Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

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.

quote:

---

Wow, are you off there. It is most definitely considered.

---

Faith really considered that ? I doubt it very much.

You seem to have not noticed that I was discussing Faith's attempts to argue for her position.

quote:

---

We who are engaging in Faith have tried to help her "see that her objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine.

---

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"

quote:

---

You seem to have not noticed that I dealt with that, too

---

That's because you didn't.

quote:

---

However, you didn't start off with that. Remember, we can see your posts

---

I certainly do.

quote:

---

You will note that Faith isn't mentioned. That comes later. So I responded to that one point first.

---

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:

---

Now, I'l admit that I was leaving it ambiguous that I was responding to this point because I didn't directly quote it. But for you to say that I "have not noticed that you were discussing Faith's attempts to argue for her position" is trivially proven false.

---

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.

quote:

---

Except that I did. You know..that part where I specifically called her out by name? That's where I did.

​

You did read my post before responding, didn't you?

---

I certainly did. Too bad you didn't read mine.To repeat you STILL have not noticed that when I wrote I was referring to Faith's argument.

quote:

---

Do you not understand anything about rhetoric? My god, you just said that we can see the posts, and yet here you are pretending like we can't. Do you just really like to see posts repeated

---

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:

---

You'll see that I was focusing on a particular point you made:

---

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:

---

Here's a thought: Were you trying to say that "is not considered" is applicable to Faith or to those fighting against bigotry? Think about my response, because I deal with both aspects. Faith won't accept it (nor should she have to) and the people fighting have tried.

---

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

Of course this thread isn't about Christians dictating anything, it's about a law dictating to Christians, forcing us by law to accept something that is against our Christian conscience, forcing us to refuse to obey it and therefore be punished.

---

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?

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:

---

It isn't about sin, it's about the definition of marriage

---

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:

---

... thread is about a particular law that puts Christians in the position of having to choose between God's law and human law

---

Which particular human law ? And where did God put a law that forbade baking cakes ?

quote:

---

Again, there may be lots of situations that put a Christian's conscience to the test, but a law legalizing same-sex marriage is guaranteed to do that.

---

Except we know that isn't true.

quote:

---

It runs counter to the clear Biblical statement that God calls a man to leave his parents and cleave to his wife, by which they two become one flesh.

---

Gay marriage does nothing to interfere with that in any way. That is so obvious that no sane person could deny it.

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.

quote:

---

But I disagree with your opinion.

---

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:

---

The Biblical definition I gave is what it is ALL about, and your disagreeing makes no difference

---

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.

quote:

---

It's perfectly clear to those who have disobeyed the law, so you shouldn't need any explanation or if you do it's probably beyond anyone's ability to succeed at explaining it to you.

---

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 Biblical law defines marriage

---

The Bible offers an idea of marriage (or more than one, really). But why should you care if secular society recognises others ?

quote:

---

A Christian who believes the Bible definition is authoritative will not do anything to appear to treat any other idea of marriage as legitimate.

---

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.

quote:

---

You mean besides the fact that we are citizens of that secular society and the law sets us up to be criminals because of what we believe?

---

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 ?

quote:

---

And yet your tail is between your legs.

---

And you lie again.

quote:

---

You mean you didn't write the things you wrote?

---

If I meant that I would have said it. Don't forget, people can go back and read my posts.

quote:

---

If you didn't mean it what you wrote, why did you write it? If you think you've been misinterpreted, why don't you rephrase?

---

I've been pointing out your misinterpretation from that start. I have tried a rephrasing.

quote:

---

Remember, everyone can see your posts. They can see me quoting you again and again. They can see you trying to pretend that you didn't write what you wrote.

---

So everyone can see that you're a liar. I suppose that makes you very proud,