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?

[Dantalion]

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?

Well the origin of marriage does predate Christianity...
So why should anybody give more value to the Biblical interpretation ?

If you mean strictly the christian marriage ritual, I don't see why a non-christian would want it, so I suppose it's only fair to state that it makes no sense to try to change that ritual.

[nejisan]

[Replying to post 1 by 99percentatheism]

Who is making such a charge? This is a legal issue that religion is butting into for no reason. These people should be allowed to get legally united. If they call it a marriage and you disagree, so what? They aren't imposing anything on you by being married according to the law.

How does this issue have ANYTHING to do with religion? Could someone please tell me?

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 1 by 99percentatheism]

Who is making such a charge? This is a legal issue that religion is butting into for no reason. These people should be allowed to get legally united. If they call it a marriage and you disagree, so what? They aren't imposing anything on you by being married according to the law.

How does this issue have ANYTHING to do with religion? Could someone please tell me?

Apologetics.

It's in the right section.

[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?

Well the origin of marriage does predate Christianity...
So why should anybody give more value to the Biblical interpretation ?

If you mean strictly the christian marriage ritual, I don't see why a non-christian would want it, so I suppose it's only fair to state that it makes no sense to try to change that ritual.

It doesn't predate Jesus. Jesus is God. (To Christians)

Other than that, 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.

[czyz]

Although I support gay marriage, church's should not be forced to marry gay couples. It should be a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony, and I surmise that most gay couples would support that position.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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 why would you NOT support individuals who might not even consider themselves to be Christians entering into committed legal relationships? Fighting tooth and nail to prohibit such individual decisions might very well give a clue as to why some good bit of annoyance is being directed at Christians for failing to love everyone as advertised and for failing to live their own lives according to their own beliefs while at the same time stoutly refusing to allow others the option of doing the same.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

That'd be all swell and all, if they wouldn't demand others toe their theistic party line.

Charging hate towards Christians should be a crime.

Then so too should it be a crime for the Christian to "charge hate" against any and all who disagree.

Reckon the Christian is willing to change his "holy text" in order to comport with the new law?

How might that work with Jesus saying folks oughta hate their parents in order to be more like him, or to be a follower?

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife.

If only so many Christian's'd quit trying to "challenge" any law that says one need not be a Christian to have a succesful, happy marriage, and that such marriages may include two hot chicks, and we're within our rights to watch 'em go at it if only they'd let us, even if we hadda pay 'em, and we couldn't touch 'em, or ourselves, and we hadda be quiet and couldn't tell nobody, and ya know there ain't a man on the planet that he wouldn't watch 'em, and then run into work the very next day bragging all about how he had it on with the two hot libians and it didn't cost him nothing, but could ya loan me rent money for the next six months.

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.

Whew... For a minute there I thought you were gonna outlaw any mention of how goofy, and unproven the many Christian claims and such can be.

I don't doubt for a minute the Christian prefers a world where they are not challenged on the dooficity of their pronouncements.

Is is the fault of others the Christian god is seen as hateful, or is it the fault of those who spread a hateful message in the Christian god's name?

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

I've see nothing in this OP that shows you've established this Jesus feller ever existed, or uttered him an utterance, or that folks accurately recorded any utterance he may or may not have uttered. I'm utterly disappointed in you.

All I'm getting is, "Y'all ought'n get onto us Christians, knowing full well so many of us Christians'll be a-getting onto y'all".

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?

'Cause so many of 'em seek to have their goofy beliefs put upon my fellow humans through force of law. Beyond that, there's your unproven insistence this "teaching" is "consistent and immutable".

You've got your preaching down, but I can't tell where you've done you the first bit of facting.

[McCulloch]

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?

Christian denominations may restrict marriage for Christians in any way that they want, consistent with the laws of our land. However, if their only objection to gay marriage is based on their religion, then they cannot in a secular society bind their particular restrictions on the members of society who do not claim to be Christian. To do so would be a violation of the separation of religion and state.

[historia]

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

I wonder which passages you're referring to here. Maybe the one in which Jesus praises those who are eunuchs (Matt 19:10-12)? Or maybe Paul's letters where he recommends celibacy, but grudgingly allows those who can't control their passions to marry (1 Cor 7)? Or maybe you mean the example of Jesus and Paul themselves, who apparently never married.