|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
The whole basis for the claim that gay marriage is an attack on Christianity is based on the fact that a few Christian business openers have decided to defy State anti-discrimination laws and refuse to provide services to gay weddings.
In terms of both the scale and the limited connection to the Supreme Court decision this is absurd. That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered. Indeed Faith herself puts any real concern for these people behind their use as a weapon against gay marriage - as seen by her refusal to even understand the laws under which they were convicted. And that is far from the worst of her behaviour. But behaving badly does no better in making a case than ignoring the facts. Faced with intelligent, informed and rational opposition Faith was reduced to ranting and raving and finally running away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Faith really considered that ? I doubt it very much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
You seem to have not noticed that I was discussing Faith's attempts to argue for her position.
quote: As I said, it was "a fact brought out in this discussion". However since Faith has great difficulty understanding quite simple passages from the Bible it seems rather futile to hope that she would be persuaded, no matter how sound the arguments. Edited by PaulK, : Correct "autocorrect"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: That's because you didn't.
quote: I certainly do.
quote: You should also notice that my post is in a thread started by Faith to make the claim that "Gay Marriage is an assault in Christianity" and the first sentence describes her argument in the OP.
quote: Which simply demonstrates another failure to read in context on your part. As should be clear from my earlier posts the assertion that "...it is not considered..." applies to Faith's argument. You clearly have not noticed this despite being corrected. So your assertion that you DID notice is trivially false - because you did not, even after I pointed it out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: I certainly did. Too bad you didn't read mine. To repeat you STILL have not noticed that when I wrote
...That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.
I was referring to Faith's argument.
quote: Do you like appearing as an obtuse idiot who can't admit his errors even when they are pointed out ? Because that is what you are doing.
quote: And as I keep pointing out you didn't notice that it was about Faith's argument. Did you not notice that every sentence preceding it, as well as the post title itself was about Faith's argument ? Did you not notice me pointing out your mistake again and again ?
quote: Let me try rephrasing. One of the problems with Faith's argument is that she fails to consider that the business owners would be better off seeing that they do not have to discriminate on the grounds of religion. Which would certainly be true if they were duped by the opponents of gay marriage into believing that they had a religious duty to discriminate. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
And you are wrong again. Obviously if you had realised that I WAS talking about Faith's argument (after being told repeatedly) you wouldn't have to ask.
As to where we go from here, you can admit that you were wrong, that you were ridiculously obtuse and apologise for all this silly time-wasting nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I'm not running away.
But really what can be said to a lying bully who thinks he gets to dictate what I meant ? Even Faith hasn't sunk quite that low. Remember, everyone can see your posts. They can see me correcting you again and again, they can see you trying to pretend you are right despite all that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Since you can't even manage to work out which law you are objecting to it seems rather more likely to me that a lot of the upset comes precisely from a failure to dictate to the government. "Christians" have spewed a lot of lies and hate to try to prevent gays getting rights and it is rather hard to believe that the anger over the SCOTUS decision has nothing to do with the fact that it marked the failure of those efforts. It is a fact that the SCOTUS decision in itself did not provide grounds for any prosecutions - all of them are based in State anti-discrimination laws. It is a fact that the prosecutions could have occurred even without the SCOTUS decision. So why blame the SCOTUS decision rather than the State laws ? Why even think that the prosecutions could happen anywhere when there are States where gays are not legally protected from this sort of discrimination?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
In reality it is all about gay rights.
"Christians" have been fighting against gay rights for a while now, and this is just part of it. That is why your position doesn't make sense.
quote: You know, I don't think that God has ever offered an opinion on the meaning of English words let alone passed a law that dictates a particular definition for one.
quote: Which particular human law ? And where did God put a law that forbade baking cakes ?
quote: Except we know that isn't true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Gay marriage does nothing to interfere with that in any way. That is so obvious that no sane person could deny it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
In fact we are pointing out that your "Biblical definition of marriage" is irrelevant.
And if you don't care whether your stated reasons are valid or not then they obviously aren't your real reasons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: But it isn't just an opinion. It is rather obvious that allowing gay marriage does nothing to stop,anyone who wants to from getting married in a way you find acceptably "Biblical"
quote: It doesn't seem to have much to do with it at all. SCOTUS dealt with marriage as a legal matter. You can consider gay marriages to be invalid in religious terms all you like - but how you get from that to not baking cakes for gay wedding receptions needs rather more explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Probably because I'm not gullible enough to fall for silly lies. Really, why does it matter if the legal rights associated with marriage are extended to gay couples ? That IS the real issue. It is certainly what SCOTUS decided.
quote: The Bible offers an idea of marriage (or more than one, really). But why should you care if secular society recognises others ?
quote: So it's just like Sharia law. Religious authority has to dictate civil law or you will protest. Perhaps you can show Biblical authority for that, but I doubt it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Now, now Faith you're putting it backwards. Secular society decided to recognise other forms of marriage. Some Christians decided to protest against this by refusing to provide related services - even though there were existing laws which required them to provide such services. If they didn't care enough to break the law, they wouldn't be criminals. So why do they care ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And you lie again.
quote: If I meant that I would have said it. Don't forget, people can go back and read my posts.
quote: I've been pointing out your misinterpretation from that start. I have tried a rephrasing.
quote: So everyone can see that you're a liar. I suppose that makes you very proud,
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024