Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[dianaiad]

<snip most of the post, with which I mostly agree, except for the following>

Therefore prop 8 was wrong, wasn't it? The LDS Church acted against its own teachings by financing an operation seeking to either limit legal rights of people based on sexual orientation, OR limit spiritual freedom of people through the government, depending on the interpretation of the word "marriage".

Interesting.

So...according to you, it's perfectly Ok for a group of people to insist that even though they have every single legal and contractual right..as members of a civil union/domestic partnership...that the state can give a married couple, that they are perfectly justified in insisting that the government force acceptance of the spiritual and personal nature of those relationships within belief systems not their own on pain of government imposed penalties...

And the folks who are objecting to this are the ones who are wrong?

Got news for you.

Mormons KNOW what happens when the government tries to legislate the 'spiritual' nature of marriage. It never turns out well. Fines, imprisonment, property confiscation, families torn apart...and that was just five years ago. We have longer memories than that, y'know, when the government decided that their right to determine what 'marriage' is spiritually was so paramount that they sent half the armed services of the USA OUT OF THE COUNTRY in order to punish us for having a different concept of what marriage is.

Now WE see that the government is out to do it again. People have already been penalized for disagreeing with the 'spiritual' meaning of marriage.

...and it is none of the government's business, what religions think marriage is..or what anybody thinks marriage is. The government should stick to the contracts. Period.

[dianaiad]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

The issue is not with Christians abiding by their own definition of marriage - it's with them foisting it on everyone else and the government recognizing it as such. I'm not a Christian, the government should not be in the place of promoting one religions take on a cultural institution (Muslims marry, Hindus marry, Buddhists marry, Mormons marry, etc...) so why would I be OK with Christians demanding that everyone else give way to their specific beliefs?

You have this backwards. It's not us trying to redefine and force our definition on other people.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 72 by dianaiad]

Backwards... how so? I live in a state that happens to allow Gay marriage specifically, a much more inclusive - broader in scope and less specific - definition of marriage.

Before the law was passed to allow it, marriage was defined as being between man and woman - a much more specific, less inclusive definition than it is now, and one that had decidedly Judeo - Christian roots.

You see - going from less inclusive marriage to more inclusive marriage means that the definition is getting less specific and less based on one particular world view. It is indeed the Christian right that is gnashing their teeth - trying to regain the control that they lost/ are losing.

I do not think I have this backwards at all or in any sense.

*adding on... now that I think of it*

Diana - nobody is forcing you to marry another woman, you are still allowed to marry as you please - by your own definition... nobody has ever talked about taking that away from you - or how the government treats your relationship. The only difference is now, people like you have less ability to go around to others telling them who they can/ cannot marry and be recognized by the government.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 72 by dianaiad]

Backwards... how so? I live in a state that happens to allow Gay marriage specifically, a much more inclusive - broader in scope and less specific - definition of marriage.

Before the law was passed to allow it, marriage was defined as being between man and woman - a much more specific, less inclusive definition than it is now, and one that had decidedly Judeo - Christian roots.

Really.

Two things: First, nobody has ever been able to show that marriage has ever been legal between same sex couples...unless it's the marriage of the tyrant in charge ('tyrant' in the literal sense, as in...the ruler who can do anything he wants, up to and including declaring the godhood of his horse).

Second, the definition of 'marriage' as requiring at least one member of each sex (for the purpose, supposedly, of possible procreation) is pretty universal...not just 'judeo-christian,' but pretty much from every belief system and culture.

You see - going from less inclusive marriage to more inclusive marriage means that the definition is getting less specific and less based on one particular world view. It is indeed the Christian right that is gnashing their teeth - trying to regain the control that they lost/ are losing.

Yes.

Control over being able to believe as they wish within their own belief systems. It's called 'freedom of religion."

It doesn't matter whether YOU approve of the change.

It's not us changing. It is the government redefining.

I do not think I have this backwards at all or in any sense.

*adding on... now that I think of it*

Diana - nobody is forcing you to marry another woman, you are still allowed to marry as you please - by your own definition... nobody has ever talked about taking that away from you - or how the government treats your relationship. The only difference is now, people like you have less ability to go around to others telling them who they can/ cannot marry and be recognized by the government.

I have no interest in telling others what rights or responsibilities the government can give them in regard to their relationships. Not my business, not my problem.

I have EVERY interest in preventing others from punishing me because of my view of it.

Tell me: if I am a church that owns a piece of land, and I allow non-members to picnic on it, is there a problem if I say 'because we do not believe in drinking alcohol, you are welcome as long as you leave the beer home?" If I allow youth and other groups to camp on my property....but have a set of rules for them to follow, including " because this is a church owned property, we ask that you respect our beliefs and honor our culture while you are here." Don't we have the right to do that?

The problem is, gay rights activists don't think that we have that right.

A business which was blatant about advertising services for straight weddings would be sued as soon as the ad came out.

.............but gay wedding photographers can, and do, advertise services specifically for gay couples without a blink.

A business which refused to cater/shoot/whatever gay weddings not only will be sued...HAS been sued and put out of business.

However, a business which refuses to provide services to 'straight' couples...because they only do 'gay' weddings...is perfectly acceptable. Companies like that are proudly advertising all over the place, and anybody who wanted to sue such a business would be laughed out of court.

The thing is, YOU want change, you want what you want, and figure that because YOU are the one who wants it, then it is righteous; you don't consider that your insistence that everybody accept and approve of your opinions is just as much forcing your wished on others as anything you are accusing your opponents of...

and YOU are the one who is demanding the change. Justify it, please.

Especially, justify this insane idea y'all seem to have that just because you want to see something, it means you have the right to force everybody else to agree with it.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 74 by dianaiad]

Diana

You are confusing two issues - gay marriage - and sexual orientation being a protected class.

If a state were to allow gay marriage, where sexuality is not a protected class - and a florist said they did not want to furnish the flowers of a wedding because it is between two gay people - then that florist would fully be within their right to decline services.

The gay couple could sue if they wanted to, but they would have no legal justification to do so.

If we are talking about just gay marriage though - it doesn't do anything that affects you or how you define marriage or who you marry or whatever.

If you want to argue about sexuality being a protected class... then that is another issue altogether.

[scourge99]

[Replying to post 72 by dianaiad]

Backwards... how so? I live in a state that happens to allow Gay marriage specifically, a much more inclusive - broader in scope and less specific - definition of marriage.

Before the law was passed to allow it, marriage was defined as being between man and woman - a much more specific, less inclusive definition than it is now, and one that had decidedly Judeo - Christian roots.

Really.

Two things: First, nobody has ever been able to show that marriage has ever been legal between same sex couples...unless it's the marriage of the tyrant in charge ('tyrant' in the literal sense, as in...the ruler who can do anything he wants, up to and including declaring the godhood of his horse).

Its legal in most of Europe and in 12 states.

Second, the definition of 'marriage' as requiring at least one member of each sex (for the purpose, supposedly, of possible procreation) is pretty universal...not just 'judeo-christian,' but pretty much from every belief system and culture.

And it was also pretty universal that dowrys be paid and that married women are little more than property for their husbands. I don't suppose you want to go back to that standard do you?

You see - going from less inclusive marriage to more inclusive marriage means that the definition is getting less specific and less based on one particular world view. It is indeed the Christian right that is gnashing their teeth - trying to regain the control that they lost/ are losing.

Yes.

Control over being able to believe as they wish within their own belief systems. It's called 'freedom of religion."

It doesn't matter whether YOU approve of the change.

It's not us changing. It is the government redefining.

So one of your complaints is that you are a definition nazi and demand that your favored definition of a word be maintained for everyone because of your religious beliefs?

I do not think I have this backwards at all or in any sense.

*adding on... now that I think of it*

Diana - nobody is forcing you to marry another woman, you are still allowed to marry as you please - by your own definition... nobody has ever talked about taking that away from you - or how the government treats your relationship. The only difference is now, people like you have less ability to go around to others telling them who they can/ cannot marry and be recognized by the government.

I have no interest in telling others what rights or responsibilities the government can give them in regard to their relationships. Not my business, not my problem.

I have EVERY interest in preventing others from punishing me because of my view of it.

Its a very simple comparison to make, dianaiad. If you come across a situation that you think its OK to discriminate against gays then ask yourself if you think it would be OK to discriminate based on race. If you don't think its OK to discriminate based on race in that situation then its probably not OK to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It really is that simple.

Tell me: if I am a church that owns a piece of land, and I allow non-members to picnic on it, is there a problem if I say 'because we do not believe in drinking alcohol, you are welcome as long as you leave the beer home?"

Last time i checked, alcohol drinkers were not a protected class. But i don't know if it would be legal to regulate such a thing if you open up your property to public use.

If I allow youth and other groups to camp on my property....but have a set of rules for them to follow, including " because this is a church owned property, we ask that you respect our beliefs and honor our culture while you are here." Don't we have the right to do that?

You'll have to give concrete examples. "respecting beliefs and culture" is vague.

A business which was blatant about advertising services for straight weddings would be sued as soon as the ad came out.

Only if this company discriminates based on sexual orientation. Just like if they discriminated based on race.

.............but gay wedding photographers can, and do, advertise services specifically for gay couples without a blink.

Discrimination works both ways. Notice that "homosexuality" is not a protected class. Rather, "sexual orientation" is. That protects both straights and gays from discrimination.

A business which refused to cater/shoot/whatever gay weddings not only will be sued...HAS been sued and put out of business.

Yep. Just like companies that refuse to cater/shoot/whatever black weddings.

However, a business which refuses to provide services to 'straight' couples...because they only do 'gay' weddings...is perfectly acceptable.

If sexual orientation is a protected class then that would be illegal.

Companies like that are proudly advertising all over the place, and anybody who wanted to sue such a business would be laughed out of court.

I have a feeling you haven't even looked into the details of the cases except superficially by reading headline pages.

The thing is, YOU want change, you want what you want, and figure that because YOU are the one who wants it, then it is righteous; you don't consider that your insistence that everybody accept and approve of your opinions is just as much forcing your wished on others as anything you are accusing your opponents of...

Its not an opinion that gays are equal and deserving of the same rights as straights. Its a fact. Same goes for blacks and women.

and YOU are the one who is demanding the change. Justify it, please.

Because human rights are not restricted based on race, religion, age, sex, or sexual orientation.

Especially, justify this insane idea y'all seem to have that just because you want to see something, it means you have the right to force everybody else to agree with it.

You don't have to agree with it. You can be a racist, homophobe, and/or a misogynist all your live long days.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 72 by dianaiad]

Backwards... how so? I live in a state that happens to allow Gay marriage specifically, a much more inclusive - broader in scope and less specific - definition of marriage.

Before the law was passed to allow it, marriage was defined as being between man and woman - a much more specific, less inclusive definition than it is now, and one that had decidedly Judeo - Christian roots.

Really.

Two things: First, nobody has ever been able to show that marriage has ever been legal between same sex couples...unless it's the marriage of the tyrant in charge ('tyrant' in the literal sense, as in...the ruler who can do anything he wants, up to and including declaring the godhood of his horse).

Its legal in most of Europe and in 12 states.

Begging the question.

Big time.

[AC]

[Replying to post 5 by 99percentatheism]

my point is why label a Christian hateful for believing what Jesus and the writers of the New Testament wrote. And of course, charging a Christian with hate for being honest about that Christian marriage is immutably man and woman . . . is itself a hate crime.

I'm new here, but see an immediate problem here. Would it be wrong to criticise me - accuse me of hatefulness even - if I opposed inter-racial marriage on the basis of Joseph Smith's Mormon teachings, or as an adherent to Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy? I mean I would only be being honest to my interpretation of religious/spiritual writings, and if this is what I require for others (who might not share my beliefs) as well as myself, shouldn't I be protected of rigorous criticism? Would it be a hate crime to call me racist? In fact, I assert that there is no good reason - secular or religious - not just to enshrine my beliefs as law.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 74 by dianaiad]


per my previous response - laws allowing gay marriage are not the same laws setting sexual orientation as a protected class - I might double check which one you are arguing against in the above reply.

furthermore - If you are a church, or any private membership group for that matter, you can discriminate all you want... Churches are not forced to marry gay couples afterall.

However, there is a difference between owning a business and operating a private organization when it comes to protected classes.

Businesses that want to operate in the public realm, and make money off of it's inhabitants - must abide by the laws of the state in this regard and cannot discriminate against any class protected within that states governance - it is here that gay marriage and your argument against is purely incidental and does not have much if anything to do with your stated reasons for opposition.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 5 by 99percentatheism]

my point is why label a Christian hateful for believing what Jesus and the writers of the New Testament wrote. And of course, charging a Christian with hate for being honest about that Christian marriage is immutably man and woman . . . is itself a hate crime.

I'm new here, but see an immediate problem here. Would it be wrong to criticise me - accuse me of hatefulness even - if I opposed inter-racial marriage on the basis of Joseph Smith's Mormon teachings,

If you opposed inter-racial marriage on the basis of Joseph Smith's teachings, you would be dishonest. Just as a matter of fact.