Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-25-2019 12:32 PM
36 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, dwise1, jar, JonF, PaulK, Tanypteryx (7 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,395 Year: 15,431/19,786 Month: 2,154/3,058 Week: 12/516 Day: 12/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 341 of 1484 (802626)
03-18-2017 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Faith
03-18-2017 3:39 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Why do you think the Bible should govern the secular definition of marriage?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 3:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 3:57 PM Percy has responded
 Message 356 by JonF, posted 03-18-2017 6:42 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 348 of 1484 (802633)
03-18-2017 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Faith
03-18-2017 3:57 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Why would you think I think that since I've said no such thing?

I'm new to this thread, I must have misunderstood the recent discussion. It sounds like you're okay with a secular definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriage as long as Christians who run businesses can still decide who they're going to serve. And they have the right to do so because it's an act of conscience because the Bible says it's a sin.

But the Biblical definition of marriage you cited in Message 278 (Gen. 2:24, Mark 10:8, Matthew 19:5-6) doesn't say anything about homosexuality being a sin, or that gay marriage is a sin. Think it through. A man who doesn't marry doesn't "cleave to his wife" any more than a gay man does, but you do not consider it a sin to not marry. There's no Biblical pronouncement that a man can cleave only to a wife and nothing else. And the Bible says nothing about who women shall cleave to.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Fix Bible reference. Word typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 3:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 5:21 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 350 of 1484 (802635)
03-18-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by jar
03-18-2017 4:09 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
jar writes:

No mention of marriage there Faith.

If you're referring to Matthew 19:5-6, if the translation "cleave to his wife" is correct, that does seem to be referring to marriage.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by jar, posted 03-18-2017 4:09 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by jar, posted 03-18-2017 4:53 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 357 by JonF, posted 03-18-2017 6:43 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 394 of 1484 (802695)
03-19-2017 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Faith
03-18-2017 5:21 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Faith writes:

Everything in the Bible is to be read in the light of everything else in the Bible because it's all true and one part can't be made to contradict another part.

We've already established many times that this isn't true. We don't believe in stonings, we don't murder witches, insects don't have four legs, etc., etc., etc.

Homosexual acts are clearly forbidden in many places in the Bible. They are treated as sin. The idea that you could somehow sanctify homosexual acts by "marriage" is at least a cruel joke from a Christian point of view.

Have you provided chapter and verse for this, too?

  • The definition is complete as given: it applies to nothing other than a man and a woman.

If the definition were complete and said what you think it says, then it would say it applies to only one man and one woman, but it doesn't. And as I noted earlier, it doesn't even say anything about women.

Really, the only answer to this is that yes, we are subject to the law, and yes in some circumstances we will be forced to disobey it, and yes, in that case we will be punished, giving up all businesses that cater to weddings in some cases, and yes, some people will be very happy to see us punished. Such as AZPaul who is nearly in ecstasy at the thought.

That's all there is to it. If everyone would just agree the thread could be closed.

There have been a good number of compelling arguments that your Bible-based position is both inconsistent and not actually Bible-based, and that therefore anti-discrimination laws are not an attack on Christianity.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 5:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Faith, posted 03-19-2017 10:38 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 401 by Faith, posted 03-19-2017 11:31 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 462 of 1484 (802789)
03-20-2017 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Faith
03-19-2017 11:31 AM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Faith writes:

Those "compelling" arguments may be compelling to you but millions of Bible-believers don't find your objection compelling, and especially those who have actually acted on our Bible-based position and been punished for it. You can't tell us what to believe.

No one's telling you what to believe. You said:

Faith in Message 353 writes:

Everything in the Bible is to be read in the light of everything else in the Bible because it's all true and one part can't be made to contradict another part.

You said "everything in the Bible." Obviously it can't all be true, and when I brought up examples you replied:

It's been explained over and over why most of the OT practices no longer apply today, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE ITSELF.

But not even you believe this. You're fine with some parts of the OT, like Genesis 1, and you're not fine with other parts, such as stonings and witch killings. You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you'll believe and then invent rationalizations for your beliefs that are obvious nonsense, then you have the chutzpah to demand other people accept your nonsense.

I thought it was common knowledge. Here are a few examples:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

You've rejected the OT, and Leviticus is OT, but your other two references are NT and seem to clearly indicate a Biblical basis for considering homosexuality a sin.

The definition is complete as given: it applies to nothing other than a man and a woman.

If the definition were complete and said what you think it says, then it would say it applies to only one man and one woman, but it doesn't. And as I noted earlier, it doesn't even say anything about women.

It doesn't need to. References in the rest of the Bible make it clear if it escapes you as written.

Well, that's great - if you can provide those references and they say what you claim they say then that would settle this discussion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Faith, posted 03-19-2017 11:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 9:55 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 466 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 10:01 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 468 of 1484 (802801)
03-20-2017 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by Faith
03-20-2017 10:01 AM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Faith writes:

I would expect people to accept what a person says about why they believe what they believe...
...
I'm thinking of the many references scattered here and there about marriage, instructions to husbands, wives and children for instance, that all together in the context of the whole Bible should confirm the defrinition as given. I don't know if I could come up with any specific passages that would make the point. If I think of any I will. Otherwise I recommend you spend the rest of your life reading the Bible, commentaries and theology books.

But I do accept why you believe what you believe. You said the Bible says it, you believe it, that settles it. I accept that you think that way. But when asked to support where the Bible says it you can't do it, in this case about where the Bible defines marriage. All you can say is that you believe it, and a lot of other people believe it, too. Well, I don't believe it, and a lot of other people don't believe it, too. So what. What matters is whether you can support what you claim.

It is certainly shared by the majority of conservative Christians today who would agree that God's definition of marriage as I quoted it requires us to refuse to do anything to appear to legitimize gay marriage.

As has been pointed out, gays are not trying to sanctify a marriage such as you think is described in the Bible. They're trying to have a civil marriage.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 10:01 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 11:30 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 476 of 1484 (802810)
03-20-2017 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 470 by Faith
03-20-2017 11:30 AM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Faith writes:

That is untrue. I gave the references on the Bible's definition of marriage in Message 278. It doesn't matter that you aren't convinced, it's the reason conservative Christians object to gay marriage and will act on it when pushed to accept it.

The passages you cited do not say marriage can only be between one man and one woman, and they don't say anything much about women at all. You're unable to produce the passages that might support you, yet you demand we just trust that they exist in the Bible somewhere.

Marriage is marriage, it is defined by God for all peoples in all times no matter what any other authority thinks about it.

You can't make declarations about all peoples of all cultures and religions. I think you have delusions of grandeur, plus you seem to have abandoned your claim that you haven't made up your mind yet about civil marriages.

The Biblical definition is what motivates conservative Christians and you cannot tell us we need to agree with some other definition instead.

No one's asking you to accept some other definition of marriage. We're asking you to support the definition you claim is supposedly in the Bible. If the Bible says it, then you should be able to point to it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 11:30 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 1:34 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 479 of 1484 (802815)
03-20-2017 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Faith
03-20-2017 12:18 PM


Re: Gay marriage is an attack on theocratic tyranny
Faith writes:

Well we do "own the concept," in that God "owns the concept"and the Bible is God's word, but no, I've made no such claim...

You most certainly just have:

Faith in Message 470 writes:

Marriage is marriage, it is defined by God for all peoples in all times no matter what any other authority thinks about it.

You very clearly just declared that marriage is defined by your religious beliefs the same way across all peoples. It is not.

...which is why we get punished for OUR definition.

I think there has been a bit of agreement with you in this thread that people shouldn't be forced to write things that are against their beliefs or philosophy. For example, were I a baker I can imagine being asked to write things on cakes that I just couldn't bring myself to write. I agree that one shouldn't be required to write just anything that anybody requests. On the other hand, one can't refuse to sell a cake to anyone if you're a baker, just as you can't refuse to rent a room if you're a hotel, or seat a customer if you're a restaurant.

Alas, how true, which has been affirmed from the beginning of this thread, it's why we can't object to gay marriage any more, the pagans have won, the world is getting darker by the minute, very very true.

Now you're just being cantankerous. Freedom of religion, which also means freedom from religion, is a good thing. Separation of church and state works in both directions. It not only protects others from your religious beliefs, it also protects you from others' religious beliefs. Everyone is free to practice the religion of their choice, as long as they don't interfere with the freedom of others.

Believe it or not I could not care less what the immediate source of this PC murk is, I don't care where it came from, the only point of this whole thread is that there is a law that legitimizes gay marriage that Christians cannot accept...

The point has been made several times now that you're not being asked to legitimize Christian gay marriage. You're being asked to stop interfering with a couple's right to be united in marriage.

Yup, "justice and freedom" for selected leftist favorites, against the Christian traditions that were once the foundation of law in the West. Hey I've accepted the handwriting on the wall, you're beating a dead horse over and over and over. Paganism has won, we've lost, why not just jump up and down with joy? What's this need to keep on beating us?

TRUE freedom is gone, TRUE justice is gone, TRUE diversity is gone, we are now under totalitarian leftist rule, though nobody here is willing to acknowledge it.

You're hyperventilating again. No one's interfering with your religious practices.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 12:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 2:29 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 480 of 1484 (802816)
03-20-2017 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by Faith
03-20-2017 1:34 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Faith writes:

I don't "demand" anything.
...
I certainly CAN make declarations about all peoples and all cultures because there is one God over them all.

Contradict yourself much?

YOU can believe what you want but this is what God's word says and I'm not going to pretend it doesn't.

No one's asking you to pretend that God's word doesn't say precisely what you think it does, but the key word is "think." It's what you *think* the Bible says. Other people think differently, and you have to acknowledge that.

The fact remains that conservative Christians understand the passages already quoted to require us to deny gay marriage.

Yet you can't show us where those passages are in the Bible.

The problem is not my inability to show the principle in the Bible, the problem as usual is the obtuseness of people who don't believe the Bible.

You shouldn't blame other people for your own inability to support what you claim.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 1:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 508 of 1484 (802851)
03-20-2017 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 486 by Faith
03-20-2017 2:29 PM


Re: Gay marriage is an attack on theocratic tyranny
Faith writes:

Nobody is refusing "to sell a cake"...
...
...it's the cake itself as a symbol of a wedding we cannot accept as legitimate.

The two excerpts above appear to be going in opposite directions, so it's hard to tell what it is you're actually saying. Would fundamentalist Christians with a bakery sell a wedding cake with no writing to a gay couple? If not then you *are* refusing to sell a cake.

But they can interfere with ours, sue us etc., if we act on ours against their point of view. Theirs isn't even called a "religious" opinion yet it's protected against ours.

But it's not religious at that point. When you open a bakery to sell to the public at large then you have entered the secular world where you must follow secular laws. You can't select a subset of the public to sell to.

TRUE freedom is gone, TRUE justice is gone, TRUE diversity is gone, we are now under totalitarian leftist rule, though nobody here is willing to acknowledge it.

Still inflated and exaggerated. You're just encouraging people to call you names back. I think you need to look up totalitarian.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 2:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2017 6:07 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 516 by Faith, posted 03-21-2017 12:30 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 524 of 1484 (802875)
03-21-2017 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by PaulK
03-21-2017 3:47 AM


Re: Tim Allen, the latest victim of totalitarian PC
Replying to both Message 516 and Message 520.

Faith writes:

It is NOT "a subset of the public" not being served, it's a PARTICULAR SERVICE that is refused, like refusing to write "Same Sex Marriage is a Great Thing" on a cake.

This adds to my confusion over which situation you're talking about: writing on a cake or selling a cake. I'm sympathetic about the particular message requested for a cake, but refusing to sell a cake is a denial of service. Once you open a bakery to the public you can't do that. Or for another example, two gays are in a restaurant celebrating their first anniversary and request a mini-cake with a candle just like the mini-cake served at the next table for a heterosexual couple's first anniversary. They can't be refused because the restaurant is open to the public.

It's also inconsistent, as has been pointed out before, to sell other bakery items to gays but not wedding cakes. You quoted the Bible saying homosexuality is an abomination, so providing any service to gays should be abhorrent to Christians like yourself. It would be more consistent to object to having them in your bakery at all, though even more bigoted and discriminatory.

Totalitarianism is basically forcing people to conform to a particular belief system, political viewpoint, etc. Political Correctness is totalitarianism. Forcing a secular point of view on religious people is a form of totalitarianism.

You've defined totalitarianism correctly, but political correctness is not totalitarianism, and secular points of view are not being forced upon you. Everyone, including you, is still guaranteed the free practice of their religion as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Modulous introduced the concept of primacy to this thread. Where people of the various religions and no religion come together is the secular world, and while in the secular world you must follow secular norms and laws. The real problem for you isn't political correctness but that the secular norm you liked (gays are bad) has evolved to a norm you don't like (gays are just like us).

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2017 3:47 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2017 9:09 AM Percy has responded
 Message 529 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2017 10:58 AM Percy has responded
 Message 533 by Faith, posted 03-21-2017 12:15 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 527 of 1484 (802881)
03-21-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 525 by herebedragons
03-21-2017 9:09 AM


Re: Tim Allen, the latest victim of totalitarian PC
I agree that too big a deal is being made by both sides over the cake, but not over the principles involved. I agree that artistic efforts should not be coerced, but there will still be issues at the boundaries. The baker who bakes his own cakes can probably claim artistic privilege regarding any special requests or the message, but should the grocery store employee with a pre-made cake be coerced to write, "Best of luck in your marriage Chuck and Dave"? There seems a great deal of ambiguity and uncertainty about where to draw the line.

But though I'm not trying to slice the details as finely as that, there still seem boundary issues, and I think there will always be boundary issues. To my mind it's not right for a public business to deny service on the basis of race, color, creed or sexual preferences. Not selling a cake to a gay couple planning to get married is wrong, but not baking a custom cake starts falling into the realm of artistic privilege to me. If the requested cake would look like any other wedding cake, denying service seems wrong. But if the request is to put, say, two figures of the same sex at the top, then I'd say that artistic privilege includes the right to refuse making such an expression. I'll bet in many parts of the country that getting a reputation for baking gay cakes would be bad for business.

We'll never find the one right place to draw the line. Someone's rights or beliefs will always be infringed to some degree, and if danders get high enough then presidents, courts and legislatures will decide where to put the line.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by herebedragons, posted 03-21-2017 9:09 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 540 of 1484 (802901)
03-21-2017 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by NoNukes
03-21-2017 10:58 AM


Re: Tim Allen, the latest victim of totalitarian PC
NoNukes writes:

You replied to two Faith messages in a reply to a single PaulK message. I don't suppose there is an easy way to fix that.

Sigh. Apologies to all. No, there's no easy way to fix it. In fact, it's well neigh impossible manually. The message posting code locks and updates several database tables simultaneously.

Fortunately it looks like Faith found the reply.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2017 10:58 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 543 of 1484 (802905)
03-21-2017 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by Faith
03-21-2017 12:15 PM


Re: Tim Allen, the latest victim of totalitarian PC
Faith writes:

The issue of writing has not been part of this discussion on this thread,...

Sure it has, you introduced it yourself in your Message 469, bolding and underlining this quote from The Guardian article I’ve changed my mind on the gay cake row. Here’s why:

quote:
His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for.

Then in your Message 486 you brought it up again:

Faith in Message 486 writes:

Please consider the thinking of the writer of the Guardian piece (Or Message 469). He started out defending the gays against the bakery and ended up defending the bakery's right to their religious view of gay marriage. In that case it was writing on a cake, in the American cases it's the cake itself as a symbol of a wedding we cannot accept as legitimate.

So you introduced the issue of writing on this thread yourself. If you'd like to drop it then that's fine, mums the word for me, no more mention of writing on cakes unless you bring it up again.

I'm sure that if the customer wanted a message on the cake celebrating Hitler Week...

There you go mentioning writing out of the blue again. Is this an issue for you or not? Make up your mind.

In the main cases under discussion that happens to be a custom-made wedding cake, but it may not be the only case that is problematic because of legitimizing gay marriage in the baker's mind.

That's the whole problem, that you're making it a function of what's in someone's mind. You think that if someone has good reasons in their own mind for discriminating then it is okay, but it's not. A baker doesn't have to have gays in his church, but if he tries to keep gays out of his bakery or refuse them service that he'd provide to anyone else then that's discrimination in the eyes of the law. If you'd like to believe the baker is right in the eyes of God I'd refer you to Jesus, who had no problem with harlots and sinners of all sorts. "Let he who is without sin refuse service to gays," Jesus would probably say.

This is not about any kind of sin, homosexual sin or heterosexual sin or anything else. It's about the ordinance of marriage and absolutely nothing else. The point of homosexual acts being sin is that it is one of the things that disqualify homosexuals from MARRIAGE.

Being gay is inextricably entwined with gay marriage. The word "gay" is right there in "gay marriage," which is in the thread title. You can't talk about gay marriage without talking about being gay.

So, again, it isn't about writing,...

I hope that's a final decision this time.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by Faith, posted 03-21-2017 12:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18810
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 556 of 1484 (802934)
03-22-2017 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 552 by Faith
03-21-2017 6:22 PM


Re: The Main Points
Faith writes:

The gay activist who wrote the piece in The Guardian brought out the important point, that it is not discrimination against people. I think that ought to become the understanding of these cases.

Just for reference here's that article again.

The Guardian article, as PaulK also reminds you, is about writing on a cake, and you titled your post "The Main Points". Would you make up your mind, please, whether writing is an issue for you? You said it wasn't an issue for you in your last post to me, so there were points I didn't raise, but now here you are introducing writing again.

Replying also to Message 554, Jesus would march into the bakery, buy the cake for the gay couple, then push over all the bakery displays. He didn't believe that showing love for his fellow man was an endorsement of anything.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by Faith, posted 03-21-2017 6:22 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-22-2017 10:46 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 561 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 12:39 PM Percy has responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019