Religion should be outlawed.

---

Quote:But your choice of perception describes an agenda. gay agenda?this has become asinine. the word orthodox in juxtaposition with the word Christian has a certain meaning. Just as with the words radical and Islam (unless we're talking about Mohammed on a skateboard)Yeah, my agenda is that I can fucking read (part of my fundamentalist education)

Originally Posted By: unsupervised  Quote:But your choice of perception describes an agenda. gay agenda?No...not what I said, or meant to imply. Quote:this has become asinine.I'll agree with you there. Quote:the word orthodox in juxtaposition with the word Christian has a certain meaning...It can have more than one, and you wrongly assumed you knew which one I meant in spite of my mild efforts to preclude such misunderstandings, and the complete rediculousness of the possibility that I meant Orthodox Christianity. But instead of admitting you made a mistake you've decided to grind the issue (and yourself) further into the ground. So be it.

my mistake?"sorry, did I say orthodox, I meant established, official, accepted, received, common, popular, traditional, normal, regular, usual, ordinary, approved, familiar, acknowledged, conventional, routine, customary..."but no, you'd rather chase your tail down the rhetorical drain rather than offer a simple disambiguation. Insisting that somehow my asking for that disambiguation proves some agenda (a favorite assertion of yours indeed). Yeah, I'll argue semantics all day if you like. It's fun. Unfortunately, it clouds the issue AND gives you something to prattle on about when you have no answer to the rest of the question.

Quote:Only Jewish and Christian marriages are really marriages, according to the definition found in the Bible.Please show me where this definition is. I assert that no such definition exists. Quote:The state can conduct cerimonies.You had just said before that "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". Now you say the state has the right to conduct marriage ceremonies. The two statements are mutually contradictory. Quote:But if no preference is specified, which cerimoney do you think you'll get? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.Since we are talking here about state ceremonies, obviously you get the standard non-religious state ceremony. Quote:"should not" is a completely irrelavant and inappropriate term. It makes no sense in this context. "Will not" fits.Sometimes I don't understand your mental processes at all, thor. The whole question is about what you think the state ought to do, not what it does, so 'should' is the correct auxiliary. 'Will' is irrelevant. In fact, the US and all states within it do in fact recognise non-religious marriages.

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedno, your atheist cannot be a terrorist idea holds no water.ANYONE can be a terrorist, all one must do is inflict terror.You also seem to be confusing ateists with anarchists...  Quote: For atheists, there is NO rule book, NO organization, and NO collective thinking, which means that each atheist is an individual and cannot be considered part of a movement or represented by other people in their club but, there again, for those who believe there is no moral code without religion, suggests that atheism is synonymous with sociopathy.Now that, I defy anyone to prove. I never argued that atheists could not be terrorists, I argued that atheism cannot be a base for a terrorist group. Atheism its self does not provide a base for collective thinking other then the fact of one thing in common like I previously stated. Also I never mixed up atheism with anarchism, anarchism is a political movement I was speaking of religious movement.

Originally Posted By: A.W.I don't know why people say there is no God. There is a God. Who do you think created the universe, planets, weather and all the living things here on Earth? God did. You think God lets bad things happen? No, he doesn't. God puts us through tests, and he expects us to achieve and to live right with his way as it states in the Bible. I'm so sick and tired of people always saying why God let bad things happen to them. He doesn't let bad things happen to them. It is us humans that do bad things to ourselves. Read the book "When bad things happen to good people" By Harold Kushner. It's a rabbi who was known for radical theology at the time. It's common sense to me, but it is very different from many teachings, specifically fundamentalist ones.

Originally Posted By: Ineligible Quote:Only Jewish and Christian marriages are really marriages, according to the definition found in the Bible.Please show me where this definition is. I assert that no such definition exists.Not according the way you choose to use the word "definition", no. But all instruction in the Bible concerning marriage pertains to Judeo/Christian marriages...not Bhuddist, not Muslim, etc. So when the word "marriage" is spoken of in the Bible, that is what it pertains to. And since God is a part of said marriage, and not of other marriages, only Judeo/Christian marriages are valid in the eyes of God. Again, what I don't understand is why somebody who says they don't believe in the Judeo/Christian God cares? They can make up their own definition all they want...just don't expect everybody else to have to abide by it. Quote: Quote:The state can conduct cerimonies.You had just said before that "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". Now you say the state has the right to conduct marriage ceremonies. The two statements are mutually contradictory.Conducting a marriage cerimoney and making a marriage are two different things. I say again, the reality of said marriage lays with God and the couple...not you, I, or the state. You haven't been paying attention. Quote: Quote:But if no preference is specified, which cerimoney do you think you'll get? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.Since we are talking here about state ceremonies, obviously you get the standard non-religious state ceremony.ALL cerimonies are religious, one way or the other, since the concept of marriage is a religious one. So, I ask again, which one do you think you'd get? Quote: Quote:"should not" is a completely irrelavant and inappropriate term. It makes no sense in this context. "Will not" fits.Sometimes I don't understand your mental processes at all, thor. The whole question is about what you think the state ought to do, not what it does, so 'should' is the correct auxiliary. 'Will' is irrelevant. And what I'm trying to tell you is that it's not up to me what the state decideds to do in this matter, as long as it doesn't step out of bounds concerning the Constitution. Beyond that, I don't care. So it's not what I think the state should/should not do...it's what the state will/will not do. Quote:the US and all states within it do in fact recognise non-religious marriages.They may or may not be called non-religious marriages, but again, the concept of marriage is a religious one. You can't escape it.

Quote: ALL cerimonies are religious, one way or the other, since the concept of marriage is a religious oneNot true. You are so wrapped in the idea that the word Marriage is a Christian word that only Christians should be allowed to use that you have no idea that the word Marriage is used for everyone. It doesn't matter what religion you are or if you are religious at all. When two people are united, by church or by a ceramony at city hall, it's called a Marriage.There are MANY people who are Married who are NOT religious.  Quote:They can make up their own definition all they want...just don't expect everybody else to have to abide by it. Its funny you say that because thats pretty much what I have been telling you. Just because you feel your defition is right doesn't mean everybody else has to abide by it. Just live your life as you see fit and don't push your opinion on everyone else. Imagine how much simplier life would be. Not sure what so hard about such a simple concept because no one knows for sure whats right or what God will accept, so why not let him have the final say in the end. Live your life the best you can for God, and let others do the same, and let God have the final judgement.

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyself  Quote: ALL cerimonies are religious, one way or the other, since the concept of marriage is a religious oneNot true. You are so wrapped in the idea that the word Marriage is a Christian word that only Christians should be allowed to use that you have no idea that the word Marriage is used for everyone. It doesn't matter what religion you are or if you are religious at all. When two people are united, by church or by a ceramony at city hall, it's called a Marriage.Using the word "marriage", or any other word for that matter, doesn't necessarily mean you understand its meaning. A "non-religious marriage" is an oxymoron. It's like saying "I believe in a non-religious god". It's rediculous. But because a lot of folks don't know what a marriage is, they don't KNOW it's rediculous. Does that make them right? Hardly. But you seem to think so. Quote:There are MANY people who are Married who are NOT religious. There are many people who think they are married (and aren't) just because they went through a cerimoney. However, the state chooses to recognize their marriage as true in the interest of freedom of religion. But just because the state chooses to recognize it as a marriage doesn't make it one. The state has no power in this regard. Quote: Quote:They can make up their own definition all they want...just don't expect everybody else to have to abide by it. Its funny you say that because thats pretty much what I have been telling you. Just because you feel your defition is right doesn't mean everybody else has to abide by it.You just don't get it. It's not MY definition at all. It comes from the Bible/God. And though it is true, nobody is forcing anybody to abide by it. Your gripe is with what the state will recognize as such...and I've already given you an idea as to what you can do about it (create your own religion). Quote:...no one knows for sure whats right or what God will accept...Some things are found in the Bible...so we can't play the ignorance game with all things.

Again we come full circle on this discussion.You know in your heart and within your faith that only one type of marriage is valid. Fair enough, but why object to other kinds?If you see a Muslim marry a Buddhist in a civil ceremony, you know they are not married in the eyes of god. Is that not enough for you? Same if you see a same sex marriage. Though they believe they are married, you know they are not. What is the point of trying to block them from believing they are married or having that belief acknowledged by the state?I'm sure you've seen that common fridge magnet "God give me the strength to accept that which I cannot change". So, let some people go and think they're married if it makes them happy. It does not diminish you in any way and I'm quite sure god is not so fragile as to be injured by it.

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedAgain we come full circle on this discussion.You know in your heart and within your faith that only one type of marriage is valid. Fair enough, but why object to other kinds?If you see a Muslim marry a Buddhist in a civil ceremony, you know they are not married in the eyes of god. Is that not enough for you? Same if you see a same sex marriage. Though they believe they are married, you know they are not. What is the point of trying to block them from believing they are married or having that belief acknowledged by the state?There are at least two issues at play here. One is the definition of marriage...which the state has no right to meddle with. The second concerns what kinds of "marriage" the state will recognize. If gays had created their own religion and claimed to be married under it, it would be up to the state to choose to recognize it (or not). But that is not what is happening here. Gays are attempting to pervert the Christian marriage...redefine it...and force the government to accept their redefinition as valid. Neither gays, nor the government, have any right to do either of those things.

Wow...This whole argument that the word "marriage" belongs only to the "Judeo/Christian" world is really ridiculous and tiresome.

and again, who cares what the government says or people of differing faiths or incarnations of christanity

Originally Posted By: sdpWow...This whole argument that the word "marriage" belongs only to the "Judeo/Christian" world is really ridiculous and tiresome. Imagine a country of 100% Judeo/Christian believers. I know this country does not now fit that situation, but when it was formed, and the Constitution written, it did for all practical purposes. It's how this country began, and is at least partly responsible for why the phrase "God's Country" was coined to describe it. Here, at that time, the term "marriage" would be as I have described it. It is the concept behind the word...not the word itself. If you want to toss the word around as if it means less than it does to the Judeo/Christian community, you have the freedom to do that. Just don't force us or the govenment to change our defintion for it. That's all I'm asking. If you want to get "married" (secular usage of the word) as a Muslim or a Bhuddist, go for it...that's not my concern.

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedand again, who cares what the government says or people of differing faiths or incarnations of christanity Exactly...as long as they behave responsibly and don't meddle with things that are not of their concern.But make no mistake. It is the Christian marriage that is under attack in this country...not the Bhuddist, the Muslim, or any other kind of "marriage". I consider that to be "meddling".

Quote: There are many people who think they are married (and aren't) just because they went through a cerimoney. However, the state chooses to recognize their marriage as true in the interest of freedom of religion. But just because the state chooses to recognize it as a marriage doesn't make it one. The state has no power in this regard.Okay lets say this is true... than why not allow Same-Sex Marriage since it won't matter since in your eyes same-sex couples really won't be married, but at least by the state we will have equal protections? It makes sense to me since even you saud it would be in the interest of freedom if religion.  Quote: (create your own religion).I have no need to create my own religion, I have a god I love and loves me back. Secondly, you seem to think all Christian churches are against Same-Sex Marriage, well you are very wrong. There are many Chruches (Straight and gay) that support Same-Sex Marriage.  Quote: It's not MY definition at all.But it is, because even you said there is no actually definition in the bible. We can read into anything we like in the bible, but unless God spelled it out all you and people like you are doing is interpreting for YOUR agenda.  Quote: Some things are found in the Bible...so we can't play the ignorance game with all things.I agree, but there are things that you keep trying to state are fact, when in reality they were never defined or spelled out in the bible.

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyself  Quote: There are many people who think they are married (and aren't) just because they went through a cerimoney. However, the state chooses to recognize their marriage as true in the interest of freedom of religion. But just because the state chooses to recognize it as a marriage doesn't make it one. The state has no power in this regard.Okay lets say this is true... than why not allow Same-Sex Marriage...Because it's a Christian marriage they'd be having...as noted by your response: Quote:I have no need to create my own religion, I have a god I love and loves me back. Secondly, you seem to think all Christian churches are against Same-Sex Marriage, well you are very wrong. There are many Chruches (Straight and gay) that support Same-Sex Marriage.It's not news to me, and no secret to any Christian, that we are living in the time of apostasy...the "falling away" from the true church. Some churches have usurped the authority of God and have taken it upon themselves to redefine what marriage means. They are wrong, and so are you. Quote: Quote: It's not MY definition at all.But it is...Nope...answered this one in a previous post. Quote: Quote: Some things are found in the Bible...so we can't play the ignorance game with all things.I agree, but there are things that you keep trying to state are fact, when in reality they were never defined or spelled out in the bible. Can you be more specific?

Quote: Can you be more specific? Hell lets stay on topic.. Marriage. There is no where in the bible, as been said many times in this thread, that the word is a Christian only word. You said so yourself, but you continue to state your interpretation as fact. The bible, on several occassion refers to other people as married even though the parties might not be Christian. But Ineligible pretty much went over all that already.  Quote:Because it's a Christian marriage they'd be having...as noted by your response My point was regardless what you want to call it, it will be called Marriage. If you gave homosexuals the right to have Civil Unions, they would still be considered Married, because people are not going to go around saying "I was Unioned on Saturday". You said it best, for the interest of seperation of Church and state, marriage should be allowed for all concenting adults regardless of gender. It's not up to the Church to decide that that state will and will not recognize.

I think you're just going to have to take solace in your faith and ignore everyone else. Like it or not, non-christians and not-like-you-christians are going to continue to get married everywhere in the world. You can't stop it and, apparently, god does not see a need to stop it.Though you've avoided addressing my situation directly, my marriage did not fit your criteria. Therefore, you know I was never married and naturally, my son is illegitimate.Does this bother me? Not in the least. I know I was married and that my son is not a bastard (though he can be a little creep sometimes)So if certain groups of christians (definitely not all of them) do not accept my marriage, that has absolutely no bearing on my life. Just as my marriage should have no bearing on yours.that is all.

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyself  Quote: Can you be more specific? Hell lets stay on topic.. Marriage. There is no where in the bible, as been said many times in this thread, that the word is a Christian only word. You said so yourself, but you continue to state your interpretation as fact. The bible, on several occassion refers to other people as married even though the parties might not be Christian. But Ineligible pretty much went over all that already.I think further delving into the actual Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek words used (which I don't have handy at the moment) might shed some light. As far as my response to your query goes, I already gave it to Ineligible. Quote: Quote:Because it's a Christian marriage they'd be having...as noted by your response My point was regardless what you want to call it, it will be called Marriage. If you gave homosexuals the right to have Civil Unions, they would still be considered Married, because people are not going to go around saying "I was Unioned on Saturday". You said it best, for the interest of seperation of Church and state, marriage should be allowed for all concenting adults regardless of gender. It's not up to the Church to decide that that state will and will not recognize. It's also not up to the state to dictate to the church, ANY church, what a marriage in that church consists of...ONLY whether they choose to recognize it or not. As such, gays need to find a religion, or create their own, where gay "marriage" already exists, CEASE to attempt to pervert Christian marriages, and CEASE trying to convince the government to do so by redefining it (which would be unConstitutional). What you, or anyone, would choose to call such a "marriage" is irrelevant.