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?

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 1159 by KCKID]

No one was hostile to anyone. Gandhi once stated, "I love your Christ but not your Christians." Although I don't believe the Jesus of the bible existed, I will say the Jesus of the bible as portrayed was very nonjudgmental and consorted with individuals whom were deemed unworthy by the religious leaders of the day.

Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, I have noted, tend to be a very rule oriented and judgmental group professing they are out to protect God's interests as if God really needs their help. God is a big boy, and he can handle things himself.

I personally don't understand the homosexual experience, but I have several friends who are gay, and are some of the nicest people I've ever met. It neither picks my pocket nor harms me if someone decides to sleep with a member of the same sex or in what position.

Instead of pronouncing judgment and moral authority on others, why don't you look at the plank in your eye instead of worrying about the sliver in your neighbors eye?

I think you totally misunderstood my recent post/s and I'm not sure how that happened. The only person "I" see as being hostile is the one that initiated this thread. I'm on your side.

[czyz]

[Replying to post 1169 by KCKID]

Sorry if I misinterpreted your response. I read it again and of what was written it was not entirely clear your view on the matter.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 1169 by KCKID]

Sorry if I misinterpreted your response. I read it again and of what was written it was not entirely clear your view on the matter.

That's okay. I'm sometimes not as clear and concise as I might be.

If I can be a little clearer, 99percent has made his stand against gay marriage and, in so having planted his stake on this topic, he sees all who disagree with his stance as being hostile to both himself and, I guess, Jesus. I don't know that I've ever gone out of my way to demean 99percent personally (although there might appear to be a spillover when attempting to counter HIS hostility toward gays) but he often states how hostile I am toward him. I'm actually quite fond of the guy ...

My take on the matter of gay marriage is simply that, from a biblical perspective, it's no more 'a sin' than is 'divorce' and 'remarriage'. The big difference with both 99percent and 'The Church', however, is that he/it tends to make a big deal of one 'sin' while being totally oblivious to the others. The best 99percent can come up whenever divorce and remarriage is raised is that 'two wrongs don't make a right' ...said while STILL accepting 'the sin' of scriptural adultery in his Church.* When all is said and done, it really is no one else's business what two consenting adults might do in the privacy of their homes. I find it hard to understand why anyone would WANT to make it their business.

*Divorce (and remarriage) equates to scriptural adultery and is 'a sin'.

[Joab]

@Keith

Keith:
@99% -

I point out the in the OP you wrote 'There is no secular or theological challenge...'. Do you concede that the secular element is not justified by your arguments?

No more so than the reaction of secular liberals and progressives to a demand by a group of people holding a Barbeque Contest of a pig roast being held at a rented out hall or field at an Islamic Center.

The secular (liberal and progressive) cry against that would be thunderous !!!

I expect the a secularist that calls themself an honest person, would agree that labeling Christians as hate mongers and guilty of discrimination and hate crimes for not celebrating and supporting homosexuals and homosexuality . . . is itself a hate crime. THAT, is why Christians decry ENDA being passed as well as any other number of pro-homosexuality "laws" throughout the land. We KNOW that we are targets of those that hate us and they can and will and do use "anti-discrimination laws" to force us to submit to their private depravity.being celebrated "in public" by us.

I should expect more support from well-thinking atheists and other secularists of support for the Evangelical "Bible-believing" Christians on this subject.

But alas . . . sigh

Notice, at no time is there the slightest hint in my positions that you or any other "non" Christian be forced to believe in Christian marriage as the New Testament dictates. I really, actually, do not care what you believe in AS LONG AS you don't judge me or Christian values by your godless measuring stick.

The premise of the OP is simple and should be agreed to by any honest person. Marriage IS immutably man and woman/husband and wife to a Christian. No differently than the demands for gender nuetral declarations by the LGBT agenda too. Men are male. Women are female. Is that also a hate crime and religious bigotry? Or sanity? Yet, the LGBT activists use the term "heterosexism" and someone how get away with that nonsense.

This thread is about honesty, not political correctness. It should have been over with a resounding YES from each person posting but alas . . .


. . . The world and its ways.

[/quote]

We KNOW that we are targets of those that hate us and they can and will and do use "anti-discrimination laws" to force us to submit to their private depravity.being celebrated "in public" by us.

This part of your post seems to be expressing your fears that someone or something is going to force you to become homosexual. Is this an accurate appraisal?

[Danmark]

....
I couldn't care less what the deviants "in the world" do. All you need to do is look up my writings here at this site. But there IS more to the gay debate than just disgust and repugnance in behaviors.

You speak of labeling "...Christians as hate mongers, and the Gospel as something only ignorant uneducated fools would believe in. Marginalize Christians as so intellectually inept, that anything they say is suspect...."

And yet that is exactly what you do with homosexuals. You marginalize them. You make them the 'other,' as if they were not even human. You call them 'deviants' and say you "couldn't care less" about what they do.

Isn't this the opposite of what Christ taught and the opposite of how he lived?

I understand you don't want to accept 'gay theology' in your church and that you have every right to select a church that agrees with your beliefs and that they can deny membership to gays and lesbians.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you about making that personal choice. The debate will continue within the Christian community about whether to accept gays into the church. Many Christian churches accept gays as members, others do not.

But what seems so antithetical to what Jesus taught is your marginalizing gays; saying you don't care about them; calling them 'disgusting' and 'repugnant.' This is the attitude that comes across as 'hate speech.' Would you grant there is a difference between simply arguing that Christian theology should not accept practicing homosexuals into their church community and marginalizing these folk, calling them disgusting and repugnant?

[KCKID]

The below is the latest from Gosford, NSW, Australia that I post specifically with 99percentatheism in mind:

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/wa ... rk-debate/

[ElCodeMonkey]

I'm not going to read all 114 pages of posts on this topic, but in case it hasn't been said, I don't think people consider Christians hateful simply because they hold an opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman. They consider Christians hateful because they picket with hateful signs saying, "God hates fags" and the like. Of course, not all Christians do this, but the ones that are "standing up for what they believe in" are the ones we get to see and they're the ones picketing. Start picketing "Christians shouldn't be gay" and that's perfectly fine by me. Why a person would want to identify as a Christian while going against a fundamental concept of Christianity is beyond me though. If you're gay, just create a new religion that is based on the Bible but omits the offending phrases.

In the end I think it's extremely important to realize that it's a religious belief that marriage should only be between man and woman. Thus it should not be law simply based on that belief. Laws are made by public opinion, not religion. If the mass majority of people believe we should each be given one free murder to use at our discretion, then by golly it should become a law that we can. That's the whole point of a democracy as opposed to a Theocracy. On the other hand, the Christians should rightfully be condemning other Christians for gay marriage since that is within the confines of their religion. Christians lord over Christians and Government lords over the people based upon the majority of the people's desires. (granted, it doesn't always happen that way but that's not the point I'm making )

Laws are not made based on what Christians believe is evil. If they were, we'd be a Theocracy which is exactly why our forefathers instantiated a separation of church and state. Take it to vote. If the majority thinks it's fine, then that's law whether we ALL agree or not. Religion has (or should have) nothing to do with our laws.

[99percentatheism]

@Keith

Keith:
@99% -

I point out the in the OP you wrote 'There is no secular or theological challenge...'. Do you concede that the secular element is not justified by your arguments?

No more so than the reaction of secular liberals and progressives to a demand by a group of people holding a Barbeque Contest of a pig roast being held at a rented out hall or field at an Islamic Center.

The secular (liberal and progressive) cry against that would be thunderous !!!

I expect the a secularist that calls themself an honest person, would agree that labeling Christians as hate mongers and guilty of discrimination and hate crimes for not celebrating and supporting homosexuals and homosexuality . . . is itself a hate crime. THAT, is why Christians decry ENDA being passed as well as any other number of pro-homosexuality "laws" throughout the land. We KNOW that we are targets of those that hate us and they can and will and do use "anti-discrimination laws" to force us to submit to their private depravity.being celebrated "in public" by us.

I should expect more support from well-thinking atheists and other secularists of support for the Evangelical "Bible-believing" Christians on this subject.

But alas . . . sigh

Notice, at no time is there the slightest hint in my positions that you or any other "non" Christian be forced to believe in Christian marriage as the New Testament dictates. I really, actually, do not care what you believe in AS LONG AS you don't judge me or Christian values by your godless measuring stick.

The premise of the OP is simple and should be agreed to by any honest person. Marriage IS immutably man and woman/husband and wife to a Christian. No differently than the demands for gender nuetral declarations by the LGBT agenda too. Men are male. Women are female. Is that also a hate crime and religious bigotry? Or sanity? Yet, the LGBT activists use the term "heterosexism" and someone how get away with that nonsense.

This thread is about honesty, not political correctness. It should have been over with a resounding YES from each person posting but alas . . .


. . . The world and its ways.

We KNOW that we are targets of those that hate us and they can and will and do use "anti-discrimination laws" to force us to submit to their private depravity.being celebrated "in public" by us.

This part of your post seems to be expressing your fears that someone or something is going to force you to become homosexual. Is this an accurate appraisal?

Is there some reason you decided not to address my entire post and its positions and asked a wierd question instead? To which I answer no. By the way. It's more insidious than being raped by a homosexual or somehow being convinced by one that my penis in another guys body is physically, emotionally and spritually enjoyable.

But, since I am such a nice guy, I'll show you something quite striking from an oft-told tale.:

“Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge!"

"We’ll treat you worse than them.�

Now, the men quoted were going to anally rape a couple of other men that were new to their town. And when a nice imigrant tried to ask them not to rape the visitors these homosexual rapists got even more upset.

Now, they saw something even worse than homosexual sex (sodomy) being meted out on their "judgmental" opposition.

Isn't that interesting?

You can find the story retold in the Torah at Genesis 19.

[ElCodeMonkey]

But, since I am such a nice guy, I'll show you something quite striking from an oft-told tale.:

“Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge!"

"We’ll treat you worse than them.�

Now, the men quoted were going to anally rape a couple of other men that were new to their town. And when a nice imigrant tried to ask them not to rape the visitors these homosexual rapists got even more upset.

Now, they saw something even worse than homosexual sex (sodomy) being meted out on their "judgmental" opposition.

It's just as judgmental to call someone judgmental. If someone told you that you're a terrible person because of something you wrote in a post, you'd likely immediately reciprocate by finding something terrible they said. It's human nature. Stupid human nature, but human nature none the less. This story gives no useful anecdotes to anything. Except showing your relation of homosexuality to rape which is unfounded. There's a big difference between consent and no consent.

As for the rest of your previous post that was not responded to, nobody forces marriage to be done in a church and nobody is requiring a priest/rabbi or anything to do the marriage. It's called a civil union and can be done in a backyard by a person who spent $100 on a marriage license. It can be done in a court-house as well. So yes, we'd probably support moving of the pig roast out of the Islamic Center, but this has nothing to do with anything.

Your entire post, however, seems to think the hate is coming from they homosexuals and toward the Christians. I see more eye-rolling toward Christians than I see hate. Your entire demeanor of your post seems to uplift lack of emotional restraint. The hate is obviously the opposite direction.

As for Men are male and Women are female, do you not know that there exists a condition where men are born with a vulva and women with a penis? A man is XY and a woman is XX. The genitals do not always match for whatever reason. And some people even end up with both! So what do you do for them? Are they just a monster that should be killed or never experience love or marriage? It's not nonsense to be accepting of such people. What's nonsense is lack of acceptance of a person who is doing you no harm in any way shape or form.

[99percentatheism]

ElCodeMonkey

I'm not going to read all 114 pages of posts on this topic, but in case it hasn't been said, I don't think people consider Christians hateful simply because they hold an opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

That opinion is the right, honest and correct position. It should be supported by anyone and everyone.

They consider Christians hateful because they picket with hateful signs saying, "God hates fags" and the like. Of course, not all Christians do this, but the ones that are "standing up for what they believe in" are the ones we get to see and they're the ones picketing.

That's one Church and its handful of members.

Do we "judge" every homosexual by those that have promiscuous sex in public places and for those that demand that this behavior be supported?

At a rally last month demanding Mayor Jim Naugle's resignation, protester Mike Trost said the mayor should have a greater appreciation for what gays bring to the city. "This is hate. He should be embracing us, embracing our dollars and our strength and our political views."

Naugle's "hate?" Not wanting men to have sex with other men in public bathrooms at Fort Lauderdale Beaches.

To the above demands of the gay activist this heroic Mayor replied:

But if protesters were hoping Naugle would back down, they were quickly disappointed. At a press conference Naugle called to apologize, the mayor told a crowd filled mostly with opponents that he was sorry -- sorry, he said, not for making the comments, but for not making them sooner.

"I want to apologize to the children and to the parents of our community for not being aware of the problem," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/08/fort.lauderdale.mayor/

So do we "judge" all homosexuals by the Fort Lauderdale gay activists that want public gay promiscuity supported?

Start picketing "Christians shouldn't be gay" and that's perfectly fine by me. Why a person would want to identify as a Christian while going against a fundamental concept of Christianity is beyond me though. If you're gay, just create a new religion that is based on the Bible but omits the offending phrases.

I have authored a thread that had over 80,000 views that asked the same question. But Gay Activists don't seem to want people to have a differeing opinion. It is all or else. It was shut down by tactics not of my making.

You’re at home, enjoying a summery Saturday afternoon with the bees and nasturtiums on the patio, when the doorbell intrudes. You’re greeted by an impeccably courteous, fresh-faced police officer from the Norfolk Constabulary – ‘Dedicated to this neighbourhood’, according to their website – and he’s come to speak to you because there’s been a complaint.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... o-the-cps/

Oops, no deviating from homosexual activism it seems.

Not, you understand, about the troubling number of burglaries, rising car thefts, incidences of property vandalism or madhouse music accompanying balmy barbeques. No, someone has reported you for sending them two gospel tracts by email, one entitled ‘Christ Can Cure – Good News for Gays’; and the other ‘Jesus Christ – the Saviour we all need’. Some people might have simply deleted them both and directed all further correspondence from you to ‘spam’, but these people got offended. Very offended. The allegation against you is that of ‘homophobic hate’.

The officer politely offers you a choice: you can either admit your guilt there and then, accepting an on-the-spot fine of £90. Or you can contest the allegation, provide a signed statement in your defence, after which it will be for a senior police officer to decide whether or not to refer your case to the Crown Prosecution Service.

- http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... o-the-cps/

In the end I think it's extremely important to realize that it's a religious belief that marriage should only be between man and woman. Thus it should not be law simply based on that belief. Laws are made by public opinion, not religion.

Are you now saying that Christians and other people of religions cannot be part of a Democracy? Certainly, with no real doubt about it, the United States of America was founded by majority Christians implementing their public opinion of government.

If the mass majority of people believe we should each be given one free murder to use at our discretion, then by golly it should become a law that we can.

Hmm, I think I could agree with that on a purely secular level. Unfortunately, I don't get that luxury offered to me by Jesus.

That's the whole point of a democracy as opposed to a Theocracy. On the other hand, the Christians should rightfully be condemning other Christians for gay marriage since that is within the confines of their religion. Christians lord over Christians and Government lords over the people based upon the majority of the people's desires. (granted, it doesn't always happen that way but that's not the point I'm making.

So you ARE saying that Christians are eliminatewd from a Democracy? Unless of course they relinguish their worldview and vote as an atheist?

Is that what your position is?

Seems rather totalitarian does it not?

Laws are not made based on what Christians believe is evil. If they were, we'd be a Theocracy which is exactly why our forefathers instantiated a separation of church and state.

Can you prove that? There is no such actual declaration anywhere in the history of the United States that the founders instituted a seperation of Church and State in the Constitution or in their political endeavors. In fact, prayer to God was ubiquitous throughout the founding and running of the United States in all of its founding.

Take it to vote. If the majority thinks it's fine, then that's law whether we ALL agree or not. Religion has (or should have) nothing to do with our laws.

So then you really are eliminating Christians (Jews, Muslims, Hindu's and all other people of religions) from the political process . . . and that ONLY atheists can vote in a Democracy.

That's is perfectly opposite to the founders of the United States of America.

But I do believe it fits Communist Russia and China perfectly right?

Oh, and our British Pastor?

A decision has now, in fact, been taken: a senior police officer at the Norfolk Constabulary has got a whiff of homophobia under his nostrils, and the case has been referred to the CPS.

The Revd Dr Alan Clifford, BA, MLitt, PhD, Pastor of Norwich Reformed Church, now awaits a decision on whether he will indeed be prosecuted.

- http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... o-the-cps/