swimmerbabe11 said:Quote:
I'm talking about basic equal rights.
Also, what is and isn't a basic equal right has been hotly debated.
You've already been saying this for the better part of a decade. Other than the occasional hysterical post from people like you screaming "see! pedophilia's totally going mainstream!" from a badly-sourced site no one's ever heard of, there's no movement toward this like was seen in the gay rights movement.Quote:
2) pedophilia/pedestry will be normalized and some of you, within a decade, if we're still on TexAgs, will be defending it. Because "equality" and "love wins." Also polygamy.
That's fine, but you don't get to pretend to be for the freedom of religion. You're only for the freedom of certain ones, i.e. yours.Seamaster said:
If you think recall, my argument against gay "marriage" was very rarely (if at all) a scriptural argument is theological argument.
My argument was based on natural law and what's best for children and healthy families.
swimmerbabe11 said:Quote:
I'm talking about basic equal rights.
Also, what is and isn't a basic equal right has been hotly debated.
Average Guy said:Christians shouldn't be concerned when their businesses get targeted specifically to make them compromise out they sit them down? And when they work for an employer they are more and more being told they have to affirm things which are counter to their beliefs? When deep pocketed progressives and presidential candidates say things on the subject that can only be interpreted as meaning that Christian's are going top be pushed until they either compromise or are drive out of society?kurt vonnegut said:Seamaster said:
"Has the religious right ever crossed the line?"
You tell us. Prohibition maybe?
Blue laws which kind of annoy me (if I need wine for Sunday lunch and forgot to get some Saturday.)
You could reach back into history and there was some kind of crazy stuff going on in the name of Christianity in the Middle Ages obviously.
As to my not giving any ground on the definition of the word "marriage." I stand by that 100%. I was asked at work recently what I thought about gay marriage by a superior. He wasn't fishing, I think he just was curious because i am from the south and a professed Christian.
I said exactly what I've said here: marriage is one man and one women. Period. Regardless of what a government says.
Let's go with an easy one. Same sex marriage has been illegal in the US for the majority of its existence almost solely in religious grounds with Christian organizations explicitly opposing equal rights for homosexuals. I'm not talking about "marriage" as the church sees it. I'm talking about basic equal rights. How do you justify that?
I saw a political cartoon years ago with two windows - I'm sure many will recall it or something similar. The first window has a Christian smashing an atheist over the head with a Crucifix and verbally assaulting him. The second window has the atheist grabbing the cross and about to break it over his knee with the Christian yelling he's being oppressed. I'm pretty sure you would see that comic and say "Poor Christian. That atheist stole from him and is about to destroy his property."
I'll spell out the obvious analogy so it's not misunderstood. Christians have treated gays poorly throughout most of history. Not just poorly, despicably. Now we have a couple lawsuits about Christian bakers and a political candidate threatening tax exemption removal and you act like the Gay-Apocalypse is here. You think Christians are oppressed here? *****, you don't know what real oppression is
(it doesn't matter that Beto has no chance to win the election, it only matters that he senses, probably correctly, that it will score him points with the opinion makers)
Calm down Seamaster.Seamaster said:
Craignuaght.
What now? You're fact-checking me? Trying to play "gotch?"
Firstly, Beer Baron admits above that we've talked about this before.
Secondly, the search function on my phone is laborious and annoying.
Thirdly, however, I found two examples. There are more, if memory serves.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2547016/replies
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2473353/replies/39263319#39263319
Same sex marriage was not 'legal' because those that had authority to control the definition of 'marriage' in legal terms did so in religious terms.Seamaster said:
"Same sex marriage has been illegal in the US for the majority of its existence almost solely in religious grounds with Christian organizations explicitly opposing equal rights for homosexuals."
False.
Same sex marriage was not "legal" because the definition of marriage precludes same sex couples for reasons derived from natural law.
You blame it on Christian religious grounds but that's not why we didn't have gay "marriage."
Every culture in the history of mankind (Christian or not) did not define marriage as anything but between men and women. Again, for obvious reasons.
It wasn't Christian bigotry. It was reason and natural law.
The progressives "won" because they quietly redefined "marriage" to mean simply a formal decree and acknowledgment of professed love between two persons. "We" ceded the definition of marriage with the help of no fault divorce.
Then it really did seem exclusionary - heck, if marriage is simply that than why can't two men be married?
Quote:
Want more predictions?
1) Gays will start suing churches and will start winning.
2) pedophilia/pedestry will be normalized and some of you, within a decade, if we're still on TexAgs, will be defending it. Because "equality" and "love wins." Also polygamy.
3) Many people who still hold to a sane view of sex and marriage will be marginalized to the edges of society and unable to work without professing adherence with whatever the sexual cause dejur is.
This is my favorite prediction of his I think. It's essentially "I'm terrified that Christians will someday be treated the exact way gays have been treated forever." He recognizes marginalization and forced conformity as a bad thing, yet longs for the days when we were marginalized and forced to conform.Quote:
3) Many people who still hold to a sane view of sex and marriage will be marginalized to the edges of society and unable to work without professing adherence with whatever the sexual cause dejur is.
It would be hard to see it as causative, but secularism results in a lower rate of marriage. Europe has seen something like a 50% decline since the 60s. I think secularism and the modern view of marriage are certainly intertwined.Beer Baron said:
Ah, found it. My bad - we didn't bet over the ridiculous claim that pedophilia would be totally normalized in 10 years, it was the ridiculous claim that straight people would stop marrying each other once gays could marry. And it was your idea apparently, not mine! 15% decline was a bold claim. We're halfway there, so there's still time I suppose, but I still maintain that my husband and I should get our steaks now since states that have had gay marriage for a long time haven't seen that kind of decline yet.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2590392/1
This is a bit disingenuous. Without taking either side in the current debate, the only way you can make a blanket statement that marginalization and force conformity are bad is to presume a framework where there are no objectively bad beliefs.Beer Baron said:This is my favorite prediction of his I think. It's essentially "I'm terrified that Christians will someday be treated the exact way gays have been treated forever." He recognizes marginalization and forced conformity as a bad thing, yet longs for the days when we were marginalized and forced to conform.Quote:
3) Many people who still hold to a sane view of sex and marriage will be marginalized to the edges of society and unable to work without professing adherence with whatever the sexual cause dejur is.
Quote:
It would be hard to see it as causative, but secularism results in a lower rate of marriage. Europe has seen something like a 50% decline since the 60s. I think secularism and the modern view of marriage are certainly intertwined.
Huh? I think I can make a blanket statement that marginalization of black people in the form of slavery or Jim Crow is bad, and that forced conformity to those racial roles is bad while saying that racism is an objectively bad belief. The rest of your post must've went right over my head because I legitimately don't understand it.Quote:
This is a bit disingenuous. Without taking either side in the current debate, the only way you can make a blanket statement that marginalization and force conformity are bad is to presume a framework where there are no objectively bad beliefs.
My point is, the reason its bad to marginalize black people is because race-based chattel slavery is bad. And by extension, marginalizing those who would practice it is not bad.Quote:
Huh? I think I can make a blanket statement that marginalization of black people in the form of slavery or Jim Crow is bad, and that forced conformity to those racial roles is bad while saying that racism is an objectively bad belief. The rest of your post must've went right over my head because I legitimately don't understand it.
I don't agree at all. To demonstrate, swap out Christians for satanists, or racists. Or Nazis. Or I don't know, murderers or rapists.Beer Baron said:
But I don't think it's good that he feels marginalized. I don't think he is being marginalized or has been, but if that were the case, I wouldn't think that's a good thing. Like I said earlier, swap out Christians for gays in any scenario and it would be just as wrong to treat them that way as we've been treated. Business won't serve Christians? Bad. Christians can't marry other Christians? Bad. Christians can't serve openly in the military? Bad. Christians have to hide their religion from their employer/landlord/family? Bad, bad, bad. Christian gatherings get raided and people get thrown in jail for doing Christian things together secretly? Bad. Having to have secret places to have secret Christian gatherings in the first place? Bad.
My point was that he seems to think we're heading for a future where Christians have to worry about this kind of thing, and it's lost on him that we have already actually had to deal with all of them. He laments the social progress that has led to us being less burdened by these situations while simultaneously fearing the same treatment for himself. I think that's worth pointing out.
I agree with both.Beer Baron said:
Ok I see your point. I guess I just don't think gays or Christians deserve ****ty treatment from society at large. Call me crazy.
