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?

[Goat]

[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.

Actually, you are thinking of the writings of Mormon prophet Spencer W. Kimball, whose writings about interracial marriage is still being used in their Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, lesson 31.. which talks about choosing an eternal mate

https://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-prie ... n?lang=eng

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question� (“Marriage and Divorce,� in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

[no evidence no belief]

<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,

First of all, it's very important that you realize that you're factually wrong. As of today, nowhere in America can a gay man give his foreign born boyfriend a green card by marrying him.

That single fact makes your statement that "gay couples enjoy every single legal right that straight couples do" FALSE.

Please acknowledge that you understand this, and confirm that you find this injustice repugnant.

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?

I'm not saying that at ALL.

I'm just following your argument about separation of spiritual marriage and legal marriage.

Please confirm that we agree that the government must adhere to these two rules:

1) It must not interfere in ANY way with spiritual marriage.

2) It must administer legal marriage without any discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.

The language of prop 8, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" CLEARLY violates either rule 1 or rule 2, depending on whether we interpret their use of the word "marriage" to mean "spiritual" or "legal".

That is simple logic and you cannot deny it. Prop 8 is either a government overreach into spirituality, or an unconstitutional discriminatory restriction of legal rights.

To the contrary, the California Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage, and that you claim prop 8 was a reasonable response to, did NOT overreach into spirituality, or unlawfully discriminate regarding dispensation of legal rights.

This is the summary of what that court ruling was: "California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying."

It simply says that LAWS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO PRECLUDE PEOPLE FROM MARRYING. "California legislative and initiative measures... may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying".

Let's assume that the word "marrying" is intended as "spiritual marriage" by the supreme court. In that case, it clearly is saying something you agree with 100%, right? You do not think that the government can use laws to preclude people from getting spiritually married, right?

If we assume that the word "marrying" is intended as "legal marriage" by the supreme court, then you also agree with this! You agree that gays should have the exact same legal rights as straight people, right? All this ruling is saying is that the government cannot use laws to dispense legal rights discriminatorily.


The ruling was clearly a CURBING of the government's authority over spiritual marriage, and/or a removal of discriminatory and unconstitutional restrictions to the granting of legal marriage.

Since you're on the record as agreeing with both these efforts, I have yet to understand what your objection is, and the argument that you're a homophobe still stands.

[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,

First of all, it's very important that you realize that you're factually wrong. As of today, nowhere in America can a gay man give his foreign born boyfriend a green card by marrying him.

That single fact makes your statement that "gay couples enjoy every single legal right that straight couples do" FALSE.

In California (you know, where Prop 8 was going on?) gay couples had every single right that the state of California could give married couples. Gay couples did not gain one single right, privilege or responsibility by being able to become married in California that they did NOT have already.

California cannot issue green cards to anybody for any reason. Do try to keep up.

[no evidence no belief]

<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,

First of all, it's very important that you realize that you're factually wrong. As of today, nowhere in America can a gay man give his foreign born boyfriend a green card by marrying him.

That single fact makes your statement that "gay couples enjoy every single legal right that straight couples do" FALSE.

In California (you know, where Prop 8 was going on?) gay couples had every single right that the state of California could give married couples. Gay couples did not gain one single right, privilege or responsibility by being able to become married in California that they did NOT have already.

California cannot issue green cards to anybody for any reason. Do try to keep up.

Your notion that legalizing gay marriage brought no legal advantages to gay couples is predicated on the assumption that legal marriage is the same as a civil union.

That is complete nonsense.

Civil unions are different from legal marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal, such as:

Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions.

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government alone. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes and Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling Out Forms:
Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties.

Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disregard civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than establishing residency in Vermont and filing for dissolution there. This has already created problems for couples who now have no way to terminate their legal agreement.

The legal differences between legal marriage and civil unions are enormous, and gay couples have every right to fight for equal legal recognition and rights, especially in light of the fact that the language of the supreme court decision shows with irrefutable clarity that their quest has NOTHING to do with government regulating spiritual marriage or spirituality in general in any way.

The government should only worry about legal and civil rights. Civil unions as they are now do a poor job of upholding the legal rights of same-sex couples, and gay couples deserve the legal rights that are currently attached to the "legal marriage" label. I don't mind if you want to change the name, but please don't bear false witness about the legal differences between the two.

The fact that a marriage is recognized federally and a civil union is not is enormous.



Now that we got that out of the way, let me say this: I'm very glad that you chose to ignore the bulk of my argument, because based on your track record, ignoring something you disagree with is apparently the mormon equivalent of admitting you were wrong.

[KCKID]

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.

Well, for starters there would be no issue to begin with if Christians simply minded their own business with regard to who chooses to marry whom. Why should Christians have such a say in someone elses relationship to begin with?

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

Jesus 'proclaimed' no such thing. He simply responded to a question asked of Him about divorce. If anything ...you should be using that text with which to condemn divorce within mainstream Christianity since it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

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?

Try telling that to wise old Solomon ...! Uh-oh, the wheels have fallen off your argument again.

[keithprosser3]

Solomon wasn't a Christian. Just sayin'.

[Allahakbar]

Solomon wasn't a Christian. Just sayin'.

But the christian belief includes the OT. That means polygamy and incest and child rape. If christians want to deny these aspects then they must deny their bible. That is up to them.

[keithprosser3]

The OT is a constant source of embarassment to Christians, or should be. That's not a new idea - one of the first people to say so was Marcion of Sinope.

Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

Just sayin'.

[keithprosser3]

The OT is a constant source of embarassment to Christians, or should be. That's not a new idea - one of the first people to say so was Marcion of Sinope.

Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

Just sayin', but it makes some sort of sense.

[Allahakbar]

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?

And marriage can be between an adult male and a female child, it can also be marriage between an adult and any amount of pubescent or prepubescent women/girls according to your bible, or do you deny the bible as an article of your faith?