|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: There is a huge difference between active participation and acceptance. The required involvement only applies (where it applies at all) to businesses supplying services. There is a huge difference between supplying services and actively engaging in forbidden sexual activity. I might suggest that eating meat from pagan sacrifices is a similar form of acceptance, yet that is explicitly permitted to Christians, Further, the real complaint is against anti-discrimination laws, not gay marriage as such, so the title is obviously misleading. And I have to assume intentionally so since this is hardly the first time that error has been made - and corrected. So, since gay marriage does not require Christians to do anything "absolutely forbidden by God" the whole complaint is clearly false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Pure ad-hominem. And absolutely no valid argument.
quote: Five is not exactly many, and owning a business hardly makes you well-versed in the Bible. And given the hostility towards gay marriage from the right it is hardly unlikely that their objections come more from listening to politicians than reading the Bible.
quote: I am an honest person who hates lies. Obviously it is about the non-discrimination laws since those are the laws that are being broken. Where gay marriage is allowed but the laws do not protect gays against discrimination there are none of these prosecutions that you are complaining about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
As I said, no prosecutions without the anti-discrimination laws.
This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal, Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian said in the final order.
The Guardian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I keep repeating the fact that you are complaining more about the anti-discrimination laws than gay marriage because you keep insisting otherwise.
The fact that the case you mentioned as a supposed counter-example is nothing of the sort is certainly something that ought to be mentioned. You may not like being proved wrong but in that case the honest thing to do is to make more effort to get your facts right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
It seems to me that going against this supposed ordinance would require interfering with heterosexual couples marrying. Allowing gay marriage does not do that.
And there is no ordinance prohibiting the government from granting the purely secular legal status of marriage to gay couples. You'd have a better case that the ban on polygamy is a violation of "God's ordinance"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Who would have guessed it ? A dishonest right-wing propaganda video on YouTube !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It seems pretty simple. If God ordained that couples in a particular situation should get married the only way to go against that ordinance is to prevent such marriages. Extending the marriage laws to cover other couples doesn't do that.
quote: It seems pretty simple. Ordaining that gay couples should be forbidden the legal status of marriage is rather different from setting up marriage as an institution. Especially given that the present marriage laws were hardly ordained by God.
quote: Polygamy is accepted in the Bible. Therefore a ban on polygamy band marriages that would be acceptable - and arguably, in some cases at least, desirable according to the original ordinance.
quote: I am using it in the same sense you are - and definitely not referring to human law. It is amazing how your brain shuts down when faced with arguments you can't answer (and this is not even the first example in this thread)
quote: The fault is at your end.
quote: In so far as marriage is a legal status, yes.
quote: That does not seem to be true. There is no clear problem for Christians accepting it (which is why many do). And it is rather unlikely that you could be in violation of that law - you haven't posted any examples to this thread.
quote: Seems to me that this is more about lying bigots being upset that they didn't get their way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Perhaps you can show how polygamy is a violation. Unlike divorce Jesus is not noted for speaking against it, and it is widely accepted in the OT.
quote: That's because you're not thinking. The ordinance isn't about applications of the word "marriage", or legal recognition of relationships. Even if it did not include gay relationships it does not demand that a society should refuse to recognise them. And please - quote it - show that it rules out polygamy.
quote: The fact that I don't say anything about it should tell you that my intent is to talk about the same thing as you.
quote: If it is practiced without criticism or condemnation it is accepted.
quote: Which includes all the examples of prosecutions you have given. So who is in a position to run afoul of it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Genesis 2:24 is consistent with polygamy.
Matthew 19 is speaking against divorce and says nothing relevant Mark 10 is the only possibly relevant passage. However, it seems to simply assume monogamy as the norm - without addressing polygamy. A polygamist, by definition, does not need to divorce a wife to take another. It would be interesting to find out where this assumption came from - and obviously relevant. I will note that Corinthians 7 takes a negative view of marriage, seeing it only as an unfortunately necessary outlet for physical desire. Even then neither of the verses speak against polygamy. 7:27 says that the married should not divorce and the unmarried should not marry. 7:39 speaks only of the duties of the wife, but Biblical polygamy is one man with more than one wife so it does not apply. I would add that 1 Timothy 3:2, in requiring that Bishops have only one wife, suggests an acceptance of polygamy even in NT times, even if it was seen as questionable. The references to divorce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It's a pretty odd phrasing for that.
quote: Then I am sorry to inform you that you need to learn to read for comprehension. Forbidding divorce is not a prohibition on polygamy. Saying that a woman may only have one husband (at a time) is not saying that a man cannot have more than one wife.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The Bible - and Jesus - seem to disagree. (E.g. Matthew 19:7-8)
quote: It's more likely that the Jews adopted monogamy due to Greek and Roman influences.
quote: Or it is a recognition of the fact that polygamy was still practiced in some countries and is not forbidden in the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If it was forbidden there would be no need to specifically deny it to bishops. Not to mention the fact that polygamy is permitted by the Mosaic Law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If you were actually interested in that you would know otherwise. It seems that you are far more interested in blaming the decision to legalise gay marriage.
quote: So it's fine if your fellow Christians are punished for "violating their consciences" - your feelings on the matter are the only thing that matters. But that can't be a basis for law.
quote: If that was true you would be concerned about the laws that "Christians" are actually being prosecuted under - and you obviously aren't Whether you believe the lies that the Right told to try and stop gay marriage or whether you are motivated by bigotry the fact is that you are against gay marriage and this whole thread is just an excuse to attack it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You certainly ought to care enough to know which laws you are opposing and why - especially as it has been brought up time and again. You have no excuse for not knowing that the situation varies from State to State. Remainingly aggressively ignorant in the face of discussion is not a sign of good faith.
quote: That isn't true Faith. It has been pointed out time and again. The prosecutions are all under anti-discrimination laws. It isn't even true that Christians have to object to gay marriages - it isn't even clear that they should object. It isn't much different from a Muslim demanding Sharia law.
quote: It is an objective fact that you keep trying to blame the prosecutions on the legalisation of gay marriage when in fact the prosecutions come under other, State, laws. I certainly think that it is legitimate to conclude that you are more interested in opposing gay marriage than in anything else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: By which you mean that you got caught misrepresenting the facts - and even admitted not caring about relevant facts. And this comes from someone who regularly spews nastiness about people who dare to refute her arguments.
quote: And you are perfectly free not to enter into a gay marriage. Your church is perfectly free to refuse to hold marriage services for gay couples.
quote: And the laws state that businesses are not allowed to discriminate against gays. That is the "conflict" that you are complaining about. Whether there are any good reasons for a Christian to object is another matter. And one that would seem rather important. Especially as you don't have a problem with other laws that impose similar burdens on Christians or "Christians"
quote: Because the fact that you are objecting to the wrong law and don't even care to get it right doesn't matter ? Typical Faith - since your argument has been demolished - hardly surprising when you don't care about the facts because they get in your way - you resort to your usual hypocritical nastiness, doing everything you accuse your opponents of.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024