Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

It's not an attack. It's a statement of fact. It's only a small minority of self-styled "Christians" who are riled up about gay marriage - and I doubt that many of them would agree with you on points of doctrine either. There are a thousand ways to be wrong and yours is only one of them.

the term "haters" is straight from the Leftist/Marxist playbook. PC attack for sure, last refuge of the demented Left as I said.Actually there are millions of us.

Then I imagine you can point out how I or anyone else forces any definition of anything on you.

No, it's from the dictionary: Hater = person who hates - i.e. a person who has extreme dislike or disgust for some other person or thing.As opposed to loving thy neighbour.

That seems unlikely. People change their perspective on the message of the Bible all the time. Some may never change, but it remains possible for it to happen. And you don't get to tell others either. That's rather my point. The Bible is not going to change. What people think of it and how they interpret it changes over time. That's just an observable fact. Yes, I'm perfectly aware of this. The Bible, for the record doesn't say 'thou shalt not provide services for gay marriages' either. Ruin? Even if Sweet Cakes was 'ruined' what other bakery has been ruined, who is the second one you are thinking of? Well if we're going to be dicks about this, I can play that game. Yes you selfish Christians who invented your ideas out of thin air doesn't get to have its way over the freedoms of people who actually exist.Does this kind of attitude actually help us? Or does it just create more heat than light? Yeah, but unfortunately people, typically those calling themselves Bible believing Christians, refused to provide them.The Biblical definition has not been changed. Has it? I thought your entire point is that it was not going to change. So it cannot be destroyed. It is what it is. And yet, time and time again - this was in practice not regarded as sufficient. I guess you haven't watched the struggle over the years, but the gay community has sought all manner of accommodations, but they were never treated as having the same rights as a married couple. It shouldn't have been rocket science, and you had decades to fight alongside them for their rights. But Biblical Christians were worse than silent, they were among the champions of denying these things. But Bible Believing Conservative Christians can still have marriage the way they believe in. It's just that atheist Jewish gays can have the marriage the way they believe in now. This seems to aggravate you, like you aren't afforded special privileges or something. No - that's the point. You say it's the law allowing same-sex marriage that is the problem. But when I point out that this isn't what resulted in the legal actions you resort to the fact that its merely the fact that gay people called it a marriage that matters.You are dictating what gay people call their relationship.
We are not dictating what you call yours.Regardless of whether the definition of marriage is changed in law, you will treat us poorly even if we have the audacity to call our relationships a marriage. That's why I know this isn't about government actions persecuting Christians. It's about Christians wanting the power to dictate what words mean to other people and what words they should use to describe their relationship. It's about you being upset that you are losing control of this power. Animus. That's what it is. Animus and fear and anger at losing your special status.If you think it sucks to be treated equally - you are really going to hate being treated as less than equal. Civil rights for Jews might force someone to give up theirs, however. Or are your rights the only ones that matter?

Please, no more one and two sentence content-free posts, and no more unsupported claims.

So I suppose in Faith's view non-christians can not be married either. That is the only logical extension of her claims.If gays destroy marriage by getting married, then non-christians must also, since they are not getting married before the christian sky daddy.Edited by Theodoric, : ANother sentence to stay within guidelines

Probably not as long as they are a man and a woman. But they can't live at the man's parents I imagine. That seems it would destroy all marriage based on the cherry picked verse she uses.They may be able to live with the woman's parents but not sure about that.Of course if one or more of them happen to have be divorced and then remarry it would likely destroy all marriage.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Man and woman, man and woman, man and woman. Not religious, not religious, not religious, universal, universal, universal, applies to all peoples in all times and all cultures, whose laws generally reflect this ordinance. Man and woman, nothing to do with circumstance, belief or unbelief, culture or anything else. Man and woman, period. As I've said dozens of times on this thread alone. "Marrying" two of the same sex is a fundamental contradiction with the biblical law since they cannot become "one flesh."

Show us the biblical definition. Chapter and verse please. Please don't give us your interpretation. Give us chapter and verse that says marriage can only be between a man and a woman and where it says in the Constitution of the United States that non-believers are beholden to this book of mythology.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

It's been discussed to death on this thread already, starting in Message 57. I confined it to Genesis 2:24 because that's the gist of the message but start reading in 2:18 for the whole context.

I believe that throughout American history Christianity has been rightly favored because it began with Christian settlers and the vast majority of the population has always been Christian. I did not claim the COnstitution supports this in any direct way, but practice has always supported it, in government, in the schools, in the courts and so on.In any case consr5vative Christians consider the passage in Genesis I quoted to be definitive and it doesn't matter what anybody else says, that is what we act on when there is a conflict with the gay marriage law.

Actually, you have made this claim. According to your post, the first time this was ever challenged was when prayer was challenged in public schools. Of course, you have had to drop this position after some old court cases were cited.The constitution does not support your position in any way; directly or indirectly. In fact, the constitution supports the exact opposite proposition. The founding fathers were well aware of Mormonism, which I suspect you do not consider Christian, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, and according to their words, the constitution does not promote any of them above the other.If you have some support for an alternative position that consists of something other than what you believe ought to be true, now might be a good time for that.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

In this part of the discussion I didn't claim the Constitution as support. However, prayer in schools was not effectively challenged until Madalyn Murray, notwithstanding court cases I'd never heard about, which shows that the First Amendment was not generally considered to be violated by such prayer. And the sad thing is that its loss is taking the nation to perdition.All this just makes me hate some of the Founders for their stupid Enlightenment deism that caused them to betray the Christian foundations of this country, paving the way for today's fall into paganism, which is going to destroy the nation completely, as it has just about done in Europe.Barring the mercy of God, for which I pray.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No relevancy whatsoever to the discussion given that we are not talking about prayer. Do you have any support whatsoever that the constitution has ever been interpreted to allow actions contrary to general public law? So I guess you will stop asking what the Founders have to say about issues?Looks like ringo was right. We've found ourselves a hater.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.