Dave -- yes, we will have to agree to disagree... for now. I appreciate it that you took my remarks in stride and with a grain of salt.

Bob Marley... umm.... I mean Chewie, yes you are right that the definition of marriage -- as well as family and nuclear family -- have changed over time. In fact, recent (last 40 years) changes include expanding the notion of family based on adoption, divorce, remarriage, etc.

However, you are a bit wrong in addressing my assertion that Dave (or others like him) would like to remake their religion. Yes, for those whom a church will marry them and for which they accept that church's teachings, of course those folks do not need to remake their religion. However, I get the feeling that Dave (and I know that if not him, at least some people) would prefer to marry in their own traditional church as opposed to an alternative church. This means they would have to remake their church's views in many instances. Whether or not Dave is a member of such a church, we know that at least some gays are. Deny all you like, but certainly you must see that there are catholics, for instance, who would prefer to remake the catholic church's opinion on marriage and marry within the church rather than leave it for a church in which they can currently permissibly marry.

Replace a tyrant with a tyrant is that it? What's the difference again? </font>[/QUOTE]Huh? Where do I advocate tyranny? Please elaborate. </font>[/QUOTE]Your religion replaces a rock with a stone by elevating any form of sexual union above another. It is no different in practice to the current status quo, just in the direction of the application of discrimination, rather than applying discrimination itself.

But see, the conundrum is, if a Muslim remoulds Islam so that he can marry under Islamic law, he makes a new religion or new splinter group. One that doesn't follow the Koran in the same way. You'll always have a group that maintains the older interpretation as well. The same with the bible, torah or talmud. All you'd do is make new denominations and new faiths, because a faith and denomination is belief in entirety.

It's like making oatmeal by replacing the oats with corn. By changing the ingredient you make a new food, not the old one.

Besides, the whole point of joining a religion or having a faith is not to change it to you, but to change yourself through it. Otherwise why would you bother? Why wouldn't you stay as you are? Why bother fixing what isn't broken (the self), with something you think is broken? Churches and faiths are in a sense spiritual and emotional medicines.

As proof of this I offer churches like the Metropolitan church. http://www.mccchurch.org/

I also offer up the anabaptist (Amish and Mennonite) tendency to create new churches with every new interpretation over baptisms or button wearing or whatever. http://religiousmovements.lib.virgin...rms/amish.html

And thirdly I present the current dillemma within the worldwide Anglican church, that's splitting the American Episcopal church in two, over ordaining gay bishops. http://www.integrityva.org/nap.htm


And that's just within Christianity. Try doing that with Islam as well!

Religions aren't static, they changes as well. Man shapes religion, and religion shapes man.

Replace a tyrant with a tyrant is that it? What's the difference again? </font>[/QUOTE]Huh? Where do I advocate tyranny? Please elaborate. </font>[/QUOTE]Your religion replaces a rock with a stone by elevating any form of sexual union above another. It is no different in practice to the current status quo, just in the direction of the application of discrimination, rather than applying discrimination itself. </font>[/QUOTE]Eh? You have drawn a big WRONG conclusion from practically no information. Besides, this topic isn't about me so put it rest please.

OK, I think it's time to stop the trend here. There is a moratorium on religion as a topic and it's been pushed a little too long now.
This thread is closed.

[ 05-12-2005, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]