Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 3:28 PM
30 online now:
jar, JonF, PaulK (3 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,865 Year: 11,901/19,786 Month: 1,682/2,641 Week: 191/708 Day: 18/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9495
96
979899Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


(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 yet responded

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

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1427 of 1484 (855555)
06-20-2019 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1423 by Faith
06-20-2019 1:01 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
That requirement to obey the law is limited to whatever does not contradict God's law and that ought to be obvious. The Roman laws obviously did not contradict God's laws but now we have a law that does contradict God's law.

I'm certain that Roman law often contravened the scriptures. Unless you think God approves of forcing slaves to fight one another to death for the entertainment of a blood-thirsty crowd... well, on second thought.....

I'm also not aware of a single Scripture that says that we should follow law except where it contradicts scripture. If that provision was in there, it seems obvious that it would be explicitly included by both Peter and Paul... Hell, Jesus himself said render unto Caesar... nowhere did God Incarnate offer such a provision.

And you obviously don't understand this whole gay marriage thing since it's not against gays as such but specifically against their being married, which is a violation of God's law of marriage between a man and a woman.

I do understand that. I was once a Christian and when I was I believed that you could hate the sin while loving the sinner. I know where you are coming from. And I find Phillip's objections both scriptural and Constitutionally protected... up to a point.

God isn't going to decide traffic laws... he grants the authority for humans to decide for themselves and by honoring those laws, you honor God. That's scriptural. So if humans pass laws granting gay marriage, then we are obligated to obey the law. God will judge with or without our intervention, seems to me.

Was Jesus endorsing prostitution by talking to prostitutes? Okay, neither does he endorse gay marriage if we legally allow gay marriage. If you believe the bible, then you should trust that God is in control, that each of us will be judged on our merits, and that unlike fanatical Muslims who must believe Allah is so weak that he requires direct intervention on his behalf, that Jesus has the wheel... so to speak.

As a Christian, you should always worry more about your walk with God than other people's. Many, many, many Christians (and I was guilty of it too) are far more concerned with what other people are doing wrong when its themselves they need to be worrying about.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

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

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5396
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 1428 of 1484 (855556)
06-20-2019 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1426 by Taq
06-20-2019 1:13 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
The 1950’s and Loving v. Virginia come to mind, too. Interracial marriage was absolutely the Devil’s Work for lots of Southern Christians back then (and still, to a bigger extent that you might think) but it gets a pass from even the Southern Baptists these days.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1426 by Taq, posted 06-20-2019 1:13 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 1429 of 1484 (855559)
06-20-2019 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1423 by Faith
06-20-2019 1:01 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
And you obviously don't understand this whole gay marriage thing since it's not against gays as such but specifically against their being married, which is a violation of God's law of marriage between a man and a woman.

Yes, we know your god is a god of hate. You really don't need to keep pointing it out to us.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1423 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 1:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1430 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 1:55 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1430 of 1484 (855568)
06-20-2019 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1429 by AZPaul3
06-20-2019 1:32 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Read hyro's post. He clearly doesn't know it.

However, your view is the formula from the true champions of h a t e who are destroying rational thought. The absurdity of marrying two people who have no natural biological reason for marriage and defending it as a civil right and calling those h a t e r s who know it's krazy must be killing half the brain cells in the country.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1429 by AZPaul3, posted 06-20-2019 1:32 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1431 by ringo, posted 06-20-2019 2:03 PM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1431 of 1484 (855569)
06-20-2019 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1430 by Faith
06-20-2019 1:55 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Faith writes:

The absurdity of marrying two people who have no natural biological reason for marriage....


Marriage isn't about biology in the first place; it's a social construct. But even if it was about biology, you're saying that it's absurd for childless heterosexual couples to be married - and for adoptive parents to be married.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1430 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 1:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1432 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 2:06 PM ringo has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1432 of 1484 (855570)
06-20-2019 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1431 by ringo
06-20-2019 2:03 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
No I'm not. It's a PRINCIPLE that defines marriage as for heterosexuals because they have the biological qualifications whether they are defective in them or not. And you are demonstrating exactly what I was talking about, the death of bazillions of brain cells.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1431 by ringo, posted 06-20-2019 2:03 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1433 by ringo, posted 06-20-2019 2:10 PM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1433 of 1484 (855571)
06-20-2019 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1432 by Faith
06-20-2019 2:06 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Faith writes:

It's a PRINCIPLE that defines marriage as for heterosexuals because they have the biological qualifications whether they are defective in them or not.


It's your so-called "principle" that's absurd. There is no difference "in principle" between one couple that can't have children and another couple that can't have children.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1432 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 2:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1434 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 2:26 PM ringo has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1434 of 1484 (855573)
06-20-2019 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1433 by ringo
06-20-2019 2:10 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Yes there is a difference: They are biologically built for it and gays are not. You are making a principle out of a mere accidental defect. And it is conceivable that their problem could be cured too. Which is not the case for gays.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1433 by ringo, posted 06-20-2019 2:10 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1435 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-20-2019 2:33 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1436 by ringo, posted 06-20-2019 2:42 PM Faith has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1435 of 1484 (855575)
06-20-2019 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1434 by Faith
06-20-2019 2:26 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Yes there is a difference: They are biologically built for it and gays are not. You are making a principle out of a mere accidental defect. And it is conceivable that their problem could be cured too. Which is not the case for gays.

Marriage isn't exclusive to child-rearing, though. A marriage is a partnership - a division of labor with someone you love. As for the biological imperatives, yes, there is a biological component to why most people are heterosexuals... even homosexuals would probably say that its a good thing that most couples are heterosexuals if, for nothing else, so they can continue procreating and continuing the human race.

But here's the thing... if you can conceive that a person can be biologically born with elements of both male and female organs (even Jesus acknowledged that Eunuchs were sometimes manufactured and others were simply born that way, no fault of the parents or God) then surely you can conceive that nature can naturally produce attraction between members of the same sex.

I mean, if God was so concerned about marriage to one person of the opposite sex then surely he could will it that we weren't attracted to multiple members of the opposite sex (polygamy/infidelity). Surely, in his omnipotence he has the power to ensure that each of us are only attracted to the one specific person he designed us to be with... and yet that is not clearly the case, as evidenced by the frailty of people in the modern era and was the bane of King David (carnal desire for people other than his wife) in his time, thousands of years ago.

If you can grasp that conceptually then there really is no reason not grasp how homosexuals exist and how their existence is innocuous.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1434 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 2:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1436 of 1484 (855576)
06-20-2019 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1434 by Faith
06-20-2019 2:26 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Faith writes:

They are biologically built for it and gays are not.


It makes no difference what somebody is "biologically built for" if they can't actually do it.

Faith writes:

You are making a principle out of a mere accidental defect.


I'm not making a principle of anything. I'm pointing out that your so-called "principle" is nonsensical.

Besides, there isn't necessarily any "defect" involved at all, either accidental or otherwise. By your so-called principle, a couple who didn't want children would also be ineligible for marriage.

Faith writes:

And it is conceivable that their problem could be cured too. Which is not the case for gays.


Gay couples can adopt, which is as effective a cure as any for childlessness.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1434 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 2:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1437 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 3:38 PM ringo has responded
 Message 1441 by xongsmith, posted 06-20-2019 10:45 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1437 of 1484 (855580)
06-20-2019 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1436 by ringo
06-20-2019 2:42 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Actually I didn't say anything about having children and wasn't thinking of that, so I got distracted. I was merely talking about the biological FIT between the sexes. You know, we're kind of built for complementarity and two of the same sex aren't. That's what I meant by biological qualification. And that's a basic biological PRINCIPLE. However, it is true that this basic biological fit is what leads to children so there is a connection but it's not inevitable and the fit alone makes for the qualification. If you try to defend sodomy as a "fit" I'm through with you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1436 by ringo, posted 06-20-2019 2:42 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1438 by Stile, posted 06-20-2019 3:59 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1457 by ringo, posted 06-21-2019 11:38 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3577
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 1438 of 1484 (855582)
06-20-2019 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1437 by Faith
06-20-2019 3:38 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Faith writes:

And that's a basic biological PRINCIPLE.

I don't think biology is very cut-and-dry about the issue.
In fact, it's very, very messy.

However - on average, and in general... you certainly have a point. Man and woman go together on a certain biological principle.
The problem is... this principle has nothing to do with marriage.

Marriage is about love.
And love is subjective.
Different people love different people for different reasons.

Saying people's subjective view on love should adhere to some biological principle is equivalent to saying people's subjective view on love should adhere to some physics principle.

Can you imagine claiming people have to get married depending on fitting into a certain complementary weight range? It's silly.
Just as silly as claiming people have to get married depending on fitting into a certain biological ability range.

There are many principles.
Pretty much all of them have nothing to do with marriage because they have nothing to do with love.

Any principle not dealing with love has no place in claiming anything about marriage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1437 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 3:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1439 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 4:02 PM Stile has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1439 of 1484 (855583)
06-20-2019 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1438 by Stile
06-20-2019 3:59 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
No, in the history of the human race marriage is NOT about love. if it were I guess parents could marry children and we could all marry our dogs and cats. No it is not about love, it's about the bioloigical principle I'm talking about.\\

Oh and who is talking about anyone HAVING to get married?????.

This is all getting too ridiculously irrational. Good grief.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1438 by Stile, posted 06-20-2019 3:59 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1440 by Stile, posted 06-20-2019 4:11 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1443 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2019 12:11 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1458 by ringo, posted 06-21-2019 11:42 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1462 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-21-2019 3:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3577
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 1440 of 1484 (855586)
06-20-2019 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1439 by Faith
06-20-2019 4:02 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Faith writes:

No, in the history of the human race marriage is NOT about love.

Who cares about history?
Do you think marriage should be about love or not?

if it were I guess parents could marry children and we could all marry our dogs and cats.

A marriage consists of at least 2 beings.
For the marriage to be about love, both beings have to consent to getting married.
Children cannot consent.
Dogs and cats cannot consent.

Therefore - you are wrong, no marriage "based on love" involves children or dogs or cats.
Try again.

No it is not about love...

Yes, it is.
Love is the only thing marriage should be based on. Why would anything else matter?

it's about the bioloigical principle I'm talking about

No, it's not.
Why should anything not based on love be considered concerning a marriage?
We also don't base marriages on the engineering principle that loads must be supported.

Just because you can identify a principle doesn't mean it applies to marriage.
Try again.

Edited by Stile, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1439 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 4:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
9495
96
979899Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019