Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(3)
Message 1137 of 1484 (835333)
06-21-2018 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1135 by Faith
06-21-2018 3:38 PM


Re: Opinion piece from the Guardian
Faith writes:
Well, then, perhaps there's nothing I can say to defend the point in a way you would accept, but the logical problem is that gayness is not a natural inborn category as being black or female is, it's primarily a behavior or an inclination.
I don't see what that has to do with it. What religion you belong to is a choice and not something you are born with, and yet we consider religious freedom to be a human right. We choose what we will say, and we consider freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right. We choose to have firearms, and at least in the US we consider that to be a basic right.
Isn't the whole point of freedom being able to choose who you are and how you live your own life?
Christians often come up against sins we find extremely hard to "mortify," that is, put to death, which is what we're told to do with sins. Some sins are more ingrained than others in each of us and harder to put to death, it takes longer, it's more of a struggle. That is probably the case with some forms of homosexuality. And of course unless you're a Christian you don't have any desire even to try to put it to death so it just gets more and more ingrained.
I don't see why one person must live under the rules of someone else's religion. Shouldn't people in a free country be able to live their lives as they want as long as their actions allow others to do the same?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1135 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 3:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 1426 of 1484 (855551)
06-20-2019 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1423 by Faith
06-20-2019 1:01 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Faith writes:
That requirement to obey the law is limited to whatever does not contradict God's law and that ought to be obvious.
Over time, this will result in the church losing moral authority in society, so it is a Pyrrhic victory in the end. As society sees gay couples enter into meaningful, long lasting, and functioning marriages they will contrast that with the proclamations of the church, and they won't match up. Petards and hoisting come to mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1423 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 1:01 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1428 by Coragyps, posted 06-20-2019 1:29 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 1461 of 1484 (855676)
06-21-2019 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1451 by Faith
06-21-2019 2:33 AM


Re: and another thing
Faith writes:
Remember that you had made the ridiculous statement that a "stable marriage" was good for children as if a gay couple pretending to be a normal married couple could by getting "married" provide that kind of stability.
They aren't pretending to be a normal heterosexual couple. They ARE a couple. Whether you accept it or not, they are raising families, and they would do so with or without the legalization of gay marriage. All they are asking for is the same legal protections that straight couples enjoy in the eyes of the law. For example, they want the same right to pick up their children from the hospital that other married couples enjoy. They want the same rights to visit their children in their hospital rooms. They want their health insurance to cover their children.
People wanting and pretending to be what they aren't to satisfy some weird need that came from who knows where.
They aren't pretending to be a family. They are a family. All they are asking for is the same protections that other families are afforded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1451 by Faith, posted 06-21-2019 2:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1463 of 1484 (855680)
06-21-2019 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1462 by Hyroglyphx
06-21-2019 3:04 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Hyroglyphx writes:
But traditionally, in the West, we see arranged marriages as shams that invalidates the feelings and agency of individuals choosing to marry who they love, who they have strong friendship with, who they are sexually attracted and sexually compatible with, who they trust to have their back and, yes, often times who they think will be a good mate in raising happy, healthy children with.
Wouldn't that be more of a modern, post-Enlightenment view of marriage in the West?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1462 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-21-2019 3:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1464 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-21-2019 3:21 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 1465 of 1484 (855684)
06-21-2019 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1464 by Hyroglyphx
06-21-2019 3:21 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Hyroglyphx writes:
We also shouldn't use traditions as the basis of validation at all.
Exactly. If the only reason to continue doing something is because we have always done it that way then you don't have a reason. All morality should be questioned and argued.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1464 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-21-2019 3:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024