Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
23 online now:
GDR, Tanypteryx (2 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Astrophile
Member (Idle past 132 days)
Posts: 80
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 106 of 1484 (802225)
03-13-2017 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
03-13-2017 3:03 PM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
Ringo answered it from Wikipedia quoting Josephus. There is nothing in the NT -- except that one verse you brought up -- to suggest polygamy was still practiced among the Jews, but Josephus says it was, so that verse probably does imply that it was, as you thought.
But there is absolutely no doubt that God's ordinance forbids it, none whatever. And that verse itself is evidence since there would have been no reason to forbid it to bishops or anyone else if God approved of it.

It has been pointed out that the custom of levirate marriage (the marriage of a younger brother with his deceased elder brother's widow) appears to require polygamy, at least as a theoretical possibility. One could hardly require a man to remain single on the grounds that he might have to inherit his brother's widow.

By the way, what would have happened in Genesis 38 if Onan had already been married, or in Ruth 2-4, if Boaz had already been married? Would Onan have been forbidden to marry Tamar, or Boaz to marry Ruth?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 3:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 107 of 1484 (802226)
03-13-2017 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
03-12-2017 4:56 PM


Re:
Faith writes:

quote:
Actually, strictly speaking it isn't a law and shouldn't be regarded as a law because it was initiated by the Supreme Court, not the legislature in one of the many usurpings of law the SCOTUS has become famous for. It's treated as law, however, it is enforced as law, even though it is in actual reality an illegal law.

So you feel the same way about Loving v. Virginia, right? It was a unanimous decision by the SCOTUS to strike down the miscegenation laws. But since it was the SCOTUS, that means it "shouldn't be regarded as a law," right? It's "one of the many usurpings of law the SCOTUS has become famous for," right?

Question, Faith: Suppose Congress were to unanimously pass and the President were to sign a law that said that you, specifically, were to become my personal slave, your life subject to my whim including my right to snuff it out should that be what I choose. What would you do?

Wouldn't you immediately run to the courts? Point out that there is a violation of your 13th Amendment rights regarding slavery? Include the fact that Article I, Section 9 prevents bills of attainder?

Or are you saying that you'd just happily accept your fate? After all, the Congress passed the law and the President signed it. How dare the SCOTUS come along and say it's unconstitutional and invalidate it?

Please, Faith, let us not play dumb.

"But," I hear you cry, "slavery is mentioned in the Constitution! I don't see anything about marriage!"

Of course. But then again, lots of things aren't mentioned in the Constitution that we understand it protects. After all, the Eighth Amendment only says that you are protected from "excessive bail," "excessive fines," and "cruel and unusual punishment." What does that mean? Who gets to decide if it's beyond the pale? Are you seriously claiming that if Congress passed and the President signed a law that said jaywalking was to be punished by either a $20M fine or the death penalty, you'd accept it? After all, the Constitution doesn't say anything about jaywalking or what should be the punishment for it.

It's a simple question, Faith: What's the point of having a Constitution if there isn't anybody who is charged with determining if it has been violated? If the Constitution says that certain things are not supposed to happen, how do we know when it did and what are we supposed to do?

Instead, you've fallen for the political correctness of your conservatism: "Usurping of the law" is nothing more than a euphemism for "I don't like the ruling."

Which brings us back to the original point:

Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law? After all, that's what people claimed during the Civil Rights Era. When segregation was banned (by Supreme Court ruling), people insisted that their religious freedoms were being violated.

Were they right?

Was the Supreme Court wrong to invalidate segregation laws?

Was Loving v. Virginia wrongly decided? The Supreme Court declared marriage to be a fundamental right. Were they wrong to do so? They decided that laws preventing interracial couples from being married were a violation of the 14th Amendment and it's requirement of due process under the law.

Does the 14th Amendment not apply to gay people? They don't have the same fundamental rights as straight people? Gays aren't "persons" and thus aren't subject to the Constitution's protections?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 4:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 108 of 1484 (802228)
03-13-2017 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
03-12-2017 5:05 PM


Re: related issues
Faith writes:

quote:
There are in fact Muslim bakeries and someone went into one with a hidden camera and asked for a wedding cake for him and his male partner and the owner said he wouldn't do it.

Ah, yes. Steven Crowder.

You know there's more to the story than his edited video, yes?

Specifically: Nobody refused him.

In one part of his "expose," he goes to a bread factory and demands a wedding cake. They point out that they don't do cakes and that if he wants a wedding cake, he can go to the place across the street. But if they want any of the other pastries they make, sure.

And here's the thing: Let's assume that he was turned away by a Muslim baker because it was a "gay" wedding cake. Did he sue? After all, he's the aggrieved party. Do you not understand what "standing" means? The fact that you and I have heard about what happened to Crowder doesn't mean that we have the right to sue anybody. Crowder does, though, as he was the one it happened to.

What makes you think anybody who supports equal treatment under the law would balk at the idea of a Muslim baker refusing to comply with anti-discrimination laws? Have you fallen for your political correctness again?

So let me help disabuse you of your political correctness: Even Muslim bakers who would refuse to serve gay couples in defiance of the anti-discrimination laws that regulate their business (remember, not all states have such laws...most don't), then they also deserve to be sued for said violation.

There is no religious exemption to the law.

Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law, Faith?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 5:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 109 of 1484 (802229)
03-13-2017 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Tangle
03-12-2017 5:47 PM


Re: related issues
Tangle writes:

quote:
There are activist gays that think that they can make progress by outing law breaking bigots. Personally, I think they are doing more harm than good.

So the bus strike, the lunch counter sit-ins, Rosa Parks, all of that was counter-productive? If you're just nice and wait for the bigots to do the right thing, they'll do so?

Please. Rights are never voluntarily given. They must be fought for and defended. If the majority is treating the minority with respect to their rights, it's because they don't see the minority as a threat. As soon as they do, however, rights go out the window.

quote:
And, they've won, so celebrate and let the bigots die out naturally.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

You really think gay people have "won"? Texas is going through the process of enacting a law that allows the government to deny any rights of marriage to same-sex couples. The logic is that the Supreme Court has said they can't deny gay people from getting married, but that doesn't mean the state has to do anything for that marriage. Oh, mixed-sex couples will still get the rights of marriage, but same-sex couples won't.

South Dakota just had the governor sign a law permitting discrimination against gay people in adoption.

The entire point behind the "religious freedom" laws being bandied about in the states as well as Congress is to specifically allow people to discriminate against gay people by allowing a religious exemption.

The new health care bill that's going through: What do you think that's going to do to the gay community? It phases out prevention treatments for HIV such as PReP.

When Illinois screwed with its funding of Planned Parenthood, HIV infections skyrocketed because, despite what GOPers say, Planned Parenthood is often the only medical clinic in the county and with no place to get information and treatment, disease does what it does and spreads.

You don't really think the various anti-trans bills coursing through the states and the attempts to do the same at the federal level are just flukes, are you?

What exactly do you think it was that was "won"?

It's been 150 years since the end of the Civil War. Surely racism has ended because all the bigots died off, right?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Tangle, posted 03-12-2017 5:47 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 4:23 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 110 of 1484 (802230)
03-13-2017 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
03-12-2017 7:52 PM


Re: related issues
Faith writes:

quote:
In reality probably a leftie false flag to mock and discredit the right.

Wow.

You were the one who brought him up and now you're saying he's a "false flag."

So that would mean you were false flagging the false flag.

And before you claim that no, you didn't, let me remind you of your post, Faith (Message 64):

There are in fact Muslim bakeries and someone went into one with a hidden camera and asked for a wedding cake for him and his male partner and the owner said he wouldn't do it.

Emphasis added. There's really only one person who did this: Steven Crouder. He's the host of podcast, "Louder with Crowder." He was a contributor to Fox, the Blaze, Glenn Beck, and Dana Loesch. The idea that he is some sort of "false flag" shows just how ignorant you are of your own source.

Let's see what I think happened: You, who admits that you don't do any homework on a subject before commenting, remember hearing something somewhere about some guy who tried to get Muslim bakers to deny him because he's gay in an attempt to show the hypocrisy of liberals for not being outraged when it was carried out by Muslims, thus proving some sort of "anti-Christian" bias.

But because you didn't actually do your homework, you didn't actually know who you were talking about or even see the video "evidence." You just heard about it, vaguely remembered it, and thought that we were all too stupid and ignorant to know what you were talking about and are just as incompetent when it comes to investigating your claim to see if it has any connection to reality.

So now that you've been burned by your own source (AGAIN!) you're trying to claim that that wasn't what you were talking about, hoping to high heaven that nobody notices that you haven't actually provided any evidence of your original claim.

You were talking about Steven Crowder, Faith.

And he lied about what happened.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(3)
Message 111 of 1484 (802231)
03-13-2017 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
03-12-2017 8:02 PM


Re:
Faith writes:

quote:
There's a US law that says gay marriage is legal across the nation and that it must be accepted by all as legal and valid.

No, there isn't.

Instead, there is a ruling that says any laws that deny marriage to same-sex couples are invalid and cannot be enforced. The ruling of the SCOTUS didn't actually remove those laws from any of the books.

Remember Loving v. Virginia? It held the same for miscegenation laws. But guess what? Alabama kept its law prohibiting interracial couples from marrying until 2000.

And even then, 40% of the population voted to keep it.

Why?

Because the Supreme Court can change its mind. Surely you've heard of the Plessy v. Ferguson, yes? That was the decision that upheld segregation laws, declaring that "separate but equal" was perfectly fine by the Constitution.

It was overturned by the Brown v. Board of Education decision (among others).

The same thing can happen with any decision. Surely you remember Bower v. Hardwick which said that no, there is no right to private sexual conduct and Lawrence v. Texas that overturned it, yes?

So the various states that have the laws on the books denying the right of gay couples to marry have not taken the off the books out of hope that the SCOTUS will overturn the Obergefell decision.

Again, there is no law that says "gay marriage is legal." Instead, there is a ruling that any laws that do exist (and some states are trying to actively pass them right now in anticipation of an overturning) cannot be enforced.

quote:
Christians cannot in good conscience accept it as valid so when pressed to act in any way that implies agreement with it must refuse to do so.

They said the exact same thing in the Civil Rights Era when segregation was abolished, Faith.

Were they right to do so?

quote:
This puts us in violation of the law and subject to punishment.

Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law, Faith?

quote:
That is what this is all about. There's nothing more to it.

With regard to the law, yes.

With regard to your understanding of the law, we haven't even scratched the surface. Your profound ignorance of American governmental systems and how jurisprudence works is a primary obstacle, Faith.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 8:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 10:12 PM Rrhain has responded

    
14174dm
Member
Posts: 150
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 112 of 1484 (802232)
03-13-2017 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Faith
03-13-2017 5:04 AM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
Mark 10:12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:3-9 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Hath ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh? What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

How is the Christian baker to handle the re-marriage of a divorced person? Refuse to validate the ceremony by baking a cake until given proof of infidelity before the divorce?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 5:04 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 9:46 PM 14174dm has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 113 of 1484 (802233)
03-13-2017 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NoNukes
03-13-2017 1:22 PM


Re: related issues
NoNukes writes:

quote:
The Defense of Marriage Act was a federal law that prevented states from having to recognize marriage in other states. Given that the constitution expressly requires states to recognize contracts made in other states, it was fairly obvious that the DOMA was never constitutional, to begin with.

Be careful there. That isn't quite true. *Especially* when it comes to marriage.

It's complicated, but there are scenarios that allow states to not recognize marriages performed in other states. For example, there is a "positive law" exception. This aspect came up in Martinez v County of Monroe regarding a Canadian same-sex couple in New York: There was no NY law expressly prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside of NY, so the "positive law" exception did not apply.

In fact, the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution has never been used to require a state to recognize a marriage performed in another state. The Loving v. Virginia case was decided not because of FFaC but because of 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NoNukes, posted 03-13-2017 1:22 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by NoNukes, posted 03-13-2017 8:16 PM Rrhain has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 1484 (802236)
03-13-2017 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Rrhain
03-13-2017 6:59 PM


Re: related issues
In fact, the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution has never been used to require a state to recognize a marriage performed in another state.

No, it has not. However, that does not mean that such arguments would not work. My understanding is that DOMA was enacted when it looked like Hawaii might allow gay marriage.

Looking further, it appears that some commentators agree that you have the better argument, and the Hawaii possibility was just a scare tactic used to get DOMA passed at least as FFC was understood back then. I would argue that it would fare better now.

I'll agree that my editorializing by saying "{fairly obvious" with respect to constitutionality was an overstatement. Based on some of the things you've pointed out, the FFCA might not be sufficient.

t's complicated, but there are scenarios that allow states to not recognize marriages performed in other states.

Yes, there are some such scenarios. But isn't your example about a Canadian marriage? And isn't the case one that never made it to the Supreme Court, or in fact any federal court? Generally speaking federal courts do not handle family law or marriage cases unless there is a constitutional issue. Family law cases based on diversity of citizenship are not subject matter for federal court. The case in question would have been settled based on NY law alone.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Rrhain, posted 03-13-2017 6:59 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 4:25 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 115 of 1484 (802238)
03-13-2017 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by 14174dm
03-13-2017 6:49 PM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
How is the Christian baker to handle the re-marriage of a divorced person? Refuse to validate the ceremony by baking a cake until given proof of infidelity before the divorce

I don't know, I've wondered about that too. But gay marriage violates the meaning of marriage itself and this situation doesn't so it might not become a problem in the baker's mind. As I've said it isn't about sin, it's about the ordinance of marriage itself. But it's possible that a baker's conscience might also be engaged about a remarriage, I suppose it depends on the individual.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by 14174dm, posted 03-13-2017 6:49 PM 14174dm has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 5:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 116 of 1484 (802239)
03-13-2017 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Rrhain
03-13-2017 6:40 PM


Re:
I'm not interested in the intricacies of the law. All that matters in this discussion is whether a Christian can legally refuse to serve a gay marriage in any way that violates his/her conscience, and I've understood that legally they cannot -- anywhere in the country. That's the only thing relevant here.
/
/
Christians cannot in good conscience accept it as valid so when pressed to act in any way that implies agreement with it must refuse to do so.

They said the exact same thing in the Civil Rights Era when segregation was abolished, Faith.


/
SO WHAT? That is utterly irrelevant. They were wrong because as I said already the Bible teaches that we are all descended from the same parents. If they wanted to claim their conscience was wounded, however, that's up to them, but obviously they'd have to take the punishment exactly as i'm describing in this situation.
/
Were they right to do so?

/
NO! NOT ON THE BASIS OF BIBLICAL DOCTRINE! I've said that at least twice now in this discussion.

This puts us in violation of the law and subject to punishment.

/
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law, Faith?

.
.
DIDN'T I JUST WRITE THE WORDS "This puts us in violation of the law and subject to punishment." yet you ask if I think Christians have an exemption after I said that????

I think we SHOUJLD have an exemption, of course, and I think there should be no such law in the first place too, of course, BUT I KNOW CHRISTIANS HAVE NO EXEMPTION TO THIS LAW NOW. THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS ALL ABOUT! .How have you managed to miss so much of this discussion?

This discussion is not about the law, it's about how one law affects Christians.

Just follow the argument for pete's sake.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Rrhain, posted 03-13-2017 6:40 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2017 12:54 AM Faith has responded
 Message 126 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 6:30 AM Faith has responded
 Message 146 by xongsmith, posted 03-14-2017 2:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 117 of 1484 (802243)
03-14-2017 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
03-13-2017 10:12 PM


Re:
quote:

I'm not interested in the intricacies of the law. All that matters in this discussion is whether a Christian can legally refuse to serve a gay marriage in any way that violates his/her conscience, and I've understood that legally they cannot -- anywhere in the country. That's the only thing relevant here.

If you were actually interested in that you would know otherwise. It seems that you are far more interested in blaming the decision to legalise gay marriage.

quote:

SO WHAT? That is utterly irrelevant. They were wrong because as I said already the Bible teaches that we are all descended from the same parents. If they wanted to claim their conscience was wounded, however, that's up to them, but obviously they'd have to take the punishment exactly as i'm describing in this situation.

So it's fine if your fellow Christians are punished for "violating their consciences" - your feelings on the matter are the only thing that matters. But that can't be a basis for law.

quote:

I think we SHOUJLD have an exemption, of course, and I think there should be no such law in the first place too, of course, BUT I KNOW CHRISTIANS HAVE NO EXEMPTION TO THIS LAW NOW. THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS ALL ABOUT! .How have you managed to miss so much of this discussion?

If that was true you would be concerned about the laws that "Christians" are actually being prosecuted under - and you obviously aren't

Whether you believe the lies that the Right told to try and stop gay marriage or whether you are motivated by bigotry the fact is that you are against gay marriage and this whole thread is just an excuse to attack it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 10:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 1:14 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 118 of 1484 (802244)
03-14-2017 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by PaulK
03-14-2017 12:54 AM


Just more made up accusations to distract from the simple point
Why should I care about the specifics of the law? The point is that

UNDER THIS LAW THAT SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS TO BE TREATED AS LEGITIMATE, if asked to perform a special service for a gay wedding or anything else that puts us in the position of treating gay marriage as legitimate, Christians have to refuse, and whatever the law is we are punishable under it for that refusal. Everything else is irrelevant nitpicking.

You spend a lot of time, just as Leftists always do, conjuring up anything you can to accuse conservatives of. Everything in your post is an invented accusation that has no actual purpose in relation to this topic.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2017 12:54 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2017 1:31 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 120 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2017 2:26 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 127 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 6:47 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 131 by jar, posted 03-14-2017 7:36 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 119 of 1484 (802245)
03-14-2017 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
03-14-2017 1:14 AM


Re: more truths that Faith wants to hide
quote:

Why should I care about the specifics of the law?

You certainly ought to care enough to know which laws you are opposing and why - especially as it has been brought up time and again. You have no excuse for not knowing that the situation varies from State to State. Remainingly aggressively ignorant in the face of discussion is not a sign of good faith.

quote:

UNDER THIS LAW THAT SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS TO BE TREATED AS LEGITIMATE, if asked to perform a special service for a gay wedding or anything else that puts us in the position of treating gay marriage as legitimate, Christians have to refuse, and whatever the law is we are punishable under it for that refusal. Everything else is irrelevant nitpicking.

That isn't true Faith. It has been pointed out time and again. The prosecutions are all under anti-discrimination laws.

It isn't even true that Christians have to object to gay marriages - it isn't even clear that they should object. It isn't much different from a Muslim demanding Sharia law.

quote:

You spend a lot of time, just as Leftists always do, conjuring up anything you can to accuse conservatives of. Everything in your post is an invented accusation that has no actual purpose in relation to this topic.

It is an objective fact that you keep trying to blame the prosecutions on the legalisation of gay marriage when in fact the prosecutions come under other, State, laws. I certainly think that it is legitimate to conclude that you are more interested in opposing gay marriage than in anything else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 1:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 120 of 1484 (802246)
03-14-2017 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
03-14-2017 1:14 AM


Re: Just more made up accusations to distract from the simple point
if asked to perform a special service for a gay wedding or anything else that puts us in the position of treating gay marriage as legitimate, Christians have to refuse, and whatever the law is we are punishable under it for that refusal. Everything else is irrelevant nitpicking

If this is your best argument, you should consider not starting threads such as this one ever again. It is pretty clear that nobody finds this argument persuasive, and that every single poster to EVC has an effective rebuttal. Yet you rely on this argument, and only this argument, time and time again. Here you tell us in all caps that you have no other point.

If you make a Christmas cake with Santa Claus on it, does that imply that Santa is real? No. All that doing so implies is that you have a customer who wants to purchase such a cake. Making wedding cakes is no different. I could cite any number of similar examples. But the principle in question is this. You obey the law not because you agree with it, but because it is the law. If you choose civil disobedience, then you pay the consequences without whining, but it is history that will judge whether your cause is worthy.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 1:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019