Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

No "different perspective" is possible. The Bible is clear and that's not going to change. How would you have the business model to be changed slightly? How do you make a business into something that is not a public accommodation? But more to the point why should Christians have to be forced to give up anything because a tiny minority has to have things their way? Why do civil rights only apply to your little group and not my group? That is so bogus. A little creative thought could have provided such protections without destroying the role of marriage. The goal WAS the destruction of marriage, even if you don't quite share that goal yourself. In any case there could have been other solutions but a vindictive spirit against Christanity was more important than those supposed benefits. For health insurance there is even a Christian model that has created a pool people pay into to take care of catastrophic illnesses. Surely the LGBT community could have come up with something like that. There are other forms of contracts than marriage too. But no, the whole point was to kill marriage. Congratulations, you succeeded.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't follow that argument. How does allowing gays to marry in any way change the marriage of straights?Are the straight forced to marry same-sex? Do the straight in any way lose rights?I think that allowing divorce without proof of abuse or infidelity, allowing remarriage after divorce, and giving rights to straight but unmarried couples kill marriage by giving straights the options to avoid the "til death do us part" commitment.

It's the concept, the definition of marriage that is destroyed. Marriage was instituted for a man and a woman, who are designed to become "one flesh" as the Bible defines marriage. This has been said so many times on this thread I don't get why it needs to be repeated.However I agree with you about other ways marriage has been destroyed, which is almost an argument that we should just kill it off altogether. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith.In terms of an analogy, let me run this one past you.As I understand your past posts, you don't believe that Catholics are true Christians. But the country recognises their faith as Christian, allows their churches charitable status (I think), allows them to conduct legally binding ceremonies etc. It affords their churches the same status it affords yours.Does that recognition by the US of Catholicism destroy Christianity for you ?

The existence of people with a different perspective suggests otherwise. If the Bible said 'thou shalt not bake cakes for gay marriages' I'd agree. It doesn't. You have an interpretation, but it isn't the only legitimate one. You may never change, but changing ones mind about what they thought about the Bible is an option that some have chosen before. Bake all the other things that are not wedding cakes. Just like countless other bakeries have. Laws on this may vary. You could start by not being membership only, having a membership fee, having membership rules, associate yourself with a church and don't serve non-members. Things of that nature.The Boy Scouts of America were legally allowed to discriminate against gays, for instance. The Jews make up a tiny minority. Clearly the size of the minority should not be a factor in whether a religious group, say Muslims, should be allowed to discriminate against them. They apply to us both equally. I can't discriminate against Christians, even if I disagree with them. I can't take away your freedoms. I can however insist that your freedom is limited such that you cannot take away my freedoms.Would your entire argument suddenly fail if there were only 500,000 people in the USA that agreed with you? The role of marriage has clearly not been destroyed. It wasn't, it was to get the same protections, benefits and legal powers as others enjoy. Well - I suppose we could have argued that all legal rights, privileges and benefits of marriage be removed from heterosexuals. But that seems more destructive than asking to share in them. I'm not sure how something like that would give someone the right to make medical decisions when their partner is incapacitated, to visit them when they are sick and so on. The only solutions are to remove government from marriage, or include gays in marriage. Nobody wanted the former, so the latter was all that remained.And that still doesn't give anyone the right to discriminate. Even if marriage was removed from governmental affairs, you have suggested that even if gay people call their commitment ceremonies a 'marriage' then a refusal could be merited. So there you have it. The only compromise you'll accept is the one where our freedom and equality is curtailed and the Christians get to act in whatever way they choose without penalty. If only people had treated those forms of contract as equal this might have worked. But alas! The Bowman-Cryers were entering a private commitment and still they were refused service. *looks around* - Seems that marriage is as it ever was. In what way is it dead?

If you'd said"It's the concept, the definition of marriage that is destroyed, for me."I think we could all understand, or at least accept, that you have a sincerely held belief, daft though we think it. The only squabble we have is that you try to project your beliefs on the rest of us. And you do that as if it's you're right.I have sympathies for the beliefs and practices of all minorities but they must all be wrapped within a common set of rules that allow all to prosper. One sect's beliefs can not overwhelm all others - no matter how sincerely held.You have a belief, fine, but you have to rub along with others that don't have that belief, surely you understand that?

The other important point is that no Christian in the US was forced to change their religious beliefs. I doubt that the bakers suddenly changed their beliefs to think gay marriage was just fine. If that had happened they would have simply baked the wedding cake; but they didn't.No one has even tried or suggested that they had to change their beliefs.What has been said is that if they wish to have a public business they must treat all people equally regardless of their personal beliefs.

dupEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

The perspective held by those who must refuse service for a gay marriage isn't going to change. It's Bible based. Other perspectives are irrelevant. You don't get to tell us what interpretation is legitimate. Why do you keep doing this? The Bible defines marriage for conservative Christians and that's not going to change. Stop saying silly things about baking cakes. ANY service for a gay wedding is the problem. A wedding cake is one of many possibilities, it just happens to have been the cause that brought ruin on a bakery in at least two cases.Oh yeah, OK, just give up on serving weddings because a selfish little minority group that's invented itself out of thin air has to have their way.There are other ways to get the benefits you want without destroying the biblical definition of marriage. All it should take to get the right to a medical opinion is a written permission on the hospital's books or on a legal form you have drawn up. Really, this isn't rocket science, but you had to destroy marriage, marriage as defined as a matter of fact in all times and places.The Bowman-Cryers wanted a WEDDING CAKE. They considered themnselves to be entering into a MARRIAGE. Stop playing with irrelevant semantics.Civil rights for Jews doesn't force me to give up mine, but gay marriage does.

The selfish little minority group in this case is the gay-haters who call themselves "Christian".

Sorry Faith but that is simply not true. Gay marriage does not force anyone to give up their beliefs no matter how many times you make that claim.

Oh yeah now we get the PC attack. Last refuge of the demented Left.

I still don't get it. I stood before the altar, in front of my family & friends (and hers) and promised to be with my wife til death do us part.For almost 30 years I have been faithful, I have stayed with her, I have loved her through good & bad (admittedly not much bad compared to others).Why? Because I am this marriage. Whether the couple next door is Adam & Eve or Adam & Steve does not affect how I am married.

Funny you keep lying about something that has been proved over and over here. You keep thinking you can force your own definition onto me? Get a clue.

Good for you. Now see if you can stretch your mind to grasp a point of view that's not your own. It's been spelled out often enough. Just exert a little effort.