Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by gnomexxx It addresses gay prostitution, but it says nothing about same sex love.
That's not true at all, have you never heard of the city of Sodom? It wasn't prostitution that was going on, it was them committing homosexual acts for pleasure...whether or not you want to say that they "loved" eachother is irrelevent to me, since the bible descibes a man lying down with another man as an abomination, love is irrelevent.
And Reavo, I fail to see how anything that you just said disproves the point that the country was founded on Christian principals...yeah there was and still is a lot of anti semetism at the time, but how does that change the overall point? It's not even up for debate on whether or not the country was founded on Christian principals.
"A chief text used to condemn homosexuality is the Sodom story (Genesis 19:1-29), often interpreted as showing God's abhorrence of homosexuality. In the story, two angels, in the form of men, are sent to the home of Lot in Sodom. While they are there, the men of the city both young and old, surrounded the house - everyone without exception and demanded that the visitors be brought out so that we might know them. (Genesis 19: 4-5) Lot begged the men to leave his guests alone and take his daughters instead. The men of the city became angry and stormed the door. As a result, they were all struck blind by the angels.
There are several problems with the traditional interpretation of this passage. Whether or not the intent of the men of Sodom was sexual, the inhospitality and injustice coming from the mob, and that generally characterized the community, were the sin of Sodom. (Ezekial 16:49-50, Isaiah 13:19, Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40) Jesus himself refers to the inhospitality of Sodom. (Luke 10:10-13) If the men were indeed homosexuals, then why would Lot offer them his daughters? What is threatened here is rape. The significant point, then, is that all rape is considered horrible by God. The story deserves another reading.
It should be noted that not all of the men of Sodom could have been homosexual or there would have been no need to destroy them. If they had all been homosexuals, they would have all died off leaving no heirs. Quite likely, they were a mixed group of evil men attempting to be abusive to people who were different. Ironically, lesbian and gay people are often the victim of that same sin."
And those quotes you talk about saying that homosexuality is an abomination are in Leviticus. And those were made null and void by Jesus. Not to mention, if we started persecuting people because they were breaking laws in Leviticus we'd all be going to hell. Those weren't laws intended for the common men.
Originally posted by gnomexxx It addresses gay prostitution, but it says nothing about same sex love.
That's not true at all, have you never heard of the city of Sodom? It wasn't prostitution that was going on, it was them committing homosexual acts for pleasure...whether or not you want to say that they "loved" eachother is irrelevent to me, since the bible descibes a man lying down with another man as an abomination, love is irrelevent.
And Reavo, I fail to see how anything that you just said disproves the point that the country was founded on Christian principals...yeah there was and still is a lot of anti semetism at the time, but how does that change the overall point? It's not even up for debate on whether or not the country was founded on Christian principals.
"A chief text used to condemn homosexuality is the Sodom story (Genesis 19:1-29), often interpreted as showing God's abhorrence of homosexuality. In the story, two angels, in the form of men, are sent to the home of Lot in Sodom. While they are there, the men of the city both young and old, surrounded the house - everyone without exception and demanded that the visitors be brought out so that we might know them. (Genesis 19: 4-5) Lot begged the men to leave his guests alone and take his daughters instead. The men of the city became angry and stormed the door. As a result, they were all struck blind by the angels.
There are several problems with the traditional interpretation of this passage. Whether or not the intent of the men of Sodom was sexual, the inhospitality and injustice coming from the mob, and that generally characterized the community, were the sin of Sodom. (Ezekial 16:49-50, Isaiah 13:19, Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40) Jesus himself refers to the inhospitality of Sodom. (Luke 10:10-13) If the men were indeed homosexuals, then why would Lot offer them his daughters? What is threatened here is rape. The significant point, then, is that all rape is considered horrible by God. The story deserves another reading.
It should be noted that not all of the men of Sodom could have been homosexual or there would have been no need to destroy them. If they had all been homosexuals, they would have all died off leaving no heirs. Quite likely, they were a mixed group of evil men attempting to be abusive to people who were different. Ironically, lesbian and gay people are often the victim of that same sin."
And those quotes you talk about saying that homosexuality is an abomination are in Leviticus. And those were made null and void by Jesus. Not to mention, if we started persecuting people because they were breaking laws in Leviticus we'd all be going to hell. Those weren't laws intended for the common men.
Just where exactly did he make them null and void? Jesus simply said that homosexual acts could be forgiven, just like any other sin...but it was made clear that the lifestyle was still wrong. This was all clarified by Paul. A message of love does not nullify the belief that living a homosexual lifestyle is wrong..and Jesus never said "my dad was just kidding when he blew up your city" Whatever website you found that stuff about Sodom on is an obvious attempt to make the story look ambiguous...but I guess it's easy to find ambiguities when you read the book with every intent of finding inconsitancies or something to justify your case
Reavo: Nobody is denying the roots of anything, I think that you are just looking for a reason to deny the whole Jedeo Christian thing...everything has roots in something else, but we hardly ever refer only to the absolute origional of anything...somebody likes to listen to an I-pod we don't tell them that they are wrong because the I-pod was a CD before, and before that it was a cassete, and before that it was a 8 track, and before that it was a record...the root of something is irrelevent, and I hardly beleive that the founding fathers made this country with even the slightest thought of zorostrianism in mind.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by gnomexxx I'd like to see where you got that about Plato from. Especially since from what I've read there was no Greek word for homosexual in Plato's time.
A bit scemantical, don't you think? Just because there was no word for homosexual, does not mean it couldn't be referenced to. That argument does not make his assertion incorrect.
**EDIT**
I did a search on Plato and homosexuality and came up with this...
"Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle."
Take a look at plato's The Laws.
And I also came up with this...
"The term homosexuality was coined in the late 19th century by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert."
So, I'm not even totally sure how the Bible could have been translated correctly when someone tries to put a modern word on an ancient text. I've read plenty that says the Bible of modern times is a complete mistranslations when it comes to the issue of same sex partners. It addresses gay prostitution, but it says nothing about same sex love. And to take gay prostitution and extrapolate gay love from it would be the same as taking verses from the Bible about straight prostitutes and say straights are wrong.
The bible addresses homosexual prostitution, pederasty, and homosexual relationships, period.
Haven't we already gone over this a multitudinous of times already? And everytime it is proven this new BS is in fact fallacious, the argument dissapears, but seems to rear it's head again.
Judeo-Christian principles anti-homosexual attitude is written in the words of their holy-texts which no matter what you try to believe, were not mis-translated in this instance.
This isn't Oz, you can't put on ruby slippers and say something over and over again and think that it'll become true.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Doesn't matter whether you follow the same religion or not. The nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. I'm given freedom of religion, you're given freedom of religion. But at the end of the day, Judeo-Christian principles influenced the law-making of this nation.
And even going back further, Plato, who lived in one of the most hedonistic, sexually promiscuous/ambiguous nations for the time, saw the need to sanctify marriage and for in his opinion, that homosexuals should after awhile, come to terms to put away their egocentric desires, and to marry(opposite sex), and have a family.
I have grown so tired of hearing about this "Judeo-Christian" founding principle B.S.
First off, why don't you explain to me how "Judeo-Christians" could ever found a country and agree on anything in the first place. Christians from that period mostly looked at Jews as the killers of Christ. Do I need to remind you that Jews do not look at Christ as their savior or the Messiah? And Christians don't expect anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah to even have a chance of getting into heaven.
Uhh, because the Christian religion was founded upon the Jewish religion which obviously makes it share glaring similiarities.
Maybe adding Judeo is a misgnomer, because you're partly right, just the fact is is that they share alot of similarities, hence making it partly Judeo.
Protestants in the new world looked at Jews the same way they looked at Deists of the time. As evil. Do some research and find out what Protestants were writing about Thomas Jefferson at the time he and the rest of his Deist friends were drawing up the founding documents for America. I have a feeling you're going to more than surprised at the venom the Protestants spit towards Jefferson and his kind (Franklin, Paine, etc.). There was absolutely no love lost between Protestants and Deists. That holds true even today.
And as far as these "egocentric homosexuals" go and your demand for them to put away their desires. Why don't you put away your desires to use the government to try to avert peoples actions that you find offensive and try accepting the fact that for equal freedom there has to be tolerance.
Oh wow, that was relevant, want to try again?
Tolerance doesn't equal rampant immorality. Those cliche overly used phrases are getting to be just plain out obnoxious.
Without that freedom for everyone is never going to be reality.
The idea of law never promised freedom for everyone. If you want absolute freedom, start an anarchist movement.
And I also wonder why you can't put your egocentric opinions aside and understand that these people don't want to marry the opposite sex. They want to marry who they love.
Love, eh?
Love is an abstract emotion with little agreeable explanation as to what exactly it is, and how you identify it. So there is no way to prove it is in fact love, it could be about as valid as all these teenager yelling about how they're in love with their pick of the month.
Originally posted by gnomexxx
Originally posted by JoHosephat
Originally posted by LilithIshtar
And even going back further, Plato, who lived in one of the most hedonistic, sexually promiscuous/ambiguous nations for the time, saw the need to sanctify marriage and for in his opinion, that homosexuals should after awhile, come to terms to put away their egocentric desires, and to marry(opposite sex), and have a family.
I'd like to see where you got that about Plato from. Especially since from what I've read there was no Greek word for homosexual in Plato's time.
There were other ways to identify something as homosexual without saying homosexual(obviously).
**EDIT**
I did a search on Plato and homosexuality and came up with this...
"Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle."
Maybe he thought the best way of getting rid of them was to send them all to battle? I don't know. But that's hardly showing him as a proponent for homosexuality.
You obviously didn't search far enough. Look into "the Laws".
And I also came up with this...
"The term homosexuality was coined in the late 19th century by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert."
So, I'm not even totally sure how the Bible could have been translated correctly when someone tries to put a modern word on an ancient text. I've read plenty that says the Bible of modern times is a complete mistranslations when it comes to the issue of same sex partners. It addresses gay prostitution, but it says nothing about same sex love. And to take gay prostitution and extrapolate gay love from it would be the same as taking verses from the Bible about straight prostitutes and say straights are wrong.
Uhm. Who you directin' this to? I didn't say nothin' bout the bible.
People telling me that their religion is right and mine is wrong. And not just being happy with being able to tell me that and go their own way, but instead using the government to try to force their lifestyle on me by denying me the equality I ask for as an American. The equality to practice my religion and to love the way my religion allows.
You can tell me your religion says I'm going to hell for only being able to fall in love with a man and wanting to be with the person I love, that's fine. But my religion doesn't say that. And last I checked we had freedom to practice our own religion in this country. Why you think it's okay to take that away from me because you're in the majority is something you need to figure out about yourself. But why do you people insist on changing the idea of freedom because of your hatred towards me?
If you disagree with whom I'm capable of falling in love and what my religion says then don't join my religion. But you have no right to say your religious practice deserves the respect of the government and mine doesn't. If your religious ideas of marriage are accepted and given benefits by our government then why shouldn't mine?
Originally posted by upallnight Know what I find immoral?
People telling me that their religion is right and mine is wrong. And not just being happy with being able to tell me that and go their own way, but instead using the government to try to force their lifestyle on me by denying me the equality I ask for as an American. The equality to practice my religion and to love the way my religion allows.
You can tell me your religion says I'm going to hell for only being able to fall in love with a man and wanting to be with the person I love, that's fine. But my religion doesn't say that. And last I checked we had freedom to practice our own religion in this country. Why you think it's okay to take that away from me because you're in the majority is something you need to figure out about yourself. But why do you people insist on changing the idea of freedom because of your hatred towards me?
If you disagree with whom I'm capable of falling in love and what my religion says then don't join my religion. But you have no right to say your religious practice deserves the respect of the government and mine doesn't. If your religious ideas of marriage are accepted and given benefits by our government then why shouldn't mine?
I hope that you aren't refering to anything that I have said...because I have never in any way said or implied that homosexuals should not have a right to marriage...but in my religion, it is not something that is acceptable...therefore homosexual marriage under a christian church IS wrong, and I will never accept it...whatever your religion is, is your business...if your religion allows for marriage then good for it, it's when it gets shoved down my throat and when I'm told that it SHOULD be accepted that I take issue. Read back to my other posts and you'll see that I actually support government recognized institutions between two men or two women. Some people might say that it makes me less of a Christian to support such a thing...but some people need to realize that in this day and age, and in this country, a single religion simply cannot force its views on the rest of the populace, no matter how right we think we are.
I don't know if your post was directed at me, but I felt that I should clarify.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I wonder what our founding fathers would say about all this.
I don't think they would define freedom of religion as "twisting and turning an entire belief system to fit a certain lifestyle."
That would be more like freedom to create a religion.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
my religion, it is not something that is acceptable...therefore homosexual marriage under a christian church IS wrong, and I will never accept it.
FYI, marriage is ran by the state, NOT the church.
If it was under a Christian Church, than only christians would be allowed to marry. But thankfully, this is not the case.
And many people don't even get married in, near or by someone from a church at all.
I understand that, what I am saying is that if the Christian church begins to allow homosexual marriage inside of our churches then it will be going directly against a basic belief of the religion.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Why is the discussion always about homosexual marriage? Why can't we ever discuss the right for bi-sexuals to marry 1 of each sex? Or, heck, the right of polygamists?
Originally posted by lardmouth Why is the discussion always about homosexual marriage? Why can't we ever discuss the right for bi-sexuals to marry 1 of each sex? Or, heck, the right of polygamists?
Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry 1 of each sex? What right does the government have to even marry two people? Religion needs to be completely seperate from the state.
my religion, it is not something that is acceptable...therefore homosexual marriage under a christian church IS wrong, and I will never accept it.
FYI, marriage is ran by the state, NOT the church.
If it was under a Christian Church, than only christians would be allowed to marry. But thankfully, this is not the case.
And many people don't even get married in, near or by someone from a church at all.
I understand that, what I am saying is that if the Christian church begins to allow homosexual marriage inside of our churches then it will be going directly against a basic belief of the religion.
Sounds to me like something you should take up with the decision-makers of your church then, not the rest of the country or its government. Did they say that they will perform same sex marriages if they became legally recognized? I'm pretty sure churches are allowed to refuse to perform any marriages, so it's really between you and them.
If you're building an mmorpg, or if you'd like to share ideas or talk about this industry, visit Multiplayer Worlds.
Originally posted by lardmouth Why is the discussion always about homosexual marriage? Why can't we ever discuss the right for bi-sexuals to marry 1 of each sex? Or, heck, the right of polygamists?
Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry 1 of each sex? What right does the government have to even marry two people? Religion needs to be completely seperate from the state.
Hehe, I actually agree with you. That's my point of asking the question. In the end, we should have the freedom to disapprove and/or approve of each other's "style" of marriage. It shouldn't even be in the realm of politics. It's just not the role of government to recognize any kind of marriage.
Sounds to me like something you should take up with the decision-makers of your church then, not the rest of the country or its government. Did they say that they will perform same sex marriages if they became legally recognized? I'm pretty sure churches are allowed to refuse to perform any marriages, so it's really between you and them.
Hmm, after reading what he's said. I don't think he's actually disagreeing on the governmental side. Maybe I misunderstand him.
my religion, it is not something that is acceptable...therefore homosexual marriage under a christian church IS wrong, and I will never accept it.
FYI, marriage is ran by the state, NOT the church.
If it was under a Christian Church, than only christians would be allowed to marry. But thankfully, this is not the case.
And many people don't even get married in, near or by someone from a church at all.
I understand that, what I am saying is that if the Christian church begins to allow homosexual marriage inside of our churches then it will be going directly against a basic belief of the religion.
Sounds to me like something you should take up with the decision-makers of your church then, not the rest of the country or its government. Did they say that they will perform same sex marriages if they became legally recognized? I'm pretty sure churches are allowed to refuse to perform any marriages, so it's really between you and them.
I didn't realize that discussing it on a forum was "taking it up with my country and government"
I realize that churches are allowed to perform whatever marriage that they want to, as I have said some five times now, it's not a matter of me fearing that churches will be forced to perform marriages between same sex couples by the government, because I know that something like that can't legally happen. It's a concern about the whole of the Christian society in the country...I don't know how many times I'm going to need to re-state that in order for people to understand. But until then it's okay if people want to continue to throw absurdly obvious facts in my face in an attempt to prove something.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by upallnight Know what I find immoral?
People telling me that their religion is right and mine is wrong. And not just being happy with being able to tell me that and go their own way, but instead using the government to try to force their lifestyle on me by denying me the equality I ask for as an American. The equality to practice my religion and to love the way my religion allows.
You can tell me your religion says I'm going to hell for only being able to fall in love with a man and wanting to be with the person I love, that's fine. But my religion doesn't say that. And last I checked we had freedom to practice our own religion in this country. Why you think it's okay to take that away from me because you're in the majority is something you need to figure out about yourself. But why do you people insist on changing the idea of freedom because of your hatred towards me?
If you disagree with whom I'm capable of falling in love and what my religion says then don't join my religion. But you have no right to say your religious practice deserves the respect of the government and mine doesn't. If your religious ideas of marriage are accepted and given benefits by our government then why shouldn't mine?
I hope that you aren't refering to anything that I have said...because I have never in any way said or implied that homosexuals should not have a right to marriage...but in my religion, it is not something that is acceptable...therefore homosexual marriage under a christian church IS wrong, and I will never accept it...whatever your religion is, is your business...if your religion allows for marriage then good for it, it's when it gets shoved down my throat and when I'm told that it SHOULD be accepted that I take issue. Read back to my other posts and you'll see that I actually support government recognized institutions between two men or two women. Some people might say that it makes me less of a Christian to support such a thing...but some people need to realize that in this day and age, and in this country, a single religion simply cannot force its views on the rest of the populace, no matter how right we think we are.
I don't know if your post was directed at me, but I felt that I should clarify.
I wasn't referring to you. If you feel that way then that's cool. It doesn't bother me that someone else says that their religion says I'm bad. I don't care. I have my own religion and church that says it's fine.
And no gay person is trying to shove anything down your throat (uhmmmm, that sounded kinda bad). If anything we're having others religions shoved down ours when they try to use the government to recognize one religion and it's beliefs over another. The government recognizes marriages from Christian churches. Why doesn't it recognize gay marriages from Unitarian/Universalist churches? Is that not choosing one churches beliefs over another?
Personally, I think the government should be out of the whole marriage business in the first place. That would solve everything. Then people could get married in their churches and there would be no debate. But it seems a lot of redneck Christian folks can't keep their beliefs to themselves. If they can't convert people to Christianity through peer pressure they go for conversion through legislation.
Originally posted by Briansho I wonder what our founding fathers would say about all this.
I don't think they would define freedom of religion as "twisting and turning an entire belief system to fit a certain lifestyle."
That would be more like freedom to create a religion.
Well, I go to a Unitarian/Universalist church. Many of the founding fathers were in the deist camp, as are many of the members of my church. And my church has no problem with marrying me to my boyfriend.
So, if you were to ask the founding fathers, I would bet just about anything that they would say keep the government out of it all. As well it should be. But instead our government has chosen to recognize the marriage practices of one religions beliefs over another. And that I know they would disagree with.
Practicing secular freedom is tough. I understand that. But isn't that the kind of country you want to live in? That's the kind of country our founding fathers visioned. But they predicted it wouldn't last. It doesn't take long for people to learn how to use the government to push themselves on others and get what they want.
Seriously, why do you have the urge to criticize others religions? Whatever they are. There are religions I don't agree with. But I respect others rights to worship in whatever way they want and that brings them peace. Why do people want to manipulate and control others?
Isn't people using the government to force their views on others a form of neurosis? It seems so to me. Just leave everyone alone and let them live how they feel is best for them. We aren't hurting you. And have no desire to. We just want to live our lives free from the oppression of others beliefs. I don't want to take those beliefs away from you. And I sure wouldn't use the government to force my lifestyle on you.
I wasn't referring to you. If you feel that way then that's cool. It doesn't bother me that someone else says that their religion says I'm bad. I don't care. I have my own religion and church that says it's fine.
you misunderstand... Christians are not saying that YOU are bad...we are saying that giving in to hedonistic temptations of the flesh is bad...Now the hypocracy of the number of christians who have sex before they are married could be debated...but not with me, since i'm a virgin anyway
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Briansho I wonder what our founding fathers would say about all this.
I don't think they would define freedom of religion as "twisting and turning an entire belief system to fit a certain lifestyle."
That would be more like freedom to create a religion.
Well, I go to a Unitarian/Universalist church. Many of the founding fathers were in the deist camp, as are many of the members of my church. And my church has no problem with marrying me to my boyfriend.
Firstly, some of the Founding Fathers were Unitarians(and not in the sense of your unitarian), some Deists, all being heavily influenced in Christian morality.
So, if you were to ask the founding fathers, I would bet just about anything that they would say keep the government out of it all.
The government was never involved in marital affairs in exception to things extra-ordinary. For example the case of the polygamous mormons.
As well it should be. But instead our government has chosen to recognize the marriage practices of one religions beliefs over another. And that I know they would disagree with.
They never had qualms with executing homosexuals(As which the common law called for), what the hell honestly makes you think they would even contemplate allowing homosexual marriages?
Practicing secular freedom is tough. I understand that. But isn't that the kind of country you want to live in? That's the kind of country our founding fathers visioned. But they predicted it wouldn't last. It doesn't take long for people to learn how to use the government to push themselves on others and get what they want.
Seriously, why do you have the urge to criticize others religions? Whatever they are. There are religions I don't agree with. But I respect others rights to worship in whatever way they want and that brings them peace. Why do people want to manipulate and control others?
What does practicing religion have to do with this?
Isn't people using the government to force their views on others a form of neurosis? It seems so to me.
What a laughable statement.
If we followed your line of thought, we would have anarchy.
Just leave everyone alone and let them live how they feel is best for them. We aren't hurting you. And have no desire to. We just want to live our lives free from the oppression of others beliefs. I don't want to take those beliefs away from you. And I sure wouldn't use the government to force my lifestyle on you.
So live governmentally independent. It may seem crazy to you, but it's a feasible, if not sometimes rough way of life. But if you feel so fervently about it all, you surely do not need to change the government, only your current way of life - It may be arduous, but sometimes that's the price to pay.
Originally posted by JoHosephat Originally posted by upallnight Originally posted by Briansho I wonder what our founding fathers would say about all this.
I don't think they would define freedom of religion as "twisting and turning an entire belief system to fit a certain lifestyle."
That would be more like freedom to create a religion.
Well, I go to a Unitarian/Universalist church. Many of the founding fathers were in the deist camp, as are many of the members of my church. And my church has no problem with marrying me to my boyfriend.
Firstly, some of the Founding Fathers were Unitarians(and not in the sense of your unitarian), some Deists, all being heavily influenced in Christian morality.
So, if you were to ask the founding fathers, I would bet just about anything that they would say keep the government out of it all.
The government was never involved in marital affairs in exception to things extra-ordinary. For example the case of the polygamous mormons.
As well it should be. But instead our government has chosen to recognize the marriage practices of one religions beliefs over another. And that I know they would disagree with.
They never had qualms with executing homosexuals(As which the common law called for), what the hell honestly makes you think they would even contemplate allowing homosexual marriages?
Practicing secular freedom is tough. I understand that. But isn't that the kind of country you want to live in? That's the kind of country our founding fathers visioned. But they predicted it wouldn't last. It doesn't take long for people to learn how to use the government to push themselves on others and get what they want.
Seriously, why do you have the urge to criticize others religions? Whatever they are. There are religions I don't agree with. But I respect others rights to worship in whatever way they want and that brings them peace. Why do people want to manipulate and control others?
What does practicing religion have to do with this?
Isn't people using the government to force their views on others a form of neurosis? It seems so to me.
What a laughable statement.
If we followed your line of thought, we would have anarchy.
Just leave everyone alone and let them live how they feel is best for them. We aren't hurting you. And have no desire to. We just want to live our lives free from the oppression of others beliefs. I don't want to take those beliefs away from you. And I sure wouldn't use the government to force my lifestyle on you.
So live governmentally independent. It may seem crazy to you, but it's a feasible, if not sometimes rough way of life. But if you feel so fervently about it all, you surely do not need to change the government, only your current way of life - It may be arduous, but sometimes that's the price to pay.
That's a really mean thing to say to someone. And I can tell from your other statements that you haven't studied what people like Jefferson's ideas on religion were at all. Jefferson did not believe Jesus was the Messiah and savior. He was a Unitarian in the same sense Unitarians are Unitarians today. He did not believe in the trinity but instead that God was of one entity, never split. So he was not a Christian. Why don't you do an Internet search on Jefferson's Bible and find out what that was all about.
I also recommened this book to someone else on these boards the other day, and I recommend it to you too. It will clear up anything you are thinking about how people like Jefferson and the evangelicals of his time thought of each other. They were far less than friendly. Jefferson was accused of everything from being the devil incarnate to being an atheist by the evangelical groups. And you can pick up just about any book about Jefferson out there to read some of the letters he wrote to his nephew that show his religious beliefs in his own words.
As far as the government being involved in marriage, they are when they give breaks to the married and also automatically recognize their marriage as "legal". At that point they are VERY much involved.
Gay marriage isn't something like paying taxes, you aren't forced into something.
If two people of the same sex want to be married, have a ceremony, exchange whatever, declare yourself unified. If you're worried about benefits or whatnot. Who the hell cares? I thought this was about marriage, not greed.
Worried about things like inheritances/wills? Withdraw your stuff from the banks, bury it out in the back, and just give instructions.
And I can tell from your other statements that you haven't studied what people like Jefferson's ideas on religion were at all.
Uhm...I have studied Thomas Jefferson's POV, and frankly, I couldn't care.
I didn't even mention Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson did not believe Jesus was the Messiah and savior. He was a Unitarian in the same sense Unitarians are Unitarians today.
No, he was a Deist.
He did not believe in the trinity but instead that God was of one entity, never split. So he was not a Christian.
Never said he was.
Why don't you do an Internet search on Jefferson's Bible and find out what that was all about.
He made a Bible with most of the miracles removed, so what?
Like you said, this man was not a Christian. So is this really any surprise?
I also recommened this book to someone else on these boards the other day, and I recommend it to you too. It will clear up anything you are thinking about how people like Jefferson and the evangelicals of his time thought of each other. They were far less than friendly. Jefferson was accused of everything from being the devil incarnate to being an atheist by the evangelical groups. And you can pick up just about any book about Jefferson out there to read some of the letters he wrote to his nephew that show his religious beliefs in his own words.
As far as the government being involved in marriage, they are when they give breaks to the married and also automatically recognize their marriage as "legal". At that point they are VERY much involved.
Originally posted by JoHosephat Originally posted by reavo
That's a really mean thing to say to someone.
No, just that sometimes is just how it is.
Gay marriage isn't something like paying taxes, you aren't forced into something.
But you are forced out of something.
If two people of the same sex want to be married, have a ceremony, exchange whatever, declare yourself unified. If you're worried about benefits or whatnot. Who the hell cares? I thought this was about marriage, not greed.
Do you not realize that couples get tax breaks, recignition by law, and many other benifits? Yeah, they just want equal rights.
Worried about things like inheritances/wills? Withdraw your stuff from the banks, bury it out in the back, and just give instructions.
Then they are not the rightful owners of the property. The inheritors are.
And I can tell from your other statements that you haven't studied what people like Jefferson's ideas on religion were at all.
Uhm...I have studied Thomas Jefferson's POV, and frankly, I couldn't care.
I didn't even mention Thomas Jefferson.
Read the yellow words. Thank you.
Jefferson did not believe Jesus was the Messiah and savior. He was a Unitarian in the same sense Unitarians are Unitarians today.
No, he was a Deist.
He shared the exact views that unitarians do today. Read what he wrote damit.
He did not believe in the trinity but instead that God was of one entity, never split. So he was not a Christian.
Never said he was.
You said they were all influenced deeply by christianity. Same thing.
Why don't you do an Internet search on Jefferson's Bible and find out what that was all about.
He made a Bible with most of the miracles removed, so what?
Like you said, this man was not a Christian. So is this really any surprise?
I also recommened this book to someone else on these boards the other day, and I recommend it to you too. It will clear up anything you are thinking about how people like Jefferson and the evangelicals of his time thought of each other. They were far less than friendly. Jefferson was accused of everything from being the devil incarnate to being an atheist by the evangelical groups. And you can pick up just about any book about Jefferson out there to read some of the letters he wrote to his nephew that show his religious beliefs in his own words.
As far as the government being involved in marriage, they are when they give breaks to the married and also automatically recognize their marriage as "legal". At that point they are VERY much involved.
Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. On top of that, you are just an ass.
Gay marriage isn't something like paying taxes, you aren't forced into something.
But you are forced out of something.
If two people of the same sex want to be married, have a ceremony, exchange whatever, declare yourself unified. If you're worried about benefits or whatnot. Who the hell cares? I thought this was about marriage, not greed.
Do you not realize that couples get tax breaks, recignition by law, and many other benifits? Yeah, they just want equal rights.
I thought this was just about love?
Guess not.
Worried about things like inheritances/wills? Withdraw your stuff from the banks, bury it out in the back, and just give instructions.
Then they are not the rightful owners of the property. The inheritors are.
Uhh...They are if they're the inheritors.
I'm just talking about contingency plans.
And I can tell from your other statements that you haven't studied what people like Jefferson's ideas on religion were at all.
Uhm...I have studied Thomas Jefferson's POV, and frankly, I couldn't care.
I didn't even mention Thomas Jefferson.
Read the yellow words. Thank you.
And read below.
There was no "people like" he was simply speaking about Jefferson, and maybe lumping in some influential people that shared a thought or two similar to him.
Jefferson did not believe Jesus was the Messiah and savior. He was a Unitarian in the same sense Unitarians are Unitarians today.
No, he was a Deist.
He shared the exact views that unitarians do today. Read what he wrote damit.
Did.
He did not believe in the trinity but instead that God was of one entity, never split. So he was not a Christian.
Never said he was.
You said they were all influenced deeply by christianity. Same thing.
No, I said Christian Morality.
Why don't you do an Internet search on Jefferson's Bible and find out what that was all about.
He made a Bible with most of the miracles removed, so what?
Like you said, this man was not a Christian. So is this really any surprise?
I also recommened this book to someone else on these boards the other day, and I recommend it to you too. It will clear up anything you are thinking about how people like Jefferson and the evangelicals of his time thought of each other. They were far less than friendly. Jefferson was accused of everything from being the devil incarnate to being an atheist by the evangelical groups. And you can pick up just about any book about Jefferson out there to read some of the letters he wrote to his nephew that show his religious beliefs in his own words.
As far as the government being involved in marriage, they are when they give breaks to the married and also automatically recognize their marriage as "legal". At that point they are VERY much involved.
Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. On top of that, you are just an ass.
Comments
That's not true at all, have you never heard of the city of Sodom? It wasn't prostitution that was going on, it was them committing homosexual acts for pleasure...whether or not you want to say that they "loved" eachother is irrelevent to me, since the bible descibes a man lying down with another man as an abomination, love is irrelevent.
And Reavo, I fail to see how anything that you just said disproves the point that the country was founded on Christian principals...yeah there was and still is a lot of anti semetism at the time, but how does that change the overall point? It's not even up for debate on whether or not the country was founded on Christian principals.
"A chief text used to condemn homosexuality is the
Sodom story (Genesis 19:1-29), often interpreted as showing God's
abhorrence of homosexuality. In the story, two angels, in the form of
men, are sent to the home of Lot in Sodom. While they are there, the
men of the city both young and old, surrounded the house - everyone
without exception and demanded that the visitors be brought out so
that we might know them. (Genesis 19: 4-5) Lot begged the men to leave
his guests alone and take his daughters instead. The men of the city
became angry and stormed the door. As a result, they were all struck
blind by the angels.
There are several
Itproblems with the traditional interpretation of this passage. Whether
or not the intent of the men of Sodom was sexual, the inhospitality and
injustice coming from the mob, and that generally characterized the
community, were the sin of Sodom. (Ezekial 16:49-50, Isaiah 13:19,
Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40) Jesus himself refers to the inhospitality of
Sodom. (Luke 10:10-13) If the men were indeed homosexuals, then why
would Lot offer them his daughters? What is threatened here is rape.
The significant point, then, is that all rape is considered horrible by
God. The story deserves another reading.
should be noted that not all of the men of Sodom could have been
homosexual or there would have been no need to destroy them. If they
had all been homosexuals, they would have all died off leaving no
heirs. Quite likely, they were a mixed group of evil men attempting to
be abusive to people who were different. Ironically, lesbian and gay
people are often the victim of that same sin."
And those quotes you talk about saying that homosexuality is an abomination are in Leviticus. And those were made null and void by Jesus. Not to mention, if we started persecuting people because they were breaking laws in Leviticus we'd all be going to hell. Those weren't laws intended for the common men.
===============================
That's not true at all, have you never heard of the city of Sodom? It wasn't prostitution that was going on, it was them committing homosexual acts for pleasure...whether or not you want to say that they "loved" eachother is irrelevent to me, since the bible descibes a man lying down with another man as an abomination, love is irrelevent.
And Reavo, I fail to see how anything that you just said disproves the point that the country was founded on Christian principals...yeah there was and still is a lot of anti semetism at the time, but how does that change the overall point? It's not even up for debate on whether or not the country was founded on Christian principals.
"A chief text used to condemn homosexuality is the Sodom story (Genesis 19:1-29), often interpreted as showing God's abhorrence of homosexuality. In the story, two angels, in the form of men, are sent to the home of Lot in Sodom. While they are there, the men of the city both young and old, surrounded the house - everyone without exception and demanded that the visitors be brought out so that we might know them. (Genesis 19: 4-5) Lot begged the men to leave his guests alone and take his daughters instead. The men of the city became angry and stormed the door. As a result, they were all struck blind by the angels.
There are several problems with the traditional interpretation of this passage. Whether or not the intent of the men of Sodom was sexual, the inhospitality and injustice coming from the mob, and that generally characterized the community, were the sin of Sodom. (Ezekial 16:49-50, Isaiah 13:19, Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40) Jesus himself refers to the inhospitality of Sodom. (Luke 10:10-13) If the men were indeed homosexuals, then why would Lot offer them his daughters? What is threatened here is rape. The significant point, then, is that all rape is considered horrible by God. The story deserves another reading.
It should be noted that not all of the men of Sodom could have been homosexual or there would have been no need to destroy them. If they had all been homosexuals, they would have all died off leaving no heirs. Quite likely, they were a mixed group of evil men attempting to be abusive to people who were different. Ironically, lesbian and gay people are often the victim of that same sin."And those quotes you talk about saying that homosexuality is an abomination are in Leviticus. And those were made null and void by Jesus. Not to mention, if we started persecuting people because they were breaking laws in Leviticus we'd all be going to hell. Those weren't laws intended for the common men.
Just where exactly did he make them null and void? Jesus simply said that homosexual acts could be forgiven, just like any other sin...but it was made clear that the lifestyle was still wrong. This was all clarified by Paul. A message of love does not nullify the belief that living a homosexual lifestyle is wrong..and Jesus never said "my dad was just kidding when he blew up your city" Whatever website you found that stuff about Sodom on is an obvious attempt to make the story look ambiguous...but I guess it's easy to find ambiguities when you read the book with every intent of finding inconsitancies or something to justify your case
Reavo: Nobody is denying the roots of anything, I think that you are just looking for a reason to deny the whole Jedeo Christian thing...everything has roots in something else, but we hardly ever refer only to the absolute origional of anything...somebody likes to listen to an I-pod we don't tell them that they are wrong because the I-pod was a CD before, and before that it was a cassete, and before that it was a 8 track, and before that it was a record...the root of something is irrelevent, and I hardly beleive that the founding fathers made this country with even the slightest thought of zorostrianism in mind.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
People telling me that their religion is right and mine is wrong. And not just being happy with being able to tell me that and go their own way, but instead using the government to try to force their lifestyle on me by denying me the equality I ask for as an American. The equality to practice my religion and to love the way my religion allows.
You can tell me your religion says I'm going to hell for only being able to fall in love with a man and wanting to be with the person I love, that's fine. But my religion doesn't say that. And last I checked we had freedom to practice our own religion in this country. Why you think it's okay to take that away from me because you're in the majority is something you need to figure out about yourself. But why do you people insist on changing the idea of freedom because of your hatred towards me?
If you disagree with whom I'm capable of falling in love and what my religion says then don't join my religion. But you have no right to say your religious practice deserves the respect of the government and mine doesn't. If your religious ideas of marriage are accepted and given benefits by our government then why shouldn't mine?
--------------------------------------
I hope that you aren't refering to anything that I have said...because I have never in any way said or implied that homosexuals should not have a right to marriage...but in my religion, it is not something that is acceptable...therefore homosexual marriage under a christian church IS wrong, and I will never accept it...whatever your religion is, is your business...if your religion allows for marriage then good for it, it's when it gets shoved down my throat and when I'm told that it SHOULD be accepted that I take issue. Read back to my other posts and you'll see that I actually support government recognized institutions between two men or two women. Some people might say that it makes me less of a Christian to support such a thing...but some people need to realize that in this day and age, and in this country, a single religion simply cannot force its views on the rest of the populace, no matter how right we think we are.
I don't know if your post was directed at me, but I felt that I should clarify.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
my religion, it is not something that is acceptable...therefore homosexual marriage under a christian church IS wrong, and I will never accept it.
FYI, marriage is ran by the state, NOT the church.
If it was under a Christian Church, than only christians would be allowed to marry. But thankfully, this is not the case.
And many people don't even get married in, near or by someone from a church at all.
Independant, Shinto, Lesbian, and Proud!
I don't think they would define freedom of religion as "twisting and turning an entire belief system to fit a certain lifestyle."
That would be more like freedom to create a religion.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
my religion, it is not something that is acceptable...therefore homosexual marriage under a christian church IS wrong, and I will never accept it.
FYI, marriage is ran by the state, NOT the church.
If it was under a Christian Church, than only christians would be allowed to marry. But thankfully, this is not the case.
And many people don't even get married in, near or by someone from a church at all.
I understand that, what I am saying is that if the Christian church begins to allow homosexual marriage inside of our churches then it will be going directly against a basic belief of the religion.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
my religion, it is not something that is acceptable...therefore homosexual marriage under a christian church IS wrong, and I will never accept it.
FYI, marriage is ran by the state, NOT the church.
If it was under a Christian Church, than only christians would be allowed to marry. But thankfully, this is not the case.
And many people don't even get married in, near or by someone from a church at all.
I understand that, what I am saying is that if the Christian church begins to allow homosexual marriage inside of our churches then it will be going directly against a basic belief of the religion.
Sounds to me like something you should take up with the decision-makers of your church then, not the rest of the country or its government. Did they say that they will perform same sex marriages if they became legally recognized? I'm pretty sure churches are allowed to refuse to perform any marriages, so it's really between you and them.
If you're building an mmorpg, or if you'd like to share ideas or talk about this industry, visit Multiplayer Worlds.
Hehe, I actually agree with you. That's my point of asking the question. In the end, we should have the freedom to disapprove and/or approve of each other's "style" of marriage. It shouldn't even be in the realm of politics. It's just not the role of government to recognize any kind of marriage.
Sounds to me like something you should take up with the decision-makers of your church then, not the rest of the country or its government. Did they say that they will perform same sex marriages if they became legally recognized? I'm pretty sure churches are allowed to refuse to perform any marriages, so it's really between you and them.
Hmm, after reading what he's said. I don't think he's actually disagreeing on the governmental side. Maybe I misunderstand him.
my religion, it is not something that is acceptable...therefore homosexual marriage under a christian church IS wrong, and I will never accept it.
FYI, marriage is ran by the state, NOT the church.
If it was under a Christian Church, than only christians would be allowed to marry. But thankfully, this is not the case.
And many people don't even get married in, near or by someone from a church at all.
I understand that, what I am saying is that if the Christian church begins to allow homosexual marriage inside of our churches then it will be going directly against a basic belief of the religion.
Sounds to me like something you should take up with the decision-makers of your church then, not the rest of the country or its government. Did they say that they will perform same sex marriages if they became legally recognized? I'm pretty sure churches are allowed to refuse to perform any marriages, so it's really between you and them.
I didn't realize that discussing it on a forum was "taking it up with my country and government"
I realize that churches are allowed to perform whatever marriage that they want to, as I have said some five times now, it's not a matter of me fearing that churches will be forced to perform marriages between same sex couples by the government, because I know that something like that can't legally happen. It's a concern about the whole of the Christian society in the country...I don't know how many times I'm going to need to re-state that in order for people to understand. But until then it's okay if people want to continue to throw absurdly obvious facts in my face in an attempt to prove something.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Yeah, ok, I didn't read that close enough, I apologize.
If you're building an mmorpg, or if you'd like to share ideas or talk about this industry, visit Multiplayer Worlds.
I hope that you aren't refering to anything that I have said...because I have never in any way said or implied that homosexuals should not have a right to marriage...but in my religion, it is not something that is acceptable...therefore homosexual marriage under a christian church IS wrong, and I will never accept it...whatever your religion is, is your business...if your religion allows for marriage then good for it, it's when it gets shoved down my throat and when I'm told that it SHOULD be accepted that I take issue. Read back to my other posts and you'll see that I actually support government recognized institutions between two men or two women. Some people might say that it makes me less of a Christian to support such a thing...but some people need to realize that in this day and age, and in this country, a single religion simply cannot force its views on the rest of the populace, no matter how right we think we are.
I don't know if your post was directed at me, but I felt that I should clarify.
I wasn't referring to you. If you feel that way then that's cool. It doesn't bother me that someone else says that their religion says I'm bad. I don't care. I have my own religion and church that says it's fine.
And no gay person is trying to shove anything down your throat (uhmmmm, that sounded kinda bad). If anything we're having others religions shoved down ours when they try to use the government to recognize one religion and it's beliefs over another. The government recognizes marriages from Christian churches. Why doesn't it recognize gay marriages from Unitarian/Universalist churches? Is that not choosing one churches beliefs over another?
Personally, I think the government should be out of the whole marriage business in the first place. That would solve everything. Then people could get married in their churches and there would be no debate. But it seems a lot of redneck Christian folks can't keep their beliefs to themselves. If they can't convert people to Christianity through peer pressure they go for conversion through legislation.
--------------------------------------
So, if you were to ask the founding fathers, I would bet just about anything that they would say keep the government out of it all. As well it should be. But instead our government has chosen to recognize the marriage practices of one religions beliefs over another. And that I know they would disagree with.
Practicing secular freedom is tough. I understand that. But isn't that the kind of country you want to live in? That's the kind of country our founding fathers visioned. But they predicted it wouldn't last. It doesn't take long for people to learn how to use the government to push themselves on others and get what they want.
Seriously, why do you have the urge to criticize others religions? Whatever they are. There are religions I don't agree with. But I respect others rights to worship in whatever way they want and that brings them peace. Why do people want to manipulate and control others?
Isn't people using the government to force their views on others a form of neurosis? It seems so to me. Just leave everyone alone and let them live how they feel is best for them. We aren't hurting you. And have no desire to. We just want to live our lives free from the oppression of others beliefs. I don't want to take those beliefs away from you. And I sure wouldn't use the government to force my lifestyle on you.
--------------------------------------
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Well, I go to a Unitarian/Universalist church. Many of the founding fathers were in the deist camp, as are many of the members of my church. And my church has no problem with marrying me to my boyfriend.
Firstly, some of the Founding Fathers were Unitarians(and not in the sense of your unitarian), some Deists, all being heavily influenced in Christian morality.
So, if you were to ask the founding fathers, I would bet just about anything that they would say keep the government out of it all.
The government was never involved in marital affairs in exception to things extra-ordinary. For example the case of the polygamous mormons.
As well it should be. But instead our government has chosen to recognize the marriage practices of one religions beliefs over another. And that I know they would disagree with.
They never had qualms with executing homosexuals(As which the common law called for), what the hell honestly makes you think they would even contemplate allowing homosexual marriages?
Practicing secular freedom is tough. I understand that. But isn't that the kind of country you want to live in? That's the kind of country our founding fathers visioned. But they predicted it wouldn't last. It doesn't take long for people to learn how to use the government to push themselves on others and get what they want.
Seriously, why do you have the urge to criticize others religions? Whatever they are. There are religions I don't agree with. But I respect others rights to worship in whatever way they want and that brings them peace. Why do people want to manipulate and control others?
What does practicing religion have to do with this?
Isn't people using the government to force their views on others a form of neurosis? It seems so to me.
What a laughable statement.
If we followed your line of thought, we would have anarchy.
Just leave everyone alone and let them live how they feel is best for them. We aren't hurting you. And have no desire to. We just want to live our lives free from the oppression of others beliefs. I don't want to take those beliefs away from you. And I sure wouldn't use the government to force my lifestyle on you.
So live governmentally independent. It may seem crazy to you, but it's a feasible, if not sometimes rough way of life. But if you feel so fervently about it all, you surely do not need to change the government, only your current way of life - It may be arduous, but sometimes that's the price to pay.
That's a really mean thing to say to someone. And I can tell from your other statements that you haven't studied what people like Jefferson's ideas on religion were at all. Jefferson did not believe Jesus was the Messiah and savior. He was a Unitarian in the same sense Unitarians are Unitarians today. He did not believe in the trinity but instead that God was of one entity, never split. So he was not a Christian. Why don't you do an Internet search on Jefferson's Bible and find out what that was all about.
I also recommened this book to someone else on these boards the other day, and I recommend it to you too. It will clear up anything you are thinking about how people like Jefferson and the evangelicals of his time thought of each other. They were far less than friendly. Jefferson was accused of everything from being the devil incarnate to being an atheist by the evangelical groups. And you can pick up just about any book about Jefferson out there to read some of the letters he wrote to his nephew that show his religious beliefs in his own words.
Southern Cross: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt
As far as the government being involved in marriage, they are when they give breaks to the married and also automatically recognize their marriage as "legal". At that point they are VERY much involved.
That's a really mean thing to say to someone.
No, just that sometimes is just how it is.
Gay marriage isn't something like paying taxes, you aren't forced into something.
But you are forced out of something.
If two people of the same sex want to be married, have a ceremony, exchange whatever, declare yourself unified. If you're worried about benefits or whatnot. Who the hell cares? I thought this was about marriage, not greed.
Do you not realize that couples get tax breaks, recignition by law, and many other benifits? Yeah, they just want equal rights.
Worried about things like inheritances/wills? Withdraw your stuff from the banks, bury it out in the back, and just give instructions.
Then they are not the rightful owners of the property. The inheritors are.
And I can tell from your other statements that you haven't studied what people like Jefferson's ideas on religion were at all.
Uhm...I have studied Thomas Jefferson's POV, and frankly, I couldn't care.
I didn't even mention Thomas Jefferson.
Read the yellow words. Thank you.
Jefferson did not believe Jesus was the Messiah and savior. He was a Unitarian in the same sense Unitarians are Unitarians today.
No, he was a Deist.
He shared the exact views that unitarians do today. Read what he wrote damit.
He did not believe in the trinity but instead that God was of one entity, never split. So he was not a Christian.
Never said he was.
You said they were all influenced deeply by christianity. Same thing.
Why don't you do an Internet search on Jefferson's Bible and find out what that was all about.
He made a Bible with most of the miracles removed, so what?
Like you said, this man was not a Christian. So is this really any surprise?
I also recommened this book to someone else on these boards the other day, and I recommend it to you too. It will clear up anything you are thinking about how people like Jefferson and the evangelicals of his time thought of each other. They were far less than friendly. Jefferson was accused of everything from being the devil incarnate to being an atheist by the evangelical groups. And you can pick up just about any book about Jefferson out there to read some of the letters he wrote to his nephew that show his religious beliefs in his own words.
Southern Cross: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt
As far as the government being involved in marriage, they are when they give breaks to the married and also automatically recognize their marriage as "legal". At that point they are VERY much involved.
Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. On top of that, you are just an ass.
Oh how cute...Gimme kissy.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.