Religion should be outlawed.

---

Originally Posted By: thorAlready addressed by me in a previous post. nope, never even once. Why does this extremely simple concept elude you? If it mattered, they would have said it.  Quote:No I don't...the Christian/Jewish God owns it, in this country. really. Funny how your god suddenly recognizes political borders. So, if the Judeo-christian god owns marriage, where does that leave the other 2/3 of the world?Where does that leave me? I "married" a catholic in a secular ceremony. I'd had sex with well over 20 people before I met her. Now we're divorced, though we were obviously never technically married. Then I went and had sex with another dozen or so people and am now committed to a woman who is yet to be divorced (haven't figured out if she was technically married by your definitions yet)I must disgust you. I am more of an abomination than shellfish and mixed fabrics.

God doesn't own "marriage" in Canada. It's been co-opted by you liberal secularist government. So, therefor your "union" doesn't count as a marriage.

I really wanted to stay out of this thread and just read the debates, but I'm just tired of hearing your BS that gay people are attacking the Christian Faith, which is absurd. The GLBT community is not attacking the Christian Church, if anything we are "attacking" the government to get changes so ALL people, regardless of sexual orientation, are protect under the law; hence equality. If ANYTHING the Christian Faith has done a pretty good job attacking the GLBT community by making us out to be deviants and child molesters. And people like you wonder why its rare to find Gay Christians (or at least ones that are open enough to admit it). How would you feel if people of your own faith, people that are to be your brother and sister, were calling you deviant or a child molester… pedophile… trust me it doesn’t feel good and it would easily make a person question his or her faith. Thankfully my faith and love in God is stronger than your words. I wish you would stop avoiding this one particular question, if Marriage is a Christian concept than should non-believers be allowed to marry? And don't answer it with the same BS line "if they are not religious why would they want to?" Just by that rebutted question, it leads me to believe that you don’t think anyone, other than Christians, should be allowed to use the word marriage, so why not fight the government to protect the word from atheists, Muslims, and people of other denominations that differ from Christian?If Marriage is such a sacred word solely for Christian use than why not protect it better and keep it within the Church and not within government? Other words have Marriage as its own ceremony in the Church and leave something like Civil Unions to be used by the government to protect EVERYONE. Many religions and cultures have their own ceremonies after being “married” legally by the government, so why not protect the word Marriage and keep it as a Christian sanctioned ceremony?

Fuck oh dear, thats what I say to all who defend god and jesus and the floaty fucking ghost, grow up, stand on your own, face reality.For the record, complainging about a nativity scene displayed on public grounds like the court house, is great! its forcing people to obey the laws, the laws of seperation of church and state, did I not just see you bitching about christians follow the law? ever look up terrorist? terrorists use fear and force to motivate people and get what they want, not civil suits to take down nativity scenes. Your arguments are outlandish and naive and childish. Just like all the grand christians Iv ever seen, you insist on telling others what to do and how to do it and that god is right, you fuckers stick your nose in where it does not belong, that being other peopels lives. Riddle me this batman, if god is all powerful, why the fuck does he need you people to defend him ? The all knowing all seeing all powerful being is not strong enough to defend himself?Next time ya talk to him, tell him I said fuck you. Ill be waiting for him to come kick my ass, anytime he is ready, he knows where to find me.

Originally Posted By: GrvtykllrFuck oh dear, thats what I say to all who defend god and jesus and the floaty fucking ghost, grow up, stand on your own, face reality.Funny thing is that that's similar to what Christians would say about folks like you. Face reality. Yep.

Quote:Oh? What other kinds of "marriages" are supported by the Bible? Passage quotes to support your position, please.Esther 5:10 (in the KJV, since that's the one you like):Nevertheless Haman refrained himself: and when he came home, he sent and called for his friends, and Zeresh his wife.Zeresh is also referred to as Haman's wife in Esther 5:14 and 6:13 (twice). You will of course know that Haman and Zeresh were no Jews, nor Jewish sympathisers, and that they were living in the empire of Xerxes (= Ahasuerus). Quote:You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was an established religion out there that supported the idea of gay marriage, the GLBT community would have jumped on that bandwagon a long time ago. Since none exists . . .Evidently American Indian beliefs have no problem with same-sex marriages. Quote:it is a Christian marriage that is being spoken of hereNo. 1 Cor 7:15 makes it clear that Paul does not consider such a marriage as the same as a Christian marriage. Quote:And you're still going to have to have some kind of established religion make the abominable (same-sex) 'union'Why??

Originally Posted By: Ineligible

Quote:

Oh? What other kinds of "marriages" are supported by the Bible? Passage quotes to support your position, please.
Esther 5:10 (in the KJV, since that's the one you like):
Nevertheless Haman refrained himself: and when he came home, he sent and called for his friends, and Zeresh his wife.

Zeresh is also referred to as Haman's wife in Esther 5:14 and 6:13 (twice). You will of course know that Haman and Zeresh were no Jews, nor Jewish sympathisers, and that they were living in the empire of Xerxes (= Ahasuerus).

This refers to a relationship status which does not necessarily constitute a marriage. Neither is the word 'marriage' to be found here. If this is the best you can come up with, you might as well hang it up now.

Quote:

Quote:

And you're still going to have to have some kind of established religion make the abominable (same-sex) 'union'
Why??

Because without it, or the acceptance of an externally coerced "Christian" church concerning said abominable practice, there's no way the US government would accept it. Then, or now.

Originally Posted By: thorSeeing as better than 90% of the Constitutional framers were orthodox Christians what a fascinating choice of words. Did you really mean to say Orthodox?

Quote:

This refers to a relationship status which does not necessarily constitute a marriage.
Oh ho, so now when the Bible says "wife", it doesn't imply a marriage? Really, thor, you may twist and turn as much as you like, but you know you are beaten.

Quote:

Because without it, or the acceptance of an externally coerced "Christian" church concerning said abominable practice, there's no way the US government would accept it. Then, or now.

Really, thor? Since the US Constitution forbids the establishment of a religion, does that mean all marriages under US law are invalid?

Originally Posted By: Ineligible Quote:This refers to a relationship status which does not necessarily constitute a marriage.Oh ho, so now when the Bible says "wife", it doesn't imply a marriage? Really, thor, you may twist and turn as much as you like, but you know you are beaten.You have yet to show where the Bible supports non-Judeo/Christian marriages. Do yourself a favor and look up the definition of the word "support" before wasting your time any further. Quote: Quote:Because without it, or the acceptance of an externally coerced "Christian" church concerning said abominable practice, there's no way the US government would accept it. Then, or now.Really, thor? Since the US Constitution forbids the establishment of a religion, does that mean all marriages under US law are invalid? Go tell it to the gay activists. I could care less what the government thinks concerning marriage. I know what it is...and what it isn't.

Originally Posted By: unsupervised

Originally Posted By: thor

Seeing as better than 90% of the Constitutional framers were orthodox Christians

what a fascinating choice of words. Did you really mean to say Orthodox?

Not the noun...the adjective. Look it up.

Since, like usual, you ignored the questions.. let me repost the them again.  Quote:I wish you would stop avoiding this one particular question, if Marriage is a Christian concept than should non-believers be allowed to marry? And don't answer it with the same BS line "if they are not religious why would they want to?" Just by that rebutted question, it leads me to believe that you don’t think anyone, other than Christians, should be allowed to use the word marriage, so why not fight the government to protect the word from atheists, Muslims, and people of other denominations that differ from Christian?If Marriage is such a sacred word solely for Christian use than why not protect it better and keep it within the Church and not within government? Other words have Marriage as its own ceremony in the Church and leave something like Civil Unions to be used by the government to protect EVERYONE. Many religions and cultures have their own ceremonies after being “married” legally by the government, so why not protect the word Marriage and keep it as a Christian sanctioned ceremony?

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyselfI wish you would stop avoiding this one particular question, if Marriage is a Christian concept than should non-believers be allowed to marry? And don't answer it with the same BS line "if they are not religious why would they want to?" BS line? Sounds like a question you don't want to answer...probably because you can't without accepting truths you don't want to accept and/or are trying to avoid. The truth is that Christianity is, in a watered-down form, a part of our culture in America. Handed down from our founding fathers. Though not every person considers themself Christian, or even religious, they do, as a result of our culture, abide by certain Christian norms. One of these norms is marriage. Now whether the people in question are Christian or not doesn't even come into play because the civil marriage they are having is a Christian one. They are buying into it, because of the cultural history, whether they realize it or not. Now as to whether or not it's an actual Christian marriage, with God present in it, is another matter. That, however, is between them and God...not you, I, or the government. But when the precepts of Christian marriage are violated in an open manner, such as with gay "marriage", there is no longer any question about it. The laws concerning marriage in this country were created to recognize the Christian marriage...hence no same-sex marriages. Though, as it is intended, will also recognize marriages from other established religions.My recommendation to you is to go establish your own religion where gay marriage is acceptable. In so many years, the government will likely recognize said religion...solving your problem. Stop trying to use social pressures to pervert Christian churches into accepting gay "marriage" when it is clearly labelled an abomination in the Bible. Quote:Just by that rebutted question, it leads me to believe that you don’t think anyone, other than Christians, should be allowed to use the word marriage, so why not fight the government to protect the word from atheists, Muslims, and people of other denominations that differ from Christian?The term 'marriage' has been diluted to mean a general term for male/female union in this country, as used in our society...thanks largely to our flamingly liberal media. There was a time, years ago, when this was not true...when the word "marriage" meant something. The word really means more than it does to the average citizen today. High divorce rates are clear evidence of this. But again, it's not the government that decides what a marriage is...it's God. But because the government recognizes marriage from different religions, the term, according to their usage, allows for any such unions within other established religions. But its basis on the Christian marriage is nonetheless still present. Quote:If Marriage is such a sacred word solely for Christian use than why not protect it better and keep it within the Church and not within government? Repeating this for the umpteenth time, the word is not within the government...never has been. Hindsight being 20/20, the government probably should have decided to use a term like "civil union" as opposed to "marriage" when talking about what kinds of unions it would recognize. But, at the time, just about everyone was Christian here so it would not have then seemed very necessary. I say give the founding fathers a break for not forseeing social pressure to allow gay "marriage". The concept, at that time, would have been taken by folks as being both laughable and disgusting...along with being very un-Christian. Quote:Other words have Marriage as its own ceremony in the Church and leave something like Civil Unions to be used by the government to protect EVERYONE. Many religions and cultures have their own ceremonies after being “married” legally by the government, so why not protect the word Marriage and keep it as a Christian sanctioned ceremony? That's the way it already is...with the exception of the Civil Union idea.

Quote:You have yet to show where the Bible supports non-Judeo/Christian marriages. Do yourself a favor and look up the definition of the word "support" before wasting your time any further.You presented the thesis that the Bible does not consider marriages outside Jewish or Christian traditions as marriages. I have disproved that. Now you are trying to change your ground to pretend that you meant that the Bible does not say that it wholeheartedly approves such marriages, or some such guff. (You try to keep your assertions as vague as possible.)The fact is, the Bible is rather lukewarm on all marriages. The best Paul can say about them is that it is better to marry than to burn, but he considers it is better not to marry at all (1 Cor 7:1-9). Jesus said, "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matt 22:30, Mark 12:25) - that is, marriage is only an earthly condition and not a heavenly one (which most of us who are married can readily agree with).Part of your problem, I think, is you think of a marriage as something that takes place in a church ceremony, with words pronounced by a minister. This is a quite modern development, and is not seen in the Bible. Though it is natural to seek God's blessing on such a change in life, until well into the second millennium all that was required for a marriage was that both parties lived together. The Biblical accounts of marriage include many wedding feasts celebrating the marriage, and one or two accounts where declarations are made before witnesses (e.g. Ruth 4:9-13; possibly Is 8:1-3), but I can find no case where a priest or other minister creates the marriage. Marriage is something done by the parties.That does not mean that marriages are not Godly. Jesus said (Matt 19:4-6, in KJV; also Mark 10:6-9):And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Note that the marriage itself comes from the man and his wife getting together, not from any ceremony, in a church or anywhere else. It is this action by the parties that God also takes part in.Having said all that about the Christian idea of marriage, I should add that, unlike you, I do not believe that the state has any right to tell non-Christians that they must marry according to the Christian idea or not at all. If you were a Christian Pakestani you would not want to be told that you could only marry according to the Islamic idea or not at all.

Originally Posted By: Ineligible Quote:You have yet to show where the Bible supports non-Judeo/Christian marriages. Do yourself a favor and look up the definition of the word "support" before wasting your time any further.You presented the thesis that the Bible does not consider marriages outside Jewish or Christian traditions as marriages. Originally Posted By: thorOh? What other kinds of "marriages" are supported by the Bible? Passage quotes to support your position, please.Nice try. Now how about actually showing us where the Bible speaks supportively about any marriage other than one under the Judeo/Christian God. A wedding under Alah would be especially convincing.As for the rest of what you posted, I'm not going to waste my time. You've decided what you believe in prior to reading the Bible, then read into the Bible what you wish to see. You are not interested in the meaning of the Bible at all, but are, in your own admission, interested in winning arguments. As such, discussions with you concerning the Bible are quite valueless...a combination of word-twisting (see above), your subjective interpretation of certain selected passages while ignoring the majority of what clearly points to the opposite of said interpretations, and strawman arguments such as: Originally Posted By: IneligibleI should add that, unlike you, I do not believe that the state has any right to tell non-Christians that they must marry according to the Christian idea or not at all.If you go back and read my posts, I've said nothing like this at all. In fact, if you've been listening AT ALL, you'd have noted that I don't believe the state has any rights at all concerning marriage. What kind of marriages the state chooses to recognize is a different matter. I'd go on further, but I strongly suspect you'd just continue to refuse to "get it".

Originally Posted By: thorIn fact, if you've been listening AT ALL, you'd have noted that I don't believe the state has any rights at all concerning marriage. What kind of marriages the state chooses to recognize is a different matter.What difference does it make what kind of marriage the state recognises?

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: unsupervised  Originally Posted By: thorSeeing as better than 90% of the Constitutional framers were orthodox Christians what a fascinating choice of words. Did you really mean to say Orthodox? Not the noun...the adjective. Look it up. oh, I get it. You don't mean orthodox Christian, you mean orthodox Christian. Thanks for the clarification.Actually, several of the founding fathers were freemasons and the constitution is based mostly on that philosophy. But I'm sure you knew that and don't need to go look it up.  Quote:I could care less what the government thinks concerning marriage. I know what it is...and what it isn't. ok, I think I made this point last year so I'm glad you've come on board. The government has it's criteria for marriage and you have yours. The fact that you could care less that they differ is progress.

Quote:

A wedding under Alah would be especially convincing.
The word 'Allah' is a contraction of al ( = the) and ʼilāh ( = God, deity), which is the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew words Elohim and El used in the Old Testament for God. 'Allah' can be considered the equivalent of 'the LORD' as used in the KJV for God, and Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews use 'Allah' for God, just as Muslims do.

That is, Allah is not a different God to the God of the Bible, but the same, regardless of the validity of the Quran or of Muhammad.

Quote:I don't believe the state has any rights at all concerning marriage. What kind of marriages the state chooses to recognize is a different matter.I'm trying hard to understand your view on marriage. Let me see if I have it right:1. Only Jewish and Christian marriages are really valid, and should be considered standard in the US.2. Nevertheless, the state may recognise marriages that are solemnised and approved within other "established religions", where "established" does not refer to national establishment, but something else (long standing?).3. The state should not conduct marriage ceremonies, and should not recognise marriages that do not fall within 1 or 2.Is that your view?

Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thorIn fact, if you've been listening AT ALL, you'd have noted that I don't believe the state has any rights at all concerning marriage. What kind of marriages the state chooses to recognize is a different matter.What difference does it make what kind of marriage the state recognises? Go ask a gay activist.