Same bullshit, different decade: What members of the gay rights movement could learn from history

[NYcarbineer]

You're saying that the arguments aren't the same because your interpretation of the bible is more correct than theirs was.

No, I have an actual frame of reference. I don't have to cherrypick the Bible to make my case. My interpretation of the Bible is irrelevant when the case for my argument is clearly defined by the Bible itself.

.

When the Presbyterians decided to embrace same sex marriage, what scriptural commandments did they break?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your argument is a theological one, not a legal one.

Why not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Legalizing same sex marriage will have ZERO effect on the church.

7. Referencing Bob Jones University’s wrong and sinful banning of interracial dating, Alito asked whether redefining marriage would eventually pose risks (such as the loss of tax-exempt status) to the religious liberty of religious institutions.

This was the most shocking moment in the arguments, one that should give people on all sides cause for concern. The Solicitor General said the question of tax exemption might well be an “issue” to be considered later. This demonstrates just how perilous the American principle of recognizing the natural right of religious liberty has become.

If a revisionist view of redefined marriage is treated as a matter of civil rights, then the government could seek to use its tax power to coerce religious institutions to violate their own God-given consciences and their constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion. The Founders warned us that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The Solicitor General is signaling that at least this Administration is quite open to destroying those who hold a view of marriage held by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, many Sikhs and Buddhists. It was even a position held by the President himself until his most recent ideological evolution.

10 questions about marriage from the Supreme Court arguments

Not so false now, is it, bellboy?

If the Court deems same sex marriage to be a civil right, then of course universities who would violate that civil right should lose tax exempt status, ust as Bob Jones lost it for racism.

The Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis and found that the "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs."

Bob Jones University v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[TemplarKormac]

This reads like a conspiracy theory.

Read into it whatever you want.

I know many devout Christians who have no problems with gay marriage

And I know more who have plenty.

Why is your interpretation of the Bible more valid than Jay Bakker's?

Once again, Doc, it is not "my" interpretation. One with competent reading comprehension can read and understand the intent of the applicable passages.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your argument is a theological one, not a legal one.

Why not?

Your argument is based on interpretation of scripture, not law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What's the legal difference between these 2 "forms" of marriage, in your mind?

That definition is admittedly not up to me. I will divest all due deference to the Supreme Court for that answer.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your argument is based on interpretation of scripture, not law.

Of course it is! People, like bellboy, were seeking the biblical, scriptural definition of marriage. I didn't see him asking for a legal one.

When I sufficiently trumped his argument on the religious front, he defaulted, just as you have, to the legal front.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This reads like a conspiracy theory.

Read into it whatever you want.

I know many devout Christians who have no problems with gay marriage

And I know more who have plenty.

Why is your interpretation of the Bible more valid than Jay Bakker's?

Once again, Doc, it is not "my" interpretation. One with competent reading comprehension can read and understand the intent of the applicable passages.

Of course it's your interpretation.

Jay Bakker has a different one. Both of you consider yourselves Christian.

From a legal standpoint, why is your interpretation more valid than his, or that of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The fact that there are thousands of different sects of Christianity around the world seem to imply that very little in the Bible is "clearly defined".

There are simply parts of the bible you cannot transliterate, one of them being the Biblical definition of marriage.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your argument is based on interpretation of scripture, not law.

Of course it is! People, like bellboy, were seeking the biblical, scriptural definition of marriage. I didn't see him asking for a legal one.

When I sufficiently trumped his argument on the religious front, he defaulted, just as you have, to the legal front.

But we are (or were) discussing your hypothetical legal ramifications of the upcoming SCOTUS decision, not the "biblical definition of marriage".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The fact that there are thousands of different sects of Christianity around the world seem to imply that very little in the Bible is "clearly defined".

There are simply parts of the bible you cannot transliterate, one of them being the Biblical definition of marriage.

You are welcome to take that debate up with the millions of Christians in this country that disagree with you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This reads like a conspiracy theory.

Read into it whatever you want.

I know many devout Christians who have no problems with gay marriage

And I know more who have plenty.

Why is your interpretation of the Bible more valid than Jay Bakker's?

Once again, Doc, it is not "my" interpretation. One with competent reading comprehension can read and understand the intent of the applicable passages.

Of course it's your interpretation.

Jay Bakker has a different one. Both of you consider yourselves Christian.

From a legal standpoint, why is your interpretation more valid than his, or that of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)?

NO IT IS NOT.

You are attempting to apply a legal premise to a religious problem. What happened to the separation?

Once again, I've had a few friends who have attended Seminaries and come to the same conclusion I have. I consider standpoints from people with greater theological understanding of the Bible than I to be superior to any others.

So what makes his interpretation superior to mine?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This reads like a conspiracy theory.

Read into it whatever you want.

I know many devout Christians who have no problems with gay marriage

And I know more who have plenty.

Why is your interpretation of the Bible more valid than Jay Bakker's?

Once again, Doc, it is not "my" interpretation. One with competent reading comprehension can read and understand the intent of the applicable passages.

Of course it's your interpretation.

Jay Bakker has a different one. Both of you consider yourselves Christian.

From a legal standpoint, why is your interpretation more valid than his, or that of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)?

NO IT IS NOT.

You are attempting to apply a legal premise to a religious problem. What happened to the separation?

Once again, I've had a few friends who have attended Seminaries and come to the same conclusion I have. I consider standpoints from people with greater theological understanding of the Bible than I to be superior to any others.

Referring to my general argument, I am not trying to apply a "legal premise" to a religious problem - it's the other way around. You are trying to apply a religious premise to a legal problem.

Specifically to what you were replying to above, I am simply pointing out, that from the perspective of a long-lasped Jew, you have not given me any reason to accept you and your church's interpretation of what the Bible says about gay marriage over that of the countless Christians who disagree with you.

 

[Liffy]

Marriage was supposed to be a spiritual thing by God.
Nowadays marriage is a legal thing. I say let gays marry. It helps reduce population anyway

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are welcome to take that debate up with the millions of Christians in this country that disagree with you.

And I can just as easily stand with the billions of others in the world that don't.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You are welcome to take that debate up with the millions of Christians in this country that disagree with you.

And I can just as easily stand with the billions of others in the world that don't.

Of course you can.

My point is that I have no interest in arguing theology.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Specifically to what you were replying to above, I am simply pointing out, that from the perspective of a long-lasped Jew, you have not given me any reason to accept you and your church's interpretation of what the Bible says about gay marriage over that of the countless Christians who disagree with you.

What? Wait a cotton pickin' minute! I'm not trying to convince anyone. What made you think I was? This is a debate, not a church service.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My point is that I have no interest in arguing theology.

Then don't.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There are simply parts of the bible you cannot transliterate, one of them being the Biblical definition of marriage.

You are welcome to take that debate up with the millions of Christians in this country that disagree with you.[/QUOTE]

Let's keep in mind that many have viewed Christianity as Platonism for the masses. A literal interpretation of the Bible may be meant for those who can only understand literalism while the School of Athens fresco at the Vatican(featuring Plato and Aristotle) testifies that Christianity seeks to transmit all human learning in all its conflicting forms.

 

[LittleNipper]

Marriage was supposed to be a spiritual thing by God.
Nowadays marriage is a legal thing. I say let gays marry. It helps reduce population anyway

No it doesn't reduce the population. Such simply find a segregate to procreate. The old saying of wanting their cake and eating it too...