The Pope: Fundamentalism is a disease in all religions

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I don't get it.

You can go down to the court house and be married in front of a Justice of the Peace.

When you file your taxes you file as married. Because you are.

No religion in that process at all.

I am missing the outrage I guess.

That's the way it used to be. Now that gays can marry, some people don't want to acknowledge that they are "really" married if gay marriage doesn't fit their religion. They want the people their religion says shouldn't marry to have to use a different term for their sordid arrangement, even if the godless government recognizes it.

 

[naturalmwa]

That's silly.

We agree, your point here about linguistic exclusivity is silly.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I guess I missed it.

What is keeping the recently wed members of the LGTB community from calling themselves "married"?

Nothing. But some want religion to own the word - primarily to prevent exactly that. It's the only real sense in which gay marriage can be said to undermine marriage. And we've certainly heard the opponents of gay marriage claim that often enough.

 

[22*43*51]

That's the way it used to be. Now that gays can marry, some people don't want to acknowledge that they are "really" married if gay marriage doesn't fit their religion. They want the people their religion says shouldn't marry to have to use a different term for their sordid arrangement, even if the godless government recognizes it.

What people "want" and "think" will never be controllable.

The fact of the matter that the LGTB community has been awarded the right to be "married".

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

What people "want" and "think" will never be controllable.

The fact of the matter that the LGTB community has been awarded the right to be "married".

Not exactly.

Previously the LGBT community was denied the right to get married. Because of bigotry - mainly religious bigotry.

What has happened is not that they have been awarded anything but that the people and the laws denying them their rights have been smacked down.

Always a good day when rights are defended.

 

[TexMichFan]

Every atheist I know likes Pope Frank. He isn't right on everything (although he is right on a remarkable number of controversial things), but he is an easy religious leader to be tolerant of and to respect.

You must know a lot of pro life atheist. I knew there were some but I didn't think there was that many.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

No wonder Republicans hate Pope Frank.

I fear for his safety.

he is safe for the same reason those shooters in cali get to go running around to sudi and Pakistan and get clearance: leftist commies are protected by the new world order

 

[KitingHigh]

Bah, marriage didn't exist as a word until around the time I've already reported. And it is revisionist to claim otherwise.

Except the term didn't come out of thin air. It was derived from the Latin "Maritatus", which existed long before.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

the pope is such a fool: the fundamental catholics are the bedrock of his religion. he needs to go

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You must know a lot of pro life atheist. I knew there were some but I didn't think there was that many.

Yes, there are some. Which does carve out a very tiny exception to my view that all the arguments against abortion are rooted in religion.

But you seem to be ignoring my caveat that Pope Frank isn't right about everything. Some claim that Pope Frank hasn't changed Church policy on anything - but has only elaborated and updated positions on some important things, such as climate change and capitalism. I'll let the religious argue that.

 

[DanL53]

Except the term didn't come out of thin air. It was derived from the Latin "Maritatus", which existed long before.

I object to your use of the word, "except". You presented no exception to my point.

 

[KitingHigh]

I object to your use of the word, "except". You presented no exception to my point.

pretty sure you tried to claim the term didn't exist until the 1300's did you not? It did exist long before, just in another language.

 

[TexMichFan]

How about we call the state version of marriage "marriage" and let churches do whatever they want about "religious unions."

No? Don't like that?

Religion wants to own the word "marriage" because it already has credibility. It's the "real" marriage; civil unions are cheap copies. Good enough for gays and atheists but not for good Christians.

I have met plenty of people who propose, as you have, that religion get to perform marriages while the state performs civil unions for those who do not qualify for or desire a religious marriage. But when I suggest doing it the other way, none of them (so far) are willing. How about you?

Sorry, you can't have it your way either. That does change the issue just changes words.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

When was the first marriage?

Was it performed by a priest? A rabbi? A tribal chief? A clan elder?

I'm betting no one knows. Although we can be reasonably certain there were marriages before the advent of the Jewish or Christian religions.

If no one knows, how can religion lay claim to the concept?

Even if we had a time machine and spent the resources to track down the first-ever marriage, so what if it was performed by a tribal chief or a shaman? Does being first give ownership to a relationship through eternity? Even drug companies aren't asking for eternal patents or copyrights.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Sorry, you can't have it your way either. That does change the issue just changes words.

You imply that I have "my way" that I am advocating for. There was no your way or my way until the religious right started demanding to have their way.

Don't blame us secularists for polarizing the situation. That's all on your side.

 

[TexMichFan]

When was the first marriage?

Was it performed by a priest? A rabbi? A tribal chief? A clan elder?

I'm betting no one knows. Although we can be reasonably certain there were marriages before the advent of the Jewish or Christian religions.

If no one knows, how can religion lay claim to the concept?

Even if we had a time machine and spent the resources to track down the first-ever marriage, so what if it was performed by a tribal chief or a shaman? Does being first give ownership to a relationship through eternity? Even drug companies aren't asking for eternal patents or copyrights.

Even if the first marriage was performed by God and you had a video of it you would still think religion should not be able to claim the concept.

 

[TexMichFan]

You imply that I have "my way" that I am advocating for. There was no your way or my way until the religious right started demanding to have their way.

Don't blame us secularists for polarizing the situation. That's all on your side.

I see the goal post have move again.

You asked if the terms were reversed would we be in favor of it and I answered with it would not matter to either side they would still hold the same arguments. I know my side is always wrong unless you agree with them like you do with the Pope.

 

[DanL53]

pretty sure you tried to claim the term didn't exist until the 1300's did you not? It did exist long before, just in another language.

I didn't try to claim the word didn't exist until around 800 years ago, I pointed out the fact that it didn't. The fact is marriage originated as a word defined as "to wed". For the purpose of exploring what the word means, it's distant cousins aren't needed.

WWJD makes a more poignant case in that in our culture the state took it upon itself to require a marriage license and in fact long before same sex marriage, had assumed the power of deciding who could wed and who couldn't by issuing licenses and pronouncing people married by the power of the court.

Interestingly enough, to receive that "blessing" of the court requires only that individuals produce the required funds. Very spiritual.

Something I think is worth considering. Anyone can go to a hardware store and buy a can of gold paint. Paint to your heart's content, you still haven't surrounded yourself in real gold. I say, I support the right of all people to choose a partner and live a life filled with love. I believe there are couples of the same sex who could be considered among the most stable, and likely would be better parents than many couples of opposite sex. And these people certainly deserve all the rights that anyone else enjoys.

But marriage? As in the sacred bond between two people in the eyes of God? It was cheapened once and enough when the State said it was in charge. It was cheapened again when the State said it had the power to change the very definition! Now everyone has lost. And how? It isn't hard to imagine the day a Church might be inspired to recognize God's word has drawn a new picture, a new meaning to them. It happens all the time!

But now, should a Church say Gays and Lesbians can indeed enjoy the Grace of a wedding with the blessing of God, who really cares? The State already marched into the Church and said it doesn't matter. Just fork over a little money and get married in the courthouse!

What a shame. A can of paint and everything is supposedly fixed.

 

[KitingHigh]

I didn't try to claim the word didn't exist until around 800 years ago, I pointed out the fact that it didn't. The fact is marriage originated as a word defined as "to wed". For the purpose of exploring what the word means, it's distant cousins aren't needed.

WWJD makes a more poignant case in that in our culture the state took it upon itself to require a marriage license and in fact long before same sex marriage, had assumed the power of deciding who could wed and who couldn't by issuing licenses and pronouncing people married by the power of the court.

Interestingly enough, to receive that "blessing" of the court requires only that individuals produce the required funds. Very spiritual.

Something I think is worth considering. Anyone can go to a hardware store and buy a can of gold paint. Paint to your heart's content, you still haven't surrounded yourself in real gold. I say, I support the right of all people to choose a partner and live a life filled with love. I believe there are couples of the same sex who could be considered among the most stable, and likely would be better parents than many couples of opposite sex. And these people certainly deserve all the rights that anyone else enjoys.

But marriage? As in the sacred bond between two people in the eyes of God? It was cheapened once and enough when the State said it was in charge. It was cheapened again when the State said it had the power to change the very definition! Now everyone has lost. And how? It isn't hard to imagine the day a Church might be inspired to recognize God's word has drawn a new picture, a new meaning to them. It happens all the time!

But now, should a Church say Gays and Lesbians can indeed enjoy the Grace of a wedding with the blessing of God, who really cares? The State already marched into the Church and said it doesn't matter. Just fork over a little money and get married in the courthouse!

What a shame. A can of paint and everything is supposedly fixed.

Maritus isn't a distant cousin to marriage. It is its father. It has the exact same meaning. No matter how much you want it to be true, the church has no ownership claim on marriage whatsoever. Both the word and the institution predate Christianity by a great margin.

Now I don't care if the church doesn't want to recognize gay marriages or marriages between denominations, or marriages after divorce without annulment. The church and its zealots shouldn't care that the government and the rest of us do recognize those. Get over it.

 

[DanL53]

Maritus isn't a distant cousin to marriage. It is its father. It has the exact same meaning. No matter how much you want it to be true, the church has no ownership claim on marriage whatsoever. Both the word and the institution predate Christianity by a great margin.

Now I don't care if the church doesn't want to recognize gay marriages or marriages between denominations, or marriages after divorce without annulment. The church and its zealots shouldn't care that the government and the rest of us do recognize those. Get over it.

If you read the emotional terminology in this response, I think it is clear that I'm not the one in need of "getting over" anything.

 

[naturalmwa]

You must know a lot of pro life atheist. I knew there were some but I didn't think there was that many.

Most atheists are pro life, we think this is all there is.

 

[naturalmwa]

Except the term didn't come out of thin air. It was derived from the Latin "Maritatus", which existed long before.

Oh, well that's going to be a problem. You see maritatus comes from marito which derives from maritus which means male lover which in turn is rooted in the word mas meaning man which goes all the way back to the Proto-Indo-European word meryo ‎meaning young man.

So unless you are marrying a young male lover, you aren't getting "married". The word is mine.

 

[IamHawkeye]

We could call one Civil Marriage and one Sacramental Marriage.

That way both get to use the magic "marriage" term.

There are a great many countries were the couples can marry in the church if they want to, but they are not officially married in the eyes of the state, until they go down, get their license and go before some civil official. I went to a church wedding in a South American country but they had to to do the civil thing too. USA is one of the few western countries that is either/or.

 

[naturalmwa]

Even if the first marriage was performed by God and you had a video of it you would still think religion should not be able to claim the concept.

If I had a reliable video of God performing the first marriage, I would change my view on so many things.

 

[naturalmwa]

If you read the emotional terminology in this response, I think it is clear that I'm not the one in need of "getting over" anything.

Your posts in this thread betray you.

 

[KitingHigh]

There are a great many countries were the couples can marry in the church if they want to, but they are not officially married in the eyes of the state, until they go down, get their license and go before some civil official. I went to a church wedding in a South American country but they had to to do the civil thing too. USA is one of the few western countries that is either/or.

You still have to get a marriage license here even if you are married in the church. You can actually be married by a civil representative, notary public will do, or any ordained minister. I know of people ordained online that can perform marriages.

 

[DanL53]

Your posts in this thread betray you.

 

[naturalmwa]

Thinking about tasting me huh? You might be marriage material yet.

 

[DanL53]

Thinking about tasting me huh? You might be marriage material yet.

You can do better.

 

[millhawk]

There's only one religion with a caliphate that wants to expand with jihad. Does this Pope know who that is?

 

[naturalmwa]

There's only one religion with a caliphate that wants to expand with jihad. Does this Pope know who that is?

I'm sure as the only religion that actually owns a country he is well aware.

 

[millhawk]

I'm sure as the only religion that actually owns a country he is well aware.

And what is wrong with that? They are not murdering people in the name of Christ are they?

 

[naturalmwa]

And what is wrong with that? They are not murdering people in the name of Christ are they?

Not today so much. Today they have a leader who calls out the crazy in the religious ranks. Isn't that nice?

 

[TexMichFan]

Most atheists are pro life, we think this is all there is.

I don't know Natural a quick Wikipedia look leaves you with a lot of room to make up.

Within the United States, 72% of the religiously unaffiliated say that "abortion should be legal in most or all cases"[7] compared to 53% of the general public. Among atheists and agnostics, 84% say abortion should be legal in most or all cases. SPL operates in the context of a highly polarized debate over abortion, where the anti-abortion movement America mainly consists of members of the Christian right.[8] While 75% of white evangelical Protestants say that having an abortion is morally wrong, 25% of religiously unaffiliated people say so.[9]The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics notes that 22% of nonreligious unaffiliated Americans describe themselves as "pro-life on abortion" while just 12% of atheists and agnostics do.[10]

 

[TexMichFan]

If I had a reliable video of God performing the first marriage, I would change my view on so many things.

I believe you would, but I put WWJD at no better than 25/75 with the 75% being the video was faked.

 

[naturalmwa]

I don't know Natural a quick Wikipedia look leaves you with a lot of room to make up.

Within the United States, 72% of the religiously unaffiliated say that "abortion should be legal in most or all cases"[7] compared to 53% of the general public. Among atheists and agnostics, 84% say abortion should be legal in most or all cases. SPL operates in the context of a highly polarized debate over abortion, where the anti-abortion movement America mainly consists of members of the Christian right.[8] While 75% of white evangelical Protestants say that having an abortion is morally wrong, 25% of religiously unaffiliated people say so.[9]The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics notes that 22% of nonreligious unaffiliated Americans describe themselves as "pro-life on abortion" while just 12% of atheists and agnostics do.[10]

I'm talking about life, not birth.

 

[TexMichFan]

I'm talking about life, not birth.

Most everyone is pro life if you are talking about life.

I thought we had moved on to abortion like a lot of religious threads go to.

 

[naturalmwa]

Most everyone is pro life if you are talking about life.

I thought we had moved on to abortion like a lot of religious threads go to.

I think we had, I'm just not surrendering the pro life term to those who only care about a thing until it is born. Those who fight for medical care, a safety net, equitable education opportunities, a clean and sustainable environment and a living wage are the real pro life team.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Even if the first marriage was performed by God and you had a video of it you would still think religion should not be able to claim the concept.

What's your point, other than to be childishly snarky?

Why do I always seem to be asking you what your point is?

Nevertheless, let me respond to your childishly snarky comment. Or to explain your non sequiturs (which you never do).

First, If I saw God performing he first marriage, I would believe God exists.

Second, even if God performed the first marriage, unless He says otherwise, that doesn't mean only He or his reps can perform marriages.

Here's my question for you: why are you and the Religious Right so abysmally stupid?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I see the goal post have move again.

You asked if the terms were reversed would we be in favor of it and I answered with it would not matter to either side they would still hold the same arguments. I know my side is always wrong unless you agree with them like you do with the Pope.

Yes, I am a bigot: a agree with people who say smart and civil things.