|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
HOWEVER, I would still like to see a distinction made between discriminating against a concept, an opinion, a theological position or whatnot, and against a person, since the former is the case in all the situations we've been discussing, and not the latter. This is clearly a violation of freedom of religion or opinion or thought or however that should be put, it is not about idiscrimination against persons.
I'd also be for any legal provision that would protect gays against the painful encounters that they are suing about. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Funny I just happened to be writing a post that IS concerned with finding a better way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
My interest in these arguments isn't in their rights and wrongs as individual cases but that we are becoming very intolerant of diversity and whether this intollerance is a good or bad thing.
\Perhaps, but you definition of intolerance appears to include tolerance for intolerance, which causes the conundrum you are expressing here. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
HOWEVER, I would still like to see a distinction made between discriminating against a theological position and against a person, since the former is the case in all the situations we've been discussing, and not the latter. But it's the effect that matters, not the thought. If the effect of your discriminating against a theological position is discriminating against a person, that's a problem. Thus a Muslim funeral director that denies service for a Christian funeral on the grounds that God cannot be a man in their theological view, that still results in a Christian being denied service. And that's a problem. If Islam became the majority religion, would you want this precedent being set?
This is clearly a violation of freedom of religion I'm happy to concede to that. But you should also concede that rights often come into conflict with one another and primacy has to be established. The right for a cult that sacrifices virgins for religious reasons has to be denied in favour of the rights of the virgins to not be sacrificed for instance. Likewise I think it reasonable that the right to equal access to services takes primacy over the rights to deny those services for religious reasons.
I'd also be for any legal provision that would protect gays against the painful encounters that they are suing about. But...that's what we have. And that's what you are objecting to. What are you thinking of here? How would you envisage these legal provisions protecting gays? What should be consequence to those that ignored those laws do you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If we were discriminating against persons we wouldn't even sell them a cupcake.
I said I'd be open to suggestions, I don't offhand know what would work as a solution myself but it's something that could be discussed here. "Up until now" I've been run ragged trying to keep up with all the idiotic irrelevant arguments and accusations everybody is throwing at me, haven't had enough breathing space even to stop and think about a way to ameliorate the problems experienced by the gays. You haven't a smidgen of fairness in you. You spit venom with every word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So obviously YOU have no interest in trying to find a solution that protects both.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So obviously YOU have no interest in trying to find a solution that protects both. I'm asking you what you think, aren't I? I've already given you my solution - avoid businesses you can't in good conscience carry out within the confines of the law. I asked you what a law to protect the gays should look like. I am serious like a heart attack on resolving this problem. Perhaps you could join me rather than dismissing me everytime I try to engage you in a discussion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
You are discriminating against people because it is people who are affected - no theological position is hurt (there isn't even a distinct theological position involved on the other side - the argument is based on the Constitution and basic concerns of justice)
quote: Nonsense. First this is something you should have worked out before starting this thread. Second it is not as if this is the first discussion of the matter here. You have certainly had every opportunity to get it right. Third a lot of the responses you are complaint about did correct you on the matter. You lied, and now you are trying to blame other people for it.
quote: Wrong. You just don't like fairness. If you were really interested in solving the problem you would find out what the problem was instead of asserting that another law was "an attack on Christianity" But there is a simple solution. Abandoned your bigotry, recognise that the Bible does not require you to refrain from providing services to gay weddings any more than it requires you to stone gays to death or kill witches.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I said this about Faith in my post 428
quote: Faith then said this in 430
quote: But see posts 205 and 206 in this thread EvC Forum: Why did the Christian messiah fail to fulfill the messianic prophecies? Here is me in post 205
quote: You responded in post 206
quote: Back to this thread. Now here is a parallel in Revelation 2:14 to the 1 Corinthians 10 Balaam Idol (food fornication) issue (Jannes and Jambres story from Josphus) issue.
quote: See Revelation 2:20 to 21 too. Maybe fornication was ceremonial or table fellowship too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Modulous writes: Correct.
It's been painfully obvious that you won't either give general guidelines on what the correct strategic approach is or point to specific cases that are problematic. Do you have a response to MLK's retort to this general line of questioning: Yes, it's dumb. And wrong.
Can you show that more harm than good is likely to follow? No.
You weren't subjected to a torrent of abuse from me.
Well I've quoted what you said, it's there for all to see. Fuck you" x2 not enough to qualify?
Why would you say that? Do you think that because I identify as queer that I must necessarily give Tatchell's opinion more weight? That seems quite prejudicial of you to think, doesn't it I think it would be perfectly natural for you to agree with people you identify with. You're no more imune from bias than anyone else.
do you have any evidence to support that in the particular case of same-sex couples and wedding services that is in fact a real risk that is either manifesting or a reasonable prospect of manifesting? Do you have anything more than Betteridge style questions and weasel words like 'might'? No. You appear to have a problem with speculative questions and uncertainty. I'm a big fan of evidence but unless we're looking backwards, usually there isn't any. I'm interested in discussing likely future outcomes and it seems to me that there are risks here.
Just admit you have no argument of your own with regards particularly to the wedding cake issue, that you have no evidence of gay activists targeting bakers, that there is no more reason to suppose these actions are doing more harm than good than there is to suppose they are doing more good than harm. Or provide the evidence, provide the reasons. Is this not a reasonable request/criticism? You make the claims, you raise the questions - is it so petty of me to ask you questions in return and have some kind of expectation of a response? You know what discussion and argument is? It's not writing a dissertation for peer review or writing an essay for your professor. It's not my problem if my replies frustrate you because they don't conform to your personal evidential standards. In daily life 'what ifs' are important. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Nobody is refusing "to sell a cake"...... ...it's the cake itself as a symbol of a wedding we cannot accept as legitimate. The two excerpts above appear to be going in opposite directions, so it's hard to tell what it is you're actually saying. Would fundamentalist Christians with a bakery sell a wedding cake with no writing to a gay couple? If not then you *are* refusing to sell a cake.
But they can interfere with ours, sue us etc., if we act on ours against their point of view. Theirs isn't even called a "religious" opinion yet it's protected against ours. But it's not religious at that point. When you open a bakery to sell to the public at large then you have entered the secular world where you must follow secular laws. You can't select a subset of the public to sell to.
TRUE freedom is gone, TRUE justice is gone, TRUE diversity is gone, we are now under totalitarian leftist rule, though nobody here is willing to acknowledge it. Still inflated and exaggerated. You're just encouraging people to call you names back. I think you need to look up totalitarian. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Do you have a response to MLK's retort to this general line of questioning: Yes, it's dumb. And wrong. Cogent.
Can you show that more harm than good is likely to follow? No. See? That wasn't so hard to admit was it? We could have moved past this question a long time ago if you'd have done it sooner.
You weren't subjected to a torrent of abuse from me.
Well I've quoted what you said, it's there for all to see. Fuck you" x2 not enough to qualify? Correct.
No. You appear to have a problem with speculative questions and uncertainty. I have no problems with questions or uncertainty. I have a problem with the fact it took you so long to admit you got nothing but questions. But since you have no evidence for your questions again I ask the same question: Might your questions result in more harm than good?
You know what discussion and argument is? Yeah, it's were two people go back and forth with ideas and explore an issue, sometimes on opposite sides of an issue. It isn't asking a hypothetical question and then repeating it over and over again as someone tries to talk to you.
In daily life 'what ifs' are important. But only if you approach them with honesty. By admitting the hypotheticals have no evidential basis for instance. At which point I can say 'Why should I care?' Let's remember that you started with a little more than hypotheticals, so I'd like to also point out that questioning your questions has produced the result that you've backed off some of your earlier points:
quote: quote: quote: No evidence of any targeting or gays looking for a fight. Concession accepted.
quote: No evidence of any unshrewd fights being picked. Concession accepted.
quote: No evidence what would be 'more strategic' so meaningless management speak as I originally claimed 'Do good things, but more optimally'. Concession accepted.
quote: No evidence that this is in fact true. Concession accepted. Not that this is not a hypothetical what if. This this is a 'if this then this' statement. So if you are backing off ino the world of 'what ifs' then concession is accepted.
quote: Nothing supporting your belief of likelihood. Concession accepted. So why should I take your question or your concerns seriously? What ifs are important, if they are discussed. Their merits and likelihoods can or are explored. Just shooting the shit is at best useless, at worst harmful. There is literally no way it can help. So if you want to discuss, how about we turn to the Ashers case. I raised some reasons why I thought that ultimately the decision was correctly found - (though I should say I'm not necessarily on board with all of the courts arguments in favour of the decision). What do you make of them?
It's not writing a dissertation for peer review or writing an essay for your professor. This is a debate forum - It is perfectly legitimate in this medium to point out you have no evidence, no supporting arguments and to criticize this fact.
It's not my problem if my replies frustrate you because they don't conform to your personal evidential standards. Said the Creationist to the scientist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I think you need to look up totalitarian.
Seems we have a few people here that think that word can mean anything they want it to mean. Makes it tough to have an honest debate.I don't think anyone should aspire to emulate Humpty Dumpty. quote:Through the Looking-Glass - Wikiquote But I guess, if it works for them.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024