Do Christian Parents Abuse their Children?

[The Grand Nudger]

Whenever I see someone I picture in my head how that person would come at me like he wanted to kill me.. If it's a really tall guy I imagine I'll break his knees first, then fake a leg kick and go for the head or grapple to the ground and go for a choke. If it's a short or medium size guy I'll go in straight with a flying knee to the head because nobody expects that. It's more or less just a pass time and never with any malice behind it but mostly just to make sure it'll be easy to defend myself should it come to it(just in case). That aside, I agree with CL about things relating to marriage, it's pretty common for our people to go work abroad, our church now demands that anyone that wants to marry and work abroad needs to provide a certificate that they have no relations/marriage in the country they are working in to get married in our church.

You'll probably just die.  Initiative is everything. 

[Neo-Scholastic]

Personally I'm in favor of same sex couples getting all the same legal benefits, etc. Though as far as getting married in the Church goes, I agree that it should be reserved for one man and one woman who weren't previously married and who went through all the pre cana preparations and were approved by the pastor.

I had a friend who knocked up his girlfriend and they immediately tried to get married in the Catholic church. The priest made them wait until after she had the baby before he agreed to marry them, just to make sure their intentions for marriage was a legitimate, well thought out decision to want to be together for life, and not something they were just rushing into bc they were expecting. That's how seriously we take marriage in the church.

I agree. There can be a civil institution equivalent to marriage without be considered equal to it. For example tea is functionally equivalent to coffee but they are essentially different substances. Civil marriages have an essential character that makes them different from other types of social institutions recognized by the state. They have an objective definition: an on-going legal bond between one man and one woman involving physical intimacy with the potential of producing off-spring. That is what differentiates a marriage from roommates (of any sex), live-in caregivers with power of attorney, business partnerships, casual lovers, kissing cousins, free-love communes, and yes, homosexual unions. It should be noted that many states have so-called common law marriages, automatically conferring marital status to long-time cohabiting heterosexuals who are physically intimate. Apart from a traditional definition we get absurd results like Felix and Oscar becoming common law. This is not a "slippery slope" argument; but rather, an illustration of the unique character of civil marriage as an objectively definable social institution.

As a practical matter, the state generally does not impose fertility tests or automatic dissolution of marriages when a couple is beyond child bearing years. If someone wanted to debate the merits of such policies I would be willing to listen but personally I would consider someone a spoiler for advocating those kinds of tests and measures. Also as a practical matter, the state allows religious leaders to officiate weddings, so that a civil marriage and sacramental marriage occur simultaneously as part of the ceremony. If someone wants to propose that religious leaders not be allowed to officiate civil ceremonies I am open to listening to that as well. Again however, that seems like the stance of someone willing to inconvenience millions just to be a spoiler.

So-called "marriage equality" erases the vital line between civil and sacramental marriages. For example, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist or even Swedenborgian weddings are sacraments tacitly accepted, for practical reason, by the state as civil ceremonies. It is not a civil ceremony in-and-of-itself. That is why there are now cases before the courts attempting to force religious businesses to recognize a civil marriage as identical to sacramental ones. There are even activists who want to force religious leaders and institutions to perform sacraments within their sacred spaces. Again, I am open to the idea that the state has a legitimate state interest in legally recognizing homosexual unions as functionally equivalent to marriages, however, the state has no business making people perform religious sacraments against their will or to recognize nontraditional unions as equal, meaning identical, to sacramental ones.

[The Grand Nudger]

These guys think they invented marriage.  That's precious.

In any case, I don't think that a bigoted pastor, excuse me..scriptural enthusiast™.... who thinks teh gayz are icky should have to marry teh gayz. Thankfully, allowing teh gayz to get married doesn't require that...so.............?

[Aoi Magi]

I'd say daydreaming about doing horrible things to other people is pretty bad.

Spend a day around my boss in my shoes and you'll rethink that statement

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Whenever I see someone I picture in my head how that person would come at me like he wanted to kill me.. If it's a really tall guy I imagine I'll break his knees first, then fake a leg kick and go for the head or grapple to the ground and go for a choke. If it's a short or medium size guy I'll go in straight with a flying knee to the head because nobody expects that. It's more or less just a pass time and never with any malice behind it but mostly just to make sure it'll be easy to defend myself should it come to it(just in case). That aside, I agree with CL about things relating to marriage, it's pretty common for our people to go work abroad, our church now demands that anyone that wants to marry and work abroad needs to provide a certificate that they have no relations/marriage in the country they are working in to get married in our church.

You'll probably just die.  Initiative is everything. 

The first strike is often regarded as very important by some people. Most people acting tough will back out in a jiffy if the first strike is a strong one. The thing is though I always try to neutralize a situation instead of escalating, it usually stops at that, most of the time when people try to pick fights it's about their ego, I don't find it unbearable to back off, I'm sure most people consider it in their mind as a sort of "haha what a loser", I don't mind that, as far as I'm concerned I'm giving him an opportunity to walk away with his ego intact and people that know me closely know that as well. Sometimes though, walking away doesn't do the trick, it's acceptable to use force at that point but the added benefit is nobody goes tits out at a guy that's trying to walk away from a fight and it usually starts with some light pushing so while they are technically initiating I'll have the privilege to deliver the first shot and it will be fair for both of us since he knows I'll be defending myself at that point. Most people don't realize how easy it is to kill someone, they look at movie scenes and see beer bottles breaking on the head of people but even that is enough to kill someone because it could easily result in a deep enough cut and glass could go inside leaving a person in a coma for life. There's a lot of risk while getting in a fight especially regarding the safety of the opponent, while it may be very easy to win fights, even knocking people out can result in deaths by them hitting their head on the road too hard, a few broken bones and lifetime in prison is just not worth it over a 1 min dispute and ego saving. Better to always walk away and not initiate anything.

[GrandizerII]

These guys think they invented marriage.  That's precious.

In any case, I don't think that a bigoted pastor, excuse me..sciptural enthusiast™.... who thinks teh gayz are icky should have to marry teh gayz.  Thankfully, allowing teh gayz to get married doesn't require that...so.............?

It's just post-hoc rationalizing nonsense (what Neo posted). What it really comes down to is that some people find it abominable that those disgusting gayz get to marry like them normal and clean people. And that's why at least some of them are against same sex marriage.

[The Grand Nudger]

Change the "some" to "all" and that would be my opinion in a nutshell.  There is no other reason, it's silly...and harmful, to engage in the pretense that there's some high minded explanation for common and lowly bigotry.  That's what allowed the "debate" to go on for as long as it did in the first place.  People insisting that we had to hear the bigots out because maybe they were nice people with a cogent objection.  They aren't, they don't possess one. Equality pisses them off. They think that they deserve something that others don't. They think they have a monopoly on marriage. That some deference is due to their "sanctified" property documents...a concept stolen and now artlessly claimed for themselves.

Par for the course.

[Shell B]

I'd say daydreaming about doing horrible things to other people is pretty bad.

Thoughts are morally neutral. People can't control things that pop into their heads. As for the continuation of that thought through pondering or "daydreaming," that's not always controllable either. As long as you don't do anything bad, you're fine.

[Catholic_Lady]

Personally I'm in favor of same sex couples getting all the same legal benefits, etc. Though as far as getting married in the Church goes, I agree that it should be reserved for one man and one woman who weren't previously married and who went through all the pre cana preparations and were approved by the pastor.

I had a friend who knocked up his girlfriend and they immediately tried to get married in the Catholic church. The priest made them wait until after she had the baby before he agreed to marry them, just to make sure their intentions for marriage was a legitimate, well thought out decision to want to be together for life, and not something they were just rushing into bc they were expecting. That's how seriously we take marriage in the church.

I agree. There can be a civil institution equivalent to marriage without be considered equal to it. For example tea is functionally equivalent to coffee but they are essentially different substances. Civil marriages have an essential character that makes them different from other types of social institutions recognized by the state. They have an objective definition: an on-going legal bond between one man and one woman involving physical intimacy with the potential of producing off-spring. That is what differentiates a marriage from roommates (of any sex), live-in caregivers with power of attorney, business partnerships, casual lovers, kissing cousins, free-love communes, and yes, homosexual unions. It should be noted that many states have so-called common law marriages, automatically conferring marital status to long-time cohabiting heterosexuals who are physically intimate. Apart from a traditional definition we get absurd results like Felix and Oscar becoming common law. This is not a "slippery slope" argument; but rather, an illustration of the unique character of civil marriage as an objectively definable social institution.

As a practical matter, the state generally does not impose fertility tests or automatic dissolution of marriages when a couple is beyond child bearing years. If someone wanted to debate the merits of such policies I would be willing to listen but personally I would consider someone a spoiler for advocating those kinds of tests and measures. Also as a practical matter, the state allows religious leaders to officiate weddings, so that a civil marriage and sacramental marriage occur simultaneously as part of the ceremony. If someone wants to propose that religious leaders not be allowed to officiate civil ceremonies I am open to listening to that as well. Again however, that seems like the stance of someone willing to inconvenience millions just to be a spoiler.

So-called "marriage equality" erases the vital line between civil and sacramental marriages. For example, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist or even Swedenborgian weddings are sacraments tacitly accepted, for practical reason, by the state as civil ceremonies. It is not a civil ceremony in-and-of-itself. That is why there are now cases before the courts attempting to force religious businesses to recognize a civil marriage as identical to sacramental ones. There are even activists who want to force religious leaders and institutions to perform sacraments within their sacred spaces. Again, I am open to the idea that the state has a legitimate state interest in legally recognizing homosexual unions as functionally equivalent to marriages, however, the state has no business making people perform religious sacraments against their will or to recognize nontraditional unions as equal, meaning identical, to sacramental ones.

As a Catholic, I agree that a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman is a sacred bond which differentiates itself, in that sense, from other arrangements (such as gay marriage, common law marriage, polygamy, divorcing your wife and remarrying your secretary, etc). 

As far as the law is concerned though, I see "marriage equality" as meaning equal in rights under the law. Hospital visits, tax breaks, etc. I can get behind this, though I would be 100% against the government trying to force churchs to marry anyone.

---

.
As far as adoption is concerned, I only care about what's best for the child. To hell with political correctness or "fairness".

I think a loving home consisting of both a mother and a father is more ideal for a child than a loving home consisting of 2 dads. But a loving home consisting of 2 dads is still much better than foster care/orphanages. Since there are a lot of children out there who need homes, and not enough people to adopt them, I'm for gay adoption. The same applies for single parent adoptions, as a step below gay adoption.

[Succubus]

FYI you misquoted me here Neo; I didn't write this post.

I was just about to point that out.

---

These guys think they invented marriage.  That's precious.

In any case, I don't think that a bigoted pastor, excuse me..scriptural enthusiast™.... who thinks teh gayz are icky should have to marry teh gayz.  Thankfully, allowing teh gayz to get married doesn't require that...so.............?

Marriage, Easter, Christmas, all stolen from other cultures. And lets not forget the concept of morality, what did the man say? 

“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke.