Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

Then... get... a... different... job.

quote:

---

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

---

Same chapter, same context, same cherry tree.And:

quote:

---

Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

---

That one applies to pretty much all of us, doesn't it?How can you single out homosexuality?

Quote all the Vice Lists and explain. I Corinthians 6 was one but you selectively parsed and threw in the "table fellowship " phantom which is a cousin to the "ceremonial " excuse to say that sins a Christian disagrees with is only TEMPORARY or only culturally relevant in the past. Your attempt to bring in the cultural irrelevancy excuse was for a reason that is unique to the chapter 6 vices, that is you have no trouble accepting the sins here as sin (unlike the command for females to cover their heads and to shut up and to not eat meat FOUND ELSEWHERE )but to ignore dealing with what exactly Paul meant when he said all things are lawful in 6:12.

How about you just stop with the personal nonsense? I know. Here are the replies I've given to this position so far:

quote:

---

I've been reading your responses to this thread and you haven't given any examples. You are right, misplaced activism can do more harm than good. But it's irrelevant on the grounds that reporting people for breaking regulations is not activism, it's good citizenship.

---

quote:

---

What do you think is happening that implies gay couples are 'deliberately targeting baking bigots'? Do you have any evidence of this or any other misplaced activism?

---

quote:

---

In the case of same sex marriage is this a risk that has ever manifested? Can you provide the case details?

​

Otherwise what you are saying seems to be 'Gay people should continue to sue bakers who discriminate against them unless at some point I think they shouldn't' Which seems kind of useless.

---

quote:

---

What is the strategy you are suggesting we should take if you think 'sue if you are harmed and can prove it' is not the correct strategy?

​

It sounds like empty nonsense: "Yes do good things, but try and do good things in an optimal way". I've heard better outcomes of management meetings.

---

quote:

---

What *specifically* has happened that you think has backfired? Has anything? Are you worried that the complains from uppity faggots might be 'untimely' or do you have something that isn't passively aggressively supporting the bigots that might actually contribute to the improvement of society on your mind?

​

What has been done that is outside of the optimal strategy?
What has been done that could have been done better?

​

I don't want to hear 'Do more good things in a better way'. Anyone can say that kind of crap. Likewise 'Don't do things that are bad, or at least mitigate the consequences when this does happen' is useless. Regurgitating nice sounding platitudes while telling someone who has been harmed to 'wait' can be just as harmful as misplaced activism. Be specific, provide actual evidence.

---

quote:

---

Is there any reason to suppose this is something that might happen in the case of same sex marriage?

---

quote:

---

It might also turn out to be productive. What good does listing possibilities do, exactly?

---

quote:

---

By all means disagree with something someone has done, but you stop using weasel words like 'might' and 'may' and avoiding discussing particular cases where you feel someone 'might' be doing harm; start being specific. Otherwise I can say that your 'suggestions' might be doing the harm, may be undoing the successes that you seem so concerned with - with as much weight as you have said.

---

quote:

---

So forget about me, this isn't about me. I was talking about Rachel and Laurel. Are you on their side? They sued a bakery {sort of, they raised a formal complaint to BOLI and requested compensation from the service providers}. Their actions are what is being discussed here... If you are on their side, are there any same-sex couples you are not on the side of? Can you please be specific. Who is targeting 'bigoted' bakers? Who are these 'activist gays' who are harming the cause by suing people over a cake? Who is it that is actually doing the suing (note: I've never sued anyone for failure to provide service) that you are not on the side of? Who that is doing the suing *are* you on the side of?

---

quote:

---

I can't be expected to know what behaviour, specifically, you consider potentially problematic, unless you at least give some examples of potentially problematic behaviour. So please do. You must have something in mind when you are talking about this issue - what is it?

---

Each time I ask, you avoid answering. You either seem to want to cast me as some emotionally angry guy with a chip on my shoulder out for exacting revenge who is abusing / threatening you - or you repeat the most banal elements of your position.Why not explain your position with either reference to specific cases - or giving some general guidelines on when raising the issue with consumer protection agencies, industry regulators or the courts 'may' have the negative effect you are thinking of.I mean, if I, or anyone else, was to face this problem who has read this - what do you recommend we do? How would we know if this is a case where making a formal complaint is justified in your view, or if this is a case where it might contribute to some long term counterproductivity?I suspect the reason you avoid it is because you have nothing of substance to say at all. In which case, I can only say that you might be undermining the cause just as much as the hypothetical same-sex couples who also might be engaged in counterproductive actions.To paraphrase MLK:

quote:

---

You deplore some of the legal actions taking place.I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that legal actions are taking place, but it is even more unfortunate that people's bigotry left same-sex couples with little alternative.

​

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a legal action that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of denial of service. For years now I have heard the words "Shrug it off!" It rings in the ear of every queer person with piercing familiarity. This "Shrug it off" has almost always meant "Shutup and stop irritating me." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice ignored is justice denied."

​

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional rights. We still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cake at a cake shop. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of service denial to say, "Calm down dear."

​

When you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why mommy couldn't get the cake and is now crying in her bedroom, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that some cake stores are closed to gay people, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward Christian people. When you have to concoct an answer for your daughter who is asking: "Mommy, why do Christians treat gay people so mean?"

​

Living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to shrug it off. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

​

I must make two honest confessions to you, my brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the straight moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the gay's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the evangelical or the bigoted baker, but the straight moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods" Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

​

I had hoped that the straight moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the straight moderate would understand that the present tension is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the LGBT people passively accepted their unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

​

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate resentment. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate resentment. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

---

I don't avoid answering, I just ignore what you're saying because you've said it half a dozen times and I understood it the first time. I'm not arguing about particular cases which by and large I don't have a problem with. In this case I didn't get passed the bit I quoted. You might want to think about why.A good start would be by reading what I say without presupposing anything stupid about whether I'm 'part of the problem' or not and getting all shouty.I draw your attention to the bits where I feel the need to repeat myself in the hope that you might finally get a general rather than particular point.

Why is this so difficult?It's GAY MARRIAGE that's the problem because of the SCOTUS RULING that requires me to treat it as legitimate which the Bible says I cannot. I'm giving a reason why I can't, because homosexual ACTS are sin, not a sexual variation. Why is this so difficult?

You didn't avoid answering it, you just ignored me? Erm, that's the same thing Tangle.So you have nothing of substance to say then? You don't have a problem with any particular case. So there is no case when a same-sex couple deliberately targeted a bakery? There is no particular case where same-sex couple was overreacting to a trivial matter? But in general this is something that is happening, even though it hasn't happened in any particular case? I'm confused as to what you are trying to communicate here. I expect you did 'get passed' the bit you quoted, but found my asking you for what exactly the problem you are raising is difficult to answer. It was the bit where I expressed once again, that I am seeking clarification of the rather vague position you have put forward.Apparently you don't have a problem with the cases, but after the first one (Except presumably the fictional ones involving gay activists targeting bakers on purpose) everybody else should have just shrugged it off lest they irritate people or something. Can you provide any support that 'irritating' by complaining when public industries breach regulations threatens the very protections being used?

quote:

---

It's a matter of tactics what approach you take to do that but misplaced activism may do more harm than good.

---

You don't have any evidence any misplaced activism is occurring, for instance. Or that any such activism could be doing more harm than good.

quote:

---

There's planty of real campaigns to be fought by whatever means without taking principled stands against bigots that just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive.

---

You can't cite any examples where same-sex couples looked petty or unnecessarily aggressive?

quote:

---

Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.

---

You say it doesn't help, but if it isn't happening who cares? What relevance does it have if its a made up problem? Or can you cite cases that you have in your mind when you say this?

quote:

---

I believe that it's likely to be counter-productive to complain about bigots not baking cakes - to go actively looking for them to make examples.

---

Sill nothing about anyone actively looking for bigoted bakers. No evidence that it is indeed likely to be counerproductive. And it would be churlish of me to ask, it would simply persuade you I wasn't reading your words for me to question them.

quote:

---

LGBTs have won the major argument, so don't go around deliberately targeting baking bigots, it doesn't look good.

---

Yet more claims that have never been backed up that there is some particular effort to deliberately target bigot bakers. Are you just making this problem up?

quote:

---

Now I apparently have to say also that any LGBT with a genuine grieveance and evidence of hurt needs to shout about it.

---

Yet you won't answer the question of which LGBT has genuine greivances and which one are activists deliberately targeting bigots. And did Rachel and Laurel have a genuine grievance? I get the impression the answer is 'no', but it's difficult to get a definite answer on this. Apparently you don't have a problem with a particular case, but at the same time their complaint was over trivia that they should just shrug off.

quote:

---

Cakes and bakers? Not really.

---

Are you suggesting Rachel and Laurel should not have complained? You dance around this point. But it is vital to clarifying your position. On the one hand 'gays should shout' and you aren't saying 'never sue', but on the other you seem to suggest when it comes to cakes and bakers you should sue 'Maybe once, to make the point.' - anyone that follows the first suit should just, presumably 'shrug it off'?

quote:

---

There is a difference between saying 'never do this' and 'do this more strategically'.

---

What does that look like? You haven't answered. If a person is denied service how should they act? What is the correct strategic response? It's not never complain, but it's also not 'complain'. So when should you complain? I still don't have an answer.

quote:

---

it would be a shame if it lost some of its import with the rest of society because of what you will object to me calling an over-reaction to petty bigotry

---

Were Rachel and Laurel overreacting? Did their action endanger the civil protections against denial of service?

quote:

---

I think it's a possibility that people will become irritated if there is continued pursuance of trivial complaints, yes.

---

Will you deal with the non-trivial consequences of the denial of service, rather than shifting focus to the trivial nature of the service itself and the fact it can be sought elsewhere? Who knows? I'm guessing 'no'.

quote:

---

it might turn out to be counterproductive.

---

It might, of course, as I concurred. But it might turn out to be productive, as I said. Do you have anything concrete about which way it will be? Otherwise this is just weasely use of 'might'.After this point you start to descend into personal off topic nonsense. I haven't gotten all shouty. I haven't presupposed you are 'part of the problem', I have stated you might be doing more harm than good and challenged you to do better than this kind of weasel language. I have provided precisely as much evidence that you might be doing harm as you have that same sex couples that take legal action over bakers that deny them service because of their identity. If you think what I said is problematic due to its being spurious, congratulations - that's my point. That's what you have been doing, and exactly what I have been challenging you on.You earlier attempts in this thread seemed to be suggesting a directed and deliberate campaign to target bakers. It appears that you've stepped back from this position, but replaced it with noncommital 'maybes' and 'possibilities'.I have responded to the claims, and 'suggestions' by asking for evidence and for clarification. If I still don't understand perhaps you should stop avoiding, I mean ignoring my requests for clarification.

And yet you objected to the Sweet Cakes by Melissa situation which occurred before the SCOTUS ruling.They were actually performing a civil commitment ceremony.God didn't call it marriage.
The Government didn't call it marriage. The government didn't require Aaron and Melissa Klein to treat it as a legitimate marriage.So what was the problem there?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It's GAY MARRIAGE that's the problem because of the SCOTUS RULING that requires me to treat it as legitimate which the Bible says I cannot

---

So it is all about discriminating against gays. Seriously in what sense does it "require" you to treat gay marriage as "legitimate" when the Bible says you can't ?I mean the Bible doesn't say anything about gays being able to put their partners on their health insurance (even if it seems to upset some "Christians")

Again Faith, reality says you are wrong. The SCOTUS ruling does not require that you treat a same-sex marriage as legitimate. The Bible does not say that you cannot treat a same-sex marriage as legitimate. No one has asked you or the ignorant bakers to treat the same-sex marriage as legitimate.BUT the courts have said that factually a same-sex marriage IS legitimate regardless of how you treat it. Again Faith, reality says you are wrong. No one has asked anyone to perform a homosexual act.Listen, if you want to suffer it's fine. No one has a problem with you guys deciding you want to suffer. But you guys whining about it does seem childish.

I don't believe that there is any such requirement in the SCOTUS ruling.It requires that courts and legislatures treat it as legitimate for the purposes of making legal judgments or enacting laws. It does not impose any requirement on how people view it.

If I go into a bakery and order a wedding cake for my 6 year old's school pageant where she is going to play a character that is getting married, does that force the baker to treat that as a legitimate marriage? Suppose the groom is being played by another girl since none of the boys wanted to have to hold hands with a girl and get girl cooties? Suppose it is done as Kabuki?

I didn't know until your post about it that it was a civil union. Everything I've read about it including most of your posting called it a wedding and speaks of them getting married. As for how to respond to a civil union, I'll have to think about it, but it was a "wedding" cake they ordered.

No.

If I refuse to serve a gay wedding I will be punished. How is that not requiring me to treat gay marriage as legitimate?