Doubt it.

The proportion of murders may indeed be tiny and "bottom of the list" as you put it. The same could not be said of deaths due to war, terrorism and sectarian violence. Plenty of other evils to lay at religions door, for those willing to question their faith.

What is the implication of doctrine always being in a state of evolution? That it is merely a system of morality? Is that it's purpose and principal benefit? Does it mean that there is actually no god?

Did look at the first five pages of the thread, but could not find your opinion. Perhaps it was another thread. I am also not on a crusade to demonise or belittle believers, but I am on a crusade to dispute incoherent beliefs. I find it fascinating that so many people refuse to think, and enjoy challenging their refusal.

It's great that your inlaws are accepted by their church. A reasonably enlightened priest and congregation it would seem, and a good example for other churches to follow.

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

If that were true I would say great, now we're getting somewhere. But it's not true is it? Because if it was you would be lobbying for your own version of marriage - which in most western countries gays already have anyway.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. My point was you can't change the key ingredients of something - altering it's very nature and expect to call it the same thing. If you can't understand that logical argument (or maybe in your case: don't want to) then it's your problem.

'Gay marriage' a Marxist utopian dream divorced from reality

A key Marxist objective is the destruction of the traditional family, it has nothing to do with gays, they couldn't care less about you. They want to destroy the family.

Er, what's Marxism got to do with it? No one here is a Marxist.

Marx was married. He had children, they married. He wasn't too keen on women being chattels. Is that the resaon you dislike gay marriage? To equal for you? No little woman to order around?

The Vatican claptrap you linked to also says women do not have the same rights as men.
Marriage is about mutual support, companionship, love, some people add in sex and or children but they aren't essential to a good marriage. Nor are two genders.

Such bigotry and condescension in your post, very few Christian values.

Could it be that it's you that doesn't want to understand that times change, and so too do the meanings of words to reflect the changes. Whilst marriage has historically related to man and woman, what is wrong with expanding it to include two individuals of the same gender? They were excluded in the past as marriage related to procreation, but these days that is a very narrow definition of marriage. In any case, half the people that are swearing to (their) god that they will stay together until "death us do part" are getting divorced within a few years of that very oath. If there is flexibility on the oath, surely there can be flexibility on the term marriage too.

+1

Please help me and correct it.

Fuchs are you German?

Naaaa mein Herr.

What is your avatar? It looks like a large vending machine.

No, but the next best thing. Its a collection of beers created, tried and tested over the many years of production, by a Brewery located on the Donau....hic and I tried
all of them.I wanted to make a larger picture, but like my English, it failed.
Scheise !!

at this time of year they may go by the name Joseph & Mary, begging the question, 'which of them is gender neutral' especially if she was suppose to be a virgin mother, or maybe they were both of LGBT variety if the tale be told

A1: Do some research on the subject.
A2: That's a sweeping statement. How do you know that? Besides, you don't need to be a Marxist to be used for the agenda of Marxists.

Ah the usual form.

No I am just opposed to redefining it. I respect and support the right of gays to commit to eachother and to be happy. All I ask is they respect marriage. If they want something similar for themselves then they can create a version of it and customise it to suit their needs. They should show some tolerance to people who are different to them and leave traditional marriage alone.

Why is it only those who have traditional values are required to be tolerant and compromising? Surely it should work both ways?