Is Christianity due for a government-imposed Reformation?

[lilpixieofterror]

There may be other ways to grant some of these rights, but we already have one way that will grant them all. Why reinvent the wheel?

Because a marriage license is eaiser to dispute in a court then a will.

[Jedidiah]

Fair enough -- but I would think that "no touching" rule goes both ways. I've been talking about the "Church" as a social institution, as you know -- whether or not this group considers themselves untouchable by the government, they certainly consider the government within their reach.

It is the right of every American citizen to attempt to influence the government and the laws it makes (that is we make). But since you are addressing the Church as a social institution, you already know that the government is messing with it.

[Nathan Poe]

It is the right of every American citizen to attempt to influence the government and the laws it makes (that is we make). But since you are addressing the Church as a social institution, you already know that the government is messing with it.

Not so much in this regard -- whatever rights the Church had to the concept of "marriage" were hardly exclusive -- they abdicated them as soon as they allowed civil leaders to perform the ceremony.

The government has no reason to "mess with" the church on this one -- Uncle Sam can grant marriage licenses to whosoever they choose.

[Nathan Poe]

Because a marriage license is eaiser to dispute in a court then a will.

True, but unless you're a lawyer, how is that a good thing?

[Cerebrum123]

[QUOTE=Nathan Poe;3427873]]

Even if we accept your assumptions as true (and you've provided no reasons to), it's still a far cry from your original statement.



You said the religion condemned homosexuality. Now you're backpedaling -- as well you should.

And there you go inserting your own definition of "normal" in order to keep your original point on life support.

That was actually a direct quote from the wikipedia article. At least the parts in quotation marks was. So, I was going by the article's definition of "normal".

As would anyone else fixated on sexual pleasure.

Yeah, but in this case it didn't matter if they were or not, but only if they were a "pandaka" at any point in their current lifetime.

Nevertheless, your original blanket claim that ALL religions condemn homosexuality has been shown to be demonstrably false.

Actually, I did not say that ALL religions condemn homosexuality. Here is what I said.

Actually most of the large world religions do condemn homosexual activity. Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'i, Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc. all do, and I bet that's not even all of them(now I know that not all people who are a part of those religions necessarily believe what is being taught, but that's another topic).

Now, my knowledge of Hinduism may have not been 100% accurate(there are still many Hindus that DO condemn homosexuality), but AFAICT the others listed certainly do.

[technomage]

The wording of the 14th amendment isn't very specific, it just says something to the effect of 'equal protection of the laws' and if the argument is married people are being granted protections of the laws that don't apply to unmarried people, shouldn't the solution be to deal with the laws granted these protections?

The argument is that gay couples cannot get married as straight couples can. Mentioning "single people' in the context of that argument is a distraction.

[Nathan Poe]

Actually, I did not say that ALL religions condemn homosexuality. Here is what I said.

Indeed: Here is what you said:

Pretty much ALL religions find homosexuality to be wrong(except for perhaps things like devil worshipers, and stuff). So, it's not just Christians, Muslims, and Jews(the standard scapegoats when it comes to religion). Why people don't seem to realize this, I don't know, but everyone else seems to get a free pass(my guess is because the eastern religions are "trendy", and "enlightened").

C'mon, Cerebrum -- did you honestly think I wouldn't check?

[Cerebrum123]

Indeed: Here is what you said:



C'mon, Cerebrum -- did you honestly think I wouldn't check?

Notice the "Pretty much" in there? That means that MOST of them do, and not every last one. Which is pretty much the same thing I had said earlier.

[Jedidiah]

Not so much in this regard -- whatever rights the Church had to the concept of "marriage" were hardly exclusive -- they abdicated them as soon as they allowed civil leaders to perform the ceremony.

The government has no reason to "mess with" the church on this one -- Uncle Sam can grant marriage licenses to whosoever they choose.

I am inclined toward the view that the government should get out of the marriage business. That would solve most of the problems.

[technomage]

I am inclined toward the view that the government should get out of the marriage business. That would solve most of the problems.

The church already abdicated its involvement in that area once. Why should you be trusted with it again?

[Nathan Poe]

I am inclined toward the view that the government should get out of the marriage business. That would solve most of the problems.

You don't honestly think that this or any government is going to willingly give up power that was handed over to it through negligence?

That's like finding $5 on the sidewalk and burning it.

[Cerebrum123]

You don't honestly think that this or any government is going to willingly give up power that was handed over to it through negligence?

That's like finding $5 on the sidewalk and burning it.

Yeah, you are right on this one. The government is very power hungry, and they are going to squeeze every last drop out of what they have in order to get more.

[lilpixieofterror]

True, but unless you're a lawyer, how is that a good thing?

Anybody can get a lawyer.

[lilpixieofterror]

The argument is that gay couples cannot get married as straight couples can. Mentioning "single people' in the context of that argument is a distraction.

Yes they can, they simply can't get a marriage license, that is all. Is there something preventing them from saying they are married?

[Cerebrum123]

The argument is that gay couples cannot get married as straight couples can. Mentioning "single people' in the context of that argument is a distraction.

Well, considering that recently someone decided to "marry" herself, I don't see how bringing this up is a distraction.