Christians Endorse God's Hatred

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Preserve the sacred meaning that marriage has for Christians and other believers..." (as I add what he left out but secretly thinks) "... while denying equal considerations for human beings our dogma disagrees with."

Be more specific. What equal considerations am I suggesting gays be denied? The right to be married in a Roman Catholic Church, perhaps?

Esquilax, I never said that Christians invented marriage. I said that the religious and civil aspects of it had been entangled and it would be preferable to untangle them. How can you promote "separation of church and state" on every issue except this one?

[Esquilax]

Esquilax, I never said that Christians invented marriage. I said that the religious and civil aspects of it had been entangled and it would be preferable to untangle them. How can you promote "separation of church and state" on every issue except this one?

You did say this, though:

The term marriage would be reserved for private sacramental commitments. For the religious, that is an extra layer of commitment. That approach would give gays equal rights and still preserve the sacred meaning that marriage has for Christians and other believers.

So, in essence, your idea is to take a term that was never yours to begin with, because you and yours attach a religious significance to it, heedless of the fact that those of us who don't still find the word meaningful, and that historically the concept predates most religions.

Separate but equal, even if it works- and I say if because I am sure that the majority religious population would quickly find some way of advantaging marriages over the secular alternative- still separates people into ingroups and outgroups, which is entirely contrary to the overarching point of this marriage debate in the first place, which is not turning gay folk into the Other.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Eq, you did not explain why you do not want separation of church and state plus you have no proof that nonreligious marriage ceremonies existed prior to religious ones.

---

It doesn't really matter any more. The horse has already left the barn. We now live in the age of hyphenated marriage. So be it.

[super spidey man]

I've heard many Christians say that they aren't judging anyone when they make bigoted comments, and that it is God who does the judging. That they seem to be able to disregard their blatant agreement with God's hateful judgments is the clearest example of exactly how blinding religion is.

Thats wrong for them to do that.and hey im new

[freedomfromforum]

Chad, this thread is about how blind Christians are to their own bigotry. I would like to thank you for providing ongoing examples to illustrate my OP. Do I sound arrogant to imply that I am sad for your deluded state? Good, then perhaps you can own the same for yourself with respect to your agreement with god's hatred.

[Doubting Thomas]

He's not a bigot. He just thinks that gay people are perverts.

[freedomfromforum]

He's not a bigot. He just thinks that gay people are perverts.

I've got an ancient book that says Christians are vile.
Shall I blindly agree with the hatred in the text, or
shall I consider my fellow man to be not unlike myself,
and give him due consideration based upon his actions?

[Esquilax]

Eq, you did not explain why you do not want separation of church and state plus you have no proof that nonreligious marriage ceremonies existed prior to religious ones.

Part of a separation of church and state is the church not stealing things that belong to the state when they go, Chad. As to proof, given that the concept predates recorded history, I would suggest that, in doing so, it predates extant religions, and therefore cannot be considered the property of any of them.

My whole point is that your argument relies upon the idea that all religions, completely at odds in most other regards, somehow can come together and take ownership of this concept, simply because it's convenient to current day religions. But considering that, equally, you have no proof that religious marriages were the first, or only ones, the idea that you can take exclusive ownership over this concept is ridiculous.

If you really want to make this argument that only the originators of marriage can use the term, why are you making the arbitrary distinction of stopping at religion? According to that logic, even in the best case scenario for your religion, christians wouldn't be able to get married either; the Jewish people would own the term.

[Faith No More]

Esquilax, I never said that Christians invented marriage. I said that the religious and civil aspects of it had been entangled and it would be preferable to untangle them. How can you promote "separation of church and state" on every issue except this one?

No, the religious and civil aspects are not entangled. Marriage can be a completely secular endeavor, however, some people choose to add religious aspects to it. What you are proposing is allowing your religion to hijack the term simply because you object to allowing a certain minority perform a union and label it that term. It's just another case of Christianity over-reaching and thinking the secular world should bend over backwards for it, but thankfully, the secular world, which actually includes many Christians, are sick and tired of it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

No, the religious and civil aspects are not entangled. Marriage can be a completely secular endeavor, however, some people choose to add religious aspects to it.

If they weren't entangled then it wouldn't be an issue at all. Your second part is actually what I was advocating. I guess I'm left with calling heterosexual religious ceremonies biblical- or covenant-marriages.

DT, are you just stupid or a true hater. I repeatedly said that being attracted to people of the same sex, among many other temptations, does not make someone a pervert. Acting on those desires does. Heterosexuals that practice S&M are perverts, because those practices also undermine conjugal love putting in its place power relations. Perversion is not limited to any particular gender identity.

What you are proposing is allowing your religion to hijack the term simply because you object to allowing a certain minority perform a union and label it that term.

You're right. I am getting pissy about semantics. I just don't believe the term marriage makes sense apart from a religious context. You do.

I do not hate ex-felons, but I condemn their lawlessness. Likewise,I was just hoping people with your opinion could at least try to understand the distinction between hating people and disapproving of their practices.