Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

I get it from the fact that you claim to have the only legitimate form of marriage and object to any variations - to the point of refusing to even supply services to the celebrations.

quote:

---

All that's been said is that Christians can't obey a particular secular law and therefore get punished for it.

---

And that law says that businesses can't discriminate against gays.

quote:

---

Gay marriage changes the definition of marriage; as far as I can see adultery or any other sin does not.

---

Gay marriage is a secular arrangement. Aside from the presumption of sexual activity - which applies equally to marriage after divorce - there is nothing sinful about it.

quote:

---

Most secular laws don't conflict with God's law in such a way as to put a Christian in a dilemma, but the law legitimizing gay marriage does.

---

There doesn't seem to be any reason why there has to be a dilemma. It's a secular arrangement, one you have no authority over, so accept it. You don't have to like it, but is it really worth making a fuss about it ?

quote:

---

And Roman law said that everybody had to worship Caesar.

---

So discriminating against gays is a fundamental tenet of "Christianity". Thanks for admitting it.

quote:

---

The baker is not objecting to "someone," he's objecting to an illegitimate definition of marriage. Even Peter Tatchell, the gay activist in the UK who wrote the Guardian opinion piece, argued that there was no discrimination against persons by the Christian bakery, but against an "idea," the idea of gay marriage.

---

It is funny that you should accuse Percy of misrepresenting the situation and then go on to misrepresent the Tatchell piece. Tatchell argues exclusively about messages iced on to cakes, not about wedding cakes. The Tatchell article does not support your claim.Anyway perhaps you can- at last - explain which of the legal rights associated with marriage as a secular institution must be denied to gays, and where the Bible says so.

quote:

---

In the American cases, the request for a wedding cake was refused not because the customers were gay but because of the service asked for.

---

The service asked for was simply a wedding cake, which the bakery did not refuse to heterosexual couples.

quote:

---

There is no evidence that their sexuality was the reason the order was declined. No other order would have been declined, just the order that legitimizes gay marriage.

---

These two sentences contradict each other. The reason the order was refused was that it was for a gay couple. That is what you MEAN when you say that it "legitimises" gay marriage (as if a cake did any such thing).

Yes, I know that you try to sweep the distinctions under the carpet. But that doesn't mean that they aren't there or aren't important. Legally a clear-cut case of discrimination against gays is far less of a marginal decision than refusing to ice a slogan in favour of gay marriage.

quote:

---

Which is really the most likely thing that will happen. Sad for those who feel they have a sort of calling for making wedding cakes, which Melissa Klein (the Oregon bakery) does. Along comes this law out of the blue that deprives them of that loved expression.

---

I don't think that a law that was in place before she even started her business can be described as "coming out of the blue".

quote:

---

As I said, I think it's because so much has been made about gay rights in the last decade or so, and particularly gay marriage. If all that weren't happening Christians wouldn't have any need to make a particular issue of homosexuality.

---

And again we see that the REAL issue is fighting against gay rights.

quote:

---

Then let me remind you that the subject is gay marriage, not the sin of homosexuality as such or any other sin, just the fact that marriage is for a man and a woman and not two of the same sex.

---

And yet the idea that homosexuality is a sin is a major part of your argument. In fact it's the only bit that stands up to examination.You haven't given one valid reason why you should object to homosexuals getting the legal benefits associated with marriage.Complaining that secular society uses a different definition of marriage to you or that the Supreme Court defied your will is not very Christian nor is it very sensible.

quote:

---

OK, the LAWSUIT came out of the blue, as I doubt that they ever had any idea of such a possibility before that.

---

They knew what they had done, they should have known about the law.

quote:

---

I was answering the specific question why it seems to Mod that Christians focus particularly on homosexuality. I was saying it's a reaction to their actions and otherwise we don't.

---

Exactly - you preach against homosexuality to stir up resistance to gay rights.

quote:

---

No it really is not. Homosexual acts are sin and same sex relationships are the reason for legalizing gay marriage, but it's not the sin that is the reason for refusing to serve a gay wedding, it's the fact that marriage is only for male and female.

---

Your idea of marriage is. But there is no reason why you have to object to other ideas to the point of rudely refusing services.

quote:

---

I'm not addressing "the legal benefits of marriage,"

---

According to the title of this thread granting gay couples the legal benefits of marriage is "an attack on Christianity". Because that is what the SCOTUS decision is all about.

quote:

---

Before it was legalized there was lots of discussion about how benefits could be legally acquired without changing the meaning of marriage, but gays wanted marriage so they got marriage, and that's what Christians can't support.

---

It was tried and "Christians" wouldn't let it work - they used the difference to try to withhold the legal benefits of marriage from gay couples.So either that is what you are upset about or we're back to your silly belief in word magic where just calling it marriage is the problem.

quote:

---

Whatever. I guess we'll just go on objecting to gay marriage without your approval.

---

Sure, you can go on stewing in your sins. Funny how you don't like something you call "kindness" when you are on the receiving end.

Nobody is destroying the concept of marriage, and the second is exactly what I meant.

And there Faith goes, complaining about people being kind to her.

Yes, exactly like arguing with a Fundamentalist the same "you can tell the truth about me but I can lie about you!" attitude.So, what's the point ? Trying to cover up your mistake or are you just trolling ?

quote:

---

So when I quote you and provide the links to the posts so that people can check, that's "lying"? You didn't actually write what you were quoted as saying? Those links aren't to your posts?

---

When you assert that the quotes support your claim when either they do not or only seem to when taken out of context. As you ought to know.

quote:

---

That eventually you'll get over yourself and respond to the argument

---

What argument ? And how can refusing to admit your mistake possibly help in getting me to respond to it ? Burying an argument behind piles of irrelevance is hardly a good way to get a response. Admitting your error and getting back on track would seem an obviously better approach.

quote:

---

That's why I provided the links to the original posts to ensure that there would be no question.

---

So everyone can see that you were misrepresenting my posts. Fine.

quote:

---

You'll see that I was focusing on a particular point you made

---

The actual point that I was making is that Faith failed to take that into consideration and that failure seriously undermined her case. You chose to take it out of context and present it as something else. I was willing to accept that as a mistake at first but the persistent refusal to acknowledge the error is hardly an encouraging sign.I was not especially interested in discussing your point at first - since it did not have much bearing on my post. And since your idea of getting me to do so proved that you had no interest in honest discussion I certainly have no interest in discussing it with you now.If you admit your error and apologise I will consider future discussion of other matters. But - thanks to your appalling behaviour here - that is as far as I am willing to go.

quote:

---

PaulK runs away

---

And Rhain continues to lie. Where is this "running away" ?

quote:

---

This would be where you provide more details of such rather than merely asserting

---

You've made it quite obvious enough.

quote:

---

Thus showing that you didn't actually read my post.

---

The fact that I understand my point (where you do not) shows that I did not read your post ?The rest is simply irrelevant to my point - thus showing that the failure is on your part.

quote:

---

PaulK continues to run away

---

And again that is false.

quote:

---

That. That right there. That's you running away. By claiming you are being "lied" about rather than engaging, you are running away. By doing everything except focus on the topic at hand

---

Correcting your misrepresentation of my argument rather than discussing a point you wish to introduce is not "running away".

quote:

---

Indeed. I keep providing your full posts, thus providing complete context, as well as links back to the original so that people can be certain that I am not lying that you wrote what you actually wrote whereas you have failed to actually defend your own argument with any support but instead have done nothing but cried, "Liar!"

---

You have yet to address my actual argument. You just keep on misrepresenting it despite repeated corrections. That - as well as the false accusation of "running away" - is why I call you a liar.Quoting my post doesn't magically make your claims about it correct. They just let everyone see you are misrepresenting it.

quote:

---

And yet, I responded directly to that in my original response to you

---

And we can see that you do not address the point. How can gay marriage be seen as an attack on Christianity when its significance to Christian doctrine is deeply in question ? Suggesting that Faith has a blind spot to the question maybe excuses her failure but it hardly protects her argument.

quote:

---

That. That right there. That's you running away. Rather than engaging, you simply ignore everything you don't like and run away.

---

No, that's me pointing out that you are introducing a topic outside of my argument which I have no interest in discussing with you. I will not be bullied into discussing a topic of your choosing and the attempt to do so disqualifies as a person I am interested in discussing pretty much anything with.So, I will just go on defending my words and you can take your topics to someone who thinks you are worth talking to.

We'll take the usual lying as read.

quote:

---

See, this is an actual response. Of course, I already answered it, but let's see if I can rephrase my argument:

---

First, it is simply pointing out the significance of the item Faith failed to address.Second your "answer" fails to deal with the actual point.

quote:

---

Who are you to say what is or is not Christian doctrine?

---

Since it is Faith's argument you are defending it would be better for you to explain why Faith IS the person to say what is or is not Christian doctrine. Aside from the fact that I was raised as a Christian and continued to learn about it through discussions on various forums at least I - unlike Faith - am aware of and accepts that there is a diversity of Christian thought. And of course, it is known that there are Christian churches which have held gay marriages, so the idea that all Christianity is against them is something that needs defending rather than simply being assumed.

quote:

---

But you don't get to say that she has a "blind spot" because even if she didn't, it doesn't change anything regarding how anti-discrimination policy is to be carried out.

---

My post was not about how anti-discrimination policy is carried out.It is about how there is "No case at all" that gay marriage is an attack on Christianity.If you wish to defend Faith's argument to the contrary then please do so instead of talking about "how anti-discrimination policy is carried out" which is clearly a different subject and not one I was addressing at all in the sentence you choose to focus on.