Gay "marriage" supporters - what is your endgame?

[Anonymous]

Christ was silent where it comes to homosexuality, just as he was on what kind of fabric one could wear or how to trim one's beard.

So again, you are picking and choosing rather arbitrarily which parts of the Old Testament to follow versus which ones to discard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Christ was silent where it comes to homosexuality, just as he was on what kind of fabric one could wear or how to trim one's beard.

So again, you are picking and choosing rather arbitrarily which parts of the Old Testament to follow versus which ones to discard.

But Christ was not silent on adultery, or sexual immorality, and other such sins.

You are making a logical fallacy by assuming that because Jesus did not specifically address all 600+ Mosaic Laws in the New Testament, then his silence equates to him condoning those sins he did not mention.

You and others continue to try and wiggle out from Christianity's bible-based non-acceptance of homosexuality. You keep trying to twist the bible into saying what it does not, that the abominable behavior of homosexuality --a person attempting to mate with someone of the same sex as if it is somehow normal and how God intended, is now ok and wonderful because two people, often drug or alcohol addicted, feel like they are in love with each other so it is ok to do what God already said is an abomination.

God created, in the beginning, male and female, and for them to be joined together. It is in the first book of the Bible. That is elementary, Christianity-101 stuff but evil people who do not want to accept what the bible says concerning sexual immorality cannot or will not understand.

People are seriously deluded when they think true Christians are going to say "Okay, forget the bible. All these rainbow flag waving people must be right and the bible wrong because they feel like they are in love with each other and love is good so they must be good because they love each other."

Even murderers, and liars, and child molesters, even when they love someone and do kindness to their loved ones, does not change the fact that they are still evil because they have not repented of their sins and done exactly as Jesus commanded: Go, and sin no more.

Homosexuality, as is adultery, is sin. You cannot weasel or wiggle your way out from this clear and explicit declaration in the bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christ was silent where it comes to homosexuality, just as he was on what kind of fabric one could wear or how to trim one's beard.

So again, you are picking and choosing rather arbitrarily which parts of the Old Testament to follow versus which ones to discard.

But Christ was not silent on adultery, or sexual immorality, and other such sins.

You are making a logical fallacy by assuming that because Jesus did not specifically address all 600+ Mosaic Laws in the New Testament, then his silence equates to him condoning those sins he did not mention.

You and others continue to try and wiggle out from Christianity's bible-based non-acceptance of homosexuality. You keep trying to twist the bible into saying what it does not, that the abominable behavior of homosexuality --a person attempting to mate with someone of the same sex as if it is somehow normal and how God intended, is now ok and wonderful because two people, often drug or alcohol addicted, feel like they are in love with each other so it is ok to do what God already said is an abomination.

God created, in the beginning, male and female, and for them to be joined together. It is in the first book of the Bible. That is elementary, Christianity-101 stuff but evil people who do not want to accept what the bible says concerning sexual immorality cannot or will not understand.

People are seriously deluded when they think true Christians are going to say "Okay, forget the bible. All these rainbow flag waving people must be right and the bible wrong because they feel like they are in love with each other and love is good so they must be good because they love each other."

Even murderers, and liars, and child molesters, even when they love someone and do kindness to their loved ones, does not change the fact that they are still evil because they have not repented of their sins and done exactly as Jesus commanded: Go, and sin no more.

Homosexuality, as is adultery, is sin. You cannot weasel or wiggle your way out from this clear and explicit declaration in the bible.

Okay, putting aside the deeply suspect theological and sociological soundness of your argument -- what gives you the right to force others to follow your Bible? You are free to believe anything you want. But why should other people be bound by the same strictures? Why should they have to live their lives according to your beliefs?

Much as you may be convinced that it's All About You, gay marriage isn't about Christians. It's about letting gay people live with peace, dignity, and equal protection under the law. If every Christian disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, it wouldn't change my belief that gay people should be treated as if their relationships are just as valuable as straight people's. It is NOT ABOUT YOU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christ was silent where it comes to homosexuality, just as he was on what kind of fabric one could wear or how to trim one's beard.

So again, you are picking and choosing rather arbitrarily which parts of the Old Testament to follow versus which ones to discard.

But Christ was not silent on adultery, or sexual immorality, and other such sins.

You are making a logical fallacy by assuming that because Jesus did not specifically address all 600+ Mosaic Laws in the New Testament, then his silence equates to him condoning those sins he did not mention.

You and others continue to try and wiggle out from Christianity's bible-based non-acceptance of homosexuality. You keep trying to twist the bible into saying what it does not, that the abominable behavior of homosexuality --a person attempting to mate with someone of the same sex as if it is somehow normal and how God intended, is now ok and wonderful because two people, often drug or alcohol addicted, feel like they are in love with each other so it is ok to do what God already said is an abomination.

God created, in the beginning, male and female, and for them to be joined together. It is in the first book of the Bible. That is elementary, Christianity-101 stuff but evil people who do not want to accept what the bible says concerning sexual immorality cannot or will not understand.

People are seriously deluded when they think true Christians are going to say "Okay, forget the bible. All these rainbow flag waving people must be right and the bible wrong because they feel like they are in love with each other and love is good so they must be good because they love each other."

Even murderers, and liars, and child molesters, even when they love someone and do kindness to their loved ones, does not change the fact that they are still evil because they have not repented of their sins and done exactly as Jesus commanded: Go, and sin no more.

Homosexuality, as is adultery, is sin. You cannot weasel or wiggle your way out from this clear and explicit declaration in the bible.

By your logic, the pizza parlor should not serve divorcees or cater remarriages. Jesus was specific that this is adultery. So if you are going to hang your hat on those words, be consistent.

I am quite certain that you will brush off this obvious contradiction, because everyone knows divorcees. This is cognitive dissonance on your part.

[Anonymous]

Endgame? Seriously? Perhaps equal and fair application of the law to all.

[Anonymous]

Endgame: all straight people renounce being straight.
Just kidding. It's a stupid question... They want equal treatment under the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By your logic, the pizza parlor should not serve divorcees or cater remarriages. Jesus was specific that this is adultery. So if you are going to hang your hat on those words, be consistent.

I am quite certain that you will brush off this obvious contradiction, because everyone knows divorcees. This is cognitive dissonance on your part.

This. Most people using the Bible as an argument against homosexuality disregard most other laws regarding sin and acceptable behavior. That's what makes their position hypocritical and homophobic.

[Anonymous]

I'm not a Christian, but here is the impression I have of the real Jesus and what His teachings say on this issue: http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/

[Anonymous]

It seems bankruptcy and driving people out of their homes....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a Christian, but here is the impression I have of the real Jesus and what His teachings say on this issue: http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/

I love that. I had to get the cached version, here it is for anyone who wants it:
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5mKe1__QmQIJ:tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/

Who would Jesus refuse to serve?

Who would Jesus turn away?

[Anonymous]

Oops. Clickable link:
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5mKe1__QmQIJ:tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/

[Anonymous]

Sometimes out of economic necessity a man would sell his daughter into slavery. Of course no father would want to do that but in biblical times there was no social security, no welfare, no unemployment agency to tide one over until better times came. You either sold your daughter into slavery so as to replace a dead milk cow which was the only source of income, or everyone starves to death.

Those were very different and difficult times. Notice the statute is how to treat the slave justly. It does not say "And you can beat her near to death if it pleases you oh happy slave owner."

[snip]

Of course the statutes on slavery do not apply to these modern times because wonderful capitalism and our advanced economies of scale render unnecessary selling one's daughter into slavery.

In other words, the passage is an anachronism that has outlived its usefulness.

And your argument on slavery is that, well, it wasn't REALLY slavery, just indentured servitude? Wow.

The upshot of this is that you feel free to ignore some Old Testament passages, but insist on rigorous adherence to others, without any principled distinction between the two (other than "because of social security, it's not economically necessary to sell your children into slavery"). If you can't see the hypocrisy there, there's really no hope for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christ was silent where it comes to homosexuality, just as he was on what kind of fabric one could wear or how to trim one's beard.

So again, you are picking and choosing rather arbitrarily which parts of the Old Testament to follow versus which ones to discard.

But Christ was not silent on adultery, or sexual immorality, and other such sins.

You are making a logical fallacy by assuming that because Jesus did not specifically address all 600+ Mosaic Laws in the New Testament, then his silence equates to him condoning those sins he did not mention.

You and others continue to try and wiggle out from Christianity's bible-based non-acceptance of homosexuality. You keep trying to twist the bible into saying what it does not, that the abominable behavior of homosexuality --a person attempting to mate with someone of the same sex as if it is somehow normal and how God intended, is now ok and wonderful because two people, often drug or alcohol addicted, feel like they are in love with each other so it is ok to do what God already said is an abomination.

God created, in the beginning, male and female, and for them to be joined together. It is in the first book of the Bible. That is elementary, Christianity-101 stuff but evil people who do not want to accept what the bible says concerning sexual immorality cannot or will not understand.

People are seriously deluded when they think true Christians are going to say "Okay, forget the bible. All these rainbow flag waving people must be right and the bible wrong because they feel like they are in love with each other and love is good so they must be good because they love each other."

Even murderers, and liars, and child molesters, even when they love someone and do kindness to their loved ones, does not change the fact that they are still evil because they have not repented of their sins and done exactly as Jesus commanded: Go, and sin no more.

Homosexuality, as is adultery, is sin. You cannot weasel or wiggle your way out from this clear and explicit declaration in the bible.

Okay, putting aside the deeply suspect theological and sociological soundness of your argument -- what gives you the right to force others to follow your Bible? You are free to believe anything you want. But why should other people be bound by the same strictures? Why should they have to live their lives according to your beliefs?

Much as you may be convinced that it's All About You, gay marriage isn't about Christians. It's about letting gay people live with peace, dignity, and equal protection under the law. If every Christian disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, it wouldn't change my belief that gay people should be treated as if their relationships are just as valuable as straight people's. It is NOT ABOUT YOU.

NP here. I just needed to bold that. +a gazillion.

[Anonymous]

I am totally in favor of the right to marry the one you love, and the right to be served in a public business regardless of sexual orientation, but I have some mixed feelings about the issue of the cake for the gay wedding.

There was an example on the web, perhaps already mentioned here, about a baker who refused to make a cake with an anti-gay message, but agreed to make a cake with a bible and provide the material for the buyer to write the message. Perhaps in the case of the gay marriage, the baker could make the cake and let the happy couple put the two grooms on.

It may not always be feasible, but in many cases there is an acceptable compromise that would save the expense of lawyers and, more important, would not unnecessarily sour the growing acceptance of gay rights among those who are on the borderline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am totally in favor of the right to marry the one you love, and the right to be served in a public business regardless of sexual orientation, but I have some mixed feelings about the issue of the cake for the gay wedding.

There was an example on the web, perhaps already mentioned here, about a baker who refused to make a cake with an anti-gay message, but agreed to make a cake with a bible and provide the material for the buyer to write the message. Perhaps in the case of the gay marriage, the baker could make the cake and let the happy couple put the two grooms on.

It may not always be feasible, but in many cases there is an acceptable compromise that would save the expense of lawyers and, more important, would not unnecessarily sour the growing acceptance of gay rights among those who are on the borderline.

I doubt they asked for two grooms. The average wedding cake does not have dolls on it.