Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

Yes I see the problem, but it's just a matter of not knowing how to put it into words any more clearly than I have. I "feel" it as a matter of conscience or not, I've tried to say why, but I've run out of ways.

What can I say. It's about the definition of the institution of marriage in the case of gay marriage. A wedding cake is specifically symbolic of a wedding. I don't see anything specific about some kind of food for a festival of a false god. I understand that you do. 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. To you it's all fiction starting with belief in God, all of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

Somehow I don't feel making food for the people implicates me in their beliefs. Perhaps with more of a sense of it or some experience of it that would change.

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.As far as the idea of "celebration cakes" goes, I don't think Christians want to have anything to do with anything even remotely like a wedding of homosexuals. If you want to buy a fancy cake for your celebration just don't iinvolve the bakers in its purpose. 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. 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. It's not about the persons, it's about what marriage is for, the union of male with female, nothing else. Again, it's not about sin, it's about what marriage is for, the union of male and female. See above. It's not about sin, it's about the purpose of marriage, which is the union of male and female.But this is really changing the subject. I'd said something about the importance of salvation which you said focused too much on homosexuals. Then you switched back to the topic of gay marriage. Salvation is about sin, repentance, being saved FROM sin. But gay marriage is a violation of the purpose of marriage which is the union of male and female and not about sin as such. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, the LAWSUIT came out of the blue, as I doubt that they ever had any idea of such a possibility before that. 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. 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. 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. 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.

It isn't kind to destroy the concept of marriage or treat sin as not sin.

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.

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.

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.

No, but they did have to close the source of their livelihood and Aaron Klein had to get a job driving a truck. However, fund raisers came through for them and financially they are OK as I understand it, but they can't go back to their chosen livelihood.And just because other businesses didn't get such huge fines, the law is still in place and they are still vulnerable to anybody who wants to do it to them again. Legal gay marriage is going to hang over the heads of Christians indefinitely. And of course you are happy with that.I don't find my sympathy growing for your cause because of all this.ABE: Don't get me wrong: I have a lot of sympathy for gays in general because they didn't ask for it and they have had to endure many kinds of persecution. Nevertheless I object to gay marriage and to forcing people to accept it whose belief opposes it..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No "different perspective" is possible. The Bible is clear and that's not going to change. How would you have the business model to be changed slightly? How do you make a business into something that is not a public accommodation? But more to the point why should Christians have to be forced to give up anything because a tiny minority has to have things their way? Why do civil rights only apply to your little group and not my group? That is so bogus. A little creative thought could have provided such protections without destroying the role of marriage. The goal WAS the destruction of marriage, even if you don't quite share that goal yourself. In any case there could have been other solutions but a vindictive spirit against Christanity was more important than those supposed benefits. For health insurance there is even a Christian model that has created a pool people pay into to take care of catastrophic illnesses. Surely the LGBT community could have come up with something like that. There are other forms of contracts than marriage too. But no, the whole point was to kill marriage. Congratulations, you succeeded.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's the concept, the definition of marriage that is destroyed. Marriage was instituted for a man and a woman, who are designed to become "one flesh" as the Bible defines marriage. This has been said so many times on this thread I don't get why it needs to be repeated.However I agree with you about other ways marriage has been destroyed, which is almost an argument that we should just kill it off altogether. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

dupEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

The perspective held by those who must refuse service for a gay marriage isn't going to change. It's Bible based. Other perspectives are irrelevant. You don't get to tell us what interpretation is legitimate. Why do you keep doing this? The Bible defines marriage for conservative Christians and that's not going to change. Stop saying silly things about baking cakes. ANY service for a gay wedding is the problem. A wedding cake is one of many possibilities, it just happens to have been the cause that brought ruin on a bakery in at least two cases.Oh yeah, OK, just give up on serving weddings because a selfish little minority group that's invented itself out of thin air has to have their way.There are other ways to get the benefits you want without destroying the biblical definition of marriage. All it should take to get the right to a medical opinion is a written permission on the hospital's books or on a legal form you have drawn up. Really, this isn't rocket science, but you had to destroy marriage, marriage as defined as a matter of fact in all times and places.The Bowman-Cryers wanted a WEDDING CAKE. They considered themnselves to be entering into a MARRIAGE. Stop playing with irrelevant semantics.Civil rights for Jews doesn't force me to give up mine, but gay marriage does.