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]

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?

Although LDS religious machinations have nothing to with the "faith delivered only once" other than from what and where it departed, why shouldn't all of the people interacting in this thread just agree that Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. Until they die. Per Jesus.

Truth should be important even to adversaries.

[Jax Agnesson]

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?

Being an atheist, I have no claim, and no right, to say what is or isn't 'Christian'. But looking at it from the outside, ISTM that nobody else, not even a Christian, has any right to make such a claim either.
Kayky is a Christian.
99% is a Christian.
Spong is a Christian.
So is Pope Francis.
I'm asking for some clarity here.
Every religion must have some way of agreeing what is universally (within the faith) recognised as sin and what is not.
Jews, Sunni Muslims, Roman Catholics, Unitarian Christians, and everyone in between, has access to the same set of ancient Scriptures, plus some more recent declarations, interpretations, prophesies, philosophical commentaries, and folk stories. It's not like Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars have never read or debated each other's stuff.
So how 99% (for example) can with such apparent certainty declare Kayky wrong about God's will in a matter that is not universally agreeed within the faith is a genuine puzzle to me. How is it possible to know whether Jesus really said x, or what exactly He would have meant if He did say it?

PS: To interject, with no warrant whatsoever, my own impression here; from my vague and receding memories of what I once thought Christianity was all about, Kayky's compassion seems a lot more in keeping than 99%'s bigotry. But what the bleep do I know?

[Allahakbar]

apparently you did have a point, that's why the girls called you pencil.....................

kayky is a female.

At least that's what is written under her usuername.

Pencil eraser is a better use.

I understand how hard this is for someone like you but I'll try to help.
The post that appears after yours without reference to any other post means, usually, that it is a response to your post.
There is usually a hint in the content of the post, though not necessarily.
In my reply to your post sweety, I referenced your claim that

You missed my point of course.

but of course I knew very well that it would go straight past you. I'm just shocked that you would be so naive as to advertise such an obvious mistake.
Still hang in there sweety, I'm sure someone will love you.

Look snookums . . . just agree that Christians proclaiming the immutability of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife are the honest people. The good guys.

Those of the same gender actvism crowd are preaching another gospel.

That means a false teaching.

Pookey Bear, I'm sure you don't get the whole concept, but afterall, Christian marriage is for Christians.

And here is the MESSAGE that you don't get. Christian marriage CAN remain christian marriage. Who gives a fat rats arse what is a christian marriage other than christians? Do you accept catholic or mormon marriages as christian marriages? It comes down to WHO CARES?

[help3434]

Prop 8...which YOU brought up, only affected California, because (guess what..) marriage is a STATE issue. In CALIFORNIA, gays did not gain a single legal or civil right that the state of California did not already give married couples, from survival to tax rights.

The fact that marriage within the U.S. comes with federal rights and privileges shows that it is not just a STATE issue doesn't it? In CALIFORNIA gays who are married get access to these that they otherwise would not.

Nope. Come to think of it, if you want to get married (or enter into a civil union/contract) you can't do it through federal law; that's strictly a state matter. The Feds only attach civil rights to marriages/civil unions that the states approve.

Except the Feds don't attach the same civil rights to civil unions that they attach to civil marriage that the states approve, so why do you keep pretending that they are the same?

Or rather, the government, state and federal, should get out of marriage and restrict itself to civil unions only. Leave 'marriage' to religions, personal preference and romantic trysts on beaches.

Everybody gets civil unions. Everybody can get married. Government stays out of religion. Religion stays out of the government.

The problem with your solution is that is not politically viable because it is so radical. Radical in the sense that it entails changing a lot of laws, more than what most "gay activists" are pushing for. Your solution would be opposed by both sides. Traditionalist Conservatives and the family value types LIKE conservative social engineering.

Take a look at the last paragraph of The Family : A Proclamation to the World:"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." I wonder what the general authorities of the LDS church would think of your idea. I think they want "traditional families" to have financial and legal advantage over non-traditional families. It is an attack on the family not to give material incentive to the formation of traditional families. Ironic that this attack comes from a believing Mormon.

[dianaiad]

To have the church change its stance on gay marriage would be to go against the foundation of our beliefs in a way in which no other Christian religion has to deal.

Hasn't your religion already done that a couple of times? And haven't those changes come from GOD? Rather than legislation?

Reread the last paragraph of the post you are answering. This point is addressed there.

[dianaiad]

Prop 8...which YOU brought up, only affected California, because (guess what..) marriage is a STATE issue. In CALIFORNIA, gays did not gain a single legal or civil right that the state of California did not already give married couples, from survival to tax rights.

The fact that marriage within the U.S. comes with federal rights and privileges shows that it is not just a STATE issue doesn't it? In CALIFORNIA gays who are married get access to these that they otherwise would not.

No, actually, they don't. Sorry. The feds do not recognize same sex marriage for any federal purpose. That is something that must be addressed on the federal, not the state, level, and the states cannot force the issue by changing their marriage laws.

Nope. Come to think of it, if you want to get married (or enter into a civil union/contract) you can't do it through federal law; that's strictly a state matter. The Feds only attach civil rights to marriages/civil unions that the states approve.

Except the Feds don't attach the same civil rights to civil unions that they attach to civil marriage that the states approve, so why do you keep pretending that they are the same?

they ARE the same. In California. I don't know whether they are the same in any other state. In fact, I do know that in most states they aren't. However, I speak only of California and what happened there.

The feds only enter in when the states have spoken, on marriage...and sometimes not even then.

Or rather, the government, state and federal, should get out of marriage and restrict itself to civil unions only. Leave 'marriage' to religions, personal preference and romantic trysts on beaches.

Everybody gets civil unions. Everybody can get married. Government stays out of religion. Religion stays out of the government.

The problem with your solution is that is not politically viable because it is so radical. Radical in the sense that it entails changing a lot of laws, more than what most "gay activists" are pushing for. Your solution would be opposed by both sides. Traditionalist Conservatives and the family value types LIKE conservative social engineering.

It actually changes very few laws. What it does is change...on the federal level at least, a name change. A striking out of the word 'marriage' and an entering of the word 'civil union' or 'domestic partnership' as approved by states, thus extending federal rights and obligations that now go only to married people to go, NOT to 'married' people, but to those to whom the STATES have given 'civil unions' to. Nothing else has to change at all.

The STATES, now....that's a different matter, but then having the feds get out of 'marriage,' so that in order to get the civil rights the FEDS hand out everybody has to get a civil union would prompt everybody to move very rapidly, I think. Certainly, if I were about to marry and the feds said "civil union or no federal civil rights," I'd go get a civil union regardless of what my state said 'marriage' was.

Take a look at the last paragraph of The Family : A Proclamation to the World:"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." I wonder what the general authorities of the LDS church would think of your idea.

I haven't spoken to many. Those I have spoken with don't have a problem with it. Just like the church didn't have a problem with the way California managed the domestic partnership issue before gays wanted the government to force us to see them as "married' and thus force us to approve of their relationships AS marriage
WITHIN OUR BELIEF SYSTEM.

You still don't get it. This isn't about us forcing our way of life upon you and gays who do not share our beliefs. It's about preventing you from forcing YOUR beliefs upon us, and forcing us to show public approval of something we simply cannot call 'marriage' the way we believe marriage is.

In other words, it's not about gays. It's about US. OUR freedom of religion. OUR freedom to believe, and think, as we wish, and OUR freedom to behave as if what we believe to be true IS true.

I think they want "traditional families" to have financial and legal advantage over non-traditional families. It is an attack on the family not to give material incentive to the formation of traditional families. Ironic that this attack comes from a believing Mormon.

Except of course that you are quite, quite wrong.

[scourge99]

Your right to believe as you wish is not violated by hiring a non-mormon janitor. There are no laws in the US that restrict what people can or can't believe. Period. It seems you make these types of exaggerations or "slips" frequently when you are passionate about a topic. I don't know if you are just being sloppy or its an intentional exaggeration.

In any place but a Temple...or, (perhaps, though this isn't an issue for us one way or the other) a regular meeting house, you'd be right.

Up to a point.

No. Even in a Temple. As I said before, there are no US or state laws which restrict what people are allowed or not allowed to believe. You have 100% freedom of conscious.

So you can't keep running around claiming that there is legislation that restricts what Mormons are allowed to believe. That would be a lie. You may not be able to ACT as you wish but you are allowed to believe as you wish.

My freedom to worship as I wish ends at YOUR door.

Actually it doesn't depending on what your "worship" entails.

Really?

I can go into your home for dinner and insist that we 'bless the food' my way, that we serve only dishes that my religion approves of, and, oh, since I happen to be a Mormon, I can go into your kitchen and get rid of all your alcoholic beverages, tea and coffee, along with all the machinery that goes alone with making any of it?

Interesting.
[/quote]
You claim that freedom to worship ends at another's door. So all i have to do is find ONE example of this being false and your claim is proven false.





Or, let's make this not quite so, er, active. As a Mormon, can I go into your home (you having hired me to, say, paint your kitchen) and spend every moment while I was painting telling your children that you (and they) are wrong and that they should instantly convert to my belief system, and that everything you think and believe, religiously, is going to send you all to hell, instantly? (Mormons don't believe you will...just an example...)

In fact, the above example strikes home. I spent three months working beside an evangelical preacher type who was hired to help me remodel a local community theater; hanging sound baffles on the walls, redoing all the seats, stuff like that. He spent ALL his time talking to me about how I was going to hell because I was a Mormon. Now, he was the only non-Mormon on the crew, and we rather liked him, but still, it got rather annoying.

If you hired HIM to remodel your bathrooms (and he was very, very good at remodeling stuff), does that mean he has the right to enter your home and preach at you...or make his opinion of your beliefs/lack of beliefs apparent? Or even ACT according to his beliefs if doing so messes with your house rules?

....and I do 'walk the walk,' having been refused a job as a teacher specifically and only because of my religion. If a "Christian" school doesn't want to hire a Mormon who can't sign their 'statement of faith" (and I can't, not honestly) then it is THEIR RIGHT. They are offering a specific service to a specific set of parents, who want their children taught by people who share their standards and their beliefs. That is ABSOLUTELY their right.

Not quite accurate. I started looking into this matter and i discovered i recent supreme court ruling:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_and_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission

In this decision the judges ruled that churches and church schools could violate the civil rights act sections regarding employment BUT only for employees in ministerial positions (known as the ministerial exception). So if you just teach English and don't have any "substantial ministerial duties" then you may have been able to sue the school that didn't hire you.

I urge you to read the opinion of the court.

I did. You are badly misrepresenting the findings there, which were that, since the plaintiff was acting in a 'ministerial' position, the folks had an absolute right to fire her for whatever reason. The court specifically refused to address any claim she might have had as a teacher, or any basis for a lawsuit she might have had for any other reason. This court finding does not address the matter of teachers in a private religious school at all.

I sure wouldn't be happy about the government forcing me to send my children there. Would you be?

This country's laws are restricted based on the constitution, not your personal happiness.

They are based upon the constitution, yes: the first amendment of which is rather clear about the importance of freedom of religion; both that the government may not establish one, NOR INTERFERE WITH THE FREE EXERCISE thereof.

Forcing religions to hire people who do not share beliefs in positions that are clearly important TO those beliefs is about as egregious a violation of that amendment that I can think of.

But it is their system, their beliefs, and no matter whether I agree with those beliefs or not (and I obviously do not) they have the right to hire and fire...and serve...whoever they wish to.

And so does everybody else.
Period.

Well, the Supreme court UNANIMOUSLY disagrees with you. Both the the conservative and liberal judges alike.

Except, of course, that it doesn't. You need to read that decision again. It not only doesn't say what you claim it does, it very carefully AVOIDS saying what you claim it does.

Very, very, VERY carefully.[/quote]

[otseng]

apparently you did have a point, that's why the girls called you pencil.....................
is that true or were those girls fibbing?

Still hang in there sweety, I'm sure someone will love you.

Moderator Warning


These would be considered personal comments and would be against the rules.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

ignorance and lies from the bigot.

Moderator Warning


Do not call anyone a bigot on the forum and do not accuse another of ignorance and lies.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

kayky

Wow kayky, you are too much fun to deal with. Let's go . . .

Moderator Comment

99percentatheism and kayky, please cease from the personal comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.