Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[omega2xx]

As you remember? Provide a source.

If it would change you mind I would try to find it. Since it wont, I have better things to do.

 

[omega2xx]

Yet, in post #408, you said that if you are put in jail for refusing to sell someone a cupcake, then your freedom of religion would be violated.

The subject is can I be required to violate my freedom of religion.

I'm just wondering where in your religion you are commanded not to sell certain people cupcakes?

Don't be silly

 

[McBell]

I hope you continue to ridicule me. Then everyone will know what I know---you can't compete in an discussion that requires more than a playground intellect.

As if you would know the difference between higher than playground intellect and bull ****.

 

[McBell]

If it would change you mind I would try to find it. Since it wont, I have better things to do.

This sounds like you made it up on the spot and are diverting attention away from it.

 

[columbus]

This sounds like you made it up on the spot and are diverting attention away from it.

I am certain that things happened that could be spun into this.
If the couple leased the apartment to somebody and later find out that she has a girlfriend and throw her stuff into the street and refuse to honor the lease or pay compensation. ..
It would become "persecution of Christianity".
Tom

 

[Acim]

I would not consider it discrimination to deny someone something that they do not qualify for.

It would not be discrimination for Secret Service to boot me out of the White House would it? Even if I claimed that I was the POTUS?

It actually would be discrimination by the Secret Service.

Discrimination (definition #2 in my dictionary): recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

Pertinent to the discussion, it is discrimination by (some) Christians to not recognize same-sex couples as being worthy of (actual, Christian) marriage (in their eyes). I think those same persons would proudly call it discernment on their end.

To the larger point on discrimination, I find it not possible to go through an entire day not exercising discrimination. I would say foolish to think you actually can.

 

[Acim]

I did not invent marriage or homosexuality. It is not my fault that they do not qualify. It is not discrimination to deny someone something they don’t qualify for.

Probably could've put this in the last reply, but it is your responsibility how you frame the qualification that you readily admit that you didn't invent. Again, this is discrimination on your part, or anyone that agrees with it. Why be shy on this point? I don't get that. It may not be (legally) discriminatory, but it is discrimination. I infer from your words, such as those stated here, that you take some pride in such discrimination, in sense of 'understanding and choosing between right and wrong.'

The whole idea of marriage being between a man and a woman (only) is discrimination. Given how I understand God, the course of action that makes most sense is if we can't work this out, then perhaps no one ought to be allowed to (physically) marry. Then no one would be discriminated favorably in terms of marriage. I wonder how many Christians would be okay with that? Especially given the words "do not marry" are found in NT. I'd like to think a discerning Christian would be okay with this, but alas, I'm not so sure, and think instead that Christians would suddenly scream discrimination/persecution if man and woman were no longer able to be (physically) married.

I say physically married, cause this is just another one of those issues where the appearance of the concept (the idol) is being placed before the spirit of it (or the fact that in God's Reality, we are all already married to each other. Let no one separate what God has joined.)

 

[Acim]

It's simple. Try to grasp it. If you have a 100% free market then you allow people to do bad things to others, like deny them employment based on the color of their skin. Are you REALLY ok with that?

I am. If the market were truly 100% free, then such things are bound to occur, and when they do, rest assured there would be repercussions from demand side of the equation. It's not like the supply side calls all the shots, far from it. In some ways, they are lucky to even be in the game.

Esoterically, I would claim we live in that market right now, but is masked with plausible deniability. Like, employer saying she didn't hire the person not because of color of his skin (when in actuality that is the case), but because um, er, he wasn't qualified.

 

[Prestor John]

What relationship does that divine institution has to the secular institution where marriage is a legal contract that recognizes the formation of new kinship so that the "closest kin" now becomes your married partner for property, tax, residency and other laws, contracts, duties and privileges?

I have answered similar questions on this thread already.

I do not believe in the establishment of a theocracy.

 

[Acim]

I believe the Bible to be scripture and in Genesis 2, immediately following the Creation and while Adam and Eve were still in the Garden, the record claims,

"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." (Genesis 2:25)

For this and many other reasons I believe that God married Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

Keep in mind that this woman was, according to this narrative, a rib within Adam's physical self. Thus literally joined to his physical self until Lord God (not same exact God of Gen. 1) separated them, while Adam was asleep, likely dreaming (and of which there is no reference in Genesis to Adam waking).

So Adam married his (male) rib, (or if going with Genesis 1 logic, where male and female he created them/Adam), then Adam was already female, and perhaps Eve/Rib was the male that was then *physically* joined with in Gen. 2).

Anyway, I'm sure you have other reasons besides basing things on this silly narrative. I say silly cause if not treated as silly, then there's more to this tale than meets the eye, as I've alluded to, but seemingly is ignored in favor of other interpretations, most of which are not based on exact wording in the text.

 

[columbus]

I have answered similar questions on this thread already.

I do not believe in the establishment of a theocracy.

I know you have said that.
But I also know that the LDS has very publically spent millions of dollars trying to get their religious beliefs encoded into law. From California's Constitution to SCOTUS, y'all have done this.

While insisting on keeping your special tax perks.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

I think you are both making the same mistakes, confusing two different things. People call both marriage, but they're different.

There is state recognition of the relationship. The state didn't much care unless inheritance rights got involved. For the 99% who had nothing important to bequeath the state didn't care.
Then there is community recognition. Men wanted to know that they are raising their own progeny and women wanted recognition that the father owed support for the whole family.

Neither of those things are what they used to be. State recognition of marriage has spread to the masses, and religious communities are the usual venue for community recognition.

Marriage is more sophisticated than it used to be and since church and state are no longer the same thing, we have state unions and religious unions. Religious communities are free to ignore state recognition and the state is required to ignore religious recognition. They are just two different things.
Tom

I can see that, yet I still believe the divine institution came first.

 

[columbus]

I can see that, yet I still believe the divine institution came first.

Polygamy came before monogamy as well.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

Equal protection clause. However I guess since it is not directly written "thou shall sell to everyone" we should also remove the right to vote for women as this right is not directly stated either.

All you have demonstrated it that you know nothing about the constitution nor how the law evolves based on it and needed additions.

Yeah...that clause deals with the making of laws at the local, State and Federal levels, not privately owned businesses.

Which was the actual topic of the discussion.

 

[Prestor John]

It's simple. Try to grasp it. If you have a 100% free market then you allow people to do bad things to others, like deny them employment based on the color of their skin. Are you REALLY ok with that?

A privately owned business should not be forced to hire a person.

If you came to believe that a privately owned business was being racist, you are free to boycott or protest said business. Crucify the business on yelp.

The backlash will hurt the business enough to make the owner change his/her policy or they may even go out of business.

The free market should decide which business fails and which succeeds.

 

[Watchmen]

I am. If the market were truly 100% free, then such things are bound to occur, and when they do, rest assured there would be repercussions from demand side of the equation. It's not like the supply side calls all the shots, far from it. In some ways, they are lucky to even be in the game.

Esoterically, I would claim we live in that market right now, but is masked with plausible deniability. Like, employer saying she didn't hire the person not because of color of his skin (when in actuality that is the case), but because um, er, he wasn't qualified.

I wasn't responding to you.

 

[sayak83]

I have answered similar questions on this thread already.

I do not believe in the establishment of a theocracy.

But then the question is why the state is wrong in legalizing same sex marraige? Because that legality confers next of kin rights duties and privileges in law to such couples. What is objectionable about that?

 

[Watchmen]

A privately owned business should not be forced to hire a person.

If you came to believe that a privately owned business was being racist, you are free to boycott or protest said business. Crucify the business on yelp.

The backlash will hurt the business enough to make the owner change his/her policy or they may even go out of business.

The free market should decide which business fails and which succeeds.

Wrong. Other racists will shop there and we'll end up with segregation again.

I said nothing of forcing the business to hire. I said it is wrong if the employer denies employment because of race. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Prestor John]

The subject is can I be required to violate my freedom of religion.

Yes, and then you said that selling a cupcake to someone would violate your freedom of religion.

Don't be silly.

I'm not being silly. I am very serious.

You are being silly by claiming that selling a cupcake to someone would violate your freedom of religion.

Not just silly, but nonsensical, bigoted and condescending.

 

[Prestor John]

Pertinent to the discussion, it is discrimination by (some) Christians to not recognize same-sex couples as being worthy of (actual, Christian) marriage (in their eyes).

I am claiming that it has nothing to do with worthiness.

In my silly example, the Secret Service would not be ejecting based on my worthiness, but because I am not authorized or qualified to be in the White House.

If marriage is only to be between a man and a woman (as I believe) then I cannot recognize "same-sex marriage."