 'marriage' for christian marriages. Christians could start using the term 'civil union' for whatever it is that is going on in their own households.

 

But they have their words for Civil Union too...

Rotku: The Government would have to step in to keep the peace. I propose that To keep the peace, Religion get to keep the term marriage and let the gays use the words civil unions. Your Rotkuists, from your example, would be required to choose another word or go without.

Perhaps the killing non-believers was out of line, but in the United States, despite the Bill of Rights, the early Mormons were incarcerated for having multiple wives. This was done to keep the peace between one sect and the majority. Your Rotkuists would be in the same boat to my way of reasoning...

And God says that Homosexuality is an abomination, therefore it is offensive to those that follow Him.

Yes, it is. That's why we're so pissed off about it's misuse in this situation.

No, but to take the name of a sacred ordinance and apply it to something we consider vile and evil is. It's like using your name to describe vomit or some other repulsive stuff. Would you not be insulted?

But the people who follow the church can write their member of parliament and if they don't like the way he votes, vote for someone else next time around. The State also intervenes in matters of religion on occasion. This time seperating church and state is the way to maintain peace.

By word of our God, marriage is a sacred ordinance, and I'll ask that you show it more respect. If you are unwilling to show this respect, then what does this say for your definition of social progress?

Think of a religion as a community. You violate the rules of a community, then they have sanctions against you. This shunning is one of these sanctions. You look down on us, but what gives you that right? Is not your "Openly tolerate them because there's nothing wrong with them" spiel not just you being Holier than thou?

This is not about good or bad for society, but moral or immoral that we're talking here. That one we really don't need to think about. We're not accepting it and that's God's final answer, given over 4000 years ago.

But they don't give a damn about us religious folk, so they'll let them slander one of our sacred ordinances. Thank you for showing the true colours. You aren't interested in making peace, but seeing us religious folk beaten into submission...

Yes, I see that in your vehement opposition of any compromise on this issue simply on the grounds of terminology. Unfortunately, in the face of this refusal, I have to follow your lead and oppose you on this because I don't want what I feel is sacred to be defiled by those who wish to legitimze their greivous sins.

But just like religions, they exalt their own doctrines above all others. They don't level the playing field at all.

And why should religion have to suffer that what they consider to be a sacred ordinance to be dragged down by it's application to what they consider to be most offensive?

Rejected! Marriage is a sacred ordinance, regardless of who performs it, be it a religious figure, captain of a ship, justice of the peace or an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas. As such, it is ordained of God, whether the people getting married care or not. This makes it Sacred.

Then why antagonize the religious community by demanding that it be called marriage? This is not asking for protection under law, but an act of hatred.

Sanctiond by god makes it superior in my eyes, but to those that do not believe or even hate God or religion, that makes the civil union more attractive. This is only a matter of perspective, but one that I must insist on.

Marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman, ordained of God. Homosexuals, are not of opposite genders, therefore do not meet that definition. By using the term Civil union or making up some Homosexual specific term if they choose, they find a legal way to accommodate themselves without provoking religious groups.

You want us to accept and respect you? Here's our rules. You don't play ball, then we don't recognize or accept you. Any group you can think of does that.

Actually, I do. I am drawing a line in the sand and standing up for what I believe in. Here in the alleys, most of those that comment are those that oppose me, but I think more see it than respond here in the Alleys. Further, I do see information outside my beliefs, but I detect taht they are wrong. I also don't see your evidence as proving anything other than that I'm not the only one that needs to get a life...

No, just the ones that regard to sacred ordinances, like marriage.

But we're talking about grown-ups here. Once the child grows up, they are adults, just like the parents. At this point, the parents should obey the same rules they ask of the children. If they don't, then they are poor examples. God, since he is the perfect example, will abide his own rules.

Actually, I don't accept your claims that Genesis is wrong. Doesn't the earth have to be formed first? Then from there, establishment of when light is out and when there is darkness? And after that, the location of water and land? Then the plants? then the animals? And finally the Humans? That's the order in Genesis 1, What's wrong with that?

How big does our faith have to be for the state to accommodate us in a democracy?

Then if that's the case, why isn't this resolved by now? Is this now about more than just equal rights?

Then why didn't anyone tell me?

i'd prefer that to the whim of a bunch of rich guys that are more interested in their own interests as opposed to the public good...

So basically anyone with an external sense of morality and the balls to stand up and defend it. Gotcha. I take offense that you are degrading rednecks (seeing as I technically do qualify), and the use of the term bigot. Your hatred of religion would paint us both as bigots...

But this areguement has broken down over the use of the word marriage. Marriage IS a sacred ordinance. By this, you are wrong, and the caps lock makes it blatantly obvious. Good gob!

Suppose for a minute, that all humanity is decended from the prophet Noah and his three sons. By this, the Pagan Brits would have as their religious tradition the oral recounting of their ancestors (basically christian doctrine), but in the abscence of priesthood authority and the actual source material, they would have a distorted version of this. So basically, it wasn't Christianity adopting Pagan rituals, but correcting the pagan traditions...

That's part of the teachings that were lost in the 2500 years or so between the flood and the spread of Christianity in the Celtic lands...

 

Now this is just plain wrong. If I seek to get married in a non-religious ceremony I am still getting married in a religious ceremony? Utter dribble, Gnaff.

The whole basis of your argument is that marriage is a Christian only term and this is simply not true. It's a word used to describe a union and not always between two people. I can't see how Christians could claim marriage as 'their' word. Other religions use it, I'll use it to describe a union between two entities, if somebody uses it and you're offended it doesn't mean they can't use it anymore.

That you'd want the law to recognise a religious civil-union to be different from a non-religious civil-union is just segregation of the population and an implication that the state favors people of one religion over another or people of no religion.

There are times, and I dare say this is one of them, where you're right about wanting them beaten into submission. However, this is not the basis of my argument. You claim Christianity is offended beyond reproach at the idea of a homosexual couple calling their 'civil-union' a marriage when the only difference between a Christian marriage in a church for a heterosexual couple and a homosexual marriage outside of a church is that one is Christian and the other isn't. You want special rules because you're Christian and it stinks of arrogance.

The world will call it marriage because its a simple way of describing a union between two people who love each other and who wish to raise a family and live with each other for the rest of their lives.

Suppose that maybe, despite all evidence to the contrary the load of dribble that follows is true. Yeah, maybe then your argument would have a leg to stand on but this is not the case, Gnaff. We're not all decended from two fig leaf wearing hippies. The world wasn't created only 4000-odd years ago. There was no massive flood and repopulation of the world by only two of every species. It just didn't happen because it couldn't have happened, it would be impossible to populate the world to as it is today from such a small starting number of people, especially considering the number of wars, plagues, famines and natural disasters the world has been subjected to.

Christianity did not invent marriage, they don't have any claim to the word and just because you think you do doesn't mean you can call somebody using it to describe a homosexual union an attack on your religion.

Blasphemy! Burn the pagans! Them fags are using the word marriage!