Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views"

It’s only unnatural in the perverse recesses of your narrow mind. The fact is that it happens in nature quite a lot. And why wouldn’t they want their lifestyle made legitimate? After having been told by bible thumping bigots for generations that what they do is wrong and unnatural, I think it’s about time to be put to rest. In my experience, the majority of gay people are just your average everyday sort of people, who want the same things from life that the rest of us do, such as love and stability. When two adults of the same sex are genuinely in love, committed to spending their lives together and supporting each other, the only unnatural thing is when the Government steps in and says No, you are not permitted to have that legal recognition of your relationship. That is absolutely correct, so please stop using religious concepts to define what a marriage should be. True, and the current custom of denying the right of marriage to a defined segment of the population based on their lifestyle choice is definitely bad. Good. So if it does nothing, that means it doesn’t help it or harm it. So what’s the problem then? Yeah, evidence is an awful thing isn’t it. You would rather have it that we all put our blind belief in an invisible supernatural being, and conduct our lives directly based on the words in a book from ancient history, written and translated by people whom we really have no idea of their motives or credibility? This constitutes a commonsense approach?Honestly Faith, the bigotry you are displaying here is quite saddening and disturbing. I’m a longtime reader (and occasional poster) of EvC, and the attitude and ignorance that you display in various threads can be quite unpleasant to read and actually make me seriously consider giving up EvC. But then I realise, there are so many more intelligent people here, both Christian and Non-Christian, that vastly outbalance the narrow-minded drivel that you produce.

---

On the 7th day, God was arrested.

quote:

---

With respect to qualifying for a function that requires steady nerves, absolutely.

---

So, they should be prevented from getting married?

Marriage legitimizes heterosexuality? Period? Meaning that it's sole function is to legitimize a sexual orientation? What are you smoking? If I weren't a total non smoker for 15 years now I probably ask you for a hit Marriage legitimizes kinship relationships. Humans and all animals can breed heterosexually with or without legitimizing heterosexuality. But the families and kinship systems of human societies have formal requirements. The primitive institution of marriage recognizes a relationship between families and the man and woman and then their offspring are the medium through which that relationship is realized, with responsibilities and duties.I know you will deny any archeology, anthropology, and history that isn't in the Bible so their is no point even talking to you about what we have evidence for.lfen

Okay, now you are recognizing some of the functions of marriage but I'll hold it's Paul's mistaken belief that his saviour would return so imminently that social institutions weren't that important that has led to the devaluation of the family to the nuclear family which compared to the extended family is a fragile unit. Marriage is between families. It establishes a kinship relationship "by marriage" between the members of two families that may not otherwise be related. That relationship is for production of offspring which is a heterosexual function and the marriage defines the relationship of the offspring to the families.However there could be a homosexual union that though in itself doesn't produce children does join families and could, as I have personally witnessed, nurture and raise children. I've known several children being raised by two mothers who have done a better job than some heterosexual couples I've known.lfen

I'm glad we cleared that up. Now pharmacies cannot refuse service to people based on their beliefs.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I don't agree with you on this. What would you replace it with? Remembering the needs for bonding that children have and how very much attending it takes to rear a healthy human being.I think the kibbutz in Isreal was one of the most radical experiments. It worked but from what I've read the children of the kibuttz are a bit different in the way they relate socially and that more traditional Israelies are uncomfortable with the difference.lfen

This should be obvious, Jar. This is the scenario:1) The country legalizes same-sex marriage
2) Hallmark cards jumps on the bandwagon and produces a slew of cards endorsing all possible combination of gay relationships.
3) Heterosexual men, following a long tradition of relationship confusion, are even more confused by the extra racks of cards.
4) Rather than picking out the right card they pick out one that would probably be better suited to an eight year old as it has buttons and fake fur glued to it and says "Be-ar my Valentine" (when it was an anniversery in the first place).
5) The card leads to a series of arguments ultimately leading to a nasty divorce.
6) With the divorce rate skyrocketing millions of otherwise straight men decide that being gay is easier because the Hallmark cards are easier to find due to the people in front of the rack holding "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" placards
7) Society destabilized.This should have been obvious.

Not getting what I've been saying. I've said very clearly that I'm for allowing businesses to refuse service to whomever they please. I nevertheless may have a negative opinion about their reasons in some cases. Let them be stupid, that's my motto. I'm all in favor of freedom for people to be as stupid or unjust as they like, and against all attempts to legislate any kind of personal attitude or belief whatever short of criminality of course.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 03:38 AM

I thought I was quite clear about this. Anything that trivializes or weakens marriage destabilizes a society. Gay marriage would just be the last straw, as the whole Sexual Freedom fiasco has pretty much done it in already. Gay marriage is an obvious travesty of the purpose of marriage, which certainly trivializes it. Any child can see that, except that as in the case of the Emperor's New Clothes nobody is supposed to notice but just play along with the hoax.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-05-2005 03:44 AM

As in most things, you were clear with your assumptions - I think the problem is that the argument that you have presented is so wafer-thin (and that's being polite) that nobody can take it seriously.And if "sexual freedom" is such a big thing where are so many priests exposed as sex offenders? They don't have "sexual freedom".This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Jul-2005 04:37 AM

What are you talking about? For all I know the incidence of such molestations was half provoked by the sexual license of the culture that has been growing over the last few decades. Once you have an atmosphere in which "whatever turns you on" is treated as a Constitutionally protected right and freedom, in which porn is a right for instance, what's to stop every kind of sexual predation from coming out too? Human fallenness has some pretty vile depths in some people, a lot more of us than anyone wants to admit, and those who think porn is just "good clean fun" are seriously deluded. Celibacy was never a good thing but sexual control or suppression might have been maintained in most cases without the clamoring for porn rights and gay rights and what have you. All sorts of previously hidden murk would surface in such an atmosphere it seems to me. But I'm not sure what your question meant. I'm just musing.

Perhaps you should read your own Bible. There was no marriage at all within the Garden, and the initial references to marriage in the Bible are okay with polygamy.But in any case you have not answered my question at all regarding polytheism. Whether it was the great flood or Babel or whatever which caused most humans to forget the "true" past, there was only polytheism as far as people knew until monotheism rose up. Thus the situation is similar to today where as far as we know there were no gay marriages.Does a lack of knowledge about something having been a tradition in history, have anything to do with the question of if a new thing can be done? No. It is moot to that question. Sanctified? Well in that case there are some. If you mean had as legal institutions then there are none. I am well on the record at EvC for pointing out that there is no example of gay marriage as a part of cultures throughout history.That is of course disregarding recent history at this point, because some parts of Western civilization has.But the point you are trying to make is true, there is no tradition of gay marriage throughout human cultures, due specifically to its nature which was securing familial rights that really could only be applied to heteros (though not just couples).The problem you are having is dealing with the next step. That does not make an argument why it cannot start now and be successful, or that if it did happen that all societies would crumble.In fact someone could point out the obvious counter argument. Up till now no nations have had gay marriage and they have all collapsed. Maybe what they all needed was gay marriage!By the way, don't ever ask me again for proof of something until you give proof of something you have claimed. To ask me to show cultures that have had gay marriage when you refuse to back your claim of cultures that have fallen due to changing marriage values, is a bit hypocritical. That is right. So what's the problem? We allow you to practice your unholy and unnatural religion all you want, and not even have your corporate churches pay taxes.Whether it is "unnatural" in your eyes, or the eyes of your God, as a social custom gays want State sanction to grant an aura of legitimacy to themselves and those that don't hate them. You can still dislike their unions, just as some spit on your backward beliefs and practices. By "redefining" you mean "returning". It changes exactly what I said it changed. Xians (well the monotheist religions in general), through their worldwide campaigns have helped redefine the traditional role of marriage that you like to squawk about. It went from rights for families to legitimization of sexual relationships regardless of children.Thus marriage took on a social connotation outside the religious sphere. You can't blame anyone else but yourselves if people outside your religion accept and react to social connotations.To be honest I wish gays would reject it as well as any other free thinking person. But social customs/expectations are hard to smash. What do you mean a "loss" of polygamy? First of all the early monotheists in your own freaking Bible were okay with polygamy. Monogamy was later recommended but not as some absolutely correct way, until much later in the church and that not really two millenia ago. But that was just Xians.Outside of that there are more polygamous cultures than there are exclusively monogamous ones. Are you suggesting that there is a lesser degree of people getting married in polygamous fashion? Maybe. But that is hardly a loss of polygamy altogether and more of a demographical snapshot of trends.Polyamory is rising. Practically speaking it does do something for society. It produces happiness within a section of the population and may even contribute to a less "loose" lifestyle. Even if you hate gays, it would seem that having them "settle down" to be prudes just like you would at least be welcoming.And you have still done nothing to explain how it trivializes anyone else's marriage, or causes fragmentation and confusion. So a gay couple gets married? How does that effect anyone else?There are many types of vehicles, the fact that a drivers license can be used for a pickup truck as well as a VW Bug, does not have anyone screaming they can't figure out whether they are a redneck or a hippy.But I'm glad you've finally come clean and admitted the only source of fear that you have regarding this: Yourself. You claim to have some uncommon knowledge that is only shared on high with God (for certainly it is not in the Bible) and which you are doling out to us in these fractured nonfact filled posts.Yet it does raise a question. If gays getting married will bring on God's judgement, isn't that a good thing? Isn't that what Xians are waiting to die for?It seems your best plan is to allow it to happen and keep praying for your own salvation and soon everything will be peachy. If I'm going to publish a paper or make a claim that getting out of bed will cause nations to crumble, then yes some sort of research is in order.Without evidence common sense is nothing.When you get sick do you go to a hospital?

---

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

The New York Times has an Op-Ed article relevant to the ongoing off topic discussion.In it a case is put forward that rather than gay marriages representing a substantial change in the nature of marriage it would simply be another small step on a path which has been ongoing throughout this century during which the institution of marriage has already undergone many radical realignments.TTFN,WK

I don't want to read an article I have to register for, but I would guess it's simply putting in positive terms the attacks on marriage I've been describing as occurring over the last half century that have just about destroyed it. Certainly this atmosphere of marriage-trashing makes it easy for gay marriage to be considered.

He was talking about priests, not joe citizen.I have a constitutional right to say screw god, Jesus and all his followers, but my guess is that won't be heard coming from a priest anytime soon.Indeed I have rights that I might not indulge in if I actually have FAITH in a position and practice it and it happens to say not to do X.Within the Xian culture priests sure as heck didn't have a culture of sexual license and were exposed to quite the opposite, certainly less that joe citizen, yet had harder times coping with their own desires. They were not only willing to ignore their own rules but were even willing to force activities on people that were unwilling, or would be offensive to the parents of those that might have given in to a momentary weakness. Read St Augustine. His argument was that suppression of things like prostitution (and its corrollary pornography) is what would cause all sorts of muck to rise to the surface. He likened such sexual license to toilets and sewers. While one may find such things repulsive to think about, without them worse things will appear very quickly.Indeed I believe he even "predicted" that a rise in homosexuality would naturally result from not allowing men and women to play freely.But I guess demons could be saints as well, huh?

---

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