Radical Christians: Fighting the Culture Wars

[ed1066]

Well-played, Virgil! I'd karma you again right now if I could...so a will have to suffice.

[Shirina]

You're telling them that boycotts, demonstrations, legal maneuvering to protect First Amendment rights are ineffective and just as "disgusting" as militant Christianity as far as you're concerned.

Again, you're blurring together two distinct concepts. I never said that practicing one's 1st Amendment rights is disgusting. You seem insistent on applying that singular word to everything, and I'm not quite sure why. At any rate, just because someone is practicing their right to protest doesn't mean I can't decide that the reason for their protest is "disgusting." Those are two different concepts, you see.

But not everyone who takes a principled stand on an issue is cheating, wife-beating, closeted homosexual.

Perhaps not, but everyone who is taking a principled stand against homosexuality is trying to decide for everyone else how life should be lived, and worse still, doing so based on a religion not everyone in this nation adheres to or believes in. Religion should always remain a personal choice, not a blanket set of laws that everyone must follow.

which exactly is you being "forced by law to adhere to someone ELSE'S religious belief"?

There are currently 29 states that have passed marriage definition amendments for the express reason of preventing gays from marrying. These amendments are wholly religious in nature, amendments which say in effect, "You cannot marry because my religion forbids it." While this doesn't affect me personally, it is a crystal clear example of one particular religious view being mandated by law, and that is forbidden by the same 1st Amendment these people exercise when they protest. I find that mildly ironic, don't you think?

And this one ...

radicals lobbying the government for immunity from "bully" laws

This point puts an untold number of bully victims at risk for the sake of so-called "religious expression." The amendment specifically states that the only actions not allowed is physical harm or destruction of property, but one can taunt, tease, insult, threaten, intimidate, and harass gays at will without fear of reprisal or punishment. What's more, I don't have to be a religious bully to capitalize on this amendment, I just have to be a clever bully. I can not only pick on gays, I can pick on fat kids because gluttony is a sin. I can pick on anyone I don't like if they ate shellfish for dinner, wear blended fabrics to school, are having their period, or for committing a thousand other listed sins in the Bible. Whether I'm personally religious or not is beside the point; if someone is violating a Biblical rule, I have the freedom to bully that person.

I doubt your live and let live attitude would extend to these circumstances.

Aside from stating the obvious, which is that we do not have a Constitutionally protected right to be free of "global warming superstitions," your assessment of my personal opinion on the matter is quite wrong. I know you're falling back on the age-old belief that all liberals believe and accept all things liberal, but I couldn't care less about the global warming issue. If people accept it, fine. If they don't, that's fine too.

I do have my own opinions on the matter, but I, for one, am not trying to force everyone else to believe it or conduct their lives a certain way because of it. That's what "personal belief" means.

I'm saying that your views can't even discern the two.

You're overplaying your hand. The biggest and perhaps most important distinction between the two is this:

No matter how many gays get married, and even if a national law was passed allowing gay marriage, not one single heterosexual person would be forced to believe in, accept, or adhere to the homosexual lifestyle. Not one heterosexual will be prohibited or prevented from practicing their religion as they see fit, which means they can still stand on corners holding signs which read, "God hates homosexuals!" if that's what their religion is all about.

On the other hand, laws preventing gay marriage is, without a doubt, forcing a minority to accept a religious view held by the majority without any respect to that minority's own religious (or non-religious) belief. This directly impacts that minority, curtails their freedom, and alters their lives in a most profound way.

Now, perhaps you don't understand why that is a major and important distinction, but there it is, and if radical Christians can begin putting laws on the books, can that Pandora's Box ever be closed again?

[cme1201]

Those damnable states wanting to stick to the 10th Admendment, shame on them. I am still trying to find out where it's written in the constittion that anyone has a right to marriage.

[Shirina]

Those damnable states wanting to stick to the 10th Admendment, shame on them.

The 10th Amendment has nothing to do with this. I never said the marriage definition amendments were unconstitutional because individual states were deciding the issue. You're barking up the wrong tree.

They are unconstitutional because they are religious in nature, and Congress is prohibited by the Constitution from passing laws "with respect to establishing a religion." That means states cannot pass amendments designed to promote a particular religious view, which marriage amendments most certainly do.

I am still trying to find out where it's written in the constittion that anyone has a right to marriage.

You're right, marriage is a privilege, and privileges are also protected by the 14th Amendment, specifically under Section 1:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And while we're on this topic, how is denying the privilege of gay marriage considered "equal protection under the law?" It doesn't seem very equal to me wherein married hetero couples are afforded special rights through marriage that homosexuals are barred from receiving.

[cme1201]

Amendment 2 added Article I Section 27 of the Florida constitution. This states:

“ Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

There is nothing inherently Religious in the wording.

So What you need to do Shirina is do what was done to get 14th Amendment passed, Ban the 29 States from electing senators and pass a new constitutional amendment.

If you read the privileges that are referred to are the the ability to hold real property, form legal contracts, etal. It is not a catch all amendment.

ETA: I am neither for nor against gay marriage, it will happen one day, what I am against is people who can't see that at this moment it is a state right issue, not a federal issue and until such time as I have to get a federal marriage license it needs to remain a states rights issue.

When Amendment 2 passed in Florida it passed 68.% to 31.% and we are not exactly the bastion of backwoods thinking. The only county to have a solid no vote was in the homestead area, even in Key West the vote was 77% for 22% against.

[floridayankee]

Jun 30, 2011 13:41:55 GMT -5 Shirina said:

You're right, marriage is a privilege, and privileges are also protected by the 14th Amendment, specifically under Section 1:

Driving is a privilege as well....one that not all are allowed to enjoy. Just like a marriage license, you must meet certain criteria under state law to get a driver's license.

For the record, I'm not saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. I'm just saying that using the 14th amendment to support your argument just doesn't quite work.

[Shirina]

There is nothing inherently Religious in the wording.

Yeah, I figured someone would bring this up. I was hoping I wouldn't have to explain this, but such is life.

Of course there is no religious wording in the actual amendments. Do you know why? It's because they would have been struck down as unconstitutional if there had been. However, regardless of the actual wording, the motive and the reason for these amendments has everything to do with religion. In other words, these amendments are issuing lies through omission, and it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's going on.

I find it just a little odd that these state constitutions have been around a rather long time, but, for some mysterious reason, these states randomly decided to pass marriage definition amendments. Why now? What was the catalyst? I think you know the answer to that.

It was to prevent gays from getting married, of course. Now ... why do so many people feel strongly enough against gay marriage to actually vote for an amendment to the state constitution? I mean, amending a constitution is not only more difficult to do, it is very difficult to UN-do, which was their intention. It should be noted that you don't put traffic laws or even most criminal laws into a state constitution. No ... you save constitutional amendments for the really BIG things!

So why was the issue of gay marriage so big that it needed a constitutional amendment in order to thwart? I think you know the answer to that, as well.

That's right ... RELIGION!

And now that we have connected the dots, the actual wording becomes less and less of an issue. It is the intent, the motive, the rationale behind these amendments that should be scrutinized. If state constitutional authors can get around the 1st Amendment by simply omitting religious references, then ANY religious law could be passed. It renders the Establishment Clause utterly impotent. All they have to do is state the law while avoiding the REASON for the law.

Perhaps you're easily fooled by this tactic, or maybe you agree with it, but it IS a tactic, and it is wholly unconstitutional.

Furthermore, as per usual, all one has to do is follow the money. Who is funding these amendments? Who is organizing anti-gay rallies? Who is pushing for boycotts? You guessed it ... churches and Christian organizations!

And when state senators stand behind their podiums and give speeches to the crowd in support of these amendments, listen to their wording. You will find references galore to God, the Creator, and some will even quote directly from the ... wait for it ... BIBLE!

Hmm ... just how religious does this have to get before it is acknowledged that these amendments are purely religious?

If you read the privileges that are referred to are the the ability to hold real property, form legal contracts, etal. It is not a catch all amendment.

Not so. There is a semi-colon in between the part about privileges and the specific list. They are two separate but related issues. By the way, a marriage is a legal contract, so even if the semi-colon wasn't there, the 14th Amendment still applies to marriages.

at this moment it is a state right issue, not a federal issue

A state constitution cannot be amended with a law that violates the United States Constitution. They've gotten away with it so far because people are being hoodwinked by the non-religious wording of the actual amendment, but anyone with any sense of reality knows those amendments are promoting a religious belief. As previously stated, gay marriage should be prohibited because "my religion forbids gay marriage!" And that is the ONLY reason.

[ed1066]

Are you using the word "religion" in place of "morality"?

[cme1201]

Not so. There is a semi-colon in between the part about privileges and the specific list. They are two separate but related issues. By the way, a marriage is a legal contract, so even if the semi-colon wasn't there, the 14th Amendment still applies to marriages

Your are wrong about that

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The privileges are not the life;liberty;or property, and you notice that little kicker after property without due process of law So having the state vote fulfills the requirement of due process of law, so the 14th Amendment allows the state as long as it follows due process of law to violate any liberty it wants, if it is the will of the people of the state.

[Shirina]

Are you using the word "religion" in place of "morality"?

I don't think there's a distinction between the two for those who are working so feverishly to keep gays in the closet.

Your are wrong about that

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I know these Constitutional interpretation debates can rage on forever. However, my main point is how religion is being codified into law, and that is something I can't stand.

[ed1066]

Jun 30, 2011 15:01:15 GMT -5 Shirina said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I know these Constitutional interpretation debates can rage on forever. However, my main point is how religion is being codified into law, and that is something I can't stand.

How do you square the existence of laws regarding murder, theft, rape, assault, robbery, property crimes and divorce? Those are all rooted in various religious philosophies regarding how people are supposed to treat each other. There's no purely legal aspect to any of them...in other words, why should it be illegal for me to beat my wife and kids, if not for my moral obligation to care for my offspring (which is well documented in many religious texts, but I have never seen it in a law book)?

[floridayankee]

Jun 30, 2011 15:07:21 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

How do you square the existence of laws regarding murder, theft, rape, assault, robbery, property crimes ....

IMHO, these are not rooted in religion. Those laws protect the rights of others from being violated.
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

[Virgil Showlion]

The amendment specifically states that the only actions not allowed is physical harm or destruction of property, but one can taunt, tease, insult, threaten, intimidate, and harass gays at will without fear of reprisal or punishment.

The amendment doesn't magically nullify assault and battery laws, slander laws, libel laws, harassment laws. What it allows is Joe Q. Public to stand up in a forum and declare that homosexuality is evil; homosexuality is immoral; STD rates in the homosexual community are astronomical per these statistics; homosexuality is dangerous per these statistics; same-sex families are dysfunctional per these statistics; homosexual attitudes are insidious; the media is complicit in actively promoting pro-homosexual attitudes.

Even if you deplore these arguments, I think we can agree that Joe should have the right to voice them in public. And we've reached the stage where Joe needs explicit legal protection to do so.

...and worse still, doing so based on a religion not everyone in this nation adheres to or believes in...

Marriage is a religious institution, madam. I have written a veritable book on the subject while arguing about it.

Suffice it here to say that civil unions--the secular equivalent of marriage without the religious trappings--were flatly rejected by LGBT proponents. And for the love of Brown, please, please don't dredge up the "separate but equal" straw man.

I find that mildly ironic, don't you think?

I find it more ironic that your example has nothing to do with the OP.

we do not have a Constitutionally protected right to be free of "global warming superstitions,"

Ah, but we do.

Americans are constitutionally entitled to life, liberty, and happiness. Emissions standards increase the costs of goods, reduce product selection, impose consumption taxes--all of which curtail liberties and adversely affect happiness. Companies go out of business, product lines become obsolete, people lose their jobs, entire cities and industries are shut down because of emissions standards, madam.

But right or wrong, these measures are imposed for the good of society under the belief that the costs to life, liberty and happiness are justified.

I suppose our argument ends there as you're not in favour of aggressive emissions standards.

On the other hand, laws preventing gay marriage is, without a doubt, forcing a minority to accept a religious view held by the majority...

You'll find that many Christians, myself among them, have no problem with homosexuals entering into civil unions. They can call the unions whatever they want besides "marriage"; they can petition the state for the same rights granted to heterosexual married couples. They can dress up like beavers and recite their vows while bungee jumping off the Empire State Building for all I care.

Marriage was canonically defined thousands of years ago. Heterosexuality is a prerequisite in virtually every religion and culture ever conceived. The definition is immutable.

Civil union yourself to death, but do not ask that it be called "marriage" and do not ask that it be performed in Christian places of worship.

If you would concede this much, we would live in peace and harmony.

[Shirina]

The amendment doesn't magically nullify assault and battery laws, slander laws, libel laws, harassment laws.

And how many kids are hauled off the playground in handcuffs for assault and battery? How many kids are sued for calling another kid a name? Besides, assault is physical harm, which is already expressly prohibited even with this silly religious amendment.

What it allows is Joe Q. Public to stand up in a forum and declare that homosexuality is evil; homosexuality is immoral

They already have that right. Besides, this amendment was specifically attached to an anti-bullying bill. This isn't about 8 year-old Billy holding an anti-gay rally in the school auditorium. It's about BULLYING, and giving the green light for it to occur as long as it's done in the name of religion.

I think we can agree that Joe should have the right to voice them in public. And we've reached the stage where Joe needs explicit legal protection to do so.

So you honestly expect a bully to tear after a gay student and confront him with statistics and dissertations on how homosexuality affects our civilization? Seriously? Isn't that being just a tad on the naive side?

The definition is immutable.

There's no such thing as an immutable definition. Imagine to my horror when I learned the word "fly" no longer means "soar through the air," but also "to look good." Huh? When did THAT happen?

By the way, Christianity nor religion in general, owns marriage; it does not have a monopoly on either the word or the practice. Note how a church and a preacher are not necessary when forming a legally recognized marriage.

If you would concede this much, we would live in peace and harmony.

Individual churches should have the right to decide that for themselves. However, believing there should be a different word for the same thing (marriage) just because gays are doing it, well, no. As I said, religion does not own the word marriage.

But ... I would point out ... that, while you may be more tolerant, the radicals who are pushing this "culture war" all over the country, do not even want civil unions. How many states have allowed even that much? You can see where I'm going with this ...

[Deleted]

Marriage is NOT a religious institution when the STATE grants benefits based on upon it...

[Deleted]

I was MARRIED in a COURT... not a CHURCH...

[Virgil Showlion]

And how many kids are hauled off the playground in handcuffs for assault and battery? How many kids are sued for calling another kid a name?

There are minor equivalents for all these laws, Ms. Shirina. If a particular school didn't punish students for fighting, calling a classmate "dirty Mexican", stalking, vandalism, etc. before the anti-bullying laws were in effect, I guarantee you they aren't going to bother enforcing the anti-bullying laws either.

So you honestly expect a bully to tear after a gay student and confront him with statistics and dissertations on how homosexuality affects our civilization?

In a high school debate club, or on a student website, or as a protest in response to a school-organized "diversity day"--certainly. You'll note that (barring the exemption) any student partaking in these activities is legally a "bully" as much as a thug who goes around battering other students.

This isn't about 8 year-old Billy holding an anti-gay rally in the school auditorium.

It sounds to me that this is exactly what it's about. Only make Billy 15 or 16.

There's no such thing as an immutable definition.

Tell that to Kellogg's. Or to producers of organic wheat. Or to the Catholic Church. Or to adherents to the scientific method.

Marriage is an Abrahamic institution. In North America, that means a JudeoChristian institution. In short, religion does own marriage. Homosexuals have as much right to redefine it as they have to redefine "the scientific method" or "organic produce".

the radicals who are pushing this "culture war" all over the country, do not even want civil unions.

I don't imagine they would. But I see civil unions as acceptable.

I was MARRIED in a COURT... not a CHURCH...

So the state sets up a simple system where a married couple's marriage license reverts to a civil union unless they explicitly request recognition for being married by a legally recognized church, mosque, etc.

Your courtroom marriage becomes a sterile, religion-free civil union no fuss, no muss.

[lakhota]

The origins of marriage

The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why?

How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.

When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

Did this change the nature of marriage?
Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that “the twain shall be one flesh,” giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other’s body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful. But the church still held that men were the head of families, with their wives deferring to their wishes.

When did love enter the picture?
Later than you might think. For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages. Naturally, many scholars believe the concept was “invented” by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else’s wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur’s wife, Queen Guinevere. Twelfth-century advice literature told men to woo the object of their desire by praising her eyes, hair, and lips. In the 13th century, Richard de Fournival, physician to the king of France, wrote “Advice on Love,” in which he suggested that a woman cast her love flirtatious glances—“anything but a frank and open entreaty.”

Did love change marriage?
It sure did. Marilyn Yalom, a Stanford historian and author of A History of the Wife, credits the concept of romantic love with giving women greater leverage in what had been a largely pragmatic transaction. Wives no longer existed solely to serve men. The romantic prince, in fact, sought to serve the woman he loved. Still, the notion that the husband “owned” the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband’s dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called “coverture,” under which the new bride’s identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship.

How did this tradition change?
Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband “owned” his wife’s sexuality. “The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new,” said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. “Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000.”

Men who married men
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”

www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/origin-marriage-50901/

[EVT1]

Jun 30, 2011 15:07:21 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

How do you square the existence of laws regarding murder, theft, rape, assault, robbery, property crimes and divorce? Those are all rooted in various religious philosophies regarding how people are supposed to treat each other. There's no purely legal aspect to any of them...in other words, why should it be illegal for me to beat my wife and kids, if not for my moral obligation to care for my offspring (which is well documented in many religious texts, but I have never seen it in a law book)?

If I may- where the law is rooted is irrelevant. All of those crimes are such because they cause injury to someone else.

On the other hand- gay marriage does not. In fact gay people are injured by the unequal application of law benefiting people of a particular belief system.

[lakhota]

When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

In other words, religion hijacked marriage.

[Deleted]

I am perfectly fine with severing ALL religious and civil unions... benefits to be awarded based on civil unions.

[lakhota]

Men who married men
Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”

Interesting...

[Virgil Showlion]

The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives.

And this is who you want to hang your hat on?

In other words, religion hijacked marriage.

...because we all know that "religion" is synonymous with "The Roman Catholic Church".

Also, that biblical references to marriage thousands of years before the RCC existed actually got snuck in during the 16th century.

[lakhota]

Marriage is an Abrahamic institution.

There is no doubt that marriage predates religion, both in humans and animals.

When was institution of marriage invented?

wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_institution_of_marriage_invented#

The Meaning And Origin Of Marriage

www.oldandsold.com/articles10/marriage-1.shtml

[Shirina]

So there was no such thing as marriage until the advent of Christianity?

[ed1066]

Jun 30, 2011 21:24:58 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

In other words, religion hijacked marriage.

That is absurd. The Jewish people were entering into religious marriages twenty centuries before the Council of Trent. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks also had religious marriages performed by clergy. Your anti-Christian bigotry is blinding you to even the most obvious facts, and as we all know, bigots are idiots...

[Shirina]

That is absurd. The Jewish people were entering into religious marriages twenty centuries before the Council of Trent. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks also had religious marriages performed by clergy.

Then why are Christians laying claim to marriage?

[ed1066]

Jul 1, 2011 13:56:35 GMT -5 Shirina said:

That is absurd. The Jewish people were entering into religious marriages twenty centuries before the Council of Trent. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks also had religious marriages performed by clergy.

Then why are Christians laying claim to marriage?

They're not, it just seems that way to you because you hate Christians. It's like liberals who hate Jews say they "own" the media and the banks...same idea...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 1, 2011 13:56:35 GMT -5 Shirina said:

That is absurd. The Jewish people were entering into religious marriages twenty centuries before the Council of Trent. The Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks also had religious marriages performed by clergy.

Then why are Christians laying claim to marriage?

...well, aren't you one of the ones in the thread trying to explain this... ?


...and thanks, ed... I didn't see your post until I refreshed the page...

[Shirina]

They're not, it just seems that way to you because you hate Christians. It's like liberals who hate Jews say they "own" the media and the banks...same idea...

LOL! Sure, I hate Christians because I actually believe in freedom of and from religion.

The Constitution is so inconvenient that way.

...well, aren't you one of the ones in the thread trying to explain this... ?

Yep, and I'm asking why they are laying claim to marriage? I'm giving them a chance to explain themselves.