Did you miss my entire argument?
A valid concern. My arguments tend to very quickly move from specific commentary to a broader exhortation; the latter can be easily mistaken for the former. But no, I didn't miss your entire argument.
Now, a proper response must be divided into two parts. You brought up one element that needs specific and in depth addressing, while the other points are more along the lines of technical corrections. As such, this will be a little out of order.
ima going to have to quote the Bible on this one...
And unfortunately you've gone on an unnecessary tangent by doing so. If you look at my arguments again they were pointed at how Christians in general should act towards homosexuals, specifically in the context of homosexual marriage. Nothing I said was a commentary on the conceptually ideal potential of the word, what marriage should be, etc.
I took a rather different approach to the matter, a more direct approach, I believe. It does not matter how marriage should be defined from a biblical standpoint; that can be debated. What does matter is how Christians, believing in the basic tenants of Christianity, should behave. I thus drew from the teachings of Christ; specifically, that the sin of the individual is unimportant in regards to how one should treat them. I am proposing that in order to best live and communicate the fundamental tenant of Christianity (love and forgiveness of sin through Jesus), Christians should support homosexual marriage.
In short, I am claiming that the proper definition of marriage is unimportant. Thus, what the book of Matthew says about marriage is unimportant. Likewise, what the book of Leviticus says about homosexuality is unimportant. And thus, in turn, if homosexual marriage is biblical or not is unimportant. That is a non-issue; what is important is how Christians are to fulfill the Great Commission. Insofar as a political and social opposition to same-sex marriage hinders that goal, such opposition is harmful and, indeed, sinful.
Let us take a conservative standpoint for a moment: "marriage should only be between a man and a woman" and "homosexuality is a sin." That is exactly why Christians should support same-sex marriage; it is not by alienating or attacking same sex marriage, or indeed homosexuals, that Christians can fulfill the Great Commission. At any point did Jesus attempt to force people to give up sin or a sinful way of life? Consider the story of the adulterous woman in the book of John as an example; Jesus first saved the woman's life and then urged her to "go and sin no more." We should connect with individuals on a personal, fundamental level before attempting to correct what we might see as flaws. Care about the person first and the sin second, as it were.
What is to follow is the aforementioned technical corrections:
Christians should be the best friends homosexuals have; that we aren't is a sin (poetically speaking).
Hahahaha so funny... I love how you missed it when I said:
"I'm not saying I hate gays. Some of my best friends are gay. Some of the coolest people I know are gay."
[/quote]
Please do note the lack of second person pronouns. I did not say "you should be the best friend homosexuals have," but rather "Christians." How many homosexuals see the Westboro Baptist Church as friends, for example? I intended my statements to be for all Christians which (unfortunately) does include groups like that.
... the government already did so when it was established. The reason for religious freedom when the government was created was ... Thusly, they made the lawful version of marriage off of Christianity.
Sorry, I'm going to have to call BS on that one. The people who established religious freedom through the First Amendment were not the same people to establish federal marriage laws. In fact, you might notice a great gap in the Constitution in terms of references to marriage. However, since it wasn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, the "right" of marriage is reserved for the states. So the "lawful version of marriage" was created by state governments first, not the federal government (which is what established religious freedom).
Did you miss my entire argument? My entire argument was for getting homosexual couples to have the ability to achieve the same sets of rights and benefits that are part of a legal marriage. My only stipulation for this was that it be a legal marriage but under a different name, as to be able to easily dispell the radicals and such who are 100% against it.
The radicals who are 100% against it aren't going to care what you call it; a rose by any other name, and all that. Likewise, homosexuals who are 100% for it aren't going to be happy with an alternate name. Your stipulation satisfies neither side while pissing both off. Besides, it has already been discovered that separate but equal is nothing of the sort.
I don't know if we knew this, but many Christian practices were adopted from Roman and Greek mythology. For example, Christmas is in December because that's when Saturnalia was.
The practice of specifically absorbing Greek and Roman "mythology," and indeed pagan elements in general, did not formally begin until the rise of Pope Gregory that Great. Given that early Christians, until around the 5th century, specifically attempted to distance themselves from Pagan religious elements, it is highly improbable that they willingly assimilated anything pagan. The earliest specific mention of the birth of Christ comes from the 4th century, and records can tentatively place the date of the birth of Christ being believed to be in December/January as early as the 2nd century.
You are essentially stating a historical theory (and I should note that, in history, the word “theory” does not have the same meaning as what the word “theory” means in science) from the 1800’s that was never well supported. It was postulated but with no actual historical evidence to back it up. Certainly Christians did absorb some pagan elements; we have records of it occurring. But that can not be applied to different time periods without proper evidence.
