Are you an atheist?

[Bladerunner]

Changing topic, I might not be a Christian but I think this judge is wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239

I wonder if I can have cake with the slogan "support Sharia Law" or " support community brothels"
People should be allowed to have their views and values the chap could easily have gone elsewhere, why should his views prevail over the proprieters'

Brian

This would not have happened if the proprietors had not been Christian even if they would not make the cake.

There is no tolerance for Christianity out there with the liberals, Gay and Atheist. You want us to stay home and practice our religion in hiding? I have said this would happen in earlier posts. The day will come when they force a man of God to marry in a church 'under God' two (LBGTs or three) or face fines and/or jail. In addition, after the liberal judges get through legislating from the bench, America will get exactly what it deserves.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

It isn't "all the same." Someone can feel they are the opposite sex, but still choose to be gay or straight based on the sex that they are. No matter how you look at it or your position on the scenario, you cannot look at transgender and gay as the same thing because they very well could be a male and female, either post-op or pre-op. Depending on your beliefs, that's either gay or not, but both scenarios are not the same.

To me, however someone identifies is what they are. If a biological male identifies as female, they are female. If they prefer men, they are not gay. If they prefer women, they are lesbian.

They cannot be gay/lesbian in both of these scenarios, that doesn't make sense.

Does that make sense?

Again, it is OK with me, I would not avoid someone because of it, but then best buds would not be in the cards?????????????????????///

As I stated before we will all have to answer to GOD and only GOD.
Matthew 10,32,33

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

So, they are all forgiven the same, what difference does it make?

Either way, Jesus was all-forgiving, why can't his followers feel the same. How can they feel that by forgiving someone for their sins in any way endorses them? It makes no sense to me considering the person who they follow did and taught to do so.

Vassago the penalty for Murder is Death eternally.

I cannot forgive someone of their sins(nor can the POPE)..How can I forgive someone for doing something that has not affected me. Being able to forgive someone for what they have done to me or my family is a little different.

Is not toleration enough????????It neither castigates nor endorses them!!!!!. To answer the question,,,NO it is not????? Now can someone tell me why it is not enough??????

Blade

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Blade,

The day will come when they force a man of God to marry in a church 'under God' two (LBGTs or three) or face fines and/or jail.

Even the most virulent supporter of LGBT does not want that. You are tossing up an argument for a non-existent question. What we want is that you NOT get in the way of a judge performing a civil marriage. By the way, there are some congregations who support inclusion rather than exclusion who already perform LGBT marriages in a church. It is the yammerhead religious extremist who pushes out fabricated stories of the horrors of such marriages.

Of course, those same yammerheads are the types who believe that the woman must be subservient to her husband, including times when he wants to punish her by beating her. The "man is the lord and master" belief is absolutely and unequivocally worse than any of the lies promulgated by religious whack jobs with respect to homosexuality.

Is not toleration enough????????It neither castigates nor endorses them!!!!!. To answer the question,,,NO it is not????? Now can someone tell me why it is not enough??????

It is not enough when you place your beliefs that are made by your choice as superior to the civil rights of those for whom, at least in many cases, their condition is NOT a choice. Remember this: Religion is a CHOICE. You are born atheist and must be taught about religion. You can have a religion instilled in you and observe it for 30+ years but then CHOOSE to change religious beliefs to something else - including atheism. The latter sentence describes me accurately. Religion is a CHOICE. For you to use your free choice of religion as an excuse to deny equal civil rights to those who did not have a choice in their condition is NOT tolerance. But ... even if being gay WAS a choice, SO IS YOUR CHOICE OF RELIGION!!!! One choice vs. another, and who among us is to say which one is right? According to the U.S. Constitution, no-one. It is NOT tolerance to deny the right of marriage to gays any more than it would be tolerance to allow followers of Sharia Law into a neighborhood as long as they don't try to follow their religion.

Blade, you just don't get it. Religion does not make you "holier than thou" with respect to others. It does not make you a better person than someone else. I've known people whose religion is vicious and cruel. And I should consider that because of their religion, they are good people? Having a religion doesn't make you a good person. Learning the REAL meaning of tolerance is more important.

I'll close with this thought: It is not simple tolerance that you should learn from your religion. It is the combination of forgiveness and acceptance. Those two conditions are FAR stronger than simple tolerance - and far more important. Being tolerant is ignoring the lessons that are clearly in the Bible regarding what it REALLY means to "love thy neighbor as thyself." Your attitude isn't love - it is the silent, grudging cooperation of the petulant child who can't understand why someone thinks he is so naughty.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Blade,



Even the most virulent supporter of LGBT does not want that. You are tossing up an argument for a non-existent question. What we want is that you NOT get in the way of a judge performing a civil marriage. By the way, there are some congregations who support inclusion rather than exclusion who already perform LGBT marriages in a church. It is the yammerhead religious extremist who pushes out fabricated stories of the horrors of such marriages.

I don't know the outcome of this case or indeed if they ever actually did it - but the legal warnings are there

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mike-judge/church-sued-over-gay-marriage_b_3804548.html

The green party here is open to polygamous weddings.

The first gay wedding was just down the road from me - in a church I visit on social occasion. Good for them - however that doesn't mean I would like to see all churches forced to do the same and multiple weddings.


I'd bet the day will come also.

 

[dan-cat]

Changing topic, I might not be a Christian but I think this judge is wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239

I wonder if I can have cake with the slogan "support Sharia Law" or " support community brothels"
People should be allowed to have their views and values the chap could easily have gone elsewhere, why should his views prevail over the proprieters'

Brian

Next time I'm in London I shall go to a cake shop in Chelsea and ask for a Manchester United cake. I'll let you know what happens.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Next time I'm in London I shall go to a cake shop in Chelsea and ask for a Manchester United cake. I'll let you know what happens.

You'll be fine the owner was a city fan last year, a united fan the year before that, and a Chelsea fan till someone else wins subsequently.

You could try asking for a United cake in Manchester cake shop!

 

[Libre]

Blade,



Even the most virulent supporter of LGBT does not want that. You are tossing up an argument for a non-existent question. What we want is that you NOT get in the way of a judge performing a civil marriage. By the way, there are some congregations who support inclusion rather than exclusion who already perform LGBT marriages in a church. It is the yammerhead religious extremist who pushes out fabricated stories of the horrors of such marriages.

Of course, those same yammerheads are the types who believe that the woman must be subservient to her husband, including times when he wants to punish her by beating her. The "man is the lord and master" belief is absolutely and unequivocally worse than any of the lies promulgated by religious whack jobs with respect to homosexuality.



It is not enough when you place your beliefs that are made by your choice as superior to the civil rights of those for whom, at least in many cases, their condition is NOT a choice. Remember this: Religion is a CHOICE. You are born atheist and must be taught about religion. You can have a religion instilled in you and observe it for 30+ years but then CHOOSE to change religious beliefs to something else - including atheism. The latter sentence describes me accurately. Religion is a CHOICE. For you to use your free choice of religion as an excuse to deny equal civil rights to those who did not have a choice in their condition is NOT tolerance. But ... even if being gay WAS a choice, SO IS YOUR CHOICE OF RELIGION!!!! One choice vs. another, and who among us is to say which one is right? According to the U.S. Constitution, no-one. It is NOT tolerance to deny the right of marriage to gays any more than it would be tolerance to allow followers of Sharia Law into a neighborhood as long as they don't try to follow their religion.

Blade, you just don't get it. Religion does not make you "holier than thou" with respect to others. It does not make you a better person than someone else. I've known people whose religion is vicious and cruel. And I should consider that because of their religion, they are good people? Having a religion doesn't make you a good person. Learning the REAL meaning of tolerance is more important.

I'll close with this thought: It is not simple tolerance that you should learn from your religion. It is the combination of forgiveness and acceptance. Those two conditions are FAR stronger than simple tolerance - and far more important. Being tolerant is ignoring the lessons that are clearly in the Bible regarding what it REALLY means to "love thy neighbor as thyself." Your attitude isn't love - it is the silent, grudging cooperation of the petulant child who can't understand why someone thinks he is so naughty.

Very well thought out and written.
I hope the target audience (you know who you are) sees the value and the truth in what you wrote, Doc Man.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Thanks for the vote of support, Libre.

Yes, I'm sure the target knows who he is but I won't bet on him seeing the truth in what I have said.

 

[Brianwarnock]

You'll be fine the owner was a city fan last year, a united fan the year before that, and a Chelsea fan till someone else wins subsequently.

You could try asking for a United cake in Manchester cake shop!

LOL, but I doubt any non UK forum member will appreciate the joke.

Brian

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Anthony's link to the Huffington post contains this paragraph that is significant (and I have added emphasis in a place I believe to be significant):

It all stems from the fact that the Church of England is the established church and, especially in the provision of marriage, an arm of the state. The Church is legally obliged to marry anyone in the parish who is eligible to marry. But, at the request of the Church, the UK Government specifically maintained the ban on the Church from carrying out same-sex weddings. On the face of it, this appears to be sexual orientation discrimination, and that's why Barrie and Tony think they have a case. However, the UK Government will no doubt say it has a duty to safeguard religious freedom and that's why it has given legal protection to the Church of England.

It is exactly this situation that the USA tries to avoid (and is having trouble avoiding) - in which church and state are NOT separated. We in the USA see "separation of church and state" as a two-way barrier. It protects churches from people who disagree with them and it protects people who would disagree with those churches. We also do not see that establishing a state-sponsored religion preserves freedom of religion. If anything, it suppresses it.

The USA tries to uphold (and again is having trouble with) the idea that ALL men are created equal - to be taken as "with respect to their civil rights." The church apparently cannot stand the idea of having people whose civil rights enable them to do things that the church considers anathema.

In essence, the Church of England is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" case. Their easiest solution is to finally and irrevocably divorce themselves from their place as the official religion of England. Of course, they don't want to relinquish that power any more than the Vatican would choose to be ecumenical inside the boundaries of their own little enclave. Just as Islam does not want to give up power in those nations for which it is the official state religion. The question today always comes down to whether you care more about the civil rights of your citizens (a democratic view) or the unity and purity of the church (a fascist view).

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

LOL, but I doubt any non UK forum member will appreciate the joke.

Brian

I thought that

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade,
Even the most virulent supporter of LGBT does not want that. You are tossing up an argument for a non-existent question. What we want is that you NOT get in the way of a judge performing a civil marriage. By the way, there are some congregations who support inclusion rather than exclusion who already perform LGBT marriages in a church. It is the yammerhead religious extremist who pushes out fabricated stories of the horrors of such marriages.

Boy Doc, you opened up a can of worms here. First case study is a religious chapel in Idaho where weddings are performed.Here is the story complete with
threats of jail time and fines. I know it is the Blaze, does not make a lie,,,google it elsewhere.\NON-Existance you say!!!!!,,,,it is just getting started.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ly-being-threatened-with-fines-and-jail-time/

What congregations are those that marry Gays? I have no trouble with a civil marriage in states where the people that surround them have an inclusion for them. I happen to live in TN where marriage is between a man and a woman. Unless the supreme court changes that in June,July of this year. it will remain that way for a long time.

What are the horrors of such marriages you speak of pray tell???????

To me and God marriage is between one Man and one Woman.

Blade
Of course, those same yammerheads are the types who believe that the woman must be subservient to her husband, including times when he wants to punish her by beating her. The "man is the lord and master" belief is absolutely and unequivocally worse than any of the lies promulgated by religious whack jobs with respect to homosexuality.

Why are you changing the subject????......A man who hits a woman is not really a man now is he!!! Now if you are attacked and the attacker is a woman, all bets are off.

Did you say Methodist was the Protestant sect you were Forced to be in for 30 years?

Blade
It is not enough when you place your beliefs that are made by your choice as superior to the civil rights of those for whom, at least in many cases, their condition is NOT a choice. Remember this: Religion is a CHOICE. You are born atheist and must be taught about religion. You can have a religion instilled in you and observe it for 30+ years but then CHOOSE to change religious beliefs to something else - including atheism. The latter sentence describes me accurately. Religion is a CHOICE. For you to use your free choice of religion as an excuse to deny equal civil rights to those who did not have a choice in their condition is NOT tolerance. But ... even if being gay WAS a choice, SO IS YOUR CHOICE OF RELIGION!!!! One choice vs. another, and who among us is to say which one is right? According to the U.S. Constitution, no-one. It is NOT tolerance to deny the right of marriage to gays any more than it would be tolerance to allow followers of Sharia Law into a neighborhood as long as they don't try to follow their religion.

God said marriage was between a man and a woman. Now if I change my mind then I am saying God did not say that and if God did not say that and yet it is printed in the Bible then all is a lie. Nice try buddy but did not work. As far as the civil rights are concerned that is up to the laws of man state by state and might I add not the damn liberal federal (or otherwise) judges who legislate from the bench..

*Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:24 states: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."

**In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reaffirms this: "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?"

Yes Religion is a choice, and so is Atheism. You are not born an Atheist. Sorry,,, you are born in the Grace of God. Rem, I said at one time, that all children that have not reached the age of knowledge will be automatic taken to heaven. That means that God does not consider them Atheist.

"For those who did not have a choice in their condition" Ah now it is a condition??????/, I will argue it is a choice unless you have found a genetic (along with the specific gene) disorder that shows it is not a choice!!!!!.

If you want to get into being tolerant of the Muslim people, we can start another thread.

As Atheism goes, at the end of the Gog and MayGog war, Islam with their false god and Atheism will be no more.

Blade,
you just don't get it. Religion does not make you "holier than thou" with respect to others. It does not make you a better person than someone else. I've known people whose religion is vicious and cruel. And I should consider that because of their religion, they are good people? Having a religion doesn't make you a good person. Learning the REAL meaning of tolerance is more important.

I have never said my religion makes me a better person than another person. It does make me a better person than I could be without it.. You show your hatred or at the very least your loathing for those who are religious. I do not take it personally though, I understand. Why should you consider all people with religion as being good when it has been shown throughout history that man has used religion to control, condemn, kill, etc others if they did not believe the way they were supposed to. I have know many a person that profess to be religious yet would screw you in a heartbeat if it involved money yet it has not forced me away from God and the Bible. You see, not all religious people are like that but because we are MAN, there is always going to be some of these out there.

Blade,
I'll close with this thought: It is not simple tolerance that you should learn from your religion. It is the combination of forgiveness and acceptance. Those two conditions are FAR stronger than simple tolerance - and far more important. Being tolerant is ignoring the lessons that are clearly in the Bible regarding what it REALLY means to "love thy neighbor as thyself." Your attitude isn't love - it is the silent, grudging cooperation of the petulant child who can't understand why someone thinks he is so naughty.

The whole thing comes down to Acceptance--not Tolerance. There is a big difference. How can I forgive you something you have not done to me. I am not a God like you Atheist are. So, you quote the Bible when it is convenient and yet you do not follow it, believe in it and you even consider yourself an atheist. (A person who does not believe in Jesus or God) yet you quote it to me and try to hold me to verses taken out of context? Kind of Hypocritical don't you think???

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Anthony's link to the Huffington post contains this paragraph that is significant (and I have added emphasis in a place I believe to be significant):

It is exactly this situation that the USA tries to avoid (and is having trouble avoiding) - in which church and state are NOT separated. We in the USA see "separation of church and state" as a two-way barrier. It protects churches from people who disagree with them and it protects people who would disagree with those churches. We also do not see that establishing a state-sponsored religion preserves freedom of religion. If anything, it suppresses it.

The USA tries to uphold (and again is having trouble with) the idea that ALL men are created equal - to be taken as "with respect to their civil rights." The church apparently cannot stand the idea of having people whose civil rights enable them to do things that the church considers anathema.

as a learned man I would think you get the hint of why the constitution had the separation between the church and state. First of all, above all, the state cannot establish a national religion (i.e. Church of England) and is one of the main reason why we left England to start with. It also does not protect churches from litigation. We can go on from there it you like but maybe in a constitutional thread

You keep adding civil liberties in your argument. Being married by a court clerk, boat captain, etc. instead of a Church is affecting your civil liberties????? NO certain people and groups thereof have to try and force us to abandon our religion. This is what it comes down to. Religion is in the way for inclusion and removal of all sins regardless of what they are. Man's laws will be enough.



Blade

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Anthony's link to the Huffington post contains this paragraph that is significant (and I have added emphasis in a place I believe to be significant):



It is exactly this situation that the USA tries to avoid (and is having trouble avoiding) - in which church and state are NOT separated. We in the USA see "separation of church and state" as a two-way barrier. It protects churches from people who disagree with them and it protects people who would disagree with those churches. We also do not see that establishing a state-sponsored religion preserves freedom of religion. If anything, it suppresses it.

The USA tries to uphold (and again is having trouble with) the idea that ALL men are created equal - to be taken as "with respect to their civil rights." The church apparently cannot stand the idea of having people whose civil rights enable them to do things that the church considers anathema.

In essence, the Church of England is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" case. Their easiest solution is to finally and irrevocably divorce themselves from their place as the official religion of England. Of course, they don't want to relinquish that power any more than the Vatican would choose to be ecumenical inside the boundaries of their own little enclave. Just as Islam does not want to give up power in those nations for which it is the official state religion. The question today always comes down to whether you care more about the civil rights of your citizens (a democratic view) or the unity and purity of the church (a fascist view).

I'm not sure in any real way this affects the c of e anymore or less than any other church regardless of its national church status. The law is the law - regardless of whether you are the national church or not?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Anthony: My comment is basically a statement that the C. of E. is trying to have their cake and eat it too. And the law is indeed the law - but the key point is that the C. of E. is an official arm of the government due to its state sponsorship. We face this in the USA when we have those arguments about a courtroom with a cross or a star of David or some other religious symbol. We have to keep them separate to avoid making it seem that in any way we are supporting one religion or suppressing another one. Either one is a violation of the right to freedom of worship.

 

[Brianwarnock]

The UK is a country of convoluted nuances where we do not abolish laws but have new ones to overcome old ones, the right to affirm rather than swear an oath in parliament illustrates this amply, what a long drawn out process that was.

Brian

 

[The_Doc_Man]

How can I forgive you something you have not done to me. I am not a God like you Atheist are. So, you quote the Bible when it is convenient and yet you do not follow it, believe in it and you even consider yourself an atheist. (A person who does not believe in Jesus or God) yet you quote it to me and try to hold me to verses taken out of context? Kind of Hypocritical don't you think???

Oh, Blade... thank you very much for the ironic humor. After reading your final comment I was left ROTFLMAOPIMP.

I was CALLING YOU DOWN for YOUR hypocrisy. I was offering you the courtesy of framing my arguments in a context that I thought you might understand since it is clear that you don't understand civil rights. So I couched my responses in religious terms. I lived with Methodism for 30 years. Forced? Hell, YES I was forced. Try telling your Mom and Dad that they have lied to you about religion. Try telling them that you don't believe in their lies. Then try to live with the constant pressure as they threaten, beg, cajole, and browbeat you. When I finally moved out, I was able to avoid the weekly worship until Mom tried to drag me into it again after Dad passed. You don't see the force but I did. Peer pressure and parental pressure can be a Hellish combination. But I digress on the issue of "force..."

The issue of civil rights is simple. You have freedom of religion because we want very much to preserve your civil rights. Compare, if you will, the civil rights associated with religious freedom in Middle Eastern nations. For some countries and in some parts of the world, being a Christian is an absolute death sentence. It should then be clear with even the briefest moment of inspection that civil rights are necessary FIRST to assure religious rights. If your country doesn't respect civil rights then you have no rights at all - including religious rights.

As usual for people of your viewpoint, you somehow invert the civil rights concept saying that granting civil marital rights to someone else somehow interferes with your religious rights, so you lobby your state legislature to prevent recognition of those rights. You raise a clamor and a cry to stop people from getting married even though they weren't going to marry YOU. And yet you blandly claim that such marriages violate your religious rights. You don't have to live in the same house as those folks. You don't have to visit the "gay" bars and clubs. You don't have to visit New Orleans during the Southern Decadence festival. So WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

If you want to go on a religious theme, then remember that each of us (by YOUR standards) must make peace with God INDIVIDUALLY. The Book of Esdras, first 3 chapters, makes it clear that we face God alone at death. (Again, I'm couching this in your terms so you will realize I am familiar with Christian beliefs.) In case you were not sure, Esdras is one of the prophets in the Apocrypha. And some religions declare that the Council of Nicea lacked authority to remove those books, so I am essentially quoting your scripture to you. And then YOU have the nerve to discount me as hypocritical because I have caught YOU not following the words of your holy book. ROTFLMAOPIMP.

 

[Bladerunner]

Oh, Blade... thank you very much for the ironic humor. After reading your final comment I was left ROTFLMAOPIMP.

Glad you got a good laugh out of it, maybe I can give you some more.??????

Oh, Blade
The issue of civil rights is simple. You have freedom of religion because we want very much to preserve your civil rights. Compare, if you will, the civil rights associated with religious freedom in Middle Eastern nations. For some countries and in some parts of the world, being a Christian is an absolute death sentence. It should then be clear with even the briefest moment of inspection that civil rights are necessary FIRST to assure religious rights. If your country doesn't respect civil rights then you have no rights at all - including religious rights..

I particularly like this statement you made: "You have freedom of religion because we want very much to preserve your civil rights." Who is WE????

The so-called death sentence in these country is also in effect for atheist and LBGTs but more-so. You see Christians do believe in GOD just not Mohammed. Christians can convert to Islam where Atheist and LBGTs are not given that out (if that is what one would call it). As I stated in the previous post, at the end of the Gog and MayGog war, Islam and Atheism will be no more according to the God's word as stated in the Bible. I will assume at some great risk that you know where to find that.

Oh, Blade
As usual for people of your viewpoint, you somehow invert the civil rights concept saying that granting civil marital rights to someone else somehow interferes with your religious rights, so you lobby your state legislature to prevent recognition of those rights. You raise a clamor and a cry to stop people from getting married even though they weren't going to marry YOU. And yet you blandly claim that such marriages violate your religious rights. You don't have to live in the same house as those folks. You don't have to visit the "gay" bars and clubs. You don't have to visit New Orleans during the Southern Decadence festival. So WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?..

You said in an earlier post that tolerance was not acceptable but rather acceptance is what is needed. It actually has nothing to do with civil rights. They may get married all they want but if I accept the marriage then I am going against God's laws. That is not going to happen so they will just have to take only tolerance; at least from me. I will not go to a church that performs those marriages. I will not visit gay places of pleasure. I simply will not place myself in that position (pun intended) Now, having said that, the Christian will get persecuted (jail/fined/beaten/threatened,etc) because h/she will not give an inch in this area. Oh, some will and that again is between them and GOD! The liberal far left is a violent bunch of people who will persecute the Christians in the name of the LBGTs, atheist , etc.. Does that ring a bell, 'the Muslim Islamist vs the radical islamist' Strange how silence most often is the loudest.

Oh, Blade
If you want to go on a religious theme, then remember that each of us (by YOUR standards) must make peace with God INDIVIDUALLY. The Book of Esdras, first 3 chapters, makes it clear that we face God alone at death. (Again, I'm couching this in your terms so you will realize I am familiar with Christian beliefs.) In case you were not sure, Esdras is one of the prophets in the Apocrypha. And some religions declare that the Council of Nicea lacked authority to remove those books, so I am essentially quoting your scripture to you. And then YOU have the nerve to discount me as hypocritical because I have caught YOU not following the words of your holy book. ROTFLMAOPIMP?..

[/QUOTE]

I hope this is not a sample of what your religious beliefs were.
OK,,,so why is the Apocrypha NOT in the Bible. (just in case you don;t know.......) http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm


Boy Howdy,,,that Thirty years did a number on your psyche!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Boy Howdy,,,that Thirty years did a number on your psyche!

Yes, religion pollution does that.

I hope this is not a sample of what your religious beliefs were.

They were (at the time) to try to take the entirety of the Bible as having meaning. It was NOT a case of cherry-picking what I liked.

It actually has nothing to do with civil rights. They may get married all they want but if I accept the marriage then I am going against God's laws.

It has EVERYTHING to do with civil rights but you don't want to see that. Blade, your civil rights do not extend to interference with the peaceful lives and actions of others. If it were not for someone protecting your civil rights, you would never even know God's law because no one would be allowed to teach that. And, of course, the same is true for the laws of Buddha, Allah, and the central figures of other religions. You act as though God's laws are superior to civil rights. But look at the Middle Eastern countries and tell me that with a straight face.

Many of us feel that when you try to use the ballot box to infringe on marital rights of others, you are using the tyranny of the majority. Were it not for the various equal-rights amendments (race, creed, national origin, etc.) it would be possible to use the ballot box to reinstate slavery and revoke women's rights to vote. Sometimes, the ballot box has to be overridden because of the tendency of some folks to extend their hatred, however carefully disguised, to inflict their own jaundiced viewpoints on others.

"You have freedom of religion because we want very much to preserve your civil rights." Who is WE????

"We" includes those citizen of countries who actually believe in civil rights as something that must be all-encompassing. It has taken the USA many years to reach the point that we begin to see the meaning of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal" ... "right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If we allow YOU to stand in the way of someone else's pursuit of happiness and exercise of liberty then in effect we would be declaring you to be above that person - but ALL are created with equal rights. Yours aren't any greater than anyone else's.

We who believe in civil liberty want you to have the maximum freedom of choice, but that freedom is NOT infinite. We recall the late Will Rogers, who summed up the factor that defines that maximum quite simply: Your freedom to swing your fist ends where (someone else's) nose begins.

Blade, I'll be honest. When I see your responses, it appears to me that you have been warped by the authoritarian nature of religious extremism. Your mind is not your own, but the worst part is that because of the mindless mantras repeated over and over to you (probably as a child, but there I'm guessing), you have become blind to your own inability to think critically on your own. Understand, please, that it appears that way. If I'm wrong, OK. It happens that I can be wrong since I am human and make no claims to being guided by an infallible deity. But I'll say this as well - I don't think you are guided by that deity either, because I don't think He exists.