christian nationalism

More nonsensical ranting I see.... I'm sure you have your opinion of what marriage is as do others... but in this case we are discussion a legal contract between two people. So in your opinion marriage presupposes certain things. That's nice that you have that opinion. You should definitely hold to it in your own personal affairs.You retarded chicken little act is wearing thing. The sky is falling BS has been going on for years. It's just silly at this point.

what? marriage isn't about generating a family, its a contract btween two groups, children are a common byproduct of marriage, this is more revisionism to make marriage something other than what it is. Go read a book on the history of marriage sometime this is about paranoia and making it out to be more than it is, to scare people into believing you"the sky is falling the sky is falling!!"

quote:

---

On the flip side, Brenna, the Christian Reconstructionists only propose to stone male homosexuals to death (stoning would become the preferred means of execution in the new Christian nation because of its edifying public and participatory nature). Of course, only Christian men (of the right sort) could hold office or sit on choirs...er, juries.

​

But apparently the Reconstructionists cannot find an explicit passage pertaining to lesbians, so stoning Sappho is out. I'm sure they'll come up with something, though. One would hope that, like the Inquisitors, the new rulers would have the decency to torture suspects into recantation and salvation before they execute them, since their immortal soul is most important.

​

This reactionary movement also intends to criminalize all forms of contraception. The Christian Reconstructionist interest in this (and other) Catholic stands on social issues partly explains why Protestant denunciations of the Catholic Church are now relatively rare.

​

Evangelicals also provide considerable political and financial support to Israel because of the necessary role they see Israel playing in the end times: seems odd that they seek to control conditions for the fulfillment of prophecy, as though they could manage whatever events and timing God had in mind.

​

So the Jew and Catholic bashing that once characterized the evangelicals has largely quieted, but it seems a tactical maneuver rather than a change of heart.

​

Like all religious fanatics, they are determined to do what God would do if He was in possession of all the facts.

---

It's The Handmaid's Tale come to ugly life.I think I may cry from fear.

quote:

---

I supppose the best way to explain it would be to ask you for some evidence of Faith being hateful

---

Once, after she became frustrated during a debate with me, Faith called me the stupidest person here at EvC, and although she apologized for it much later, she had to be needled into the apology.She has since become much more civil and contributes much more productively to the board, and it does her credit, but wow, you should have seen her then. Venomous, she was.You really aught to read some of her early posts. They are breathtaking in their abusiveness and anger and invective. Edited by schrafinator, : fixed errors

quote:

---

Freedom never meant that anyone could do what he liked. That is one way the idea is seriously distorted these days. It never meant having the right to demand some special status from the government,

---

You mean like religion institutions (Churches) being tax-exempt?

quote:

---

the right to force the majority to accord you a status you believe you should have,

---

You mean like voting rights and property riights and non-discrimination rights of all kinds for, say, women and blacks?

quote:

---

the right to anything more than protection of your life and liberty to live as you choose -- and even then, only within the criminal law and community standards.

---

NO, NO, NO!Community standards have nothing to do with who should have rights!It is, in fact, "community standards" that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect individuals against; the so-called tyrrany of the majority.If you think that "communities" should get to decide who is allowed their civil rights, then you have a grave musunderstanding of the issue.

quote:

---

When you get into demanding that the historic definition of marriage be altered to suit your tiny minority lifestyle and falsify its clear meaning over the millennia you have left the domain of natural rights and freedoms.

---

The historic definition of marriage is an exchange of property; that is, females, who had very few rights, were considered the property of their make relatives and later, husband.Is this how you would like us to define marriage?

quote:

---

Gay marriage by the way isn't even a specially Christian cause. It may be Christians who most feel the meaning of it in this day and age, but no society ever considered such a thing in the past, no pagan society, no other religion, nobody at all ever.

---

That is not true.

quote:

---

And I do not consider Jar a Christian. Sorry, but it has to be said.

---

It's a good thing that you are not the arbiter of who is a Christian, then, isn't it?Or are you? Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Marriage presupposes the ability to GENERATE a family.

---

It does?I suppose that we should disallow women who have had hysterectomies or who have gone through menopause from getting married, and also impotent men.Are you also suggesting that we not allow people who have voluntaritly sterilized themselves from getting married?

I already commented that I knew somebody would bring up the stupid case of heteros who can't or choose not to procreate, but you never read a thread before you respond, even back a few posts it appears.The ability to generate a family means the PRINCIPLE of heterosexuality. The actuality is not crucial. I'm talking about the MEANING of marriage within the culture.

The historic definition of marriage is an exchange of property; that is, females, who had very few rights, were considered the property of their male relatives and later, husband.Is this how you would like us to define marriage? Edited by schrafinator, : spelling errors

quote:

---

the right to anything more than protection of your life and liberty to live as you choose -- and even then, only within the criminal law and community standards.

---

NO, NO, NO!Community standards have nothing to do with who should have rights!It is, in fact, "community standards" that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect individuals against; the so-called tyrrany of the majority.If you think that "communities" should get to decide who is allowed their civil rights, then you have a grave musunderstanding of the issue.

Well, Nero thought of entering into a gay marriage himself, as one of his little jokes, but I don't know of any culture that seriously treated it as an acceptable arrangement, do you? Hey, it may be possible that some miserable little tribe somewhere made that mistake. Do you have the specifics?Always the feminist slant. No, marriage is the uniting of male and female. Goes back to Eden. Property considerations are something extra added on by fallen humanity, not part of the definition.What you are calling civil rights is not civil rights, that is the whole point. You and others are asking for special rights, not civil rights, though you don't mind defining it in this new way no sane society ever before entertained. But ours is no longer a sane society. I guess I should just acknowledge that and let it disintegrate without my complaining about it. Takes too much energy to no purpose.Churches never demanded the right to be tax exempt that I'm aware of. Christianity was long long ago considered to be a benefit to the nation and that was the reason for it. Now people would rather favor accommodations that are not only not a benefit but actually a detriment to the nation, a step on the way to its destruction. Well, hey, who am I to stand in the way of progress. Make churches pay taxes, give gays marriage rights, turn the whole world upside down. That's the kind of world you want, you and all the rest of the liberals. Have at it. Bring it all down. I'll just try to ignore you.

quote:

---

The ability to generate a family means the PRINCIPLE of heterosexuality.

---

So, what you are saying is, "heterosexuals should be able to marry because they are heterosexuals, and homosexuals should not be able to marry because they are homosexuals."Circular argument.

How very very odd that the Founders didn't just start out defining their work in your terms, took out the majority-rule stuff, and explicitly made sure that civil rights includes what some of us recognize not to be civil rights at all but special rights over the majority's rights. Ah well. Obviously they should have. That's what all you liberals think.

You are one of the crowd here that has no clue what a circular argument is.And children should not be able to marry because they are children. And close relatives should not be able to maarry because they are close relatives. And people should not be able to marry animals because, well.

quote:

---

Always the feminist slant.

---

No, it's the historical slant.Marriage began as a way to exchange propery. That is historical fact.

quote:

---

No, marriage is the uniting of male and female.

---

...for the purpose of forging clans/political and family alliances/combining resources.

quote:

---

Goes back to Eden.

---

Eden is not history. It is part of your religious mythology and while it might influence your religion's attitude regarding which unions it recognizes, it should have no bearing whatever upon what a secular government recognizes as a legal contract.

quote:

---

Property considerations are something extra added on by fallen humanity, not part of the definition.

---

Again, "the fall" is a religious concept that is irrelevant to our secular government or the Bill of Rights.

quote:

---

What you are calling civil rights is not civil rights, that is the whole point. You and others are asking for special rights, not civil rights,

---

Since when is getting the right to do what everybody else has the right to do a "special right"?Please explain.

quote:

---

though you don't mind defining it in this new way no sane society ever before entertained. But ours is no longer a sane society. I guess I should just acknowledge that and let it disintegrate without my complaining about it. Takes too much energy to no purpose.

---

This is the same argument used by the people opposed to the abolition of slavery, interracial marriage or women's suffrage."This is the way it's always been, common sense and the Bible tells us that it's right, and the rest of you are crazy for thinking any different!"

quote:

---

Churches never demanded the right to be tax exempt that I'm aware of.

---

Er, so? It's still a special right.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

How very very odd that the Founders didn't just start out defining their work in your terms, took out the majority-rule stuff, and explicitly made sure that civil rights includes what some of us recognize not to be civil rights at all but special rights over the majority's rights. Ah well. Obviously they should have. That's what all you liberals think.

---

Faith, our individual civil rights are our rights regardless of if the majority believes that we should have them or not.If you believe that to be a "liberal" idea then I am proud to call myself a liberal, although I believe it to be a basic American value which is vital to our precious freedoms and way of life.Civil rights are not subject to "majority rule".They are not open to a vote.That is the whole reason they were written into the Constitution.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.