Well I assume that the only business owners that you have heard from are ones who have been caught up in discrimination lawsuits. And I assume that they haven't said that they "ARE" impacted somehow, but that they WOULD BE impacted somehow if they provided the service - "ARE" would mean that they have provided the service, which of course none of them ever do, instead opting to risk facing any legal consequences. Have they actually argued that they are harmed specifically by the "union itself" rather than the ceremony which they have been asked to provide a service for? I seriously doubt that this is the case.
Again, my point is that none of them have referred to "harm" as their reasoning. They haven't phrased it in that way. Using the word "harm" would be a poor choice of word and wouldn't win over anybody to their side. This is because when people think of "harm" they think physical harm, or harm to wellbeing in some way which prevents them from living a healthy life. So they could easily be accused of exaggerating in using strong, emotive language.
You've actually heard people say this? Anyway, such people would obviously be against church sanctioned same-sex marriages, so they're not who we're talking about. Well there doesn't have to be an explicit support, but if a Christian wants to be taken seriously, then it might be a good idea to be able to support their Christian argument by being able to point to something in the text which Christianity is based on. Don't you think? Which is a terrible argument, because that means that they also have to say that since the Old Covenant is gone, the 'old' creation account is gone! Not everything in the Old Testament is the Old Covenant! Is this the same as saying, to refer to its Old Testament definition means nothing for the New Testament one, of which there is no explicit one? Well why do you suppose that it was the only type legally allowed? So you identify as a "general Christian." Interesting. So then what is your opinion of what marriage is according to Christianity? All of this is certainly a problem for anyone who doesn't accept 2 Timothy 3:16. Well hold on a second, where does your understanding of the Holy Spirit come from? Might it be the Bible which is just "a hand picked selection of various scriptures" which could've been impacted by "various overbearing actions of the church across the centuries", in which "mistakes could easily be made (hence the Adulterer's Bible) without being caught", with "no guarantee that all the details are correct in there?" I very much look forward to your reply to this! An example of what? I have to believe that some of these churches treat them purely as a Civil Marriage ceremony, accepting that the two people love eachother and are at least deserving of being married in a traditional church setting, but that they won't be married in the eyes of God. However, God could still be mentioned if they are both Christians. This would actually be a reasonable middle ground. And the church can at least be said to be Biblically sound. Do you mean because my question is hard to answer? Well seeking to have your religious definition become the civil definition wouldn't be forcing your religious views on anyone, not least because you alone wouldn't be making the decision to have that definition become the civil definition. In my analogy in which I referred to a private club renting space for a non-member wedding, I was thinking only of a for-profit private club. Not sure why you assumed not-for profit.
Did you see the reply linked below? I didn't see a reply. The first question was following on from your previous reply on the original question. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/same-sex-marriage.489311/page-38#post-1071228810 Well Christians would believe it to be some sort of Satanic deception if the order was to stone homosexuals. So I wouldn't be stoning anyone. That would certainly be an insane day though. Your scenario would've made more sense if you'd said that the order was to repeal Obergefel v Hodges. What I said was not "false", because I said that you "SEEMED" to be saying it. That then makes it a matter of my interpretation, as wrong as it was. I didn't say that you SAID it. What about the Civil Rights Act? Should that stand? I assume that you mean that you DO believe that others should be able to discriminate against them as well.
I am on mobile so I will respond to something if I missed it when I get away from the office. Stoning was a frequent means of both punishment and execution in the bible. You might not be comfortable to stone gay people but many many others would jump with joy at the chance If we are going to allow discrimination against some groups but not others than that is an unequal application of the law, so no. Personally I believe the CRA is still needed in some areas but having to be in the presence of a gay couple seems to be too much to handle for some. I believe it will lead us down a dark path to allow businesses to say “we don’t serve your kind here” but it seems to be the way we are headed.
I think you are misunderstanding me. These people actively believe that allowing SSM to be legal is a violation of biblical law and thus should never be legally allowed for anyone, even people not of their religion Typically when laying down rules there are two things listed. That which you must do, and that which you can't do. These are usually a lot shorter collectively than the list of what is allowed but not required. This, if it is not explicitly denied, then it must be allowable but not required. You countered your own argument. Since there was no covenant regarding the creation of the world, it's not part of what went away (under the old vs new covenant argument). Up for interpretation is what defined marriage within the Judeo-Christian religions. Is it the union of Adam and Eve, as some claim, or something within the old covenant which came about through Moses? Pretty much. It's equivalent to noting that the definition of the judicial branch within the Articles of Confederation (the precursor one to the Constitution, not the one drafted for the CSA) means nothing since the Constitution is the current basis of law. Because that was the standard under the old covenant...which has been the point. The union or two or more people under the blessing of God, for the purpose of forming a single family, separate from their ancestors (including immediate i.e. parents). Which only says to me that the base intent is preserved, but the exact words are not necessarily. Nor does it prevent people from twisting the meaning around to something else. And if the power of God is supposed to prevent the word from being corrupted, then how did the Adulterer's Bible ever come into existence? Because it did, we now have to be wary of those who would be strict to the letter instead of learning the intent. Indeed it could. I am not so stupid as to not recognize that I could be 100% wrong in my beliefs, right up to Jesus existing, yet alone being the Christ. There is NOTHING that can 100% objectively prove any religion is 100% correct. All any of us who are religious, regardless of the religion, have is our faith in the rightness of our faith and the surity (sp?) of the source we use when unsure. Of whatever he would have used marriage as an example for. I won't say there couldn't be any of they type. But I have heard people of these various churches (again mostly congregations as I don't look into the organizations) claim SSM are as much legit in God's eye as OSM. No, because I think he might be avoiding it because it harms his arguments. Although I did see where he claims he did respond. It is still an attempt to force such (as opposed to preaching which allows a person to choose), regardless of the potential for success, and as such violates the tenent of allowing people to choose. Again that is my interpretation of Christianity, which won't necessarily match others, which is why I had asked that one question before. Because here more private organizations are not for profit than are for profit. Most private businesses are legally considered "public accommodations", a status I don't agree with.
I think this was the case I originally remembered. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340 I'll see if I can find anything else similar as I get time. Thanks for your patience.
I think that it's fair to consider something like the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association property as NOT an exclusively religious setting. It is considered a public place It is completely different to a church site, which can be classified as a place of worship and obviously has far more religious significance. Although I disagree with these laws, I wouldn't say that the application of law in this case is the same as if it was a church. And I thought that you were saying that there were efforts against churches. Plus, as always, it is ridiculous to say that the refusal was on the basis of sexual orientation - two straight guys wanting to get married for the legal benefits would have also been refused.
Well again, they're not who we're talking about. We're not even talking about people like me who are okay with same-sex marriage in the civil context but just not in the church context. We're talking about 'PRO-church-same-sex-marriage' people. Why is it allowable if not explicitly denied? This tells me that you're under the impression that there was a covenant regarding marriage in the Old Testament. Are you? Well given what you said above in reply to my mention of creation, you certainly seem to think that it's something within the old covenant which came about through Moses. Although what you said there conflicts with what you moved onto, when you asked the question, is it something within the old covenant which came about through Moses? Very confusing! And now you move BACK to what seems to be an assertion that it definitely IS something in the old covenant! Even MORE confusing! Perhaps you're conflating Old Testament with Old Covenant. And can you support that Biblically? Define what you think the "base intent" of the Bible is. It had a typing error. It wasn't intentional and nobody accepted it as accurate. Isn't the idea of faith that we can be 100% confident in our beliefs? 100% objective prove is not required to have faith. It's only required in the science lab. "SP?" You're just assuming that Jesus used marriage as an example for something? For context, you previously said, "since Jesus would have been targeting his words to the audience of his time, he would not have used SSM as any kind of example." Isn't that what you claim? I mean, given your response above to the question, what is your opinion of what marriage is according to Christianity? Well what is the alternative? What do you mean by "seek?"
Alright. I look forward to what you have to say about the seven year old 'reasoning' section in the Gallup poll. Yes, under Old Testament law. What makes you say that? Even people who think that homosexual activity should be illegal - just because they believe that doesn't mean that they would jump with joy at the chance to stone gay people. Define "groups." If you mean minority groups, then you do realise that they are not listed in anti-discrimination law don't you? What does the CRA have to do with gay people? So you think that small businesses should be allowed to discriminate even though you believe that it will lead down a dark path?
The indication that although something is theoretically possible, it may not actually happen. It is theoretically possible for a male and a female to procreate, even though infertility (and etc.) might render a particular male and female to be unable to do so in actuality.
ETYKTNWUTABTARALTOIUN? (Even Though You Knew That Nobody Would Understand The Acronyms Because They Aren't Recognisable Acronyms Like This One I'm Using Now?)
From a scientific perspective, it's not theoretically possible for an infertile couple to procreate. HOW is it theoretically possible?
no it's not a special right you don't have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex. if two dudes getting married is detrimental to your marriage it was probably not a very good marriage from the beginning. I'm not familiar with gay politics.
With fairness, as he introduced each one, he noted what the acronym stood for, which is standard for papers, books and reports. If you end up skipping posts, it's like skipping the intro part of a paper that notes all the abbreviations.
This still does not explain as to why marriage needs to be limited to theoretical procreators. Your arguments speak to procreation and not marriage or child rearing.
Not sure what post or posts you're referring to where he noted what the acronym stood for, but you appear to have missed the original post of his that I was referring to: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/same-sex-marriage.489311/page-38#post-1071230978
The first time he started using initials was on page 36. Not sure how to link a specific post from my phone. It's about midway down. I'd have to do a more thorough search, but just the initial scan indicates that he might not have referenced them all initially, although I was certain he had.
There was nothing that was difficult to understand. They are all approx. four words long. Your's is 21 words long. That is not an acronym nor an initialism. In fact, I've even misspoken in the past. I've said 'acronym' when I actually meant 'initialism'. Some of the "acronyms" I've used are technically initialisms, as just the letters are pronounced rather than making a word out of them.
Strawman Fallacy. It IS theoretically possible for a male and a female to procreate. Notice that this framework does NOT make any reference whatsoever to infertility. Infertility is an exception, not the general rule. Not all people are fertile. Not all people are infertile. Easy. If you would stop re-wording my argument by adding "infertile" into it, it is very possible. Male and female couples, in theory, CAN reproduce. That's precisely how you came into being. Are you denying this?
