Atheist Bashing

rockbeer

The UberFrog wrote: »

Just because atheists don't believe in God, doesn't mean we have the right to tell religious people that they're wasting they're time. Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, as long as it's not pressed on others. Nobody on this earth has the right to tell somebody what they can or can't believe in. That's how wars start.

I don't think anyone is trying to tell other people what they can and can't believe - that's a total red herring. However, christians regularly presume the right to tell random strangers of different or no faiths that they're wasting their time. There are countless posts on this very theme in this forum alone. Not to mention all the generations of christian missionary work dedicated to convincing people of other cultures that their beliefs are wrong. So what's the difference? Do you hold atheists to a higher standard then christians? Should we forbear while they're free to go out and proselytize? Is christian behaviour excused by the fact that their overlord tells them they have to actively 'press their views on others'?

I agree that everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but I also feel strongly that no one should be protected from having their beliefs questioned in a public debate. Especially those who proactively seek to convert others to their way of thinking.

I'm not saying atheists should go round knocking on christians' doors just to tell them they're wrong, but this is a public discussion forum and anyone who shows up here really should be prepared to have their assumptions challenged.

vibe666

PDN wrote: »

I thought it was pretty clear from the phrase "Christians have an issue with atheists because they believe they have to save us"

I don't think a theist is likely to use the first person plural pronoun to refer to atheists.

er, no not at all.

unless Christian's have all of a sudden decided that atheists are the only people in the world worth saving? I had assumed 'us' meant the whole of the human race, regardless of current beliefs.

the fact remains that the post in question was written from a relatively neutral viewpoint and without prior knowledge of Kayroo's beliefs could be taken either way and I chose to read it one way, you chose the other.

rockbeer

Gotta side with PDN on this one. The meaning is clear and uambiguous:

"Christians have an issue with atheists because they (christians) believe they have to save us (atheists)."

It would be terrible English to suddenly widen the terms of 'us' to include everybody when this had already been established to mean atheists by the context. I think you jumped to conclusions about Kayroo just as you did about me.

The UberFrog

20goto10 wrote: »

I totally disagree with you here. For my whole childhood I had religion rammed down my throat. My parents generation had it beaten into them. People do not have the right to spread their beliefs as if they were fact. What they need is to start proving their beliefs. Until then they absolutely should be criticised and confronted.

I don't understand what you disagree with.

What I said is that nobody has the right to tell people what they should believe in. I also had religion forced on me for most of my life so far, and also chose to believe in science and fact.

I don't think criticism and confrontation are the way. It causes rifts, arguments. Debating, yes. Criticism? Granted, there is no proof of God, but it should be clear at this stage that people don't need proof to believe. Hammering the fact that there's no proof down people's throats won't get anyone anywhere.

What do you think happens when you die? Is that it? Over? Done? Remember that the entire global scientific community have no definitive explanation for consciousness. The explanations given are philosophical and theoretical. Atheism doesn't have the answers, neither does religion. They're just two different ways of thinking.

Ultimately, the only people who can answer any of the questions are dead. Any views of anyone alive are just speculation.

A Primal Nut

achtungbarry wrote: »

..... where there will be no opinions expressed that will be contrary to Christian beliefs.

Now that would be nice and cosy wouldn't it. None of those pesky atheists to question your beliefs.

Incidently, please explain how you would decide which threads are open to all or which ones would be open only to Christians.

Basically you feel that we should pick and choose when and where others are allowed to disagree with us and question us.

This reminds me of the "opposition" political parties that existed in the former GDR or North Korea. Yes you may be in opposition to us but we will tell you when, where and how.

Personally I welcome any occasions in which Christians or those of any other religion weigh in with opinions on threads in the A and A forum. I welcome debate.

Well, for example, if a Christian starts a thread on what is your favourite prayer, common sense would tell me to stay away, rather than talk about how pointless it is to pray; that would be trolling; i've noticed it quite a bit; the point is there is a common sense difference between engaging in discussion and throwing your opinion down the throat of religious people every change you get - like they have done to us for centuries. If the post is on topic, fair enough, otherwise its trolling. I am not accusing you or anyone here on this thread, but I have seen it happen.

Anyway, the point is, I very much doubt the OP is truly upset that some Christian told him he is going to hell; if he's upset then he obviously isn't as certain about his beliefs as he thinks. What do you expect them to do; change their beliefs so as not to offend him? I wouldn't do that for a christian so i wouldn't expect them to do it for me!

AtomicHorror

20goto10 wrote: »

I totally disagree with you here. For my whole childhood I had religion rammed down my throat. My parents generation had it beaten into them. People do not have the right to spread their beliefs as if they were fact. What they need is to start proving their beliefs. Until then they absolutely should be criticised and confronted.

What you're doing here is failing to distinguish between holding beliefs and sharing them. You had religion rammed down your throat, so you figure the solution to that is to ram atheism down theirs? Stop them spreading it, by all means, but that's not what Uberfrog was talking about at all.

vibe666

rockbeer wrote: »

Gotta side with PDN on this one. The meaning is clear and uambiguous:

"Christians have an issue with atheists because they (christians) believe they have to save us (atheists)."

It would be terrible English to suddenly widen the terms of 'us' to include everybody when this had already been established to mean atheists by the context. I think you jumped to conclusions about Kayroo just as you did about me.

you might possibly have had a point if Kayroo hadn't already said he/she was agnostic.

the word 'we' could not possibly be construed to mean atheists since Kayroo is known not to be an atheist.

since all this is most certainly off topic and pointless why don't we just leave it there and get on with the bashing of 'us' and be done with it.

apologies for weird formatting of post, seems to be after the forum downtime earlier today.

vibe666

vibe666 wrote: »

the word 'we' could not possibly be construed to mean atheists since Kayroo is known not to be an atheist.

3 little clarifications:

1) I am a man.
2) The first person plural pronoun could as easily be costrued as non-believers which was the context I meant it in. This includes people of other religions as well as agnostics and atheists.
3) To rockbeer: Using "us" in this manner would not be terrible English as it is a personal pronoun and therefore the context is, by definition, defined by the context in which the writer uses it. Since earlier in my own post I used the term "non-believers" to refer to those whom Christians have a responsibility within their faith to proselytise to it follows that is the meaning I wished to imbue to the word "you" in that context.

ChocolateSauce

Deleted User wrote: »

3 little clarifications:

1) I am a man.
2) The first person plural pronoun could as easily be costrued as non-believers which was the context I meant it in. This includes people of other religions as well as agnostics and atheists.
3) To rockbeer: Using "us" in this manner would not be terrible English as it is a personal pronoun and therefore the context is, by definition, defined by the context in which the writer uses it. Since earlier in my own post I used the term "non-believers" to refer to those whom Christians have a responsibility within their faith to proselytise to it follows that is the meaning I wished to imbue to the word "you" in that context.

To avoid debates over confusion (but not confusion itself), I think we should use "we" the way the Queen uses it:

"We think it is duty of true Christians to prostelyse."

vibe666

thanks for the clarification Kayroo.

ChocolateSauce, can we use the queens use of 'one' as well?

as in "one wants to give one one"?

Cantab.

vibe666 wrote: »

thanks for the clarification Kayroo.

ChocolateSauce, can we use the queens use of 'one' as well?

as in "one wants to give one one"?

I'll bet you get invited to lots of places?

AtomicHorror

Cantab. wrote: »

I'll bet you get invited to lots of places?

You reckon your directionless anger act is gonna make you more friends?

vibe666

Cantab. wrote: »

I'll bet you get invited to lots of places?

yes i do actually, in fact I have a pretty full week right now.

off down to cork today for a wedding and I've another one in meath on saturday, but it is a busy week.

i'll just have to keep my fingers crossed that i don't burst into flames for my sins when i step into your 'house' (twice).

20goto10

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What you're doing here is failing to distinguish between holding beliefs and sharing them. You had religion rammed down your throat, so you figure the solution to that is to ram atheism down theirs? Stop them spreading it, by all means, but that's not what Uberfrog was talking about at all.

OK I took Uberfrogs point the wrong way. But my point still stands. I absolutely believe people should be stopped from spreading religion. But I'm not saying atheism (I think you mean science here?) should be rammed down peoples throats, I'm simply saying people need to question religion and ask why there is no evidence for anything they say. As you would with anything else in life. Faith means nothing, its just an excuse for not having any evidence.

I certainly believe religion should not be taught in schools. You're teaching kids fairy tales and telling them its real. Nothing should be taught in our schools without evidence. That goes for all subjects whether it be History, Geography, Religion or Science. History is a good example. Should we teach our kids that the holocaust never happened? There's no evidence to support that but if there is enough people who believe it then thats ok right? This would never happen and my point is why should religion be exempt from scrutiny, debate, testing and evidence?

Fanny Cradock

20goto10 wrote: »

OK I took Uberfrogs point the wrong way. But my point still stands. I absolutely believe people should be stopped from spreading religion. But I'm not saying atheism (I think you mean science here?) should be rammed down peoples throats, I'm simply saying people need to question religion and ask why there is no evidence for anything they say. As you would with anything else in life. Faith means nothing, its just an excuse for not having any evidence.

I certainly believe religion should not be taught in schools. You're teaching kids fairy tales and telling them its real. Nothing should be taught in our schools without evidence. That goes for all subjects whether it be History, Geography, Religion or Science. History is a good example. Should we teach our kids that the holocaust never happened? There's no evidence to support that but if there is enough people who believe it then thats ok right? This would never happen and my point is why should religion be exempt from scrutiny, debate, testing and evidence?

You have really addressed two issues here. Firstly, the evidential case for Christianity. Secondly, religious education in schools.

When you say that there is no evidence for the Christian beliefs, I can only assume that you have done absolutely no research on the matter. There is evidence for the claims of Christianity but you are either ignorant of it or have you chosen to ignore it. So, please, lets not make fallacious arguments.

With regards to not educating children about religion, like it or not religion will continue to occupy a hugely important roll in people lives. Failing to teach children about the religious beliefs held by the majority of the world's population (and please not that teaching is not the same as proselytising) would be a fundamental failure of education, which is really just an attempt to prepare children for life outside the classroom.

I believe that not teaching children about the beliefs of others would encourage ignorance and possibly intolerance towards something they don't understand - something that happens to be one of the prime movers in humanities past, present and future.

20goto10

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

When you say that there is no evidence for the Christian beliefs, I can only assume that you have done absolutely no research on the matter. There is evidence for the claims of Christianity but you are either ignorant of it or have you chosen to ignore it. So, please, lets not make fallacious arguments.

Clearly I'm being ignorant. Please enlighten me as to what evidence there is.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I believe that not teaching children about the beliefs of others would encourage ignorance and possibly intolerance towards something they don't understand - something that happens to be one of the prime movers in humanities past, present and future.

I'm speaking of teaching religion as fact rather than informing people of the beliefs of others.

btw, you can only be ignorant to facts. You might as well call me ignorant because I don't know the story of the flying spaghetti monster.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Failing to teach children about the religious beliefs held by the majority of the world's population (and please not that teaching is not the same as proselytising) would be a fundamental failure of education, which is really just an attempt to prepare children for life outside the classroom.

The question, I believe, is not whether you teach kids about religion, but what you teach them.

I'm all in favor of including religion perhaps in history or in some kind of sociology class, so that kids can understand what religion is, why it works, and what are its benefits and what are its dangers. This would prepare kids for the point in their future when they make a decision about which religion to believe, if any. Unfortunately, undirected religious education of this kind simply does not exist in any school in Ireland (that I'm aware of) and quite frankly, it's remarkably difficult to get any unbiased information about any religion.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I believe that not teaching children about the beliefs of others would encourage ignorance and possibly intolerance towards something they don't understand - something that happens to be one of the prime movers in humanities past, present and future.

Well, not teaching people about the beliefs of others is not the problem. Or at least, it's not any more of a problem than not telling them about other people's taste in music, or sense of humor, taste in art and food and the like.

The issue with religious intolerance is a very simple one -- which is that almost all religions instruct their believers to assert that the religion itself is faultless, or at least as faultless as anything can be, and its believers are likewise blessed with adherence to an effectively fault-free system.

This nasty and divisive belief is strongly present in most religions (as it is within armies, political parties, trades unions and other divisive institutions), and is the main reason why the delivery of any religion to a new generation needs to be treated with enormous, and painstaking care.

Fanny Cradock

20goto10 wrote: »

Clearly I'm being ignorant. Please enlighten me as to what evidence there is.

Well, I suggest you start with researching the bible as a historical document - you don't have to believe the extraordinary claims it makes to make a critical analysis. Furthermore, there are a number of brief, contemporary secular sources from antiquity that back may be of interest.

You can then look at at archaeological evidence, for instance, the existence of places named in the NT.

Then, you can skip onto the subjective circumstantial evidence - e.g. personal experience or the psychology of the disciples and Jesus.

Though written from a Christian perspective, a book like The Case For Christ might provide and interesting read.

20goto10 wrote: »

I'm speaking of teaching religion as fact rather than informing people of the beliefs of others.

I realise that, but you also stated 'I certainly believe religion should not be taught in schools'.

wolfsbane

vibe666 said:

you see it as your duty to force your beliefs on people

I'm pretty sure no one here of any Christian persuasion believes in forcing our religion on people. That was a great error in the Roman Catholic and Reformation churches, but thankfully religious liberty has been the norm for a long time.

The NT church knew nothing of enforcement. Quite the reverse, in fact, for where the gospel was persistently rejected the response was to go elsewhere:
Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.
5 When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. 6 But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” 7 And he departed from there and entered the house of a certain man named Justus,one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue.

Christians preach the gospel, and leave it between the hearers and God as to the outcome.

wolfsbane

A word from the atheist Penn Jillette on Christian evangelism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM

PDN

wolfsbane wrote: »

vibe666 said:

I'm pretty sure no one here of any Christian persuasion believes in forcing our religion on people. That was a great error in the Roman Catholic and Reformation churches, but thankfully religious liberty has been the norm for a long time.

The NT church knew nothing of enforcement. Quite the reverse, in fact, for where the gospel was persistently rejected the response was to go elsewhere:
Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.
5 When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. 6 But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” 7 And he departed from there and entered the house of a certain man named Justus,one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue.

Christians preach the gospel, and leave it between the hearers and God as to the outcome.

Ah, Wolsbane, don't go confusing things with facts.

It creates a sense of solidarity for atheists to pretend they are a poor persecuted minority while we rabid fundamentalists try to enforce our beliefs on them. Why spoil their day by taking that comfort blanket away?

towel401

That guy who made the locked thread a while back has a point. this place has been taken over by bitchy atheists who for some reason feel the need to 'sound off' or otherwise draw attention to themselves

Zombrex

towel401 wrote: »

That guy who made the locked thread a while back has a point. this place has been taken over by bitchy atheists who for some reason feel the need to 'sound off' or otherwise draw attention to themselves

well considering the vast majority of Christian only threads on this forum die a quick death from disinterested, consider it a public service on our part, giving you guys something to be really indignant about :pac:

Húrin

vibe666 wrote: »

here's another problem. you see it as your duty to force your beliefs on people

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Christians have a duty to proclaim their religion. Not to convert people. However some people these days interpret Christians talking about their faith in any way as "forcing it on me".

I think this is due to a mixture of social factors. First to blame is of course postmodern capitalism. People are so alienated from each other that many of them are offended by any talk beyond the shallow agreeable topics that costitutes most conversation. There is nothing wrong with talking about shallow agreeable topics - it is the essential way to get to know people - but they should not form a barrier to deeper conversations.

The negative experience with the Catholic Church here also makes people reluctant to talk about faith. But that topic has been thoroughly discussed in another thread.

achtungbarry wrote: »

..... where there will be no opinions expressed that will be contrary to Christian beliefs.

Now that would be nice and cosy wouldn't it. None of those pesky atheists to question your beliefs.

Yes; otherwise you are demanding that all Christian discussion on the internet be apologetics. I don't think this should be enforced at all. I think that atheists should have the tact, intelligence and respect to see where they are called for and where not.

vibe666 wrote: »

here is Kayroo's one single solitary post in this thread and to me having READ it it seems to come very much from someone with a theist viewpoint.

It is not. For instance, Kayroo incorrectly states that Christians have a duty to convert people. Even worse, Kayroo states that Christians who have a zealous conversion agenda are filled with hatred; more often they are overpowered by compassion for those who do not know Christ.

vibe666 wrote: »

i don't have an agenda, I'd like for more people to become atheists but I'm not going to force my views on anyone, it's up to them what they choose to do.

So you don't think that there's anything proselytising or forceful about going into a thread about Christian theology (read: not apologetics) and saying it's all crap, or bringing up creationism? If you think that Christian beliefs must be questioned or ridiculed every time they are stated, it is certainly proselytising.

Helix wrote: »

good point. coupled with the fact that some people seem to need, or believe they need, religion to keep them on a good moral path suggests that perhaps religion isnt all bad

How do you know you're on a good moral path?

rockbeer wrote: »

Not to mention all the generations of christian missionary work dedicated to convincing people of other cultures that their beliefs are wrong. So what's the difference? Do you hold atheists to a higher standard then christians? Should we forbear while they're free to go out and proselytize?

Yes. Christians openly admit that they are here to proselytise. Atheists don't want to admit that they're doing the same, for the most part.

20goto10 wrote: »

I absolutely believe people should be stopped from spreading religion. ... I'm simply saying people need to question religion

How could people question religion if they were not aware of any religious narratives?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Christians have a duty to proclaim their religion. Not to convert people. However some people these days interpret Christians talking about their faith in any way as "forcing it on me".

one only have to spend a few minutes looking at the news to see problems with that idea.

For example California recently passed Proposition 8, a proposition to reverse the ruling of the California supreme court that stated homosexuals had the right to marry, was funded almost exclusively by Christian groups.

if it is the duty of Christians to simply preach, not to try and force their religion's morality on others, why are millions of Christians coming out to say that homosexual couples, non-Christian and otherwise, cannot get married based on their religion's doctrine that it is immoral?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

one only have to spend a few minutes looking at the news to see problems with that idea.

For example California recently passed Proposition 8, a proposition to reverse the ruling of the California supreme court that stated homosexuals had the right to marry, was funded almost exclusively by Christian groups.

if it is the duty of Christians to simply preach, not to try and force their religion's morality on others, why are millions of Christians coming out to say that homosexual couples, non-Christian and otherwise, cannot get married based on their religion's doctrine that it is immoral?

well i havent read anywhere that christians have not the right of free speech or have been disenfranchised?

maybe its not all christians that are against it.

You have many right wing groups with this aghenda -you only need to look at some of the scary people the womens movement ally themselves to to regulate pornography to get an idea how complex this issue is.

Pining it solely on christians aint nice or fair.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

one only have to spend a few minutes looking at the news to see problems with that idea.

For example California recently passed Proposition 8, a proposition to reverse the ruling of the California supreme court that stated homosexuals had the right to marry, was funded almost exclusively by Christian groups.

if it is the duty of Christians to simply preach, not to try and force their religion's morality on others, why are millions of Christians coming out to say that homosexual couples, non-Christian and otherwise, cannot get married based on their religion's doctrine that it is immoral?

I didn't say that no Christians force their views on anyone. I said that they do not have a duty to do so, or to convert people - only to tell people about Jesus' message (Mark 16:15).

The difference is obvious.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

well i havent read anywhere that christians have not the right of free speech or have been disenfranchised?

I knew someone would say that :pac:

I'm not arguing that Christians don't have the democratic right to try and force a moral position formed by a religious belief of theirs on to non-Christians through democracy

I am simply responding to the assertion was that they don't, when there are quite a few examples where they do.

CDfm wrote: »

maybe its not all christians that are against it.

It wasn't, it was something like 65% - 85% of Christians (varies depending on how one defines "Christian", I know a lot of people don't like Mormons being counted as Christians.

CDfm wrote: »

Pining it solely on christians aint nice or fair.

I'm not pining it solely on Christians. Jewish and Muslim groups were also for the vote

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

I didn't say that no Christians force their views on anyone. I said that they do not have a duty to do so, or to convert people - only to tell people about Jesus' message (Mark 16:15).

The difference is obvious.

A quick Google about proposition 8 demonstrates that an awful lot of Christians disagree with you on that one ...

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

I knew someone would say that :pac:

I'm not arguing that Christians don't have the democratic right to try and force a moral position formed by a religious belief of theirs on to non-Christians through democracy

I am glad I didnt disappoint:D:D:D

You can get weird coalitions on this with all kinds of aghendas. The gay marriage thread on boards ran the whole scenario from simple partnership to adoption and real families. So much so there is no concensus of what is meant as gay marriage by homosexuals in Ireland.

Its up to them to come up with proposals that others can live with -not vice versa (no pun intended)

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Its up to them to come up with proposals that others can live with -not vice versa (no pun intended)

What?

once again I find myself completely at a loss as to what that post has to do with the original quoted post ...

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

What?

once again I find myself completely at a loss as to what that post has to do with the original quoted post ...

Neither do I- I am Christian and have nothing against gay civil partnerships.

But for what its worth - homophobia is not a christian doctrine but more a society issue this is a handy link for anyone who is interested in definitions from a non religious debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Distribution.2Ffrequency_of_attitudes_in_the_UK_and_US

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Neither do I- I am Christian and have nothing against gay civil partnerships.

Ok ... Proposition 8 is actually about marriage. Are you against homosexuals getting married?

CDfm wrote: »

But for what its worth - homophobia is not a christian doctrine but more a society issue this is a handy link for anyone who is interested in definitions from a non religious debate

Well I would see it as a society issue that influenced Judeo-Christian doctrine, but I doubt I will get much support for that idea around these parts

Silenceisbliss

wow this has gone off topic.

started out very good, but now you're all on about "propostion 8"....?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok ... Proposition 8 is actually about marriage. Are you against homosexuals getting married?

Guys, we already have a thread that could easily incorporate this line of questioning. Lets keep it there.

Cheers

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

A quick Google about proposition 8 demonstrates that an awful lot of Christians disagree with you on that one ...

This really is facetious Wicknight; obviously I am posting my own opinion about what the duty of Christians is to do.

I think the Bible verse (the basis of my opinion) is clear on this one, but I cannot argue with Californian Christians by proxy to see if they disagree or not. It is even possible that they have never heard the verse I cited.

wolfsbane

Húrin wrote: »

I didn't say that no Christians force their views on anyone. I said that they do not have a duty to do so, or to convert people - only to tell people about Jesus' message (Mark 16:15).

The difference is obvious.

Let me add that the original point dealt with forcing our religion on others, not aspects of morality. It is always wrong to try to convert people by force, but it is often right to force people to observe aspects of morality. I think all of us here believe in enforcing the moral code with respect to theft, rape, murder.

I don't believe the State should get into what consenting adults do in private, though public expressions that offend the consensus would be their concern.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok ... Proposition 8 is actually about marriage. Are you against homosexuals getting married?



Well I would see it as a society issue that influenced Judeo-Christian doctrine, but I doubt I will get much support for that idea around these parts

No Wicknight -I am not against homosexuals getting involved in relationships and as a civil matter it should be something thats done by the state- just like marriage is.

Personally -I think it might be a good thing if it adds stability and regulates their lives. Taking a single issue it might define people as a unit towards 3rd parties(the next of kin in the event of illness or property rights on death) whatever name it goes by can only be good.

Why it cant be tackled - or at least given a status at common law is beyond my comprehenion.

Its a secular issue.

However - where Christians are offended is that we are expected then to adopt secular attitudes as part of our beliefs. That is not alright and the line should be clearly drawn at that. Neither should we be deemed homophobe for our beliefs.