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.
Can you explain how her marital history has any relevance to whether or not she believes marriage is to be male/female only?
For one, it casts doubt on her honesty. She says she won't support sinful behavior -- so, why has she been married three times?
Matthew 5:31 -32 says it: a person who remarries after a divorce commits adultery. that's repeated in Mark 10:2-12, as well as Romans 7:2-3, Matthew 19:8-9, and Luke 16:18.
The only exception that I could find was in the case of marital unfaithfulness or the death of the spouse.
Yes, she will most likely be removed from her post and fined, jailed, etc. Frankly, she hasn't got a moral leg to stand on with her arguments, anyway.
Imagine for a moment the situation is reversed. Homosexuality is the "norm" and heterosexuality is less common. For over 200 years, your sex acts have been illegal, it was illegal for you to marry, you have been openly discriminated against in all parts of society (employment, housing), and anti-hetero jokes and hate were encouraged. The term "hetero" became also synonymous with "stupid" and "strange".
After these hundreds of years, you have started to gain basic civil rights.
Now let's try this with the tables turned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I The agenda is to force everyone to accept heterosexuality. If you resist, they want you to be punished. That's why I see zero talk from your camp about trying to find a solution that could respect her beliefs yet maintain equality. ... Equality exists in the state of Kentucky. There are over 100 other places in that area where a hetero couple could get their marriage license. Just not from this woman. But of course, that's not good enough.
You're right. It's not good enough. Governments should honor basic civil rights, and so should all their officers.
A Jehovah's Witness nurse can resign if her job begins to require administering blood transfusions; she shouldn't be allowed to make her patients feel as though they are doing something wrong, and she shouldn't be allowed to refuse. It's a fundamental part of her job. She can avoid "sinning" by resigning.
A Mormon working at Starbucks shouldn't be allowed to refuse to make coffee drinks. It's a fundamental part of his job. He can avoid "sinning" by resigning.
And this woman shouldn't be allowed to do this fundamental part of her job either. She can avoid "sinning" by resigning.
Imagine for a moment the situation is reversed. Homosexuality is the "norm" and heterosexuality is less common. For over 200 years, your sex acts have been illegal, it was illegal for you to marry, you have been openly discriminated against in all parts of society (employment, housing), and anti-hetero jokes and hate were encouraged. The term "hetero" became also synonymous with "stupid" and "strange".
After these hundreds of years, you have started to gain basic civil rights.
Now let's try this with the tables turned.
Your turn tables doesn't work unless you can make a non disputable case that homosexuality is just as natural and normal as heterosexuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagineAA
You're right. It's not good enough. Governments should honor basic civil rights, and so should all their officers.
A Jehovah's Witness nurse can resign if her job begins to require administering blood transfusions; she shouldn't be allowed to make her patients feel as though they are doing something wrong, and she shouldn't be allowed to refuse. It's a fundamental part of her job. She can avoid "sinning" by resigning.
A Mormon working at Starbucks shouldn't be allowed to refuse to make coffee drinks. It's a fundamental part of his job. He can avoid "sinning" by resigning.
And this woman shouldn't be allowed to do this fundamental part of her job either. She can avoid "sinning" by resigning.
Of course she will have to resign. That is not in dispute. My argument is the morality of the situation, and the situation is that the government literally over night changed the moral standard of our country and now people who have held jobs must comply or be punished. If it involved something that you found immoral, I doubt you be singing the same tune.
Your turn tables doesn't work unless you can make a non disputable case that homosexuality is just as natural and normal as heterosexuality.
.
The idea is rather silly. You cannot prove you are not homosexual, any more than you can prove you are hetero. You would need more proof than your word.
Your turn tables doesn't work unless you can make a non disputable case that homosexuality is just as natural and normal as heterosexuality.
Of course she will have to resign. That is not in dispute. My argument is the morality of the situation, and the situation is that the government literally over night changed the moral standard of our country and now people who have held jobs must comply or be punished. If it involved something that you found immoral, I doubt you be singing the same tune.
The Natural argument is irrelevant in both ways. The argument from what is 'natural' (even if it was not increasingly evidenced that same -sex inclinations are as natural as heterosexual ones even though - and I concede this - the evolutionary aim of reproduction doesn't seem to be filled by them) is not necessarily to be taken as better.
Nor is it relevant to the 'how would you like it?' argument that is being put. It is not about a false morality from 'natural' but a correct morality based on equitable rights.
In fact there is a lot I don't like that is allowed and lot I might consider allowable and desirable (such as a properly regulated, taxed and legal sex industry) that isn't legal. I can argue for the law to be changed as it has been in my lifetime on Gay rights and indeed, racism, but the law remains the law, nevertheless. Those who seem to think that the law only applies to them when they like it are long overdue for a taste of porridge.
Of course she will have to resign. That is not in dispute. My argument is the morality of the situation, and the situation is that the government literally over night changed the moral standard of our country and now people who have held jobs must comply or be punished. If it involved something that you found immoral, I doubt you be singing the same tune.
You really do like throwing the word 'moral' around, don't you? I won't repost the video, but let's take a look at some of the Bible's 'moral standards':
Judges 21:10-24 (NLT):
Quote:
Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"
The men were told to hide and sexually assault a group of women, and then ask their family to 'understand' -- because there weren't enough women to go around after they slaughtered an entire town.
Or how about Numbers 31:7-18 NLT?
Quote:
"Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves..
That's right -- Moses himself told the soldiers that had razed an entire village that they hadn't killed enough people, ordered that they kill the remaing male children and sexually-active women -- and gave them the virgin prisoners as a reward.
And, of course, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT:
Quote:
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
I think this one pretty much speaks for itself. And now I'm going to go and quietly be sick in the corner.
Jeff, you have no standing whatsoever to talk about 'moral standards', or who 'would be singing the same tune'. Not when you're willfully ignoring the moral failings of your own religion's most prominent document.
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.
