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 11:37 AM
32 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (5 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,394 Year: 15,430/19,786 Month: 2,153/3,058 Week: 11/516 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 3 of 1484 (802090)
03-12-2017 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-12-2017 7:23 AM


False equivalence
quote:

Except for the fact that the punishment is mild compared to torture, beheading, being eaten by lions and buried alive, there is nothing in principle different between a Christian's being required to worship Caesar or Nebuchadnezzar and being required to do something that to the Christian conscience implies acceptance of anything else that God has absolutely forbidden, such as gay marriage.

There is a huge difference between active participation and acceptance. The required involvement only applies (where it applies at all) to businesses supplying services. There is a huge difference between supplying services and actively engaging in forbidden sexual activity. I might suggest that eating meat from pagan sacrifices is a similar form of acceptance, yet that is explicitly permitted to Christians,

Further, the real complaint is against anti-discrimination laws, not gay marriage as such, so the title is obviously misleading. And I have to assume intentionally so since this is hardly the first time that error has been made - and corrected.

So, since gay marriage does not require Christians to do anything "absolutely forbidden by God" the whole complaint is clearly false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:23 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:48 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 15 of 1484 (802102)
03-12-2017 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
03-12-2017 7:48 AM


Re: False equivalence
quote:

How amazing that nonChristians believe they can tell us what it means to be obedient to God or not. What chutzpah.

Pure ad-hominem. And absolutely no valid argument.

quote:

At least five different Christian business owners independently understood that it was forbidden by God to use their business to cater a gay wedding, but any old unbeliever can tell us they're wrong.

Five is not exactly many, and owning a business hardly makes you well-versed in the Bible. And given the hostility towards gay marriage from the right it is hardly unlikely that their objections come more from listening to politicians than reading the Bible.

quote:

No it is not about general "discrimination," it's specifically about gay marriage. And again, who are you to tell us what it's about?

I am an honest person who hates lies. Obviously it is about the non-discrimination laws since those are the laws that are being broken. Where gay marriage is allowed but the laws do not protect gays against discrimination there are none of these prosecutions that you are complaining about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:48 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 8:55 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 19 of 1484 (802107)
03-12-2017 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
03-12-2017 8:55 AM


Re: False equivalence
As I said, no prosecutions without the anti-discrimination laws.


“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal,” Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian said in the final order.

The Guardian


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 8:55 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 9:14 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 30 of 1484 (802118)
03-12-2017 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
03-12-2017 9:14 AM


Re: False equivalence
I keep repeating the fact that you are complaining more about the anti-discrimination laws than gay marriage because you keep insisting otherwise.

The fact that the case you mentioned as a supposed counter-example is nothing of the sort is certainly something that ought to be mentioned. You may not like being proved wrong but in that case the honest thing to do is to make more effort to get your facts right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 9:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 75 of 1484 (802172)
03-12-2017 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
03-12-2017 4:56 PM


Re:
It seems to me that going against this supposed ordinance would require interfering with heterosexual couples marrying. Allowing gay marriage does not do that.

And there is no ordinance prohibiting the government from granting the purely secular legal status of marriage to gay couples.

You'd have a better case that the ban on polygamy is a violation of "God's ordinance"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 4:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 8:02 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 76 of 1484 (802173)
03-12-2017 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Modulous
03-12-2017 5:54 PM


Re: related issues
Who would have guessed it ? A dishonest right-wing propaganda video on YouTube !
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2017 5:54 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:52 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2017 8:29 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 84 of 1484 (802186)
03-13-2017 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
03-12-2017 8:02 PM


Re:
quote:

What?

It seems pretty simple. If God ordained that couples in a particular situation should get married the only way to go against that ordinance is to prevent such marriages.

Extending the marriage laws to cover other couples doesn't do that.

quote:

What?

It seems pretty simple. Ordaining that gay couples should be forbidden the legal status of marriage is rather different from setting up marriage as an institution. Especially given that the present marriage laws were hardly ordained by God.

quote:

What?

Polygamy is accepted in the Bible. Therefore a ban on polygamy band marriages that would be acceptable - and arguably, in some cases at least, desirable according to the original ordinance.

quote:

I can't tell how you are using the word "ordinance" in the first two quotes. I didn't use it for human law but that's what the post is about you are replying to.

I am using it in the same sense you are - and definitely not referring to human law.

It is amazing how your brain shuts down when faced with arguments you can't answer (and this is not even the first example in this thread)

quote:

You aren't making any sense

The fault is at your end.

quote:

There's a US law that says gay marriage is legal across the nation and that it must be accepted by all as legal and valid

In so far as marriage is a legal status, yes.

quote:

Christians cannot in good conscience accept it as valid so when pressed to act in any way that implies agreement with it must refuse to do so. This puts us in violation of the law and subject to punishment.

That does not seem to be true. There is no clear problem for Christians accepting it (which is why many do). And it is rather unlikely that you could be in violation of that law - you haven't posted any examples to this thread.

quote:

That is what this is all about. There's nothing more to it.

Seems to me that this is more about lying bigots being upset that they didn't get their way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 8:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 4:10 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 90 of 1484 (802192)
03-13-2017 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
03-13-2017 4:10 AM


Re:
quote:

I still don't get your thinking on this. Seems to me the first and main way it was abused was probably by polygamy, which was common in OT times. The next violation was probably frequent divorce. Both are violations of the ordinance of marriage.

Perhaps you can show how polygamy is a violation. Unlike divorce Jesus is not noted for speaking against it, and it is widely accepted in the OT.

quote:

This makes no sense. The wording of the ordinance is clear: polygamy is excluded by the definition of one man and one woman, gay marriage is certainly excluded by the specification of a man and a woman, and becoming "one flesh" makes divorce a violation.

That's because you're not thinking. The ordinance isn't about applications of the word "marriage", or legal recognition of relationships. Even if it did not include gay relationships it does not demand that a society should refuse to recognise them. And please - quote it - show that it rules out polygamy.

quote:

Well then you are misusing it based on the post you were answering, but you don't quote enough for me to say why until I go back and reread your post.

The fact that I don't say anything about it should tell you that my intent is to talk about the same thing as you.

quote:

Polygamy is NOT "accepted" in the Bible. Just because it was practiced doesn't mean it was accepted.

If it is practiced without criticism or condemnation it is accepted.

quote:

All you are saying is that there are categories of "Christians" who aren't in a position to run afoul of the law

Which includes all the examples of prosecutions you have given. So who is in a position to run afoul of it ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 4:10 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 5:04 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 92 of 1484 (802194)
03-13-2017 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Faith
03-13-2017 5:04 AM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
Genesis 2:24 is consistent with polygamy.

Matthew 19 is speaking against divorce and says nothing relevant

Mark 10 is the only possibly relevant passage. However, it seems to simply assume monogamy as the norm - without addressing polygamy. A polygamist, by definition, does not need to divorce a wife to take another. It would be interesting to find out where this assumption came from - and obviously relevant.

I will note that Corinthians 7 takes a negative view of marriage, seeing it only as an unfortunately necessary outlet for physical desire. Even then neither of the verses speak against polygamy. 7:27 says that the married should not divorce and the unmarried should not marry. 7:39 speaks only of the duties of the wife, but Biblical polygamy is one man with more than one wife so it does not apply.

I would add that 1 Timothy 3:2, in requiring that Bishops have only one wife, suggests an acceptance of polygamy even in NT times, even if it was seen as questionable.

The references to divorce


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 5:04 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 5:54 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 94 of 1484 (802197)
03-13-2017 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
03-13-2017 5:54 AM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
quote:

It's normally understood to prohibit divorce, and there is no other NT mention of anything even remotely suggestive of accepted polygamy

It's a pretty odd phrasing for that.

quote:

I believe all the passages I quoted clearly prohibit polygamy.

Then I am sorry to inform you that you need to learn to read for comprehension.

Forbidding divorce is not a prohibition on polygamy. Saying that a woman may only have one husband (at a time) is not saying that a man cannot have more than one wife.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 5:54 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 12:53 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 100 of 1484 (802213)
03-13-2017 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
03-13-2017 12:53 PM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
quote:

Doesn't seem too likely that divorce was a problem with polygamists.

The Bible - and Jesus - seem to disagree. (E.g. Matthew 19:7-8)

quote:

Maybe it existed among the Greeks and Romans?

It's more likely that the Jews adopted monogamy due to Greek and Roman influences.

quote:

Certainly, when Christianity spread to other parts of the world it might have been read as prohibiting polygamy in places where it existed but then that wouldn't account for the odd phrasing.

Or it is a recognition of the fact that polygamy was still practiced in some countries and is not forbidden in the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 12:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 3:03 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 104 of 1484 (802219)
03-13-2017 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
03-13-2017 3:03 PM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
quote:

But there is absolutely no doubt that God's ordinance forbids it, none whatever. And that verse itself is evidence since there would have been no reason to forbid it to bishops or anyone else if God approved of it.

If it was forbidden there would be no need to specifically deny it to bishops.

Not to mention the fact that polygamy is permitted by the Mosaic Law.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 3:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 117 of 1484 (802243)
03-14-2017 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
03-13-2017 10:12 PM


Re:
quote:

I'm not interested in the intricacies of the law. All that matters in this discussion is whether a Christian can legally refuse to serve a gay marriage in any way that violates his/her conscience, and I've understood that legally they cannot -- anywhere in the country. That's the only thing relevant here.

If you were actually interested in that you would know otherwise. It seems that you are far more interested in blaming the decision to legalise gay marriage.

quote:

SO WHAT? That is utterly irrelevant. They were wrong because as I said already the Bible teaches that we are all descended from the same parents. If they wanted to claim their conscience was wounded, however, that's up to them, but obviously they'd have to take the punishment exactly as i'm describing in this situation.

So it's fine if your fellow Christians are punished for "violating their consciences" - your feelings on the matter are the only thing that matters. But that can't be a basis for law.

quote:

I think we SHOUJLD have an exemption, of course, and I think there should be no such law in the first place too, of course, BUT I KNOW CHRISTIANS HAVE NO EXEMPTION TO THIS LAW NOW. THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS ALL ABOUT! .How have you managed to miss so much of this discussion?

If that was true you would be concerned about the laws that "Christians" are actually being prosecuted under - and you obviously aren't

Whether you believe the lies that the Right told to try and stop gay marriage or whether you are motivated by bigotry the fact is that you are against gay marriage and this whole thread is just an excuse to attack it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 10:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 1:14 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 119 of 1484 (802245)
03-14-2017 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
03-14-2017 1:14 AM


Re: more truths that Faith wants to hide
quote:

Why should I care about the specifics of the law?

You certainly ought to care enough to know which laws you are opposing and why - especially as it has been brought up time and again. You have no excuse for not knowing that the situation varies from State to State. Remainingly aggressively ignorant in the face of discussion is not a sign of good faith.

quote:

UNDER THIS LAW THAT SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS TO BE TREATED AS LEGITIMATE, if asked to perform a special service for a gay wedding or anything else that puts us in the position of treating gay marriage as legitimate, Christians have to refuse, and whatever the law is we are punishable under it for that refusal. Everything else is irrelevant nitpicking.

That isn't true Faith. It has been pointed out time and again. The prosecutions are all under anti-discrimination laws.

It isn't even true that Christians have to object to gay marriages - it isn't even clear that they should object. It isn't much different from a Muslim demanding Sharia law.

quote:

You spend a lot of time, just as Leftists always do, conjuring up anything you can to accuse conservatives of. Everything in your post is an invented accusation that has no actual purpose in relation to this topic.

It is an objective fact that you keep trying to blame the prosecutions on the legalisation of gay marriage when in fact the prosecutions come under other, State, laws. I certainly think that it is legitimate to conclude that you are more interested in opposing gay marriage than in anything else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 1:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15329
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 132 of 1484 (802260)
03-14-2017 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
03-14-2017 7:21 AM


Re: Summary of Topic
quote:

This thread is about one issue, a very simple issua, although the Leftists here not only twist things but lie about me. There is no civility from Leftists at all. And lies do make their mark because people believe them.

By which you mean that you got caught misrepresenting the facts - and even admitted not caring about relevant facts. And this comes from someone who regularly spews nastiness about people who dare to refute her arguments.

quote:

The law legalizing gay marriage contradicts God's ordinance of marriage

And you are perfectly free not to enter into a gay marriage. Your church is perfectly free to refuse to hold marriage services for gay couples.

quote:

So whenever there is a conflict between the law and a Christian's conscience about the ordinance of marriage the Christian must refuse to obey the law

And the laws state that businesses are not allowed to discriminate against gays. That is the "conflict" that you are complaining about.

Whether there are any good reasons for a Christian to object is another matter. And one that would seem rather important. Especially as you don't have a problem with other laws that impose similar burdens on Christians or "Christians"

quote:

That's it. That's the issue. Everything else is distraction, distortion, guilt by invented association, slimy insinuations and accusations. SO typically Leftist.

Because the fact that you are objecting to the wrong law and don't even care to get it right doesn't matter ?

Typical Faith - since your argument has been demolished - hardly surprising when you don't care about the facts because they get in your way - you resort to your usual hypocritical nastiness, doing everything you accuse your opponents of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 7:21 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019