"Who said anything about forcing?? On the contrary it is the opposite lobby that is forcing it down everyone else's throat if this incident has any bearing on the matter. By God. The anti-christian sentiment is strong in this one. Why point fingers to the church in this matter and not to those for gay marriage? Why can they push their agenda and not those of christian belief? What hypocrisy, I despite it."

So restricting the definition of marriage and preventing same-sex couples from enjoying the same rights and benefits is not forcing your beliefs on others? You're telling me that if a Jewish, same-sex couple wants to get married in a Temple that supports it then they are not allowed to do so because the Christian Church has the right to define marriage? How is this not forcing your religious beliefs on others? How does this make any sense at all?

"That's your prerogative, but I terribly disagree. A person does not need a religion to have a moral code, or a sense of belief. Both Christianity and atheism agree on this view."

You used the term faith which has a specific meaning. You did not say moral code or sense of belief.

"Why the quotation marks, I never said anything of the matter."

Opposing same-sex marriage effectively prevents same-sex couples from enjoying the same freedoms and rights as the general population. Civil unions typically do not afford the same benefits, marriage is still treated differently and as such, same-sex couples are treated differently without access to same-sex marriage.

Edit: No offense but all your statements about the Old Testament being as the teachings of Christ are completely groundless and anti-Christian to me. I do not wish to discuss it further but know here and now that I do not consider you to be Christian. I'm not trying to offend, it's just that Judeo-Christianity is not Christianity in my eyes, just as the Catholic Church's Pagan-Christianity isn't either.

Happy I'm sorry buddy but you are 120% wrong when you say that Christ's teachings are the old testament. Christianity is specifically "being as Christ-like as possible". Christ hugged the rejected and protected the sinners, and called for the same rights. Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. Love all, and forgive.

Christ never supercedes Jewish dietary law. Christ never supercedes feminine hygeine laws. Christ never supercedes many of the teachings. Your logic is flawed, which I reason through you (or the christian church) wanting to be able to use the old testament, because in fact Christ never agreed with the standpoint you're holding.

I didn't quote it because I don't want to offend. I told Bouzane to do his own research, I'll extend the invitation to you. A hint, it's in the teachings of Paul. Jesus never said it per se, but he gave the model he requested (one man, one woman, unseparated). However, Paul does say undeniably that christian doctrine considers homosexuality as unholy... :( I hate saying this I think I'm gonna go after this post.

I don't care whether you believe it or not, it's in the christian doctrine. Here are the verses... 

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

      For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

      Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.  For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

      For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

It's in the book of Romans...

I have no idea how any of this is relevant to Christian doctrine. Doctrine is not influenced by social changes, it's God will in all eras and cultures. As for taxes I really don't see how that's relevant to doctrine either tbh.

@bold. When did I ever say any such thing or that Christ said so?

So, where do we disagree. I'm for gay rights, I'm against homosexuality from a moral perspective.

Peace be with you.

but does it cover them all? and is there some clear place that covers all the ones that are kept and those that aren't? or are they all over and some just assumed?

All of these teachings from the Old Testament and whether or not Christ's teachings supersede them seems like a really clever and sinister way to obfuscate and subvert the teachings of Christ to me.

and isn't it also in the first amendment rights of the people saying this is wrong? or of those calling for boycotts?

Not sure if you read my post correctly, but I agreed to this with first my post before. 1st Amendment. It works both ways. Sure, you can also boycott a store. Nobody is forcing you to eat there, and I sure as hell won't.  I support anything people want to do that is nonviolent.

1st Amendment. People feel polar opposites on both sides. Let them.

I misread the backlash sentence as meaning the opposite of what you meant

Stop stop stop... argghh :P

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’^f”

17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)"

That's for dietary law. The other traditions follow.

My logic may not be perfect, but one thing is certain is that it holds for many of the cases you can bring up. Animal sacrifice being another that was superceded by Christ, in his sacrifice. He is the lamb of God as John the Baptist proclaimed. His sacrifice on passover tore the veil of the temple, and animal sacrifices were no longer needed. This is further explained in much more depth in the post-gospel New Testament canon.

This holds pretty well for me personally. Most things you can throw at me to challenge my position will likely not hold. Feminin hygeine is one I can't directly counter-claim, but it's not a big deal since common sense says it isn't too far from ceremonial cleansing. It's all on the outside of the cup once again. What matters is the inside, and that's Christ's teachings. One such "inside" thing that matters is sexual immorality, quite the vague term.

To continue the quote up above:

17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)

20He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ 21For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’”

So, you see, sexual immorality very much mattered to Jesus. A few years later, the apostle Paul urged his readers to "flee from all sexual immorality"

¹⁸ Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

A little higher Paul writes:

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 

That's the christian doctrine.

The question is not "is that in the christian doctrine?", that much is clear. The question is, now that we know what's in the christian doctrine, how do you put it into practice? Do you go on condemning or stoning people.

The answer is no. The reason is simple. Jesus said, I have not come to condemn the world but to save it. He also shows grace and mercy to the adulteress.

So though you think it's straightforward with easy answers, it really isn't all that straightfoward and requires alot of thought and effort to mesh the teachings of the bible into a comprehensive and sound statement of belief. And for me, it's the best one.

I harm noone, I strive for top accountability, I love my neighbor no matter the inclination, race, gender, etc. I disagree with certain practices as that is my prerogative, as it is yours. I have nothing to be ashamed of, and I'm proud of it.

So, where do we disagree. I'm for gay rights, I'm against homosexuality from a moral perspective.

Peace be with you.

Oh, then I don't know. Hmmm...

If you're for gay rights, and are a Christian, then you are a good man and I commend you thoroughly. It is a rare case.

Please do not let your moral standpoint prevent you from standing up for gay rights. Please do not let this standpoint allow you to think that persecution is right because it is the right thing to do, for their sakes. Persecution is persecution.

(Not saying you are, just don't let it happen)

The problem is that it isn't Christ's teachings. That is Paul's teachings.

You'd make a better Catholic than a Christian. Those are Catholic messages you're adhering to, because only Catholics listen to the words of men as divinely propogated by God.

Being a Christian is to be Christ-like.
Being Jewish is to obey God's laws and teachings.
Being Catholic is following the entirety of the Bible, and holding sacred the words of men as divine words.

The Paul you refer to is Saint Paul. By living according to the words of a saint, you are actually a Catholic.

I'd suggest you talk to your pastor about what religion he actually is.