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?

[99percentatheism]

99 does your sect reject outright the OT?

Sect?

Define what you mean first. It is not the Christians that have the wrong person being sacrificed by Abraham. It was Isaac and certainly not Ishmael. Etc., etc., etc..

[99percentatheism]

tokutter:

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?[/quote]


Why.....because you a little boy crying wolf ....in a sea of little boys crying wolf....you christians don't ADHERE to any of the stuff you preach.

What about DIVORCE....ADULTERY...both pretty bad things as far as marriage is concerned.....whats the christian ADHERANCE percentages on these things.

Your left banging the only drum you have left.......trying to margilize a minority......thats right show the lord how serious you are about the rules....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH.

99.....I think you and the christian community need to start right...the process...of reinterpretation......

OK. Awesome. You are one of those kinds of people that know exactly what a Christian should be like. Excellent.

Let's start with marriage since that is what this thread is about. We can address the bash aspects of your views somewhere else.

Marriage in the New Testament "for Christians," is man and woman/husband and wife.

So I see that you are completely supporting that view in your demands that Christians behave as Christians should. And that, of course, would put any support for some alternate configuration of marriage as honestly outside the scope of Christian truth.

Excellent demand pal.

And of course met.

Thank you.

Oh and also, anyone or any organization that would label hate, or bigotry or some kind of irrationality to marriage as immutably man and woman . . . for Christians would be in the wrong in this case. And more than likely guilty of a hate crime against Christians for suing them, boycotting their businesses etc., etc..

I can't thank you enough for your total support of Christian marriage as only man and woman. Please, also, be there for us as we get continually attacked for living (like you present) as Christians should.

That would make those that want to attack us for our "Christian consistency" as the bad guys.

Whew!

Meet my demand.....hmmmmmmm...let's look at your words again.....

"Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching[/i]"

What's the biblical teaching on divorce and adultery....(divorce rate in this christian country over 50% usa,I'm assuming you live here)...aaaaaaaah we don't worry about those teachins anymore....nobody will comply....maybe you all will dust them off someday.....wink wink nudge nudge....BUT THIS HERE SAME SEX MARRIAGE BLASPHEMY..THAT HAS TO BE STOPPED {insert laugh track}

So since you have just compared same gender marraieg to adultery, you have qualified it as sin.

Agreed. Two wrongs can only make a wrong.

your words...."So I see that you are completely supporting that view in your demands that Christians behave as Christians should".....yeah on what they want to..see above

From my perspective: from what I've read of yours in this thread and others
The people in the "cliche" in your club get this>> sin>forgiveness sin>forgiveness sin>forgiveness sin>forgiveness sin>forgiveness sin>forgiveness sin>forgiveness sin>forgiveness.................yippeeeee

Per Jesus, those that repent get unlimted forgiveness. Those that repent.

The homosexuals get this>>sin..HAMMER>sweep sweep sweep sweep>trash can>hellfire

The sinners that repent. Homosexuals have this position that they demand that are not sinning. They use a congenital excuse in fact. You seem to know the bible a bit. No repentance no forgiveness. You seem to understand that.

Isn't that right T-C.

99 The fact that you want a law, based on a teaching in your theology, enforced out here in the real world, all the while in your theology you pick and choose from the teachings menu what works for you.....is hysterical..{insert laugh track}

But how funny is a guy calling another guy his husband? Or wife A woman calling another woman her wife? Or husband . . .

You may not want to throw stones living in a glass house.

But of course laughing can get a person arrested for bullying or a hate crimes charge huh? Interesting tactics employed I'll say that. Unlimited attacks on Christians or anyone that will not kowtow.

Also,.....your words "You are one of those kinds of people that know exactly what a Christian should be like".......How in the world would i ever know what a christian should be like....I've conversed with many "christians"...family,friends,forums...Everytime I get something different. It's nice to know YOU have it all figured out.

Yet you know divorce is wrong. Try thinking about your assertions and get back to me.

Meet my demand....meh don't think so ....nice head fake tho........Keep crying wolf..........oh..........and get started on those reinterpretations...your gonna need em

Crying wolf? Your very words prove the veracity of our concerns. Nothing unsubstantial about them.

[99percentatheism]

kayky

Not without schism, strife and contention and opposition.

This is ancient history. The people of my church are very happy--there is no strife,
contention, or opposition.

The people of your Church? The following is you right?:

Joined: 01 May 2009
Total posts: 4312
Location: Kentucky
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Usergroups:
Christian Heretic
Has read the entire Bible
Tolerant, Respectful and Civil

Ohhhhhkay.

I am from one of the "mainline Churches."

Why do I find this hard to believe?

That says more than I could about you.

And it is the standard and typical "liberal" veins that do this. It appears no different than Universalism in its scope. It's just that the liberal activists refuse to do what is right and leave to form their own unique organizations. This was predicted to happen.

No one was asked to leave. The progressives are the Episcopalian church.

The people that believe in the Bible left. The schism of the Episcoplian Church IS history. http://www.postandcourier.com/article/2 ... rstandable

Can you show from New Testament scripture that not only marriage, as Jesus described and defined it, as well as "Christian marriage" as described and defined everywhere it is referenced and described, is of anything BUT immutably man and woman/husband and wife?

I find such a request silly and meaningless.

Of course you do.

Denominations practicing non-biblical actions antithetical to orthodoxy, has no bearing on Christian truth.

And your idea of "Christian truth" has no bearing on us.

I wouldn't want to even be in your group. Let alone try to influence any of you. You are free to alter the Bible in whatever manner you see fit. Just don't force your secularization on those of us that choose Christ as did the Apostles.

Heresy and heretics have plagued the Church since just about the very first mention of an orgainzed body of fellowship of believers.

The age of oppressing "heretics" is over. The Church hierarchy has lost its stranglehold.

You can believe that fantasy all you want to. Interesting that the fruit of liberalism is schism.

Jude and Peter define these kinds of people to perfection. That seems the very reason why the New Testament writings were undertaken: To combat false teachings and false teachers from infecting The Church.

One man's heretic is another man's reformer.

When compared to the writings of the New testament, a heretic is a heretic. Easy to discern by scriptural methods.

Any reasonable person should utterly support those Christians that view the immutabllity of "Christian marriage" as man and woman/husband and wife and not claim there is bigotry, hate or any other 21st century propagandist connotation to believing as Jesus and His followers did about what a marriage consists of and who. Man and woman as husband and wife.

The problem is that we Episcopalians don't like to lie.

Reality says otherwise. There is no such thing as same gender marriage in Christian truth. But not to some Episcopalians that teach something else.

This is not a complicated thread.

I find it quite uncomplicated as well.

I'd say not from seeing the positions you seem to hold to. To try to make man another man's wife, or a woman another woman's wife is so convoluted as to be the very definition of complicated. In fact impossible according to Jesus and the plain testimony of the New Testament witness.

[Allahakbar]

99 does your sect reject outright the OT?

Sect?

Define what you mean first. It is not the Christians that have the wrong person being sacrificed by Abraham. It was Isaac and certainly not Ishmael. Etc., etc., etc..

Well you belong to one of the many christian sects, it's just a method of identifying.
But I guess you don't throw out the OT, is that correct. ie you use the bible and not the NT?

[no evidence no belief]

Get government out of marriage altogether. Period.

I actually kinda agree with that.

I think there should be two different words. One for the package of legal rights granted to any two consenting adults that choose to partner up (tax breaks, hospital visitations, green card applications,etc) and the other for the religious rituals that some people consider so important.

The government would be constitutionally required to grant that package of rights to any two consenting adults that requested it, and then the religious ceremonies could be left to the various churches.

Y'know, I've been advocating this for YEARS...and been uniformly criticized, vilified, called 'homophobic,' 'bigoted,' (and worse things) by gay rights activists left and left.

I should be, actually, mature about this and be grateful that someone is actually seeing the virtue in the idea, and not worry about the myriad attacks upon it because I'm the one who advocated it.

I should be.

I can't seem to manage it, though.

I CAN say this: YES, m'friend, that is EXACTLY how to solve this!

This way if Diane wants to consider herself married to a corpse (within her religion) she can, and it has nothing to do with the fact that there is no package of legal rights associated with her necrophilic relationship.

You know I'm not 'married to a corpse.' I'm married to Jim, who is NOT in the body that so betrayed him, which lies buried in a cemetery a mile and a half from here. HE is alive, spiritually, and waiting for me. I find your...description...of this to be discourteous, extremely distasteful, and more important to the discussion, incredibly inaccurate. While you might not care about the discourtesy, you should at least be interested in accuracy.

Or perhaps not.

If she wants to believe that within her religion a couple isn't married because one spouse is black and the other is white, or because they are gay, she is welcome to believe that, with the understanding that there is a wall of separation between her religious beliefs and the fact that those couple are nonetheless granted the same legal rights as any two consenting adults.

Not a problem.

Legal marriage and religious marriage should be completely separate.

yes. They should be...to the point that marriages performed by religious clerics should have no legal standing at all. Civil Unions (or domestic partnerships or whatever legal appellation that the government more accurately applies to these relationships) should be handled contractually through city hall or some other entity, period.

Legal marriage should have ZERO religious validity, and religious marriage should have ZERO legal validity.

Yes.

However, "marriage" is a bombshell word. It has too much history behind it, has been applied first to the cultural and religious aspect of the word for too long. Those who think the word 'marriage" don't think of the legal rights; this has been proven by California. Remember, gay civil unions in California had EVERY SINGLE LEGAL RIGHT that heterosexual marriages had. Every single one of them. No difference in any way. However, gays were not happy with all the legal and civil rights. They wanted the cultural and religious approval that the word 'marriage' gave them; that extra 'oomph,' over and above contractual and civil rights and obligations involved.

The government can't really give them that...it had already given them everything it could.

So...leave the word 'marriage' to the religions and the cultures, where the promises, vows and rules are personal, based on one's own belief systems, and utterly unenforceable by the government. Everybody can get married, if their own belief system allows it...and if theirs doesn't, they can change belief systems to one that does and THEN get married.

The GOVERNMENT supplies the civil rights through civil unions. Domestic partnerships; legal descriptions for legal matters. Everybody who wants those rights has to get them through the government; everybody gets civil unions. Everybody gets married.

Simple.
Everybody wins.

Solve everything, because nobody would have a gripe coming, would they? Gays get the rights AND they get married. Heterosexuals get the rights AND they get married....exactly the same way. No difference.

Ok, I think we are mostly on the same page here.

A couple of quick questions, just with regards to the fact that you've been accused of being a homophobe.

We agree completely that on the one hand there are the set of rights that any couple comprised of consenting adults should be able to obtain from "legal marriage". On the other hand there is "spiritual marriage", which is completely meaningless on a legal level and instead has cultural significance that can vary a great deal from person to person.

Now that we agree on the structure, let's look at some specifics.

As far as "legal marriage" goes, things are pretty clear. A "consenting adult" is quite well defined in the law books, the rights are very clear, etc. There may be some variation from State to State, but it's relatively straight forward.

On the other hand, there is going to be immense variation in the definition of "spiritual marriage". Every religion, every church, every denomination, every atheist group, every humanist club, is going to have a different definition of "spiritual marriage". And that's good. Unlike "legal marriage" where we strive for an even playing field and an element of uniformity, in "spiritual marriage" we should welcome cultural variety.

That having been said, I'd imagine you'd agree that not every definition of marriage is benign, just because we welcome cultural variety.

Would you agree that a church that defined marriage as "The union of a male member of the Ku Klux Klan and a female member of a Ku Klux Klan exclusively" could be described with the word "bigoted"?

I'm NOT denying their right to adopt that definition as long as they understand it has zero legal weight. But I'm also not denying our right to form and freely express our opinion of their definition of marriage. That's ok, right?

Would you agree that a pro-pedophilia social group that defined marriage as "the union between a man above 40 and a child below 10" is not a good place to send your children for sunday school?

As long as this group commits no crimes, I'm not denying their first amendment right to define "spiritual marriage" as they will. But I also reserve the right to say that if they didn't exist the world would be a better place. I'm assuming you concur.

Would you agree that a church that defined spiritual marriage as "the union between a man and a woman of the same ethnicity" was bigoted?

Again, they have the right to define marriage as they wish, but you have the right to think they're bigots. And, obviously, I assume you do think they're bigots.

Alright. So here is where we find out if indeed you are a homophobe or not.

Would you agree that a church that defined spiritual marriage to exclude loving and committed couple who happened to be of the same gender, is bigoted?

Again, I want to be clear. I would defend with my life these churches' right to free speech. But I would be interested in your opinion.

Are churches or other groups that specifically exclude gay couples from recognition as "spiritually married" bigoted?

Only one of three possible things can happen now.

You either give me a straight answer, or you deflect and obfuscate, or you ignore my question.

Whichever one you do, we'll all know whether the accusations of homophobia addressed at you were on or off the mark.

[dianaiad]

<snip to the important question>

Would you agree that a church that defined spiritual marriage to exclude loving and committed couple who happened to be of the same gender, is bigoted?

Well, 'obstinately convinced that one's own opinion is correct and superior to all others ' (part of the definition of 'bigoted') Yes. However, everybody is bigoted in that sense, against all other competing ideas. So if you want to call me a bigot therefore, feel free.

Of course, the other, operative clause in the definition is:Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance.

"Prejudice and intolerance' would involve, I think, attempting to force the PRACTICE of one's own beliefs upon those who don't share it. I submit to you that neither I, nor my church are the ones doing that; quite the other way around.

As well, while it is absolutely your right to call 'bigoted' any opinion that differs from your own because, of course, the holder of that opinion probably does prefer his own, he can call you bigot in return with equal justification. If we are all bigots, then, where is the insult in being one?

All that said, I think another point would be...why a church would define marriage so as to exclude same sex marriages. See, that's a problem that mainstream Christian churches are going to have to deal with, doctrinally; there is really no reason for their intransigence. Most, if not all, of them believe that marriage is for this world only; there is no such thing as 'eternal marriage..' marriage is dissolved at death. No married people in heaven. Everybody single.

No matter how you look at it, that's how it ends up. Doctrinally. Disallowing same sex marriage is about perceived sin.

Mormons, though.....male/female marriage is central to our doctrine--and our idea of Who God actually is. Not recognizing same sex marriage isn't about sin (homosexual sex is no more, nor less, sin than any other sex outside marriage). It's about the very nature of God and who we are. Marriage...male/female marriage...is so important to us, so central to our beliefs, because we consider that no man or woman can reach his/her full potential as a child of God without his/her spouse. His/her spouse of the OPPOSITE gender.

We don't have any problems, in reality, with those who wish to live their lives any way they want to...as long as they do not force US to change the very basic rock standards of our idea of God within OUR faith. And that's what is being tried. It is not WE being bigots, in other words. WE aren't attempting to redefine what marriage is, and we are not attempting to force the government to recognize what WE see as marriage, or attempting to force others to recognize our views. That's what my point about my own marriage was about. Jim and I are married. Always will be...as in 'eternal.' That's what we promised, and just because he went there before I did, doesn't mean we are no longer married any more than a military couple is no longer married because one of 'em is deployed for a year overseas. They were married before, they are married while they are separated, and they are still married when they are reunited.

That's how WE see it, and because of our deep beliefs, it's not possible for that sort of marriage to happen between members of the same sex. Not 'sinful,' but 'impossible.' We do not see it as sinful if someone who doesn't believe as we do obeys the laws HE knows. We simply do not wish to be forced to his view any more than he wishes to be forced to ours.

So a homosexual couple cannot be married and LDS. That has NOTHING to do with whether they can have the civil rights the government provides; that's an utterly separate issue, and again, (see California) the church had NO problem with the laws regarding homosexual unions before they decided that 'marriage' (meaning, we had to see them as 'married' in our view) was what they wanted.

Again, I want to be clear. I would defend with my life these churches' right to free speech. But I would be interested in your opinion.

Are churches or other groups that specifically exclude gay couples from recognition as "spiritually married" bigoted?

Not unless they extend that lack of recognition. That is, if they say 'if WE don't see them as 'married,' nobody else can either." Perhaps that's a subtle difference to you, but it is a real one.

It's the difference between 'Ok, you are married according to your beliefs, but not mine,' and 'if we don't see you as married, YOU can't see you as married."

Only one of three possible things can happen now.

You either give me a straight answer, or you deflect and obfuscate, or you ignore my question.

Whichever one you do, we'll all know whether the accusations of homophobia addressed at you were on or off the mark.

I predict: I claim to have answered as directly and clearly as I can.
YOU will claim that I 'deflected and obfuscated"

[kayky]

The people of your Church? The following is you right?:

Joined: 01 May 2009
Total posts: 4312
Location: Kentucky
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Usergroups:
Christian Heretic
Has read the entire Bible
Tolerant, Respectful and Civil

Ohhhhhkay.

What are you talking about? There are well over two million Episcopalians.

I am from one of the "mainline Churches."

Kayky: Why do I find this hard to believe?

That says more than I could about you.

What does that even mean???

The people that believe in the Bible left. The schism of the Episcoplian Church IS history.

The ones who were homophobic left. And it is history, as you seem to agree. We have moved on just fine without them. I prefer to think of it as a "purging" rather than a schism.

Can you show from New Testament scripture that not only marriage, as Jesus described and defined it, as well as "Christian marriage" as described and defined everywhere it is referenced and described, is of anything BUT immutably man and woman/husband and wife?

Kayky: I fiind such a request silly and meaningless.

Of course you do.

I also find debating with homophobes silly and meaningless. I do it only for the sake of those following along.

I wouldn't want to even be in your group. Let alone try to influence any of you. You are free to alter the Bible in whatever manner you see fit. Just don't force your secularization on those of us that choose Christ as did the Apostles.

Well, you certainly wouldn't fit in!! But I don't see anyone trying to "force" anything on you and your kind.

Kayky: The age of oppressing "heretics" is over. The Church hierarchy has lost its stranglehold.

You can believe that fantasy all you want to. Interesting that the fruit of liberalism is schism.

Interesting that schism is much more prevalent in conservative denominations. The Southern Baptists, for example, split with the mainline Baptists because they didn't want to give up their slaves. I'd say the mainline Baptists also saw this as a "purging."
Do you know how many different Baptist denominations there are now?

Kayky: One man's heretic is another man's reformer.

When compared to the writings of the New testament, a heretic is a heretic. Easy to discern by scriptural methods.

It is impossible for fundamentalists, who do not understand the Bible at all.

Reality says otherwise. There is no such thing as same gender marriage in Christian truth. But not to some Episcopalians that teach something else.

You keep saying that as if repetition could make it so.

I'd say not from seeing the positions you seem to hold to. To try to make man another man's wife, or a woman another woman's wife is so convoluted as to be the very definition of complicated. In fact impossible according to Jesus and the plain testimony of the New Testament witness.

Yet these kinds of relationships have always existed. So, evidently, it is perfectly natural.

[no evidence no belief]

<snip to the important question>

Would you agree that a church that defined spiritual marriage to exclude loving and committed couple who happened to be of the same gender, is bigoted?

Well, 'obstinately convinced that one's own opinion is correct and superior to all others ' (part of the definition of 'bigoted') Yes. However, everybody is bigoted in that sense, against all other competing ideas. So if you want to call me a bigot therefore, feel free.

Of course, the other, operative clause in the definition is:Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance.

"Prejudice and intolerance' would involve, I think, attempting to force the PRACTICE of one's own beliefs upon those who don't share it. I submit to you that neither I, nor my church are the ones doing that; quite the other way around.

As well, while it is absolutely your right to call 'bigoted' any opinion that differs from your own because, of course, the holder of that opinion probably does prefer his own, he can call you bigot in return with equal justification. If we are all bigots, then, where is the insult in being one?

All that said, I think another point would be...why a church would define marriage so as to exclude same sex marriages. See, that's a problem that mainstream Christian churches are going to have to deal with, doctrinally; there is really no reason for their intransigence. Most, if not all, of them believe that marriage is for this world only; there is no such thing as 'eternal marriage..' marriage is dissolved at death. No married people in heaven. Everybody single.

No matter how you look at it, that's how it ends up. Doctrinally. Disallowing same sex marriage is about perceived sin.

Mormons, though.....male/female marriage is central to our doctrine--and our idea of Who God actually is. Not recognizing same sex marriage isn't about sin (homosexual sex is no more, nor less, sin than any other sex outside marriage). It's about the very nature of God and who we are. Marriage...male/female marriage...is so important to us, so central to our beliefs, because we consider that no man or woman can reach his/her full potential as a child of God without his/her spouse. His/her spouse of the OPPOSITE gender.

We don't have any problems, in reality, with those who wish to live their lives any way they want to...as long as they do not force US to change the very basic rock standards of our idea of God within OUR faith. And that's what is being tried. It is not WE being bigots, in other words. WE aren't attempting to redefine what marriage is, and we are not attempting to force the government to recognize what WE see as marriage, or attempting to force others to recognize our views. That's what my point about my own marriage was about. Jim and I are married. Always will be...as in 'eternal.' That's what we promised, and just because he went there before I did, doesn't mean we are no longer married any more than a military couple is no longer married because one of 'em is deployed for a year overseas. They were married before, they are married while they are separated, and they are still married when they are reunited.

That's how WE see it, and because of our deep beliefs, it's not possible for that sort of marriage to happen between members of the same sex. Not 'sinful,' but 'impossible.' We do not see it as sinful if someone who doesn't believe as we do obeys the laws HE knows. We simply do not wish to be forced to his view any more than he wishes to be forced to ours.

So a homosexual couple cannot be married and LDS. That has NOTHING to do with whether they can have the civil rights the government provides; that's an utterly separate issue, and again, (see California) the church had NO problem with the laws regarding homosexual unions before they decided that 'marriage' (meaning, we had to see them as 'married' in our view) was what they wanted.

Again, I want to be clear. I would defend with my life these churches' right to free speech. But I would be interested in your opinion.

Are churches or other groups that specifically exclude gay couples from recognition as "spiritually married" bigoted?

Not unless they extend that lack of recognition. That is, if they say 'if WE don't see them as 'married,' nobody else can either." Perhaps that's a subtle difference to you, but it is a real one.

It's the difference between 'Ok, you are married according to your beliefs, but not mine,' and 'if we don't see you as married, YOU can't see you as married."

Only one of three possible things can happen now.

You either give me a straight answer, or you deflect and obfuscate, or you ignore my question.

Whichever one you do, we'll all know whether the accusations of homophobia addressed at you were on or off the mark.

I predict: I claim to have answered as directly and clearly as I can.
YOU will claim that I 'deflected and obfuscated"

Let me make sure I understand you correctly, because I seem to have misunderstood you in the past.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in the following description of your position:

You believe that "spiritual marriage" and "legal marriage" (for lack of better terms) are completely different.

You believe that spiritual marriage should be handled exclusively by churches, religious institutions, social clubs, individuals, etc, and that the government should have NOTHING to do with it.

You believe that legal marriage, namely the granting of legal rights such as tax breaks, green cards, hospital visitations, etc, to those who create family units that are beneficial to society as a whole, should be granted universally to all consenting adults, should be handled by the government and that churches should have no say in how those secular legal rights are administered.

You believe that variation in the definition of spiritual marriage from one group to another is totally acceptable, indeed laudable, in that it contributes to the cultural vibrancy of our society.

You believe that legal marriage, to the contrary, should be as standardized and uniform as possible, and that the legal rights that fall under its umbrella should be granted to all consenting adults who declare their intention to form a family, without any discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.

If you were at a dinner party with a gay couple, an atheist couple, an interracial couple and a guy claiming to be married to an inflatable doll, you would gladly acknowledge that all those people are spiritually married within their own belief systems, and you would like them to acknowledge that you are spiritually married to your dead husband within your own belief system. You would not force them to accept your definition of spiritual marriage and you wouldn't find it acceptable for any of them to force you to accept their definition of spiritual marriage.

On the other hand, if you were at a dinner party with the same gay couple, atheist couple, interracial couple and guy with inflatable doll, you would only acknowledge the legal marriage of the gay couple, the atheist couple and the interracial couple, and acknowledge that you and your dead husband, and the guy with his inflatable doll cannot be legally married because a dead person and an inflatable doll are not consenting adults and are not able to enter into contracts.

You believe that the separation of church and state when it comes to marriage should also include a clarification of the language.

A lot of confusion is created by statements such as "Marriage is between people of the same ethnicity".

That statement, given the lack of clarity of our language, could mean two different things. It could mean "Legal marriage is only between people of the same ethnicity", which would be highly unethical and unacceptable. Or it could mean "Spiritual marriage is only between people of the same ethnicity according to my personal beliefs" which would probably be something both of us disagree with, but which we would have to respect as the spiritual beliefs of a fellow human being. Are we on the same page?

You believe that it's wrong for the government to make a statement such as "Legal marriage is between people of the same ethnicity". To only grant legal rights to some and not to others based on their ethnicity is illegal, unconstitutional and immoral.

You believe that it's wrong for the government to make a statement such as "spiritual marriage is between people of the same ethnicity". The government has NO BUSINESS making ANY statement about spiritual marriage, so any government statement that begins with "spiritual marriage is...." is automatically unacceptable.

In short, you believe that it's wrong for the government to make statements that preclude any group of consenting adults from entering into legal OR spiritual marriage. With legal marriage, for the government to preclude any group is discriminatory and wrong. With spiritual marriage, the government should mind its own business, period.

Therefore, if there was a ballot initiative to amend a State constitution to declare that "only marriage between people of the same ethnicity is valid or recognized in Florida" you would automatically be against it irrespective of the interpretation. If you interpreted it as a restriction on legal marriage, you would be against it because it's discriminatory, if you interpreted it as a restriction on spiritual marriage, you would be against it because it violates the separation between church and state. Right?

By the exact same token, you would be against a ballot initiative to amend a State constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", right? If we interpret it to mean legal marriage, then denying legal rights to gay people is highly illegal. If we interpret it to mean spiritual marriage, then it's beyond the pale for the government to intrude on people's spiritual unions.

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".

[TheJoshAbideth]

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?

[Bust Nak]

We don't have any problems, in reality, with those who wish to live their lives any way they want to...as long as they do not force US to change the very basic rock standards of our idea of God within OUR faith.

What is your response to my objection that, forcing you to rent our space to same sex couple, does not amount to changing the very basic rock standards of your idea of God within your faith?

And that's what is being tried. It is not WE being bigots, in other words. WE aren't attempting to redefine what marriage is, and we are not attempting to force the government to recognize what WE see as marriage, or attempting to force others to recognize our views.

That IS what you are doing when your photographers don't take photos of same sex wedding for example.

So a homosexual couple cannot be married and LDS. That has NOTHING to do with whether they can have the civil rights the government provides;

But time and time again, it's these civil rights that is violated, and is what churches and individuals are being sued for.

Not unless they extend that lack of recognition. That is, if they say 'if WE don't see them as 'married,' nobody else can either." Perhaps that's a subtle difference to you, but it is a real one.

It's the difference between 'Ok, you are married according to your beliefs, but not mine,' and 'if we don't see you as married, YOU can't see you as married."

That's all well and good until that becomes in practice "if we don't see you as married, we won't serve you as if you are married."

PS Do you have any comments to my last reply to you?