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 11:58 AM
38 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 32 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: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 1484 (802278)
03-14-2017 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Tangle
03-14-2017 9:38 AM


Re: related issues
I'm saying that 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. Pick more strategic targets, make a point of standing above the bigots not simply against them and impress reasoned and reasonable people with your cause and demeaner.

To me, it's not about not baking the cake.

That would have been so easy to get away with if they had just said: "No thank you, I'm tired and don't feel like baking a cake right now."

But they didn't. Instead, they took a stand and said that they could not perform the service because the patrons were gay.

I can see why people would want to squash that.

If they would have quietly been bigots then we wouldn't be talking about this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 9:38 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 03-14-2017 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 140 by Theodoric, posted 03-14-2017 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 143 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 1:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 148 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 3:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 1484 (802283)
03-14-2017 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by ringo
03-14-2017 12:30 PM


Re: related issues
"When bigotry is outlawed, only outlaws will be bigots."

Only if you start legislating thought...

Bigoted behavior may be outlawed, but you're not going to end bigotry, itself, with laws.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 03-14-2017 12:30 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 03-14-2017 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 149 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 3:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 1484 (802338)
03-15-2017 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 3:28 PM


Re: related issues
you think anti-discrimination laws are the problem.

Wrong again; I don't think that at all.

Its obvious that you're more interested in a strawman version of what you'd prefer me thinking than what I actually think, so I'm done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 3:28 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 1484 (802418)
03-16-2017 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Rrhain
03-15-2017 5:05 PM


Re: related issues
Yeah, I'm not gonna read all your psycho-analysis bullshit. And correcting your misunderstandings of what I think is too laborsome.

I don't think anti-discrimination laws are totalitarian.
I don't have a problem with anti-discrimination laws.
I do think we could get along without them.
And its the approach, or tactic, that is being employed that I am calling totalitarian, not the laws themselves.

As far as things I've said that are trivially shown to be false, you've spent way more time telling me what I think than getting around to actually proving anything, so I doubt it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 5:05 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 3:35 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 1484 (802501)
03-17-2017 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by AZPaul3
03-17-2017 5:06 AM


Re: FYI
Your Christian conscience is borne of hate, ill will and malice toward fellow human beings.

I dunno, man. You're the one cheering death. Just sayin'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by AZPaul3, posted 03-17-2017 5:06 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 1484 (802551)
03-17-2017 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Faith
03-17-2017 12:05 PM


Re: Biblical sources of the marriage ordinance
None of this is about personal sins, it's about the ordinance of marriage given by God. It isn't about people being gay, it's about marriage and God's definition of it.

Out of curiosity, could you point me to where God clearly defines what constitutes marriage in His opinion? That would be helpful, thanks.

Genesis 2:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

And Jesus quotes it where He's preaching against divorce:

Matthew 19:5-6 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Also in Mark 10:8

The Bible doesn't limit that to marriage, it works on whores too:

quote:
1 Cor 16
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 03-17-2017 12:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Faith, posted 03-17-2017 4:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 299 by Theodoric, posted 03-17-2017 4:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 483 of 1484 (802819)
03-20-2017 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 470 by Faith
03-20-2017 11:30 AM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Marriage is marriage, it is defined by God for all peoples in all times no matter what any other authority thinks about it. Gays CALL it "marriage," they refer to their "wedding," I've even been told by a gay guy about his male "wife" -- that is how THEY think about it so don't pull a semantic trick here.

You can't have it both ways, Faith. If it isn't a real marriage then people shouldn't have a problem servicing it.

If people get to have a problem servicing it, then it should be considered a real marriage.

But simultaneously saying it is not a real marriage and that people should get to have a problem servicing it looks bad.


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 487 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 484 of 1484 (802820)
03-20-2017 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Rrhain
03-19-2017 3:35 AM


Re: related issues
quote:
Yeah, I'm not gonna read all your psycho-analysis bullshit. And correcting your misunderstandings of what I think is too laborsome.

So when you wrote what you wrote, you didn't actually write it? When you directly said what I quoted you as saying, you didn't actually mean it?

Is English not your first language? Or do you have problems reading, or something?

Of course what I wrote is what I wrote, what I meant though, is open to interpretation.

You have failed miserably at interpreting what I meant from what I wrote. It's, like, the opposite sometimes.

Either you have some severe mental disabilities or you're a liar.

And yet you have been quoted as saying that directly.

No, you've interpreted what I wrote to mean what you wanted it to mean.

If you're not retarded then that is dishonest.

But, let's assume you're walking it all back and want to start again.

Let's not.

You're simply not worth my time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 3:35 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 489 of 1484 (802827)
03-20-2017 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by Faith
03-20-2017 2:32 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
We don't want to do ANYTHING that even MAKES IT LOOK LIKE we accept gay marriage as legitimate.

What!? Really? It's your appearance that you're worried about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 2:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 3:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 492 of 1484 (802832)
03-20-2017 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by Faith
03-20-2017 3:28 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
I said "even" makes it look like...

Sorry, I didn't see it over the shouting.

In other words we don't want EVEN to create the impression that we are in favor of gay marriage.

Wow. That's, just, sad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 3:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 618 of 1484 (803045)
03-23-2017 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 592 by Percy
03-22-2017 4:17 PM


Re: The Main Points
Writing a message is the only objection that makes sense. One shouldn't be compelled to write things one doesn't believe.

But someone should be compelled to sell something they don't believe in? Genuine question, what is it about writing something, but not selling something, that makes it make sense to avoid compelling someone to do it?

If you look at selling the thing as providing a service to the public, and therefore must be provided without discrimination, then why not also include writing the thing as a service that must be provided without discrimination?

I'm asking in principle, I understand that speech is explicitly protected and selling isn't. But I'm not sure I really see the difference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by Percy, posted 03-22-2017 4:17 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 619 by jar, posted 03-23-2017 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 628 by Percy, posted 03-23-2017 11:16 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 620 of 1484 (803047)
03-23-2017 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 591 by Percy
03-22-2017 4:12 PM


Re: The Main Points
Would Jesus support same sex marriage? I don't know, the Bible writers didn't include any stories that tell us.

Look at what Jesus said about divorce:

quote:
From Matthew 19:

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.


Jesus is saying that there are people who are born in a way, or have chosen to be, where they opt out of "godly" marriage, and that if they cannot accept the godly marriage then that is okay, the ones who can accept it are the ones who should.

I think that leaves room for allowing a secular marriage between gays.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by Percy, posted 03-22-2017 4:12 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 644 of 1484 (803073)
03-23-2017 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 628 by Percy
03-23-2017 11:16 AM


Re: The Main Points
New Cat's Eye writes:

But someone should be compelled to sell something they don't believe in?

I think maybe you meant to ask this differently, like whether someone should be compelled to sell to someone engaged in a practice they object to?

No. You think its okay to say the baker is wrong to refuse to sell a cake for a gay wedding, but it is also okay for a person to refuse to write something promoting homosexuality - speech is protected, selling services is not.

The question is what it is about speech, but not providing a service, that means speech ought to be protected but services not? Or, what is it about providing services that means they should not be protected in the way that speech is?

Also, if the service that you offer is a form of speech, does that change it? Or does it still count as speech and is therefore protected?

What if the service of baking a cake was determined to be a form of speech? Would that then mean that cake baking would be protected too?

Phrased more generally the question is whether there can be legitimate reasons for a business to select which members of the public it will serve and which it won't. With the exception of things like bars selling drinks to drunks or convenience stores selling cigarettes to minors, it's deemed discrimination and businesses aren't allowed to do that.

Also if we're talking about speech, then its protected and you shouldn't be compelled to do it, no? Like writing a particular message on a cake, that can be refused.

Plus there's freedom of speech - compelling someone to write something he finds abhorrent doesn't sound very free.

But neither does creating something that you find abhorrent. But speech is protected and providing services is not.

My question is what is the difference between speech and service providing such that one is protected and one isn't. Too, if the service is speech, then is it protected or not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 628 by Percy, posted 03-23-2017 11:16 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 664 by Percy, posted 03-24-2017 8:36 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 665 of 1484 (803124)
03-24-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 664 by Percy
03-24-2017 8:36 AM


Re: The Main Points
You mean what if the Supreme Court ruled that cake baking was a form of speech, the way they ruled money is a form of speech? Yes, then that would mean that cake baking is protected, too.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Speech is the expression of an idea, and one shouldn't be compelled to express ideas one objects to.

And if the service provider says that the service they are providing is expressing an idea they object to?

Does that need to be determined? Or can we take their word for it?

Can creating a particular cake for a particular reason be consider expressing an idea? Or does it require writing something?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by Percy, posted 03-24-2017 8:36 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2017 4:10 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 703 of 1484 (803207)
03-27-2017 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 682 by NoNukes
03-24-2017 4:10 PM


Re: The Main Points
Once the Supreme Court rules on something, then it is reasonable to incorporate that into the calculation. But when you just make up hypotheticals you are on your own.

That's weird. Are we just automatons following the SC's protocols, or are we thinking humans talking about this stuff?

If the SC ruled that, would everyone just shrug and go: "Huh, I guess we were wrong, the bakers should be able to refuse this service."?

The Supreme Court at some future point could rule for or against any particular action being speech. In some cases the rulings about what is speech and what is not speech, (for example flag burning) are controversial. At this point, there is no ruling that baking a wedding cake is speech.

The questions were what you, personally, think it ought to be. I'm not seeing much of a line between writing a speach and designing a cake.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2017 4:10 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2017 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 708 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2017 6:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet 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