What will become of marriage?

Let'sgo back to my example.Does the existence of an interfaith marriage threaten the existence of Roman Catholic marriages?Do secular marriages, those performed before a Justice of the Peace threaten religious marriages?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well let's remember I am using this in the form of challenge type threat and not direct explusive threat. Yes as long as interfaith marriage is proscripted by definition from RC marriages. I am unsure if they are at this point in time. The fact that a church can change over time does not change the fact that its definitions can be challenged, or its change not result in schisms as people lose faith due to the changes. No, I don't think the secular nature itself can present a challenge. That is simply a product of having a legal procedure coincide with a social one. I do not know of any scripture which demands that marriages be done by priests, nor that they must intone the name of God. Indeed, use of the latter would be offensive to some by using God's name in vain.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, I do know that the majority of Americans are prejudiced against my religion. There wasn't actually a war though. There were mobs. WE study Church history in Sunday School. In Illinois it was actually legal to kill "Mormon Males" and you would get $200 per dead male. This remained until up to 1997.However, that would be imposing on freedom of religion. If the homosexuals created a religion in which that is what they did, I would not say one more word. It is my churh's teaching. (11th article of faith- "We claim the privlege of worshipping Almighty God, according to the dictates, of our own conscience. And allow all men, the same privlege. Let the worship how, where or what they may.) But I'm debating.I really need to stop debating on the Sabbath.

Not to butt in, but, Rosie, would a church like this one fit your "if the homosexuals created a religion" requirement? It's a predominantly gay "liberal Christian" church in my neighborhood.http://www.cathedralofhope.com/

Rosie Cotton writes (among other things that want but at present will not get attention):

quote:

---

If the homosexuals created a religion in which that is what they did, I would not say one more word.

---

But there are already Christian churches which respect the idea of gay marriage. The United Church of Christ, which I don't know much about, is apparently quite welcoming of gay couples since they've been trying to run ads on network television making the point that they minister to gays. The Unitarians, unless I'm very much mistaken, have official rites for gay marriage ceremonies. Even the Anglicans (Episcopalians) recognize gay marriages in some ways - or at least in some places.The point is that a sizable number of Christians fully accept the idea of gay marriage. Why do gay's need to create their own religion in order to gain your (unrequested) silence?

---

Dog is my copilot.

I'm sorry, the rest of your criticism may have some merit but this is simply not true. The citation directly contradicts Rosie's assertion that homosexuality is the result of postnatal environmental influences, which is exactly why I chose it. Euqivocation on the term "psychological". I know what you mean by it - that homosexuality is the result of neurological influences - but what Rosie means is that it's a reaction to environmental influences on the personality, not biological influences on the brain. And it was Rosie's argument that social factors were soley responsible for homosexuality. This article makes it absolutely plain that the only known factors are prenatal and hereditary in nature.

No. The Constitution makes it perfectly clear that there are limits to majority rule. Most pertinent to this discussion is the fact that the Constitution makes it illegal for the religious majority to impose religious laws on people who don't believe in them. That's called the "First Amendment." If you cannot support your opinion on anything but religion, the Constitution makes it absolutely clear that your opinion on the matter is irrelevant to American policy.

But it isn't exactly what they say is THE right thing. It isn't an aspect of their religion that they are homosexual, it is just a thing that they accept.

Not really, because they just support it. They don't inforce it. Do you see the difference? I really have to get less into this topic.

No, it never says that. You can base opinions on whatever you like.Let's put it this way. I am a very religious person, my religion is pretty much WHAT I am. Most whatever I do, I'm usually thinking if it goes along with my values. By your logic, this would mean I'm a nobody. Am I a nobody? Is that what you are saying? I most sincerely hope not.

So a religious group would have to ENFORCE a practice you disagree with, rather than support or tolerate it, to garner your deference on religious grounds? Ah, yes, I see. Oh, and do "the homosexuals" who would have to form this religion include lesbians, bisexuals, and/or transgender individuals or would they have to form their own groups? (Since I'm not sure how those sexualities might meet your enforcement requirement.)

All of them. As long as it is technically a religion that enforces it, I can't attack it.But that doesn't mean that you can just go out and start a religion. There are requirements to what can be a religion. For starters, they have to worship someone or something. Next, there have to be at least six members for it to be considered a religion. There are requirements.

I'm just a little perplexed by this particular line of reasoning from Rosie. It almost seems that the thing that the homophobic Xian right fears most,i.e. homosexual proselytization, would be OK to her if there was a religion backing it up.Anyone else find this ironic?This message has been edited by randylsu, 12-05-2004 09:09 PM

Allow me to quote from the First Amendment:

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

---

In other words, it's unconstitutional to do exactly what you said: the Constitution prevents a religious majority from inflicting their religious will upon everybody. So, yes. It does say that. And it's fine for you to justify what you choose to do from a religious standpoint. But it's quite unconstitutional for you to justify the laws you support for other people from a religious standpoint. No, you're an American, just like me. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion, if I choose to live my life without it. I have a right, same as you, not to have other people enforce religious beliefs on me.

First of all, hi. I've been reading around here for a while and finally decided to register.I just thought I'd comment on some things here regarding genetics. I pretty much agree with what I think you're saying here, but I believe there is a bit of misunderstanding. The term "gay gene" is one of those popularised oversimplifications - much like "survival of the fittest" is to natural selection. I don't think that any geneticist believes there is a single gene controlling all of human sexuality. Neither do I think there is any combination of genes that account for it all. But that is not to say there are no significant genetic influences. Sorry, but that doesn't fit. The fact that the orientation of twins doesn't match 100% of the time does show that genes are not the only factor involved, but doesn't mean that they don't play any role at all. For example, most people agree that type 1 diabetes has genetic factors. A twin study published in 2003 gives concordance rates of much less than for sexual orientation - 27.3%. (Just grabbed from this abstract.) There are also known environmental factors contributing to the disease. When it comes right down to it, pretty much all human phenotypes are an interaction between genetics and environment (note I'm using environment here to mean anything non-genetic).Personally, I think the most plausible explanation is a number of genes as well as environmental factors influencing a persons orientation. The environmental factors probably include hormone levels in utero, and other factors as well I'm sure. Probably even some pure randomness thrown in for good measure.