Active Users:1146 Time:23/11/2024 04:20:13 AM
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. Cannoli Send a noteboard - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM
Marriage is not a right, it is never referred to as such in the Constitution. And now, as secular Americans outnumber believers, join me, sisters in brothers, in passing our law to ban the depraved practice of Christian Marriage from our fair state.
Christian marriage is normal marriage, except Christians in general are better at it than the rest of you. They tend to be more faithful to their marriage vows, report greater sexual satisfaction and tend to breed more.

Though there are some among you who, of course, wish to make even the practice of Christianity a crime, such a law would never pass in todays society. They are people, after all, and they have rights, granted right there in the constitution. They are free to do whatever depraved things they wish with other Christians, so long as we don't have to see it.
Which IS the legal practice these days. The display of religious symbols, even if they are only being displayed for their historical significance, is prohibited. Opposition to ass-piracy is called a hate crime. Comedians on TV are cautious about mocking sodomites but have no problems taking shots at priests. Films & TV programs routinely feature and glorify secularists, atheistic scientists (as if such scientists have anywhere near the accomplishments of religious scientists), and fudgepackers or rugmunchers and their lifestyles. The only times a show is made featuring overtly religious people, it is restricted to children's programming & is a target of mockery and critical derision or else glorifies the religious characters' deviation from the norms of their claimed faith and the doctrines of their religion. Or they're Muslims.

Your satirical proposal to restrict religion to closed doors and privacy would only be satirical if you were not fifty years behind the times, and not "proposing" what is already the status quo.

But there is no right to marriage, and so this should not be granted to them. We will pass our law defining marriage as a contract between two atheists. Allow them their social unions, if they must, but marriage is to be denied them.
No one has ever seriously proposed marriage to be limited to between Christians, or denies the rights of aetheists to marry. The proposed legislation regarding definitions of marriage all involves defining it as between a man and a woman. Regardless of their beliefs, practices or sexual orientation. Most priests and churches would probably permit aetheists to marry in their facilities if they like the decor or it was convenient for their families and friends to get to. I am sure many clerics would officiate at an aetheist wedding. My father's only wedding was a marriage of two secular people.

Our reasons are simple. Christians teach Christianity to their children. And why would we want that? Christians are well known as teachers of intolerance, aggressors in wars, and destroyers of cultures. We have the "missions" to the Native Americans,
Yes, and teaching them the values of clothing, writing and buildings, children that mostly survive to age two, and growing a reliable food supply instead of finding it wild or on the hoof and starving when they can't. Do you want to call us destroyers of cultures? I say, "We are proud to be destroying these degenerate psuedo-cultures and rescuing the people these cultures keep one step above animals. We destroy human sacrifice and cannibalism and slavery and immolation of widows. You're welcome."

It was the secular authorities who enslaved Indians or took their land, while priests were protesting and smuggling letters back to the religious authorities back home complaining about what the military authorities of their homelands were up to.

the snipers outside of abortion clinics,
Yeah, bullshit. As if that's happened even three times. Or is explicitly supported or taught by any mainstream christian denominations.

a laundry list of wars that can be laid at their feet.
And yet you fail to provide one. The term refers to an exact enumeration, like the laundromat give you so you know why you are charged as you are. Prove this statement anyway. How many wars beside the Crusades have been initiated expressly for Christian-motivated goals? The fact that Christians have participated in wars for secular reasons does not make those wars Christian. Even the Thirty Years War involved long-standing issues of jurisdiction and authority for which the religious differences were an excuse. Absent religion, they'd have found another. Many claim the same thing about the Crusades, but even stipulating the religious motivations, they were defensive wars against Islamic invaders and conquerors, that has since turned the region that gave birth to civilization into a backwater wasteland, only of interest to the rest of the world because of the coincidental mineral resources which the higher technology of the Christian-founded world finds uses for.

They even have a doctrine all their own which they go so far as to insist should be obeyed above even the laws of the lands, making them ideal seditionists.
Damn right!

Without the taint of Christian Marriage incorporating strange customs, odd dress, and weird words into what is a government approved socio-economic partnership, we will gain a cessation to their endless cries of judgment and intolerance, and will know that the children will be raised without such horrible influences. True, some children may yet be raised by Christians, but they will do so in the knowledge that their parents are not in full compliance with their own teachings, and so shall this great aggressor and oppressor of peoples finally be confined, so that those who follow its depraved ways will harm no one except each other.
8} As if that hasn't been tried before.

Ignore the cries of those who claim that selecting a certain lifestyle preference for exclusion from what to others is a basic socio-economic institution raises a dangerous precedent. We are the people of the United States of America and we live in a democracy, and we have learned well to fear the teachings of Christ and those who follow him. We will pass this law, and decry any who stand in our way as anti-democratic activists.

It is the will of the people that matters. Right?
Since when? It is the teaching of Christ that says people without power even have any value. The universally-agreed worst religious people in the contemporary world are those priests who abjure or ignore the teachings of their religion - and engage in homosexual behavior.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1535 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 963 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 982 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1015 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 859 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1017 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 585 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1187 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 996 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 946 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 912 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1057 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 474 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 995 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 982 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 895 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 476 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 864 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 505 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 958 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 920 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 874 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 439 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 910 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 855 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1141 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1229 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 850 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 885 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 476 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1004 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 923 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 876 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 858 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 969 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 828 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 958 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 839 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 984 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 999 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 879 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1014 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 824 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 939 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 828 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 695 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 990 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 864 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 989 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 754 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1041 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 853 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 977 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1161 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 852 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 856 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 845 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 870 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 778 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1223 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 786 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 458 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 462 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1031 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 930 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1007 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 734 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1085 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 727 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 974 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 850 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 958 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 838 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 960 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 937 Views

Reply to Message