Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

Refusing ANY service to one person while providing it for another is not a symptom of loving thy neighbour. If you can't provide a service indiscriminately, you have no business being in the business at all - either on the basis of Christianity or on the basis of good citizenship.

There is no animosity against gays in the Biblical understanding that marriage was ordained by God for the purpose of joining the two sexes into one flesh. The idea that the rights and obligations of marriage should extend to gays is a bogus idea. But it now rules the land and those who are put in a position of having to deny it publically will be persecuted. It has nothing to do with real civil rights or real unfairness at all, it's just a direct confrontation with the law of God. Calling those who honor the law of God "bigots" and so on is a typical emotion-based way to vilify a class of people being set up for persecution. In Rwanda they called the class set up for annihilation "cockroaches." That's also what they did to the Jews in Germany. Now the class being set up is called "bigots" and "haters" to drum up public feeling against them. Reverse ideology but same tactics of Nazism. That's what's REALLY happening here.Though right now animosity against Phillips' beliefs is legally condemned, I wouldn't be at all surprised if his "bigotry" overshadowed that in the end.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But the First Amendment prohibits the state from using that as a reason for any policy. Hence, no legitimate state interest.

Thought experiment:Colorado law also prohibits discrimination based on religion.Suppose a baker is willing to bake a wedding cake for Christian weddings but not for Jewish weddings?Is that illegal under Colorado law? Or can the baker claim a First Amendment protection against being compelled to express support for a religious wedding he does not recognize as valid?

That is a ridiculous twisting of the First Amendment but again, that's the way things are going, no point in fighting it.

there is no biblical ordinance against a wedding between the two sexes whoever they are.

That is not what they claimed. They sounded exactly as you do now. That's demonstrably wrong. All kinds of nationalism and xenophobia are well supported in the Bible, as is the notion that whole entire lines of folks are condemned by heritage alone. That kind of thinking can well serve as the foundation of racism, and historically it has done so. You are not proving your point with this.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, you are wrong. God's separation of the Jews from the heathen nations, and his harsh judgments of the heathen nations (but He also judged the Jews just as harshly), was about idolatry, not race, but were wrongly turned into a form of racism by the Jews, which can be seen in Jesus' time as the Gentiles are referred to as "dogs." But throughout the Old Testament the "stranger" is welcomed among the Israelites but must become a follower of their God. It's about God, not about race. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Right, how they "sound" is now the deciding factor, not anything about objective truth. So goes the world.

Equality of treatment trumps special interests. That's the prime value that all modern democracies are striving for one way or another by long and meandering meansAnother way of saying it is loving your neighbour and doing as you would be done by. Odd that people that call themselves the only 'true' Christians refuse to follow Christian teachings.Why on earth we spend so much time reasoning with such deviants is even odder.

I know that it is pointless to argue with you. I only do it because it gives me a chance to attach my signature file to responses to you about bigotry. I know that is a silly motivation on my part, but the irony is quite compelling.

quote:

---

There is no animosity against gays in the Biblical understanding that marriage was ordained by God for the purpose of joining the two sexes into one flesh.

---

But there is in the idea that gay couples should be denied the secular benefits of marriage. And THAT is what this is really about.Let us not forget that Christians were opposing the extension of those benefits to gay couples before gays were allowed to marry. And that is one of the reasons why giving gays the full legal status of marriage was necessary.There is no Biblical understanding that gay partners should be denied the insurance benefits given to spouses, is there? But that is one of the real issues here.Indeed your ideas about what marriage should be aren’t even a real issue. You aren’t compelled to enter into a gay marriage. Your church isn’t compelled to hold gay wedding services. There’s no real infringement of any liberty but the liberty to discriminate against gays in the secular sphere. You don’t have the right to compell the government to enforce your religious views, nor do you even have a religiour duty to demand it.Your religious arguments are just a pretext to hide your bigotry.

Benefits were extended to married couples to encourage marriage between the sexes and the raising of children. There's really no rational basis for extending them to any other kind of "couple" although I wouldn't fight finding some way to do it without official marriage myself, some of them anyway.I guess nobody will ever appreciate the concept of protecting marriage as a social institution, as opposed to this ridiculous idea that gay marriage affects individual heterosexuals' marriages. That is such a bogus piece of nonsense.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How wrong you are though thinking you are right.

I'm pretty sure that it's a standard reading of the First Amendment and I suspect that even a lot of conservatives would disagree with you here.