|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: But only a Christian actually feels the sting of conscience about gay marriage, you don't so you're left ibtellectually supposing things about it without any real idea of what it's about. The problem people are struggling with - and it's the same with every subject you take on from geology to evolution to bible interpretations - is that you have a programmed mind which can't be influenced by facts and evidence. You are under the delusion that you actually know the mind of god and in a very specific kind of way. You don't know his mind of course, you've fallen for a particular cult's explanation that matches your mood and you now inhabit the bubble which reinforces it. That bubble has had as one of its tennets that homosexuality is an abomination for generations so you're sensitised to it - or as you put it, you've developed a 'conscience' about it.
Could happen. But conscience isn't a mere "principle," it's a sense of God's mind and heart, not something "established" or subject to alteration by mere thought. You see, you haven't yet had your consciousness raised on this issue but now that Islam has become an issue in our cultures I'm sure you'll be able to let this into your 'conscience' too. It looks like you already are. 'Conscience' is what you have learned from the culture you buy into - it has no supernatural origin. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.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: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: I have to protest as usual that you are misrepresenting the situation again: No, you still misunderstand the Tatchell piece:
The baker is not objecting to "someone," he's objecting to an illegitimate definition of marriage. Even Peter Tatchell, the gay activist in the UK who wrote the Guardian opinion piece, argued that there was no discrimination against persons by the Christian bakery, but against an "idea," the idea of gay marriage.
Tatchell writes:
In the American cases, the request for a wedding cake was refused not because the customers were gay but because of the service asked for. There is no evidence that their sexuality was the reason the order was declined. No other order would have been declined, just the order that legitimizes gay marriage. Much as I wish to defend the gay community, I also want to defend freedom of conscience, expression and religion... [The plaintiff's]cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for. There is no evidence that his sexuality was the reason Ashers declined his order. But Tatchell is saying the opposite. His article is all about the message. In Tatchell's example, if I were purchasing the cake with the message then the baker would object, while if there were no message he would not object. The message makes all the difference in the Tatchell piece.
As NCE was apparently trying to say, the bakers should not be compelled to supply a service that legitimizes a concept to which they conscientiously object. This gets back to the question of how selling a cake legitimizes a wedding. A baker can't pick and choose which members of the public he sells his unannotated cakes to, but I think he's got a good basis for refusal if he objects to the message. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: When a baker writes "Happy Birthday to You" on a gay person's cake, do you think he is expressing his pleasure that the gay person was born? Or that he is participating in a celebration in any way I think he's probably wished many people "Happy Birthday," he's probably written it on many cakes, he thinks it's a fine idea to give these wishes on such occasions, so he would of course have no problem with it. But he doesn't accept gay marriage and finds the idea abhorrent, so he of course objects to writing "Support Gay Marriage" on a cake. In neither case does he believe that writing the message would be "participating in a celebration in any way." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
New Cat's Eye writes: No. You think its okay to say the baker is wrong to refuse to sell a cake for a gay wedding, but it is also okay for a person to refuse to write something promoting homosexuality - speech is protected, selling services is not. Yes, I think that's correct.
What if the service of baking a cake was determined to be a form of speech? Would that then mean that cake baking would be protected too? You mean what if the Supreme Court ruled that cake baking was a form of speech, the way they ruled money is a form of speech? Yes, then that would mean that cake baking is protected, too.
My question is what is the difference between speech and service providing such that one is protected and one isn't. Speech is the expression of an idea, and one shouldn't be compelled to express ideas one objects to. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You mean what if the Supreme Court ruled that cake baking was a form of speech, the way they ruled money is a form of speech? Yes, then that would mean that cake baking is protected, too. Yeah, that's what I meant.
Speech is the expression of an idea, and one shouldn't be compelled to express ideas one objects to. And if the service provider says that the service they are providing is expressing an idea they object to? Does that need to be determined? Or can we take their word for it? Can creating a particular cake for a particular reason be consider expressing an idea? Or does it require writing something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Which is really the most likely thing that will happen. Sad for those who feel they have a sort of calling for making wedding cakes, which Melissa Klein (the Oregon bakery) does. Along comes this law out of the blue that deprives them of that loved expression. I don't think that a law that was in place before she even started her business can be described as "coming out of the blue". OK, the LAWSUIT came out of the blue, as I doubt that they ever had any idea of such a possibility before that.
As I said, I think it's because so much has been made about gay rights in the last decade or so, and particularly gay marriage. If all that weren't happening Christians wouldn't have any need to make a particular issue of homosexuality. And again we see that the REAL issue is fighting against gay rights. I was answering the specific question why it seems to Mod that Christians focus particularly on homosexuality. I was saying it's a reaction to their actions and otherwise we don't. Christians have fought against gay rights for years, or aspects of it, but that is not what the specific issues on this thread are about. We are talking about the specific request to do something for a gay wedding that a Christian in good conscience cannot do. Period.
Then let me remind you that the subject is gay marriage, not the sin of homosexuality as such or any other sin, just the fact that marriage is for a man and a woman and not two of the same sex. . And yet the idea that homosexuality is a sin is a major part of your argument. No it really is not. Homosexual acts are sin and same sex relationships are the reason for legalizing gay marriage, but it's not the sin that is the reason for refusing to serve a gay wedding, it's the fact that marriage is only for male and female. The reason for the same sex relationship is really irrelevant, it simply does not fit the qualifications for marriage. Again, it's the meaning of marriage that is the whole point.
In fact it's the only bit that stands up to examination. You haven't given one valid reason why you should object to homosexuals getting the legal benefits associated with marriage. I'm not addressing "the legal benefits of marriage," just the institution of marriage itself. Before it was legalized there was lots of discussion about how benefits could be legally acquired without changing the meaning of marriage, but gays wanted marriage so they got marriage, and that's what Christians can't support.
Complaining that secular society uses a different definition of marriage to you or that the Supreme Court defied your will is not very Christian nor is it very sensible. Whatever. I guess we'll just go on objecting to gay marriage without your approval. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: They knew what they had done, they should have known about the law.
quote: Exactly - you preach against homosexuality to stir up resistance to gay rights.
quote: Your idea of marriage is. But there is no reason why you have to object to other ideas to the point of rudely refusing services.
quote: According to the title of this thread granting gay couples the legal benefits of marriage is "an attack on Christianity". Because that is what the SCOTUS decision is all about.
quote: It was tried and "Christians" wouldn't let it work - they used the difference to try to withhold the legal benefits of marriage from gay couples. So either that is what you are upset about or we're back to your silly belief in word magic where just calling it marriage is the problem.
quote: Sure, you can go on stewing in your sins. Funny how you don't like something you call "kindness" when you are on the receiving end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It isn't kind to destroy the concept of marriage or treat sin as not sin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Nobody is destroying the concept of marriage, and the second is exactly what I meant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
It isn't kind to destroy the concept of marriage or treat sin as not sin.quote:Loving thy neighbor supersedes all other considerations of "the law". quote:There is no law against loving your gay neighbour. And by the way, longsuffering means patience, not whining about how you're being treated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Love does not lie about sin, pretend sin is not sin, pretend sin doesn't take people to Hell, pretend marriage can apply to anyone other than male and female..
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: It isn't kind to destroy the concept of marriage or treat sin as not sin. No one is destroying the concept of marriage Faith. In fact they are enhancing and improving the concept of marriage. Other peoples sins are none of your business.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Nor does it shoot off its mouth about sin.
Love does not lie about sin....quote:A related verse: quote:When you're without sin, you're free to talk about somebody else's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Interestingly you are accusing me of exactly what I do not do. I keep saying I'm not talking about sin and I'm not. On the other hand people here love to point the finger at sin, make up sins to accuse me of for instance, most of which I haven't committed, but I don't talk about sin. It's not my subject and one thing I hate is moralizing. Leftists however love to moralize and try to skewer people with moralistic accusations, most of them made up out of the Marxist playbook rather than the Bible, but you aren't at all hesitant about accusing people of sins from the Bible either, misapplying them with a heavy hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Gay marriage is about a cultural institution, marriage and its purpose, while the sin of homosexual acts is incidental to it, really doesn't even need to be brought into it. I'm not interested in people's sins. The main time I bring them up is in a very general sense and for the purpose of describing the gospel of salvation, which I really don't do very often here.
But David Horowitz was quite right in his book Big Agenda, and the talk I linked some time back, when he said moralizing is THE weapon of the Left. The Leftists he said sound like hellfire and brimstone preachers. Political Correctness is the catchall term for it. Just about every post against me accuses me of something from the PC catalog, either directly or indirectly. It's really a weapons arsenal. It's rare to have a discussion here that is a dispassionate analysis of intormation.; Just about everything posted to me here is some kind of moralistic fingerpointing. This topic right now is that: supposedly I'm the one wrongly accusing people of sin when that's YOUR endless tactic against ME. Accuse accuse accuse. If you thought for even half a minute about my style of posting you'd have to recognize that is NOT what I'm doing. But jar just did it to me, ringo just did it to me, and PaulK never says anything to me without accusing me of some hideous moral failure or other. You really need to learn to listen to yourselves. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024