Jump to content

Menu

Why do so many conservative Christians feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live?


Cammie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Honestly? No, I don't believe those that are in favor of allowing public businesses to discriminate have good intentions.

 

Okay, so you believe I am out to do harm.  I'm sorry to hear that, but it doesn't surprise me.  Do you believe that of all who disagree with you?  

 

Any other thoughts on what I wrote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanking you for taking the time to write this. This gives me a different perspective to contemplate - that reproduction is the primary part of marriage. I think I will need to work through why a non-married couple that have been together for many years and are raising children, would not fulfill this definition.

 

Would it be better to say that when children are reproduced in the framework of a traditional heterosexual marriage, sanctified by a church ceremony for the glory of God, it's a marriage? But if that union produces no children? I think I am truly confusing myself. You are saying that what you have described above is the "symbol" of what marriage "should be" and that is the standard that many Christians hold to?

 

 

I am viewing this from a Big Picture perspective, rather than considering each individual couple. Generic male + generic female = potential for procreation. Male + male, or female + female = no procreative potential. A child raised by a same-sex couple has a parent of the opposite sex out there somewhere, just as a child raised by a single parent does.

 

Every child born on this planet has a male parent and a female parent. I am working from the point of view that ideally children should be raised by both mother and father in a stable, supportive environment, and that holding this up as a standard is beneficial to society. Marriage is the formalization of a lasting union between potential mother and potential father with an eye towards creating such an environment. Ideally such a marriage takes place before children are conceived, ensuring the mutual commitment of both parents to the new family unit. Some states do have laws in place recognizing long-term relationships as de-facto marriages (common law marriage laws).

 

 

Because I am looking at types and ideals, the big picture, the fact that an individual marriage may not produce children is insignificant. The overall pattern, the appearance of the overall pattern, remains intact. 

 

Exceptions to the ideal type do not shatter that ideal (i.e. a gay couple living together, raising a family together) unless we attempt to make the exception part of the ideal. Something that does not fit the pattern cannot be named as part of the pattern without changing the essence of the pattern itself.

 

As a bit of an aside, I don't have particular opinions on the creation of civil union laws and protections for gay couples. It seems that such arrangements could reasonably be recognized as a separate pattern ... I haven't thought through the implications enough to have a strong opinion one way or another.  

 

I may or may not be able to respond further on this issue, I have a lot on my plate and it takes significant time for me to try to put my thoughts down in a way that I hope will be understood. I am not trying to persuade people to agree with me, only hoping some might be able to take advantage of a different perspective on a complex issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave an example of what I thought was a legal exception--a business that chooses to serve no one on a particular day.

 

Are you presuming that there are people who discriminate with approval of posters here?  As I read this thread, most are asking that the law be honored by all. 

 

You are saying that there must Orthodox Jews or Muslims who are choosing not to follow the law. I am asking for specific legal cases.

 

 

I question why Christian businesses are the ones being discussed when other faiths are clearly in agreement with Christian principles on this particular issue.

 

I know of no legal cases, but I'm not sure why that matters.  An Orthodox Jew or a religious Muslim would react as the Christian baker did.  Would you require that a halal caterer provide food for a gay Muslim wedding or stop providing food for all weddings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I question why Christian businesses are the ones being discussed when other faiths are clearly in agreement with Christian principles on this particular issue.

 

I know of no legal cases, but I'm not sure why that matters. An Orthodox Jew or a religious Muslim would react as the Christian baker did. Would you require that a halal caterer provide food for a gay Muslim wedding or stop providing food for all weddings?

If the caterer is in a state where homosexual persons are a protected class, then the caterer is required to provide the same service they would provide to anyone else. So yes, it would be required to do one or the other.

 

Choice of religion makes no difference. The law is the law in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I question why Christian businesses are the ones being discussed when other faiths are clearly in agreement with Christian principles on this particular issue.

 

I know of no legal cases, but I'm not sure why that matters.  An Orthodox Jew or a religious Muslim would react as the Christian baker did.  Would you require that a halal caterer provide food for a gay Muslim wedding or stop providing food for all weddings?

 

The reason that a certain Christian business is under discussion, i.e. a bakery, is because of a legal case.  It is not hypothetical. 

 

You are moving into the hypothetical.  I cannot speak for halal caterers or Orthodox bakers--pretty general if you ask me.  Which is why I was asking for legal cases.

 

But yes, I believe that businesses should follow the law.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been avoiding this thread and am not expecting this to be understood - but you *do* realize that many Christians like myself do not see a choice in changing our minds on this issue, because the authority on the subject is wholly beyond ourselves and outside of the social mores that come and go, right?

 

I will not be changing my beliefs on gay marriage, because they are based on the words of immutable, inspired, Holy scripture.

 

That doesn't mean myself or other believers don't have agency over how we treat others - quite to the contrary. But the responsibility of living out our beliefs isn't going to change just because culture does, and being on the 'wrong side' of man's wisdom in a given age is completely and utterly immaterial when one is focused on eternity.

 

Walking as a believer in these issues, for me, means treating other respectfully, kindly, patiently. It also means not condoning sin implicitly or explicitly in how I act or speak. These two things are not mutually exclusive, despite protestations to the contrary by many. However in the end my accountability isn't to fellow voters, a forum, or some ephemeral and transient social standard in my given location. My accountability is before the God of the universe.

 

That wins.

 

And to the best of my ability I must live my life in accordance with that accountability. That includes my speech, media consumption habits, voting patterns, and conduct. Whether I am majority or minority in my stance matters nothing, so long as I am faithful to what I have been called in Christ. All of it, not just part.

 

This will leave a few folks on here eternally frustrated with me, I'm sure, because they'll never be able to gain my assent to condoning what is deemed sin. But I literally can do nothing else, my conscience won't let me. Every fiber of my being is committed to what I know to be true, and my conviction is sure.

 

It's not about popularity, the right side of history, and not making waves. It is about being faithful to love the Lord and love my neighbor by the *biblically* defined categories. You will never catch me sneering at, slandering, or mistreating another human being as much as I am at all able. But you also won't catch me calling good evil, and evil, good - not in the public square, on a secret ballot, or in the recesses of my heart. I am commanded on these counts.

 

That is all I will permit myself to say on here - this is a personal testimony on the topic quoted, not a debate assertion. But I hope it offers some clarity nonetheless.

 

Good night (and once again please excuse any typos - I think I caught them all? I'm going to throw this device against the wall shortly :mad: ).

 

I think this is  a lovely essay.

 

But I do want to add, this exact same argument was used to uphold slavery in our country 150 years ago. Many people believed that the Bible told them to uphold and even defend the institution of slavery, not because of hatred,  but because of a story involving Noah and his sons, the 'Curse of Ham'.  Noah cursed Ham, and all his sons, to be servants........ and the interpretation at the time was that Ham's descendents were the people of Africa.  (Muslims, Jews and Christians all interpreted the story to justify slavery historically).   There is an enormous archive of sermons from the 1840s-50s  in the US preaching this story - it was an honestly held belief based on the Biblical text. The Bible hasn't changed, but obviously, the interpretation of that story of Genesis has.  The interpretation of views of love and marriage may change over time as well.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is  a lovely essay.

 

But I do want to add, this exact same argument was used to uphold slavery in our country 150 years ago. Many people believed that the Bible told them to uphold and even defend the institution of slavery, not because of hatred,  but because of a story involving Noah and his sons, the 'Curse of Ham'.  Noah cursed Ham, and all his sons, to be servants........ and the interpretation at the time was that Ham's descendents were the people of Africa.  (Muslims, Jews and Christians all interpreted the story to justify slavery historically).   There is an enormous archive of sermons from the 1840s-50s  in the US preaching this story - it was an honestly held belief based on the Biblical text. The Bible hasn't changed, but obviously, the interpretation of that story of Genesis has.  The interpretation of views of love and marriage may change over time as well.

 

Apartheid was justified in more recent times on a Biblical basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been avoiding this thread and am not expecting this to be understood - but you *do* realize that many Christians like myself do not see a choice in changing our minds on this issue, because the authority on the subject is wholly beyond ourselves and outside of the social mores that come and go, right?

 

I will not be changing my beliefs on gay marriage, because they are based on the words of immutable, inspired, Holy scripture.

 

That doesn't mean myself or other believers don't have agency over how we treat others - quite to the contrary. But the responsibility of living out our beliefs isn't going to change just because culture does, and being on the 'wrong side' of man's wisdom in a given age is completely and utterly immaterial when one is focused on eternity.

 

Walking as a believer in these issues, for me, means treating other respectfully, kindly, patiently. It also means not condoning sin implicitly or explicitly in how I act or speak. These two things are not mutually exclusive, despite protestations to the contrary by many. However in the end my accountability isn't to fellow voters, a forum, or some ephemeral and transient social standard in my given location. My accountability is before the God of the universe.

 

That wins.

 

And to the best of my ability I must live my life in accordance with that accountability. That includes my speech, media consumption habits, voting patterns, and conduct. Whether I am majority or minority in my stance matters nothing, so long as I am faithful to what I have been called in Christ. All of it, not just part.

 

This will leave a few folks on here eternally frustrated with me, I'm sure, because they'll never be able to gain my assent to condoning what is deemed sin. But I literally can do nothing else, my conscience won't let me. Every fiber of my being is committed to what I know to be true, and my conviction is sure.

 

It's not about popularity, the right side of history, and not making waves. It is about being faithful to love the Lord and love my neighbor by the *biblically* defined categories. You will never catch me sneering at, slandering, or mistreating another human being as much as I am at all able. But you also won't catch me calling good evil, and evil, good - not in the public square, on a secret ballot, or in the recesses of my heart. I am commanded on these counts.

 

That is all I will permit myself to say on here - this is a personal testimony on the topic quoted, not a debate assertion. But I hope it offers some clarity nonetheless.

 

Good night (and once again please excuse any typos - I think I caught them all? I'm going to throw this device against the wall shortly :mad: ).

 

Arctic Mama, thank you so much for so eloquently, sincerely, and graciously expressing exactly how so many of us feel.  I couldn't "like" your post enough. 

 

Like you, I've been avoiding this thread because I get too frustrated over the total failure of those making such claims failing to see the same behavior on their side of the fence (pot calling kettle black).  Not to mention using such a broad brush in the condemnation of a segment of the population.

 

I'm not one to try to "force" my way of life on another.  I don't try to "convince" or "argue" with others about what they should believe.  I don't tell people they're sinners and going to Hell. Heck, I'm a sinner too.  However, I do share my faith if asked and, just as everyone on this forum, I vote according to my conscious on issues.  I don't know of anyone, Christian or non-Christian, who doesn't vote that way. 

 

As a Christian business owner, I feel just as bullied by secularists as the secularists feel bullied by Christians.

    

Non-Christians constantly rail against Christians for "forcing" their positions on non-Chrisitans while the whole time they are doing the exact same thing to Christians. It's a two-way street. There are no winners in discrimination.  Someone is ALWAYS discriminated against. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FaithManor, you seem to have misunderstood everything I was trying to convey. I am not sure how to make things clearer.

 

An ideal does exist. It exists as a concept. Does human experience match the ideal? Rarely. 

 

No a rape is not a marriage. The birth of a child does not create a marriage.

 

I have said I do not expect everyone to agree with me, I had hoped people would make an honest attempt to understand my perspective. Your post does not seem to reflect such an attempt, though perhaps the fault is mine for failing in clarity; if so I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know of no legal cases, but I'm not sure why that matters.  An Orthodox Jew or a religious Muslim would react as the Christian baker did.  Would you require that a halal caterer provide food for a gay Muslim wedding or stop providing food for all weddings?

 

It matters. If there are no Orthodox Jewish or conservative Muslims businesses that have broken the law then what you propose is hypothetical. The business discussed here did break a law. That business happens to be Christian.

 

If an Orthodox Jewish baker refuses to make a certain type of cake on a day he is open for businesses and the reason is because he won't serve a protected class, not because he already has 40 orders for that day, then he is breaking the law.

 

This not an attack on Christian businesses, which some people want to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the appearance of your preferred definition of marriage despite the overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary is all you care about...that people appear to follow "the pattern".

 

Well, if it's only about keeping up with appearances then......

 

The argument is not logical.

 

And by the way, "ideal" has never really existed. You should ask the children of your romantic vision if they all have a male and female parent. NO THEY DON'T! Every child has an x or y chromosome donated by a male and a female. That's it. Ask the kids whose biological contributor ran off never to be a part of their life. Your romantic notions about reproduction mean nothing to them.

 

On top of which, IF this were true, if this were the "ideal", then rape that ends in pregnancy is a good thing. It's a marriage. It was a male and a female and ended in procreation. That's the marriage. A male and a female and a pregnancy. Your ideal.

 

I'm personally pretty darn well convinced that the lesbians that lived next door to us and lovingly raised their son together had a marriage! I'm pretty certain that the "parents" of my niece whose father ran out and wasn't seen again from the time she was 2 until she was 16, did NOT. But, I guess she gets the consolation prize because her biological contributors met the "ideal" pattern.

 

The argument holds NO water at all.

 

And don't start me on biology. There is a LOT that biology dictates and God help us if we start letting that become the measuring stick for laws we should and should not have, definitions that we should and should not adhere to because "civilization" just went out the window.

 

 

Do you consider this a fair assessment of what Maize wrote?  She did not say anything about "keeping up appearances."  She makes it clear that her ideal is a loving, male/female couple, which is committed and married before having children.  Rape clearly does not fall within this ideal.

 

If not adopted, the son of your lesbian neighbors may be biologically related to one of his mothers, but not both.  Therefore, he has a biological father somewhere out there.  If not adopted, the child was created using a biological donor from whom he would be separated.  In other words, he was created in a way that purposely separates him from a natural parent.  Your niece with the deadbeat dad has also been separated from her natural parent.  Neither of these situations is ideal.  Maize never makes the claim that a girl whose father runs out is in the superior situation.  That situation is, in fact, the opposite of the ideal that Maize describes at the outset.

 

Is it possible to respond by stating where you disagree rather than insulting the argument or the person who wrote it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I question why Christian businesses are the ones being discussed when other faiths are clearly in agreement with Christian principles on this particular issue.

 

I know of no legal cases, but I'm not sure why that matters.  An Orthodox Jew or a religious Muslim would react as the Christian baker did.  Would you require that a halal caterer provide food for a gay Muslim wedding or stop providing food for all weddings?

 

Yes, I would require that the caterer do so. That was an easy question.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not adopted, the son of your lesbian neighbors may be biologically related to one of his mothers, but not both.  Therefore, he has a biological father somewhere out there.  If not adopted, the child was created using a biological donor from whom he would be separated.  In other words, he was created in a way that purposely separates him from a natural parent.

 

You know, we're learning more and more every day. I postulate that it will not be very long until we can create sperm and egg cells from whomever we choose, at which point this argument will become moot. What will you say then?

 

At any rate, currently most children in foster care grow up with no parents. Their parents are gone or incapable, and that's not the fault of whoever wishes to raise them. Surely even a suboptimal situation such as having just one parent or having two parents of the same sex* is better than that?

 

* Not that there is any evidence that having two parents of the same sex IS suboptimal, but let's ignore that for the sake of this argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the other tread (I think), I asked if a baker should be forced to bake a cake for an FRC fundraiser and people agreed that he shouldn't be. Or maybe I asked if a venue should be forced to rent their space to the FRC for a fundraiser. Either of these activities is showing approval in the way that buying flour or providing soda is not. You might have to write "Congratulations Bob and Steve" on the cake. You might have to put a little figure of two guys on top of it. Someone might post a photo of the cake on their blog saying you made it and how wonderful it was. This shows your approval of the wedding.

 

I'm done here. If you don't see it, you don't see it. This conversation has inspired me to make a big donation to the FRC. Seriously. We need to fight against having sexual preferences included along with race on list of protected groups.

The FRC is a political group. Political ideology is not a protected class.

 

A baker could not turn away ATI or the Duggars or Focus on the Family for their religious beliefs. In your venue example, I would definitely not refuse to rent to a Focus on the Family fundraiser if I rented out a space suitable for fundraising. Same people as FRC, different status. One is a religious non-profit, the other is a lobbying/political entity.

 

There is a difference.

 

The FRC is virulently anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim and ok with denying first amendment rights to Muslims. So do not fool yourself. A donation to them is not pro-religious freedom. Not in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It matters. If there are no Orthodox Jewish or conservative Muslims businesses that have broken the law then what you propose is hypothetical. The business discussed here did break a law. That business happens to be Christian.

 

If an Orthodox Jewish baker refuses to make a certain type of cake on a day he is open for businesses and the reason is because he won't serve a protected class, not because he already has 40 orders for that day, then he is breaking the law.

 

This not an attack on Christian businesses, which some people want to believe.

 

The original title of the post is a little misleading, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original title of the post is a little misleading, then.

 

No, I don't think so. In most places in the US, there simply are not enough Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims to make a political bloc. With Christians, not only are there enough to do so, but they actually have formed multiple lobbyist groups.

 

I'm sure if we had a ton of Jews and not very many Christians, the political landscape would look superficially different and this post would have been titled "Why do so many Orthodox Jews...."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because we can do something does not mean we should do it.

 

You know, we're learning more and more every day. I postulate that it will not be very long until we can create sperm and egg cells from whomever we choose, at which point this argument will become moot. What will you say then?

 

At any rate, currently most children in foster care grow up with no parents. Their parents are gone or incapable, and that's not the fault of whoever wishes to raise them. Surely even a suboptimal situation such as having just one parent or having two parents of the same sex* is better than that?

 

* Not that there is any evidence that having two parents of the same sex IS suboptimal, but let's ignore that for the sake of this argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, we're learning more and more every day. I postulate that it will not be very long until we can create sperm and egg cells from whomever we choose, at which point this argument will become moot. What will you say then?

 

At any rate, currently most children in foster care grow up with no parents. Their parents are gone or incapable, and that's not the fault of whoever wishes to raise them. Surely even a suboptimal situation such as having just one parent or having two parents of the same sex* is better than that?

 

* Not that there is any evidence that having two parents of the same sex IS suboptimal, but let's ignore that for the sake of this argument.

 

I would certainly agree that having some parents is better than having none at all.  

 

I question the fairness of creating a child whom you intend to separate permanently from a natural parent.  Outside of adoption, this is the only way for gay parents to have children.

 

Non-ideal situations occur in heterosexual couplings, too.  No one disputes that.  But in the normal course of things, it is not a requirement for a child born of heterosexual parents to be permanently separated from one of them.

 

I don't know quite what you mean by "creat[ing] sperm and egg cells from whomever we choose."  For what purpose?  Do you mean that we would be capable, say, of collecting dna from passersby on the street and creating babies from strangers?   I am not being facetious; I really do not understand your point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so you believe I am out to do harm.  I'm sorry to hear that, but it doesn't surprise me.  Do you believe that of all who disagree with you?  

 

Any other thoughts on what I wrote?

 

No, because there are many, many others who disagree with me who still manage to treat their fellow citizens equally.

 

When you feel the need to tell another group of citizens they are lesser simply because of who they are, then yes, I do believe you are doing harm and I have no problem saying so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said The appearance of the pattern is intact.

 

So, I'm not certain how that could be any clearer. This was in reference to a marriage that did not produce children...that this was still okay because "The appearance of the pattern remains intact.

 

Unfortunately, that is exactly what the natural outcome of such a thing insinuates. The Levitical laws required a female to marry her rapist. I see a striking resemblance between the "pattern remaining intact" to this very thing.

 

That is why religion should not be the basis of secular law.

 

Hmm, the word appearance appears to be a hang-up for you; if I had said "the basic form of the pattern remains intact" would that make more sense? If you think of a visual pattern, replacing one element with a slightly altered version of that element does not undo the pattern itself. I am discussing conceptual patterns and used visual terminology because we usually think of patterns in visual terms.

 

No, being required to marry a rapist has no place at all in the pattern of a committed father and mother entering into a mutually supportive marriage as the foundation for a new family. Rape falls entire outside the pattern, being included within it would absolutely shatter the pattern. That is precisely what I want to avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, the word appearance appears to be a hang-up for you; if I had said "the basic form of the pattern remains intact" would that make more sense? If you think of a visual pattern, replacing one element with a slightly altered version of that element does not undo the pattern itself. I am discussing conceptual patterns and used visual terminology because we usually think of patterns in visual terms.

 

No, being required to marry a rapist has no place at all in the pattern of a committed father and mother entering into a mutually supportive marriage as the foundation for a new family. Rape falls entire outside the pattern, being included within it would absolutely shatter the pattern. That is precisely what I want to avoid.

 

Do you believe straight couples will stop getting married and having children just because homosexual couples can now do so legally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe straight couples will stop getting married and having children just because homosexual couples can now do so legally?

 

No.

 

I believe that including homosexual unions within the concept of marriage reinforces a conceptualization of marriage focused more on the rights and privileges of adults than the bearing and rearing of children.

 

I believe that a concept of marriage founded on the union of potential fathers and mothers as a secure foundation for the bearing and rearing of children is most beneficial to society.

 

I am sorry but I have to bow out of the conversation now as my own family's needs take precedence. I sincerely appreciate those who have been willing to engage in thoughtful discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't think so. In most places in the US, there simply are not enough Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims to make a political bloc. With Christians, not only are there enough to do so, but they actually have formed multiple lobbyist groups.

 

I'm sure if we had a ton of Jews and not very many Christians, the political landscape would look superficially different and this post would have been titled "Why do so many Orthodox Jews...."

 

I live in a part of the country where christian is the default setting for most people - in other words, it's assumed you are christian unless you speak otherwise. This is not isolated, there is a great swath of America that is that way. 

 

At one point, we lived in an area where the common first question upon meeting someone was "What church do you attend?" not IF, but WHERE and they didn't include temple, synagogue, or mosque because of the presumption listed above.

 

There is also not a lot of cultural diversity in some areas. The larger cities might, but as you get further out it can become even less diversified. For instance, I like a county (small division within states) that has 20,000 people. The country is 423 square miles, about 1000 km square. Lots of land, lots of small towns within our county.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the difference, again, and I'm just shocked that people do not understand this is if you open a PUBLIC business you have to abide by the laws. If you don't want to be public so you are free to discriminate against anyone you wish, then you become a private entity. That's it. If you don't like public laws, then you don't become a public business.

 

A business is a thing anyway...it's not a person. It's legally incorporated as a thing, not a person. A non personhood cannot have a religion.

 

There are legal means available to be allowed to do what you want.

 

In the case of the wedding chapel, had the clergy in question kept the chapel as a religious entity and drawn a salary from it which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, they could have discriminated all the live long day and that would have been fine because as a religious entity they would have the right to control whom they performed religious services for and how that plays out in the operation of the religion.

 

The cake baker doesn't have a leg to stand on. Really. If that same couple had only sent ONE fiancé into the business to contract for the cake and if that person had been uber discrete and never told the baker that his or her significant other was same sex, the baker would have made the cake, and GASP it would have been used in the celebration of a marriage - or as some other poster put it "non-wedding" - he did not approve of, and it still would have been a "sin" if that's what he believes because his argument was that he shouldn't sell a wedding cake for a wedding he doesn't approve of so whether or not the couple divulged their orientation, the end result was exactly the same. Even in the Old Testament a sing of ignorance was still a sin. So the argument doesn't hold.

 

In the Hobby Lobby case SCOTUS did, in fact, treat corporations as people.  This is not a new thing.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "public business."  There are private businesses or entities open to the public and there are government entities.

 

I'm also having trouble following your sentence beginning "If that same couple" and ending "the end result was exactly the same."  But if I understand you correctly, you are saying that if the baker had been ignorant of the true use of the cake, and had made it, he would still be a sinner."  I'm not Christian, so I can't speak to the truth of that statement.  From my -- admittedly limited -- understanding of the Christian view, sins of ignorance are not in the same category as "regular" sin, and they may be overcome or forgiven if the sinner strives for knowledge and understanding of his sin.  Presumably, sinning knowingly is worse.

 

Again, your "shock" and your tone of attack are more than a little jarring.  Those on both sides of this argument feel strongly about their convictions, but the angry tone seems designed to shut down discussion.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

I believe that including homosexual unions within the concept of marriage reinforces a conceptualization of marriage focused more on the rights and privileges of adults than the bearing and rearing of children.

 

I believe that a concept of marriage founded on the union of potential fathers and mothers as a secure foundation for the bearing and rearing of children is most beneficial to society.

 

I am sorry but I have to bow out of the conversation now as my own family's needs take precedence. I sincerely appreciate those who have been willing to engage in thoughtful discussion.

 

Ah, I see where we are missing each other.  You believe there is one "concept of marriage" while we know that historically that is not true.

 

The reality is that whether there is gay marriage or not, humans will still form bonds and reproduce.  It is what we do.  Exactly what those bonds look like have changed over time, but no matter what happens we keep poppin' out babies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Hobby Lobby case SCOTUS did, in fact, treat corporations as people.  This is not a new thing.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "public business."  There are private businesses or entities open to the public and there are government entities.

 

I'm also having trouble following your sentence beginning "If that same couple" and ending "the end result was exactly the same."  But if I understand you correctly, you are saying that if the baker had been ignorant of the true use of the cake, and had made it, he would still be a sinner."  I'm not Christian, so I can't speak to the truth of that statement.  From my -- admittedly limited -- understanding of the Christian view, sins of ignorance are not in the same category as "regular" sin, and they may be overcome or forgiven if the sinner strives for knowledge and understanding of his sin.  Presumably, sinning knowingly is worse.

 

Again, your "shock" and your tone of attack are more than a little jarring.  Those on both sides of this argument feel strongly about their convictions, but the angry tone seems designed to shut down discussion.

 

In all seriousness, if you aren't aware of the distinction then you have a lot of catching up to do on this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, because there are many, many others who disagree with me who still manage to treat their fellow citizens equally.

 

When you feel the need to tell another group of citizens they are lesser simply because of who they are, then yes, I do believe you are doing harm and I have no problem saying so.

 

 

Where did I say that?  How can you have any way of knowing how I treat anyone?  Where did I say how I personally would behave in the baker's position?  Why, if the baker chooses not the bake a cake for a gay wedding, does it necessarily mean that he thinks gay people are "lesser?"  Why does disagreement necessarily mean malignant intent?  

 

Why the need to make it personal?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see where we are missing each other.  You believe there is one "concept of marriage" while we know that historically that is not true.

 

The reality is that whether there is gay marriage or not, humans will still form bonds and reproduce.  It is what we do.  Exactly what those bonds look like have changed over time, but no matter what happens we keep poppin' out babies.

 

No.

 

I believe there is a best concept.

 

I believe concepts matter.

 

I know others have different concepts and disagree with me about their significance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done my best to clarify my thoughts and beliefs and clear up misunderstandings and misconceptions. I am not sure how to be more clear. 

 

I think some of us are just looking at things from such different points of reference that it is difficult to make terms and meanings clear. That is unfortunate but maybe inevitable.

 

 

But I really do have to let this go for now :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I say that?  How can you have any way of knowing how I treat anyone?  Where did I say how I personally would behave in the baker's position?  Why, if the baker chooses not the bake a cake for a gay wedding, does it necessarily mean that he thinks gay people are "lesser?"  Why does disagreement necessarily mean malignant intent?  

 

Why the need to make it personal?  

When you tell someone you won't serve "their kind" shockingly they do tend to feel like they are being treated less than equal.  Hence, lesser.

 

If you wouldn't act the same as the baker, then my comment does not apply to you. If you would, it does.

 

Nice to know the blacks told they couldn't eat in certain restaurants or stay in certain hotels shouldn't have taken the insult personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My religious beliefs are such that discriminating against gay couples and breaking the law in doing so is no different from a white person refusing service to a black person, men refusing the service of their business to women, engaging in slavery, supporting apartheid, ....it is all the same. The tone from the other side has been quite offensive, but apparently that's okay.  So, I'll delete my recent posts and leave all of you to it.

 

Done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all seriousness, if you aren't aware of the distinction then you have a lot of catching up to do on this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

 

Public accommodations are the same thing as private businesses (or government entities) open to the public.  The concept is not new to me.

 

"Public business" -- your phrase -- is not something I have heard of, unless you intend by it publicly traded companies.

 

ETA: Sorry, it was not your phrase, it was FaithManor's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done my best to clarify my thoughts and beliefs and clear up misunderstandings and misconceptions. I am not sure how to be more clear. 

 

It is clear, but is coming across flawed.

 

If you don't believe straight couples will stop bonding via marriage and having babies, then I can't see where allowing other bonds is damaging the concept of marriage as you see it.  Heterosexuals will still want to bond and mate with other heterosexuals.  Homosexuals will still want to bond and mate with other homosexuals.  I don't see how your concept of marriage is protected by either 1.) not allowing homosexuals to bond, or worse, 2.) expecting them to bond with heterosexuals.

 

As I mentioned, your concept of marriage is not the only one that exists, however it has been around for quite some time.  it isn't going anywhere just because others can now legally form the bonds that they desire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Public accommodations are the same thing as private businesses (or government entities) open to the public.  The concept is not new to me.

 

"Public business" -- your phrase -- is not something I have heard of, unless you intend by it publicly traded companies.

 

Shortcut phrase and in the context of the conversation it is clear what it means.  And yes, you can have a business that is not a public accommodation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is clear, but is coming across flawed.

 

If you don't believe straight couples will stop bonding via marriage and having babies, then I can't see where allowing other bonds is damaging the concept of marriage as you see it.  Heterosexuals will still want to bond and mate with other heterosexuals.  Homosexuals will still want to bond and mate with other homosexuals.  I don't see how your concept of marriage is protected by either 1.) not allowing homosexuals to bond, or worse, 2.) expecting them to bond with heterosexuals.

 

As I mentioned, your concept of marriage is not the only one that exists, however it has been around for quite some time.  it isn't going anywhere just because others can now legally form the bonds that they desire.

 

Limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not prevent homosexuals from bonding, or even encourage them to bond with heterosexuals.  It simply does not call that marriage.

 

Words have meaning.  When we use the word "marriage" figuratively, we mean the union of two disparate things, e.g., "The dish was a marriage of traditional French and exotic Vietnamese flavors."  We would never say, "The dish was a marriage of traditional French flavors and traditional French flavors."  

 

That doesn't mean two gay people cannot have a meaningful, committed, lifelong union.  But it is not the same as a marriage.  Does that mean that homosexuals are "lesser"?  That is frankly not my opinion, nor do I think it is implied in saying that a homosexual union is different from a heterosexual marriage.  It is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you tell someone you won't serve "their kind" shockingly they do tend to feel like they are being treated less than equal.  Hence, lesser.

 

If you wouldn't act the same as the baker, then my comment does not apply to you. If you would, it does.

 

Nice to know the blacks told they couldn't eat in certain restaurants or stay in certain hotels shouldn't have taken the insult personally.

 

Who, in any the legal cases mentioned previously, told a gay couple they would not serve "their kind?"  As I recall, the baker asserted that he would be happy to serve them for any other function.  His objection was not to "their kind" but to the event.

 

I'm not sure what your last comment refers to.  Blacks told they couldn't eat in certain establishments most certainly should have taken the insult personally.  They were being discriminated against based purely on an unchangeable aspect of their appearance.  I would take that personally, and I would expect most people to feel the same way.  It is not analogous to the gay wedding/baker case.  The baker was not turning away gay customers for being gay, or for their appearance.  You would never find me defending that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also find it odd that conservative Christians who fight for the right to discriminate/ignore the law due to their beliefs are most likely opposed to allowing Muslims to operate under Sharia law within their own communities.

If Christian bakers can ignore laws they don't like due to their beliefs, why can't Muslims?

 

To which Sharia laws are you referring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not prevent homosexuals from bonding, or even encourage them to bond with heterosexuals. It simply does not call that marriage.

 

Words have meaning. When we use the word "marriage" figuratively, we mean the union of two disparate things, e.g., "The dish was a marriage of traditional French and exotic Vietnamese flavors." We would never say, "The dish was a marriage of traditional French flavors and traditional French flavors."

 

That doesn't mean two gay people cannot have a meaningful, committed, lifelong union. But it is not the same as a marriage. Does that mean that homosexuals are "lesser"? That is frankly not my opinion, nor do I think it is implied in saying that a homosexual union is different from a heterosexual marriage. It is different.

It means that they receive, and their children receive, fewer legal protections, rights and benefits than heterosexual married people. My nieces deserve the exact same legal protections as my sons. The fact that my nieces have two dads shouldn't make them more vulnerable than their cousins with a married mom and dad. Thankfully my state legalized gay marriage in 2012 and my brother and his husband were able to, after years together and 2 daughters, get married.

 

My brother was not asking people to change their opinion of his family composition. It really doesn't matter if people don't like it, think it is a sin, think it is less than ideal etc. He was asking the state to treat his family EXACTLY the same as any straight parent married family.

 

A civil union, which he had for as long as it was available to them before marriage was legalized, simply did not afford his family equal treatment under the law. Thus far in these discussions I have seen no one explain to me why this disparity of rights, benefits and legal protections was ok (or is ok). Not one reason why my nieces shouldn't be treated the same as my children or your children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not prevent homosexuals from bonding, or even encourage them to bond with heterosexuals.  It simply does not call that marriage.

 

Words have meaning.  When we use the word "marriage" figuratively, we mean the union of two disparate things, e.g., "The dish was a marriage of traditional French and exotic Vietnamese flavors."  We would never say, "The dish was a marriage of traditional French flavors and traditional French flavors."  

 

That doesn't mean two gay people cannot have a meaningful, committed, lifelong union.  But it is not the same as a marriage.  Does that mean that homosexuals are "lesser"?  That is frankly not my opinion, nor do I think it is implied in saying that a homosexual union is different from a heterosexual marriage.  It is different.

 

This, I don't get this.  I understand lots of people apparently feel this way.  But I really, really don't get it.

 

Are there other words that hold so much baggage that other people can't use them for themselves?

 

I'm sure there are but I can't think of any.  Conservatives seem ok with gay "families" so that word is ok.  They seem ok with "loving relationship" so those two are safe.

 

What is it about m...a...r...r...I...a...g...e... that makes the word itself so - magical almost for conservatives?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This, I don't get this. I understand lots of people apparently feel this way. But I really, really don't get it.

 

Are there other words that hold so much baggage that other people can't use them for themselves?

 

I'm sure there are but I can't think of any. Conservatives seem ok with gay "families" so that word is ok. They seem ok with "loving relationship" so those two are safe.

 

What is it about m...a...r...r...I...a...g...e... that makes the word itself so - magical almost for conservatives?

 

The word marriage is magical for a lot people. Liberal, conservative, moderate, zealot, apolitical, religious, not religious.

 

My husband didn't ask me to civil union him. My brother didn't dream of planning his commitment ceremony.

 

Marriage holds meaning beyond the practical for a lot of people. People of all faiths. People of no faith.

 

To paraphrase Mary Margaret Haugen, a conservative lawmaker in Washington state she wants to throw her (gay) daughter a wedding, not a domestic partnership, which to her sounds like a Merry Maids franchise.

 

The thing is that civil marriage isn't something that anyone's religious views should get to define for others in a country with a constitutional prohibition on a state religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who, in any the legal cases mentioned previously, told a gay couple they would not serve "their kind?" As I recall, the baker asserted that he would be happy to serve them for any other function. His objection was not to "their kind" but to the event.

 

I'm not sure what your last comment refers to. Blacks told they couldn't eat in certain establishments most certainly should have taken the insult personally. They were being discriminated against based purely on an unchangeable aspect of their appearance. I would take that personally, and I would expect most people to feel the same way. It is not analogous to the gay wedding/baker case. The baker was not turning away gay customers for being gay, or for their appearance. You would never find me defending that.

 

There was a point in history when it was widely believed that people who were black were so because they were under the curse of Ham.

 

Today we know that people who are black are so because their genetic makeup gives thier skin a darker pigmentation.

 

There has been a belief that people choose their sexual orientation and that those who identify as homosexual were going against their God given nature.

 

Today we know that people who are heterosexual or homosexual are so because their genetic makeup inclines them that way and they are, in fact, following their God given nature.

 

Being discriminated against for skin color feels personal because it is.

 

Being discriminated against for sexual orientation feels personal because it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word marriage is magical for a lot people. Liberal, conservative, moderate, zealot, apolitical, religious, not religious.

 

My husband didn't ask me to civil union him. My brother didn't dream of planning his commitment ceremony.

 

Marriage holds meaning beyond the practical for a lot of people. People of all faiths. People of no faith.

 

To paraphrase Mary Margaret Haugen, a conservative lawmaker in Washington state she wants to throw her (gay) daughter a wedding, not a domestic partnership, which to her sounds like a Merry Maids franchise.

 

The thing is that civil marriage isn't something that anyone's religious views should get to define for others in a country with a constitutional prohibition on a state religion.

 

Okay, I'll grant that the word itself has a certain appeal that "civil union" lacks.  I'm not sure that is a convincing legal argument, however.  

 

Let me ask you this.  It used to be (although was not always the case) that marriage meant 1 man and 1 woman.  If the sex is no longer important, that is, it doesn't matter if it is man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman, does the number matter?  And if so, why?

 

While there is little historical precedent for gay marriage there is huge and widespread historical precedent for polygamy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a point in history when it was widely believed that people who were black were so because they were under the curse of Ham.

 

Today we know that people who are black are so because their genetic makeup gives thier skin a darker pigmentation.

 

There has been a belief that people choose their sexual orientation and that those who identify as homosexual were going against their God given nature.

 

Today we know that people who are heterosexual or homosexual are so because their genetic makeup inclines them that way and they are, in fact, following their God given nature.

 

Being discriminated against for skin color feels personal because it is.

 

Being discriminated against for sexual orientation feels personal because it is.

 

Again, the baker did not object to serving gay clients.  He objected to serving the particular event.  Homosexual orientation is not the same thing as homosexual marriage.  In fact, my guess is that the vast majority of American gays are not interested in getting married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I am looking at types and ideals, the big picture, the fact that an individual marriage may not produce children is insignificant. The overall pattern, the appearance of the overall pattern, remains intact. 

 

So a heterosexual couple who are incapable of having children for the biological reason that one or both partners cannot provide the requisite genetic material, or who simply choose not to have children, still deserve all the rights and benefit of marriage. But a gay couple who cannot have children for the same biological reason, or who simply choose not to have children, do not deserve the same rights and benefits. And the only reason for this is that your personal interpretation of your religious scriptures  â€” which is not shared by all Christians —is that two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry.

 

How do you justify the idea that your personal religious beliefs should take precedence over everyone else's religious beliefs, including the many Christians who believe that gays should have the right to marry?

 

 

 

I question the fairness of creating a child whom you intend to separate permanently from a natural parent.  Outside of adoption, this is the only way for gay parents to have children.

 

What about the many heterosexual couples where the husband is infertile so they use donated sperm? Is that unfair? Or is it only unfair when lesbians use donated sperm? Ditto with egg donation or surrogacy — bad for everyone, or only gay couples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...