They really don't get it...

[brewmama]

If the burger joint owner/manager willingly and openly caters a "wedding" reception by delivering 500 cheeseburgers in rainbow boxes to the site with a sticker on each one saying "Congratulations, Hector and Percy!", then yes, I would say that the owner/manager is participating in a situation which is wrong, and by means of the messages, he is also encouraging the deviant and sinful behavior of the two homosexuals involved in the whole thing.

Burger joints usually don't run into this type of thing, where they are asked to deliberately violate their own faith by means of the products they offer; bakeries, florists, and hall rentals, regrettably, do.

Trying to make this obvious point to some people is sadly and ridiculously difficult.

 

[Fantine]

Thanks for totally proving our point!

Your point, as I understand it, is that gay marriage is making marriage obsolete.

The point of these studies and research projects is that the economic challenges young people face today because of corporate greed, union-busting and the evaporation of jobs due to globalization and technology is causing them to marry later, and perhaps not to marry at all.

Another factor (one I'm familiar with) is that when extended families are scattered due to frequent job transfers or job changes sending them all over the country, the strong support system of the extended family disappears.

Similar to the myth that abortion is the cause of every single societal problem today...or the myth that Vatican II is responsible for every lapsed Catholic in the world....gay marriage does not cause heterosexuals to remain single.

 

[ebia]

If the burger joint owner/manager willingly and openly caters a "wedding" reception by delivering 500 cheeseburgers in rainbow boxes to the site with a sticker on each one saying "Congratulations, Hector and Percy!", then yes, I would say that the owner/manager is participating in a situation which is wrong, and by means of the messages, he is also encouraging the deviant and sinful behavior of the two homosexuals involved in the whole thing.

Burger joints usually don't run into this type of thing, where they are asked to deliberately violate their own faith by means of the products they offer; bakeries, florists, and hall rentals, regrettably, do.

And if that same catholic baker is delivering to the weddings of, say, divorced people re-marrying? Or using non-fair-trade chocolate in his cakes.

The selectiveness gives the lie to the pretence.

 

[MoonlessNight]

All that this website has done is convince me that there can be no communication between the two sides of this issue. I have tried to get the opposing side to explain their position. My post history is full of threads where I do this repeatedly, for pages on end. But there is never an explanation beyond same-sex marriage, and everything deriving from it, apparently needing to exist for the government to not discriminate, and if you have to ask why that is you are a bigot.

 

[parousia70]

I have tried to get the opposing side to explain their position. My post history is full of threads where I do this repeatedly, for pages on end. But there is never an explanation beyond same-sex marriage, and everything deriving from it, apparently needing to exist for the government to not discriminate, and if you have to ask why that is you are a bigot.

Seems to me It's the equal protection clause as applied to contract law, plain and simple.

Preventing 2 citizens from choosing to enter into an otherwise legal contract with one another solely because of their sexual orientation is a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

SCOTUS will Rule, and I believe they will rule in favor of the above argument.

And yes, I do believe you are a bigot if you think government should prevent gay people from choosing to enter into ANY legal contract with one another. I don't care what it is... Real estate Contract, Business Contract, or marriage contract.

 

[brewmama]

Your point, as I understand it, is that gay marriage is making marriage obsolete.

The point of these studies and research projects is that the economic challenges young people face today because of corporate greed, union-busting and the evaporation of jobs due to globalization and technology is causing them to marry later, and perhaps not to marry at all.

Another factor (one I'm familiar with) is that when extended families are scattered due to frequent job transfers or job changes sending them all over the country, the strong support system of the extended family disappears.

Similar to the myth that abortion is the cause of every single societal problem today...or the myth that Vatican II is responsible for every lapsed Catholic in the world....gay marriage does not cause heterosexuals to remain single.

I don't think that was the OP's point. I agreed with you about heterosexuals not marrying as much, and divorcing too much. However, that is one of the reasons that homosexuals have decided that they want marriage.

Lots of factors are involved here, (except perhaps corporate greed and union-busting), and gay marriage is certainly included.

 

[parousia70]

If the burger joint owner/manager willingly and openly caters a "wedding" reception by delivering 500 cheeseburgers in rainbow boxes to the site with a sticker on each one saying "Congratulations, Hector and Percy!", then yes, I would say that the owner/manager is participating in a situation which is wrong, and by means of the messages, he is also encouraging the deviant and sinful behavior of the two homosexuals involved in the whole thing.

Burger joints usually don't run into this type of thing, where they are asked to deliberately violate their own faith by means of the products they offer; bakeries, florists, and hall rentals, regrettably, do.

Why do you draw that line where you do?

Why isn't it a violation of a Christian Hardware store owners faith and morals to simply sell a hammer to a gay man who could use it to complete repairs to the house he and his husband just bought?

By selling him that hammer, is he not "encouraging the deviant and sinful behavior of the two homosexuals involved in the whole thing"?

 

[Wolseley]

gay marriage does not cause heterosexuals to remain single.

Nobody said that it does. What we're saying is that gay "marriage" cheapens the institution (as does heterosexual divorce) and will eventually render it meaningless in the greater society at large, just as it has in Scandinavia.

And if that same catholic baker is delivering to the weddings of, say, divorced people re-marrying? Or using non-fair-trade chocolate in his cakes.

The selectiveness gives the lie to the pretence.

Provide me some documented examples.

All that this website has done is convince me that there can be no communication between the two sides of this issue. I have tried to get the opposing side to explain their position. My post history is full of threads where I do this repeatedly, for pages on end. But there is never an explanation beyond same-sex marriage, and everything deriving from it, apparently needing to exist for the government to not discriminate, and if you have to ask why that is you are a bigot.

Welcome to Obamamerica, where the culture is based on hostility and polarization.

Why do you draw that line where you do?

Why isn't it a violation of a Christian Hardware store owners faith and morals to simply sell a hammer to a gay man who could use it to complete repairs to the house he and his husband just bought?

By selling him that hammer, is he not "encouraging the deviant and sinful behavior of the two homosexuals involved in the whole thing"?

Because for all the hardware guy knows, the homosexual may be using the hammer to build chicken coops or housing for the homeless. But the baker doesn't have that benefit of a doubt when he's asked to provide a cake that says "Congratulations on your wedding, Rupert and Jethro".

 

[Inkfingers]

Sure. When a couple of homosexuals go to a Christian bakery and want a gay wedding cake, and the baker says, "I'm sorry, we don't carry that here," the homosexuals and their liberal fellow travelers go completely berserk. But if an atheist couple go to a Muslim halal deli and want a couple of ham sandwiches, and the Muslim owner says, "I'm sorry, we don't carry that here," the gays and libs never so much as twitch.

Its a clash of victimhoods. If the liberals complain about Islam they get slapped with the same "Bigot" and "Racist" stick that they use on others.

So they tend to target white Christians because we aren't classed as a minority or willing to hide behind a victim-card. Black Christians are harder to target as the liberals are cautious about appearing racist.

As a result the progressives get to have their 'hit' of feeling all big and brave. And they all congratulate each other. The fact that its all pretty much gratuitous doesn't matter to them; they "dine out" on "look at us facing up to the nasty cwistian bigots" for the rest of their lives. Which is the point really - self-idolatry. The big I-am.

That's why they never target Hindus, or Jews, or Sikhs, or Buddhists, all of whom in the majority find the normalising of homosexuality as unacceptable as the rest of us.

For now. We all know fully well that that will not be enough for the Pink Mafia. Churches will face increasingly strenuous pressure to either roll over and acquiesce, or be destroyed by pickets, threats, lawsuits (it will come), petty legal restrictions, you name it. All designed to force church to tow the line, or be forced out of operation.

You think I'm out of my mind, right? Sit back and watch.

No, I think you have it pretty spot on actually.

These are egotists. Young guns looking for a "monster" to fight and look big about fighting. And they picked Christianity, because Christianity, unlike Wookiees, sorry Mohammedans, doesn't pull people's arms out of their sockets when attacked. We tend to be peaceful folk who prefer politeness....whilst the progressives tend to go for the

look.

 

[LoAmmi]

Sure. When a couple of homosexuals go to a Christian bakery and want a gay wedding cake, and the baker says, "I'm sorry, we don't carry that here," the homosexuals and their liberal fellow travelers go completely berserk. But if an atheist couple go to a Muslim halal deli and want a couple of ham sandwiches, and the Muslim owner says, "I'm sorry, we don't carry that here," the gays and libs never so much as twitch.

How are the two situations any different? They aren't.

Bakeries carry cakes. A Muslim deli doesn't carry ham. Here, you explain to me what is the actual difference between the two cakes that make it so one isn't the same as the other and I'll explain the difference between turkey and ham. See the identical situation wouldn't be a deli not carrying a specific meat but a deli refusing to sell to Christians because they hold a sincere religious belief that Christians shouldn't eat their food.

 

[parousia70]

Because for all the hardware guy knows, the homosexual may be using the hammer to build chicken coops or housing for the homeless. But the baker doesn't have that benefit of a doubt when he's asked to provide a cake that says "Congratulations on your wedding, Rupert and Jethro".

So willful ignorance gives you a pass from having to conduct your business in a moral christian fashion?

 

[classicalhero]

Every once in a while, I read an article about some congregationalist church in the south that refuses to marry interracial couples or something. They are allowed to discriminate in that way if they do so on religious grounds in the context of a religious ceremony, but fortunately the government and non-religious businesses that are considered public accommodations, like restaurants, are not allowed to discriminate against interracial couples.

That's the same way gay marriage is likely going to go- churches don't have to marry gays if they don't want to, but gays will have the right to go to a court house and get civil marriages with all the legal and taxation rights that come with it, on the grounds of equal protection under the law. They'll also be allowed to buy wedding cakes from businesses that sell cakes.

If all these years after desegregation, churches can still decline to marry interracial couples, I think it stands to reason that churches will still be able to decline to marry gay couples if they want to. Of course, some churches won't want to decline to marry gay couples (i.e. Episcopalians are working on a proposal to take gender distinctions out of their wedding ceremonies), and they'll be allowed to marry gay couples if they want to.

Churches are allowed a lot of leeway on who they choose to allow to marry and who they don't. For example, I went to school with a guy who was raised, baptized, and confirmed Roman Catholic and went to mass frequently. His family even had priests over for dinner and the like sometimes. He got engaged to a Catholic woman of about the same age. The pastor at the local parish refused to marry them, citing psychological immaturity, which he was legally allowed to do even though they met all the legal requirements for marriage.

So, the couple in question decided to meet with a Methodist pastor. The Methodist pastor agreed to marry them (Though he didn't have to either), and they got married in a Methodist church building. If the Methodist pastor had declined, they could have checked with other ministers from other denominations, or just gone to a court house and gotten married by a justice of the peace. I don't think the church they grew up in recognized their wedding, which I thought was kind of a shame, but the point is that we already have plenty of precedent of churches being allowed to not marry people for religious or personal reasons even if they meet the legal requirements, and not having to recognize a civil marriage or a marriage in another church, denomination, or faith for their own religious purposes.

As far as people saying that those who oppose gay marriage won't be allowed to speak about it, I think those fears are unfounded. Why? Well, again, even though discrimination against racial minorities is now illegal, people are still free to express racist views, and fly Confederate flags. It's not really socially acceptable to be racist, but the constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to have your views socially accepted, it just gives you freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from discrimination in the workplace and in public places like restaurants and such.

So, if people's fear is that they might be looked down on for opposing gay marriage, then, yeah that might happen. So what? Are you guys advocating that the government protect you from people looking down on you?

I love the moral equivalence in this post. I am wondering where is gene for homosexuality? We know that skin colour is regulated by certain genes. But the problem is that those groups who refused to marry "interracial" couples did so out spite for what the Bible teaches and were in step with what the world teaches.

 

[GlockMeister]

The Bible says in the Endtimes, men will call evil good and good evil. Boy that sure is true these days with gay "marriage" and abortion.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I love the moral equivalence in this post. I am wondering where is gene for homosexuality? We know that skin colour is regulated by certain genes.

Interestingly, in autopsies, some men have been shown to have female looking brains and vice-versa. Now, that's not exactly homosexuality, of course, it more relates to another issue (transgender folks), but the point is up till the point where we found that, I think many of us would have said that a man who feels like he's a woman trapped in a man's body or vice-versa was simply having some sort of psychological issues without a biological antecedent, but now we know that sometimes they actually do have women's brains- literally.

So, don't be surprised if they do find a gay gene someday. It hasn't been found yet, but we don't have a complete map of the human genome along with an appendix footnoting what every gene does and doesn't do.

In any event, it doesn't really relate to this issue. Whether it's genetic or not, we know people are homosexual and that it isn't a choice that they make for the most part that they have those attractions and feelings. We also know our constitution and legal system is designed to be gender neutral and treat everyone equally. Churches by their nature of course make more specific moral distinctions and discriminate sometimes, whereas governments are supposed to treat everyone on an equal basis. When we try to turn government into a church, that's called theocracy, and it's not what western democracies were founded on- it's a very different thing, and a thing that I don't think is ultimately good even for the religion that's running the theocracy in the long run, because people tend to feel the religion is coercing them for obvious reasons, and resent it. Look what happened during the French Revolution to the priests after they overthrew a monarchy that had elements of Roman Catholic theocracy to it. I think a pluralistic democracy is a superior form of government for almost everyone, the churches included, and indeed the Vatican has taken that stance itself post-Vatican II.

But the problem is that those groups who refused to marry "interracial" couples did so out spite for what the Bible teaches and were in step with what the world teaches.

Here's the thing. Many churches cited the bible to justify slavery, segregation, and in opposing equal marriages. When laws were passed making these things illegal in the general society, those churches howled that their religious rights were being violated. I think it's a valid comparison to the reaction some churches are having to civil rights for gays, when looked at objectively. However, just as the few churches that still are against interracial marriages can refuse to perform them, the churches opposed to gay marriages will have the same rights. When people speak of legalizing gay marriages, generally it means allowing gays to go to the court house and get the legal rights associated with marriage (inheritance, getting to visit their spouses in the hospital and make medical decisions as next of kin, tax status changes, etc.) and get married in those religious institutions that *want* to marry gays (Which do exist, the Unitarian Univeralists are one.), not forcing those religious institutions that don't want to marry gays to do so (They can still refuse and gay folks can go to the courthouse or to a church that believes in marrying them).