Indiana Economy Feels Ripples After Gov Signs Anti Gay Bill

[Thanatos 2,847]

According to the Bible, re-marrying when divorced is ok if the divorce happened due to adultery, or a pattern of abuse of any kind.

 

If a Christian makes a cake, or gives service for a wedding for two individuals who specify (or he/she asks them) that they were at one point married and divorced due to immorality on their own part, and isn't willing to do the same to a gay couple... Then it's clear they are just doing it out of their own discrimination/hate towards that gay couple, or are true hypocrites.

 

But it's completely unfair to those bakers, or whatever, who claim to be Christians, or any religion against LGBT marriage, to assume they wouldn't say no to a couple like the example I just gave.

 

Where is the verse that states a pattern of abuse makes it okay to divorce? The only exception given in the Bible is when a partner is committing sexual immorality.

 

Its not unfair at all. As a matter of fact, I would lay money that your scenario never happened. Why? Where is the lawsuit from those couples? Why was there not a bill put in place to protect people over such a discrimination? If it happened, it barely happened at all.

 

Dmac I appreciate your faith and respect you for it, but I cannot for the life of me understand how as a black man you can be against gay rights. There's such an obvious parallel with the civil rights movement, it seems hypocritical to the extreme to be against another minority also being granted their rights.

Pretttty much. I'm reminded of this comic whenever this debate comes up:

 

The Atheist Pig was actually very influential in my leaving Christianity. It kick-started a lot of things. Seen that one before and I completely agree with it.

[oochymp 2,393]

 

Where is the verse that states a pattern of abuse makes it okay to divorce? The only exception given in the Bible is when a partner is committing sexual immorality.

 

Its not unfair at all. As a matter of fact, I would lay money that your scenario never happened. Why? Where is the lawsuit from those couples? Why was there not a bill put in place to protect people over such a discrimination? If it happened, it barely happened at all.

 

Dmac I appreciate your faith and respect you for it, but I cannot for the life of me understand how as a black man you can be against gay rights. There's such an obvious parallel with the civil rights movement, it seems hypocritical to the extreme to be against another minority also being granted their rights.

well, it takes a very uncomfortable inquiry from the baker to find out if someone who's asking for a wedding cake has been divorced, whereas when someone asks for a wedding cake with two grooms on the top it's pretty obvious what they're looking for, that's probably why the scenario Dmac outlined doesn't come up much

 

I also hate the parallels people draw to the civil rights movement, I have yet to hear of any gays being forbidden from sitting at a lunch counter with straight people, or forbidden from attending school with straight children, or getting hit with a firehose, or any of the laundry list of indignities that blacks faced under Jim Crow, the only issues involving homosexuals that I've heard of come up are about employment, marriage, and some admittedly unbeleivably harsh criticisms, and as far as employment I don't know the statistics but I'd be willing to wager that homosexuals aren't any worse off right now for employment than women or ethnic minorities, I don't want to diminish those issues, because there are definitely major issues that need to be addressed, but to compare the issues that homosexuals are facing right now to the Civil Rights movement, to me, vastly undersells the struggle that blacks faced in the 1950s and 60s

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Where is the verse that states a pattern of abuse makes it okay to divorce? The only exception given in the Bible is when a partner is committing sexual immorality.

 

God hates abusers, and it's mentioned multiple times. Imo it doesn't have to be put in black and white to assume someone who's in an abusive relationship of any kind should be separated from it.

 

Its not unfair at all. As a matter of fact, I would lay money that your scenario never happened. Why? Where is the lawsuit from those couples? Why was there not a bill put in place to protect people over such a discrimination? If it happened, it barely happened at all.

 

Well IDK what to say to you then. I'm not gonna go into arguing to the intentions of people who I don't know.

 

Dmac I appreciate your faith and respect you for it, but I cannot for the life of me understand how as a black man you can be against gay rights. There's such an obvious parallel with the civil rights movement, it seems hypocritical to the extreme to be against another minority also being granted their rights.

 

From a Christian perspective there are no parallels between gay rights and civil rights. Many actions/behaviors are considered sins in the Bible.

 

This is completely different from being denied rights because of being born/created black...

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

God hates abusers, and it's mentioned multiple times. Imo it doesn't have to be put in black and white to assume someone who's in an abusive relationship of any kind should be separated from it.

 

 

Well IDK what to say to you then. I'm not gonna go into arguing to the intentions of people who I don't know.

 

 

From a Christian perspective there are no parallels between gay rights and civil rights. Many actions/behaviors are considered sins in the Bible.

 

This is completely different from being denied rights because of being born/created black...

 

Totally different from being denied rights because of being born/created gay, yeah. Totally.

 

It's actually put in black and white the other way.

 

Exact wording: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." No clause for abuse. (Matthew 19:9)

well, it takes a very uncomfortable inquiry from the baker to find out if someone who's asking for a wedding cake has been divorced, whereas when someone asks for a wedding cake with two grooms on the top it's pretty obvious what they're looking for, that's probably why the scenario Dmac outlined doesn't come up much

 

I also hate the parallels people draw to the civil rights movement, I have yet to hear of any gays being forbidden from sitting at a lunch counter with straight people, or forbidden from attending school with straight children, or getting hit with a firehose, or any of the laundry list of indignities that blacks faced under Jim Crow, the only issues involving homosexuals that I've heard of come up are about employment, marriage, and some admittedly unbeleivably harsh criticisms, and as far as employment I don't know the statistics but I'd be willing to wager that homosexuals aren't any worse off right now for employment than women or ethnic minorities, I don't want to diminish those issues, because there are definitely major issues that need to be addressed, but to compare the issues that homosexuals are facing right now to the Civil Rights movement, to me, vastly undersells the struggle that blacks faced in the 1950s and 60s

 

How about being lynched?

Edited April 8, 2015 by Thanatos19

[Cherry 1,302]

 

How about being lynched?

There is a major difference here. While homosexuals have been widely discriminated against and been subject to hate crimes it's nothing even close to what African-Americans have dealt with. Gays were never heavily segregated, refused basic rights, lived through slavery, or been killed in masses trying to earn their freedom in the United States. Gays were never stopped by a state police from entering school with straights, for example. Has some targeting occurred? Yes. But the two situations are just not comparable.

 

Gays have been considered morally wrong and looked down upon as a backwards bunch in history. Blacks have been considered subhuman.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

 

Totally different from being denied rights because of being born/created gay, yeah. Totally.

 

 

Again. This is from a Christian perspective. Homosexuality is a choice. Identifying yourself as a homosexual is a decision to live your life a certain way.

 

 

 

It's actually put in black and white the other way.

Exact wording: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." No clause for abuse. (Matthew 19:9)

This one is on me, as there is a clear difference in the Bible between divorce, and separation. The Bible does say in 1st Corinthians that if the spouse is a nonbeliever, it may not be grounds to divorce, remarry (IDK) but it's at least grounds to separate (7:15). Abusive behavior is sinful and if there's a pattern, then the person himself, and his faith should be in question.

 

But again, back to my original point, I just don't think it's fair at all to assume that someone would be OK with catering to one but not the other, if the person who does so is aware ahead of time of what he's catering for.

 

If you feel that that everyone who would deny this kinda service would do so just outa some irrational hate/disgust for seeing two men kiss, then that's your view of the world around you, and I'm not going into that.

 

My old pastor was recently asked by a long time member of his church to marry her and her fiance. The pastor declined because she was married before and divorced. This is obviously different because he's a pastor and all that other stuff, but I simply don't believe that any Christian who would go so far out of his way for his beliefs to possibly (probably) committing career/business suicide by not wishing to assist in any way a gay wedding would not do the same for a different couple if the circumstances the couple are coming from is a sinful one.

Edited April 8, 2015 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[oochymp 2,393]

I've been trying for a while to figure out how to put into words why this conversation is frustrating me, then a friend posted an article to Facebook that sums it up pretty well. I'm quoting one paragraph, but the full article isn't too long and well worth the read:

The shunning of Ryan T. Anderson: When support for gay marriage gets ugly

By all means, fight for your rights. Work to win the public argument. But then accept that the world is a big place, not everyone agrees with you, and those on the other side have as much right to make their (losing) case as you do.

and if anyone is wondering, the article's author mentions that he does support gay marriage

[blotsfan 2,112]

The government shouldn't outlaw it, but speech that clearly supports discrimination deserves no respect and the people who support it deserve to be ostracized

[oochymp 2,393]

so on some issues there's no place for civil discourse?

[blotsfan 2,112]

When the oter sides point is "they don't deserve the same rights as me because of the bible," then no they don't deserve it.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

so on some issues there's no place for civil discourse?

Yes, absolutely.

[oochymp 2,393]

so rather than try to convince people who disagree that their logic and/or assumptions are faulty they should just be told to shut the hell up? that's an interesting perspective

[blotsfan 2,112]

If you still disagree with gay rights, you probably can't be convinced.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

so rather than try to convince people who disagree that their logic and/or assumptions are faulty they should just be told to shut the hell up? that's an interesting perspective

 

Isn't that what our government does to us anyway on a daily basis?

 

Not that it makes it right. Just throwing it out there.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I am all for people have different opinions and perspectives on the world. I might not like your perspective, I might debate the facts with you, but I generally try to respect your opinion and your right to have it. For example, with religion... It honestly doesn't matter to me who, what, or when you believe what you do. You can believe that mankind was spawned from a giant clam that erupted from a volcano for all I care... As long as you leave me out of it and don't force it upon me, have fun.

 

However, when your opinions and perspective begins to restrain and infringe the natural rights of other citizens... I find it really hard to respect your opinion / perspective. Even with, and just as an example.. Christians and Gay Marriage. I feel like I can understand their perspective, but I can't say I agree with it or respect it. How can anyone who follows God and His Word be so cruel and thoughtless towards others.

 

God teaches us to love regardless... Yet there is so much hatred and resentment towards allowing people to be happy. Does God approve of our disdain towards others and our direct efforts to thwart the happiness of all His children? It's so so incredibly hypocritical to me.

It's why I was so excited when the church established Pope Francis.. The guy is pretty fantastic and forward thinking as far as church leadership goes. Unfortunately, he / the church isn't quite ready for the change on same sex marriage, but I think it will happen one day. One step at a time.

ANYWAY.. Point being, nobody who is seeking to thwart basic human rights of another should have their opinions or perspective justified by our acceptance of them.

" Hey, Mr. Stalin... I don't really like what you are doing here, but I respect your right to do it and understand your difference of opinion on the matter. "

[Thanatos 2,847]

so rather than try to convince people who disagree that their logic and/or assumptions are faulty they should just be told to shut the hell up? that's an interesting perspective

 

How do you argue with someone with they dont use logic and reason, but the Bible?

 

I can't show someone they're wrong when their comeback is, "The Bible says so."

 

The only thing I've found to make any headway is to get them to imagine they are living in a minority Christian country and the Muslims have imposed Sharia law. Religion should 100% never be used as the primary reasoning behind a law, good or ill.

 

The only argument against gay rights is a religious one. Therefore, by our own Constitution, written by Christians, the government has zero business denying it. Unless an argument that isn't based on a religion, Christianity or otherwise, can be found, the Feds AND the State have no basis on which to deny gay marriage.

 

And while, yes, gays have not suffered the same amount as blacks, that isn't what I was trying to say.

 

Just because the parallel isn't 100% doesn't mean there aren't obvious similarities in both cases. Both are/were being discriminated against because of something they have no control of. Blacks more severely overall, sure, but the point still stands. It's unfair and unjust, and I'm glad that this is the last generation that will have this argument, because when we take over the country, 70%+ of us will agree with gay marriage and it will be relegated to a non-issue for religious fundamentalists to debate and bemoan the good old days.

[oochymp 2,393]

ya'll do realize that the debate on this topic is not whether gays can get married but whether people who disagree with gay marriage on religious grounds (as shaky as the rest of the world may believe those grounds to be) should be forced to participate, even if indirectly, in celebrating that gay marriage, right?

 

with the RFRA laws there's an implicit concession that gay marriages will be allowed under the law, it's just allowing people to opt out of assisting in the celebration of those marriages on religious rounds

[Guest Phailadelphia]

ya'll do realize that the debate on this topic is not whether gays can get married but whether people who disagree with gay marriage on religious grounds (as shaky as the rest of the world may believe those grounds to be) should be forced to participate, even if indirectly, in celebrating that gay marriage, right?

 

This is a standard procedure of the social contract of a free society.

[oochymp 2,393]

 

This is a standard procedure of the social contract of a free society.

what's standard procedure, forcing someone to do something that they're morally opposed to on religious grounds? I'm pretty sure the First Amendment prevents that

 

I think I should clarify, since I'm not sure I've said this in here, I don't see any real reason that gays should not be allowed to get married under the law, but I don't think anyone should be forced to participate at any significant level in the celebration of a gay marriage that disagrees with the principle on religious grounds

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

what's standard procedure, forcing someone to do something that they're morally opposed to on religious grounds? I'm pretty sure the First Amendment prevents that

 

I think I should clarify, since I'm not sure I've said this in here, I don't see any real reason that gays should not be allowed to get married under the law, but I don't think anyone should be forced to participate at any significant level in the celebration of a gay marriage that disagrees with the principle on religious grounds

 

What constitutes "significant level"? You made the cake point earlier, but that's pretty minor and they don't even have to be there.

[oochymp 2,393]

 

What constitutes "significant level"? You made the cake point earlier, but that's pretty minor and they don't even have to be there.

That is a difficult question, but one I've actually thought out. Personally, I would draw the line at contributions to the wedding ceremony and reception. I've seen some commentary about stretching this out to apply to vacation places where people might go on a honeymoon, to me that's too far. There isn't enough of a difference between a honeymoon and a normal couple vacation and the services provided there aren't closely tied to the celebration of the marriage itself, which might be a better way to phrase the standard I'm thinking of. On the other hand, the wedding ceremony and reception, where the couple is basically focused on celebrating the marriage and a larger group of family and friends are also celebrating the happy couple, is what I don't think is something anyone should be forced to have a part in.

 

As to the cake, sure they don't have to be there, but the cake is a huge part of wedding planning (or so I've been led to understand, I've never actually planned a wedding so what the hell do I know?)

[Guest Phailadelphia]

what's standard procedure, forcing someone to do something that they're morally opposed to on religious grounds? I'm pretty sure the First Amendment prevents that

 

I think I should clarify, since I'm not sure I've said this in here, I don't see any real reason that gays should not be allowed to get married under the law, but I don't think anyone should be forced to participate at any significant level in the celebration of a gay marriage that disagrees with the principle on religious grounds

 

I think this is heading towards a discussion between the balance of law and religion, and if that's the case I think law and the state's obligation to ALL inhabitants of a free society will always take precedent over religious duties. For me, any arguments about religious "liberty" as it relates to gay marriage end there.