SilverBear
Well-Known Member
Sanctimonious twaddle.Irrelevant because I conform to God's purposes for life.
Upvote
0
Sanctimonious twaddle.Irrelevant because I conform to God's purposes for life.
what book was that?Judging by all the cases I have on file on my computer, homosexuals agitators do not understand what treating someone like a human being is. If you don't agree with them you are trash in their eyes.
I will give you one pertinent example. A friend of mine wrote a book about homosexuality with over 700 footnotes. At the launch of it which was in a church and by invitation only, the homosexual rent-a-mob turned up blowing whistles, banging drums and shouting out obscenities.
I am not clear how that is treating the people at the book launch like human beings.
Possibly the one by the Charlie Chaplin impersonator...what book was that?
Judging by all the cases I have on file on my computer, homosexuals agitators do not understand what treating someone like a human being is. If you don't agree with them you are trash in their eyes.
I will give you one pertinent example. A friend of mine wrote a book about homosexuality with over 700 footnotes. At the launch of it which was in a church and by invitation only, the homosexual rent-a-mob turned up blowing whistles, banging drums and shouting out obscenities.
I am not clear how that is treating the people at the book launch like human beings.
This has zero to do with preferential treatment and everything to do with the meaning of marriage. Jesus defined marriage as when a man leaves his mother and father, clings unto his wife, and the two become one flesh. Biblically-adherent Christians are not permitted to redefine it to appease the culture.
All of that is false liberal rhetoric.
No one really cared about the Starbucks cup. A mention of a detrimental change in Starbucks policy of creating a cool new Christmas mug each year is not "crying". It was mentioned in a few articles and opinion pieces. That's it. And people went on with their lives. Many liked the Christmas scenes on the cups every year. Plain red was not a good seller and Starbucks reversed it. You can get a plain red mug anywhere, anytime. You completely missed the point on this and it isn't applicable anyway.
Have a nice day.So even if this anecdote does have any merit (and anecdotes are hit or miss...forgive me, but I don't know you therefore you could just be another person making up anecdotes on the internet), do you not see the stark difference between someone showing up to yell at something they don't like, and using the force of law to strip rights away from another group?
That'd be like comparing an isolated, boisterous KKK rally to Jim Crow laws. Obviously both are bad, but they're nowhere even near the same ballpark in terms of the impact they have on other people's lives.
Have a nice day.
so your imaginary friend wrote an imaginary bookThe one my friend wrote.
It is not at all about preferential treatment. It is about the meaning of marriage, which was commonly understood until the last few years, and needed no explanation. Marriage is a societal construct as well as a biblical one. You cannot simply redefine it. It is only privileged in the tax law in the first place for the benefit of children and their parents - families. There is no issue in same sex relationships. They are relationships but they are not "marriage".It precisely has to do with preferential treatment.
Worded more succinctly, far-right Christians were upset when US government laws were altered and no longer reflected the laws laid out in their preferred religious text.
Now, I would say that the easy solution to this is just to get rid of licensed marriage (and the legal benefits that go with it altogether) and let's not have the government involved in relationships at all.
However, most folks in the traditional marriage camp can't seem to genuine when they recommend that considering that most of them supported DOMA.
Really? People didn't care? Is that why there were folks referring to is as a "war on Christmas"?
http://fortune.com/2015/11/09/starbucks-red-cups/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...k-video/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b3808f0918ae
“It’s not just about a cup,” he explained in an e-mail to The Washington Post. “The cup is symbolic of a larger war against Christianity in this country. The policemen of political correctness have demanded that the silent majority bend its knee to a vocal minority.” He added: “Starbucks and others know that Americans are drawing a line in the sand and refusing to remain silent any longer.”
In the video, Feuerstein added that he wore a Jesus Christ T-shirt into the store “just to offend” — and also brought his gun with him, since Starbucks “hates” the Second Amendment. (Starbucks has expressed disapproval of guns in its locations in the past, but not banned them. Arizona, meanwhile, is an open-carry state.)
It is not at all about preferential treatment. It is about the meaning of marriage, which was commonly understood until the last few years, and needed no explanation. Marriage is a societal construct as well as a biblical one. You cannot simply redefine it. It is only privileged in the tax law in the first place for the benefit of children and their parents - families. There is no issue in same sex relationships. They are relationships but they are not "marriage".
I do believe we are going to have to have churches retain the control and not the government in reference to marriage licenses, the way things are going, now that that horse is out of the barn.
The opinion piece about the Starbucks cup is just that. An opinion piece. Few people really care enough about Starbucks and their questionable values to care about their mugs. This guy was just stirring the pot. One guy. Millions just go about their business and buy their holiday mugs where they can.
If you read the article, it stated that the women chose this facility because it could provide a higher level of assistance without higher cost. (Which implies at least one of them has medical issues.) The article also says the couple informed a representative about their relationship. And they were initially told it was no problem. So they paid the deposit and assumed everything was a go. They wanted to be honest and up-front regarding their marriage. So they're contending not only were they victims of unlawful discrimination, but they were misled. And now it's in the hands of the federal courts.
It takes an extraordinarily jaundiced attitude to think that 2 elderly women, possibly having medical problems and seeking a retirement home capable of accommodating them within their budget, actually have an ulterior motive to harass such a facility with litigation. If that's not paranoia, then what is?
If it's a societal and biblical construct, then it has no place being given legal benefits under US law per the 1st amendment.
You can't take a societal institution, mandate that the biblical version of said institution be adhered to, attach legal & tax benefits to those who enter into it, and then turn around and restrict a sizable portion of the population from being able to access it.
.
That's not what happened. No one has ever restricted anyone from accessing marriage; the fight was on redefining it to mean something other than marriage, which is a man and a woman becoming one. If you you suddenly deciding that your ice cubes are now hot (because you have redefined cold to mean hot), you can do that I guess, no matter how nonsensical. You cannot demand that I acquiesce to your new definition. Nope. Your ice cubes are still going to be icy cold if you change the language and force me by legal penalty to refer to them as hot (even though they aren't). You cannot change what is truth.
Marriage has always meant what it meant, a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving unto his wife and the two became one flesh, certainly since the genesis of this country. All people of legal age have always been free to get married. They just weren't free to redefine marriage.