Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 380 of 1484 (802677)
03-19-2017 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Rrhain
03-19-2017 4:41 AM


Re: No case at all
quote:
Says the one denying his own words
And Rrhain the lying liar lies again. What a surprise.
quote:
Yep. Especially when I quote you. So when you say you didn't say it, we can tell that you're not exactly being honest.
Hoping that other people will miss the context ?
You have never quoted me denying my own words.
quote:
Then why are so many of your posts resulting in you saying something you didn't mean?
Zero is not "many" by any sane standard.
Let us remember how this has gone.
I posted a brief critique of Faith's argument.
You wrongly assumed - despite the context - that one sentence of it was a more general statement.
I corrected you. You refused to accept that correction and continue to refuse to accept it. I was prepared to accept that the first time was an honest mistake, and the first refusal and even the second. But we are well past that by now.
So what is the point ? Is it really worth compounding your initial error with all this silliness ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 4:41 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 6:27 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 396 of 1484 (802700)
03-19-2017 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by Rrhain
03-19-2017 6:27 AM


Re: No case at all
quote:
PaulK spins the merry-go-round again:
The only viable alternative is to stop talking and have you accuse me of running away.
quote:
So you're denying you wrote what you wrote? What a surprise.
Outright lying is hardly productive. I suggest you stop it.
quote:
ee, when I quote you fully in complete context, including providing the links back to the original post so that people don't have to go looking for it in case they are concerned that I didn't provide complete context, your claim that I am "hoping other people will miss the context" is trivially shown to be false
Except of course that you did not provide the context in that case.
And when you do quote me it never supports your claims. I wonder why that is.
quote:
So yes, you have been quoted denying your own words.
Pointing out that you missed the context and misinterpreted my words is not denying them. So it seems that even when you produce the quotes in context you will still brazenly lie even when it is obvious for anyone to see.
It is like arguing against a Christian Fundamentalist. Except that they can't be bothered with quotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 6:27 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2017 12:39 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 414 of 1484 (802729)
03-19-2017 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by Faith
03-19-2017 5:29 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
quote:
It's GAY MARRIAGE that's the problem because of the SCOTUS RULING that requires me to treat it as legitimate which the Bible says I cannot
So it is all about discriminating against gays. Seriously in what sense does it "require" you to treat gay marriage as "legitimate" when the Bible says you can't ?
I mean the Bible doesn't say anything about gays being able to put their partners on their health insurance (even if it seems to upset some "Christians")

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Faith, posted 03-19-2017 5:29 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by jar, posted 03-19-2017 5:50 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 433 of 1484 (802752)
03-20-2017 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Faith
03-19-2017 7:09 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
quote:
If I refuse to serve a gay wedding I will be punished. How is that not requiring me to treat gay marriage as legitimate?
The SCOTUS decision doesn't say any such thing. Now are you going to answer my question and tell me exactly which of the secular rights conferred by marriage gays should be denied and what is the Biblical justification for denying them ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Faith, posted 03-19-2017 7:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 435 of 1484 (802754)
03-20-2017 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by NoNukes
03-19-2017 7:27 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
He's doubly an idiot. I haven't said anything against suing at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by NoNukes, posted 03-19-2017 7:27 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 447 of 1484 (802766)
03-20-2017 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by Faith
03-20-2017 2:29 AM


Re: Let's Go On to Freedom of Conscience
quote:
But in the parallel discussion that has been going on with Modulous, Tangle and PaulK, Tangle quoted a gay activist in the UK who had been against a Christian baker
I am not part of that conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 2:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 448 of 1484 (802767)
03-20-2017 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Faith
03-20-2017 2:39 AM


Re: Let's Go On to Freedom of Conscience
quote:
Race is not a sexual aberration
And out comes the bigotry.
quote:
I'd happily punch you in the nose for that lie that has been answered dozens of times already.
But it is not a lie and it hasn't been adequately answered. If you allow "Christians" to ignore anti-discrimination laws on the grounds of "conscience" then you set a precedent. You can't simply insist that the law has to follow your interpretation of the Bible or only endorse discrimination that you approve of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 2:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 451 of 1484 (802770)
03-20-2017 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by Tangle
03-20-2017 4:37 AM


Seems to me that you're skating over the big difference between "I don't sell that" and "I don't sell that to your kind"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 4:37 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 6:08 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 460 of 1484 (802787)
03-20-2017 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by Tangle
03-20-2017 6:08 AM


quote:
We also have to accept that if I, as a straight man, asked for a cake with a support gay marriage' message or for one that I said was intended to be used at a gay marriage, it would not be provided (under Faith's rules of engagement.) They could fairly argue that they wouldn't sell that cake to anyone, it doesn't matter whether they're gay or not. Just like the pork.
The courts come to a different conclusion - direct or indirect discrimination as charged.
But that is still not a straightforward equivalence. The Jewish butcher does not stock pork to sell. If the bakers advertise that they ice the customer's choice if message then they are taking a risk if they refuse to ice a message for discriminatory reasons. Refusing to provide an advertised service is quite obviously distinct from refusing to stock particular items.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 6:08 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 8:42 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 463 of 1484 (802790)
03-20-2017 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 461 by Tangle
03-20-2017 8:42 AM


The distinction is much clearer than that.
The Jewish butcher objects to a product and does not stock it. He cannot sell what he does not have.
The baker who refuses to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding is refusing to provide a completely ordinary service largely because they object to the customers - who are in a protected class, in the cases considered.
The baker who refuses to ice a particular message comes between the two - but closer to the second. The court gets to decide whether their refusal crosses the legal boundary or not. In places where gays are protected from discrimination, refusing to ice an otherwise harmless message in favour of gay marriage is quite obviously risky.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 8:42 AM Tangle has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 472 of 1484 (802805)
03-20-2017 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by Faith
03-20-2017 11:30 AM


Gay marriage is an attack on theocratic tyranny
quote:
Marriage is marriage, it is defined by God for all peoples in all times no matter what any other authority thinks about it. Gays CALL it "marriage," they refer to their "wedding," I've even been told by a gay guy about his male "wife" -- that is how THEY think about it so don't pull a semantic trick here. They fought tooth and nail against all proposals for legal alternatives to marriage and what they got is marriage, not a "civil union" without the trappings of marriage. There is no distinction being made in any sense at all. The Biblical definition is what motivates conservative Christians and you cannot tell us we need to agree with some other definition instead
In other words you claim that "Christians" own the concept of marriage and won't allow anybody else to have any different ideas.
Too bad, you live in a secular state and you don't get to dictate the law.
I guess that explains why you keep trying to blame the anti-discrimination cases on the SCOTUS decision, despite knowing that it isn't true. They are just a weapon in your fight against justice and freedom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 11:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 12:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 475 of 1484 (802809)
03-20-2017 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Faith
03-20-2017 12:18 PM


Re: Gay marriage is an attack on theocratic tyranny
quote:
Well we do "own the concept," in that God "owns the concept"and the Bible is God's word, but no, I've made no such claim, you can certainly go on with your own definitions as of course you do and will, which is why we get pu8nished for OUR definition. Hey? It's YOUR concept that is judging ours, not the other way around. And it's you that are not allowing us our idea
Nobody is interfering in your marriages or your weddings. You HAVE your idea. You just want to enforce it against other people even where the law says you can't.
quote:
Alas, how true, which has been affirmed from the beginning of this thread, it's why we can't object to gay marriage any more, the pagans have won, the world is getting darker by the minute, very very true.
Of course you can object. You just can't do so by denying services to gays in States where gays are a protected class. The rest is just whining that the forces of good are winning.
quote:
Believe it or not I could not care less what the immediate source of this PC murk is, I don't care where it came from, the only point of this whole thread is that there is a law that legitimizes gay marriage that Christians cannot accept, that has authority to dictate this legitimization against our beliefs. Pretty obvious I would think.
But there is no such law. The laws that keep "Christian" businesses from denying services to gays are quite separate from the SCOTUS decision. You know that. It is perfectly obvious that your "point" is a lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 12:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 1:29 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 482 of 1484 (802818)
03-20-2017 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by Faith
03-20-2017 1:29 PM


Re: Gay marriage is an attack on theocratic tyranny
quote:
What are you so worried about?
I'm not worried, I'm just countering your spin.
quote:
The law says we can't so we can't and yet you go on bleating about it
The law in some States says that you can't, but that wasn't my point. My point is that you have your idea of marriage - you're only prevented from withholding services to others, and then only in some places. You don't have to worry about people withholding services from you - and even if you did the same laws might well protect you.
quote:
Proof thatour view of marriage is not enforced against anybody is that Christian businesses get punished for refusing service to a gay wedding
Proof that "Christians" aren't doing it is that some are being punished for doing it ?
And the fact that you are complaining bitterly about that punishment hardly reassures me that it isn't something you want to be allowed.
And what about the States where gays aren't protected by anti-discrimination laws ?
quote:
Just to say it again, refusing service for a gay wedding, is not discrimination against persons as I've pointed out again and again, but specifically refusing to legitimize a particular social institution.
Obviously it IS discrimination against persons - and in support of further discrimination.
quote:
Yes, I think you do know you're fighting against God Himself.
No, I think I'm fighting against Faith, the pathetic Satanist.
quote:
Can't object without being punished. Why do you pretend that wasn't the point? Anything to obscure the truth.
You see. Pointing out that your claim is false is "obscuring the truth". It's silly lies like that that earned you the title of Faith, the pathetic Satanist.
quote:
Again, I could not care less what keeps us from objecting to gay marriage
Yes, you don't care about the truth of the matter. But you certainly care about blaming the SCOTUS decision for it. You just don't care whether what you are saying is true or not.
quote:
the only point is that we CAN'T object without being punished.
And that isn't true. You can't object in certain ways, and the ways vary from State to State. But the only one you complain about is the right for businesses to refuse services that they would offer to straight couples. You don't consider other ways, like for instance posting here to object, as you keep doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 1:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 496 of 1484 (802836)
03-20-2017 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
03-20-2017 3:56 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
The point is that you want to stop gays from receiving the secular benefits of marriage and you don't care if your arguments to that end are untrue.
The prosecutions are just weapons to you. You don't care about the actual cases, or trying to find a better way to solve the issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 3:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 4:09 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 500 of 1484 (802841)
03-20-2017 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by Faith
03-20-2017 4:09 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Your "better way" isn't.
For a start you aren't asking to be allowed to discriminate against a theological position, you are asking to be allowed to discriminate against people.
So really all you are suggesting is that discrimination on religious grounds should be allowed. But then we get back to the segregationists.
You cannot argue for a better way without understanding the situation in the real cases. And up till now you've repeatedly been attacking a law that has very little to do with them - and justifying that by saying that you DON'T care about the real situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 4:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 4:30 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024