Why do Christians accept adulterers' weddings but not same-sex weddings? (point of view, sunday)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, if you create laws that give the EXACT same legal benefits, tax breaks etc... to civil unions as you would have with marriages then why the need for the "married" label? Because it's about forcing us to accept it.
No opponent of same-sex marriage ever proposed granting the same legal benefits for civil marriage. None of them ever introduced such a bill into Congress to require the federal government to extend those benefits offered to marriage couples to include couples in civil unions. So stop pretending that the proponents of separate-but-equal ever had even the slightest interest in equality.
Here's a list from the United States General Accounting Office of the federal benefits available exclusively to married individuals and couples. There are 1,138 of them. They are available to married couples. They were never available to individuals and couples in civil unions. GAO List of 1,138 Benefits, Rights, and Privileges of Marital Status
Have you ever advocated the extension of all those rights and benefits to include those in civil unions? Of course you haven't. We both know it.
PS - Your support for separate-but-equal institutions is as repugnant as those who supported segregated schools, public transportation, hotels, restaurants, and the like during the dark days of American apartheid.
PPS - Separate-but-equal has never been equal. It's always been nothing more than a vehicle for discrimination. And everyone knows it.
Again, if you create laws that give the EXACT same legal benefits, tax breaks etc... to civil unions as you would have with marriages then why the need for the "married" label? Because it's about forcing us to accept it.
No opponent of same-sex marriage ever proposed granting the same legal benefits for civil marriage. None of them ever introduced such a bill into Congress to require the federal government to extend those benefits offered to marriage couples to include couples in civil unions. So stop pretending that the proponents of separate-but-equal ever had even the slightest interest in equality.
Here's a list from the United States General Accounting Office of the federal benefits available exclusively to married individuals and couples. There are 1,138 of them. They are available to married couples. They were never available to individuals and couples in civil unions. GAO List of 1,138 Benefits, Rights, and Privileges of Marital Status
Have you ever advocated the extension of all those rights and benefits to include those in civil unions? Of course you haven't. We both know it.
PS - Your support for separate-but-equal institutions is as repugnant as those who supported segregated schools, public transportation, hotels, restaurants, and the like during the dark days of American apartheid.
PPS - Separate-but-equal has never been equal. It's always been nothing more than a vehicle for discrimination. And everyone knows it.
This is the most intelligent, thoughtful and articulate post in this entire thread.
Because they’re hypocrites. Most people don’t take the Bible literally. If so they would stone their neighbor for mowing his lawn on Sunday. It’s all a big game....
No opponent of same-sex marriage ever proposed granting the same legal benefits for civil marriage. None of them ever introduced such a bill into Congress to require the federal government to extend those benefits offered to marriage couples to include couples in civil unions. So stop pretending that the proponents of separate-but-equal ever had even the slightest interest in equality.
Here's a list from the United States General Accounting Office of the federal benefits available exclusively to married individuals and couples. There are 1,138 of them. They are available to married couples. They were never available to individuals and couples in civil unions. GAO List of 1,138 Benefits, Rights, and Privileges of Marital Status
Have you ever advocated the extension of all those rights and benefits to include those in civil unions? Of course you haven't. We both know it.
PS - Your support for separate-but-equal institutions is as repugnant as those who supported segregated schools, public transportation, hotels, restaurants, and the like during the dark days of American apartheid.
PPS - Separate-but-equal has never been equal. It's always been nothing more than a vehicle for discrimination. And everyone knows it.
I doubt anyone gave much thought to the subject because marriage is between a man and a woman.
Again, if you create laws that give the EXACT same legal benefits, tax breaks etc... to civil unions as you would have with marriages then why the need for the "married" label? Because it's about forcing us to accept it.
Actually, there is no prohibition in the Bible with regard to baking a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding; nor for issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple. To refuse to do either is a personal decision and not some adherence to a scriptural prohibition.
I suppose conscience would enter into the picture.
Does a person knowingly driving a get-a-way car share in the wrongdoing.
Because they’re hypocrites. Most people don’t take the Bible literally. If so they would stone their neighbor for mowing his lawn on Sunday. It’s all a big game....
Um, correction . . .they would stone their neighbor for mowing his lawn on SATURDAY!
No opponent of same-sex marriage ever proposed granting the same legal benefits for civil marriage. None of them ever introduced such a bill into Congress to require the federal government to extend those benefits offered to marriage couples to include couples in civil unions. So stop pretending that the proponents of separate-but-equal ever had even the slightest interest in equality.
I am speaking hypothetically. It's not my fault or fight that no bills were ever introduced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulsker 1856
Here's a list from the United States General Accounting Office of the federal benefits available exclusively to married individuals and couples. There are 1,138 of them. They are available to married couples. They were never available to individuals and couples in civil unions. GAO List of 1,138 Benefits, Rights, and Privileges of Marital Status
Have you ever advocated the extension of all those rights and benefits to include those in civil unions? Of course you haven't. We both know it.
My personal actions towards the matter are irrelevant. But this is the typical lame debate tactic to discredit my argument by turning it into a personal attack or inquiry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulsker 1856
PS - Your support for separate-but-equal institutions is as repugnant as those who supported segregated schools, public transportation, hotels, restaurants, and the like during the dark days of American apartheid.
No, what is repugnant is bringing racism into the discussion as a desperate ploy to make anyone who opposes gay marriage look bad. Racism has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Yes it is repugnant to treat someone of a different race as lesser. Yes it is repugnant to not grant gay people the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. And "married" vs "civil union" is not separate but equal. If the same benefits and rights exist in both kinds of arrangement then the only thing separate is the cultural identity label that comes with marriage. If that is your argument then it sounds to me that you are saying Christians are repugnant for not accepting gay marriage which is a great offense to God.
I am speaking hypothetically. It's not my fault or fight that no bills were ever introduced.
Of course it's your fault. You may have plenty of help but that doesn't make it moral. The PRIMARY opposition to gay marriage has always been prejudiced religionists whether Christian, Muslim, or Hindu. Just because many others do so in no way relieves you from the moral responsibility for being divisive in a manner Jesus never was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
My personal actions towards the matter are irrelevant. But this is the typical lame debate tactic to discredit my argument by turning it into a personal attack or inquiry.
Like all prejudiced bibliolators you think you can hide behind the Bible. In so doing you reject JESUS which makes you anything but Christian.
You are like the Pharisees in the gospels whom Jesus accused of loving only their own, not everyone; loving only their friends, not their enemies; rejecting doing what is right instead of treating everyone equally:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
"If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same?"
Your personal actions on EVERYTHING matters. That's what Jesus taught us about the responsibility of loving even our enemies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
No, what is repugnant is bringing racism into the discussion as a desperate ploy to make anyone who opposes gay marriage look bad. Racism has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Yes it is repugnant to treat someone of a different race as lesser. Yes it is repugnant to not grant gay people the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. And "married" vs "civil union" is not separate but equal. If the same benefits and rights exist in both kinds of arrangement then the only thing separate is the cultural identity label that comes with marriage. If that is your argument then it sounds to me that you are saying Christians are repugnant for not accepting gay marriage which is a great offense to God.
Your ability to not see the parallels between racism and homophobism is despicable yet not surprising.
The "married" title you wish to retain for heterosexual unions is your attempt to maintain "first place" at the head of the table. Jesus told you that the LAST shall be first. Right now the last are those gay folks.
By putting emphasis on gender you call Paul a liar. He wrote in Galatians 3:27-29
Quote:
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise
.
Yet over and over you make it about gender. It should be all about Christ. It shouldn't be about Christian "rights." It shouldn't be about Christian "privilege." It shouldn't be about Christian "demands" on those who aren't Christian. It should be about love.
I know you will be unable to see it but that atheist Bertrand Russell saw the morality of Jesus better than you do when he wrote:
Quote:
The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.
Quote:
And even Russell had a profound experience that made him understand the power of love:
In particular, he relates an episode in 1901 when he witnessed the wife of his Cambridge colleague Alfred Whitehead suffer intense pain due to heart problems, causing Russell to have what can only be described as a spiritual insight. "The ground seemed to give way beneath me and I found myself in quite another region," he writes. "Within five minutes I went through such reflections as the following: the loneliness of the human soul is unendurable; nothing can penetrate it except the highest intensity of the sort of love that religious teachers have preached; whatever does not spring from this motive is harmful, or at best useless----
When your "faith" can equal that of atheist Russell, you will be ready to begin a journey toward God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
