rockpond Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 It, in theory, is no different because marriage is a state ceremony. The citizens of the state get to decide if SSM or any other marriage has enough benefit for the state to sanction it. On the other hand sealings are a religious rite and the state must stay out of. I think that's a reasonable position to take with the one clarification that the citizens of the state (at least in the U.S.) must also comply with the federal constitution.
ERayR Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Gay marriage is a religious practice, like it or not. Wrong. Mariage as prcticed in the US anyway is through the auspices of the state and must be licensed by the state and we do not have a state religion.
thesometimesaint Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Please, I know we are here to argue, but don't pretend that you don't know the difference between forcing someone perform something and stopping someone from doing something wrong. Again. I have no problem with good arguments to support or decline any law. Make the best argument you can and we can reason together to see if it holds true. How do we determine something is wrong? Now substantiate your argument without appeal to God. Because any appeal to God can be made by any number of people with the same God but with different results. IE; The US is a secular society and must by law keep the argument secular when dealing with law. IE; Chattel slavery was perfectly legal for thousands years using the Bible as substantiation. What made the Christian abolitionists arguments better than the Christian slave owners?
ERayR Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 You lost me. It is slavery because he has to do something that he doesn't want to do? Are you really equating being paid to bake a cake from a business that you own as "slavery"? Is it also "slavery" that a fast food business is forced to take the time to keep sanitary conditions against his will? Is it slavery that a contractor has to follow state regulated building and safety standards, even though they don't want to? Please I know that you know the difference between enforcing sanitary health codes and forcing someone to bake you a cake. For the amount of time the baker is forced to bake the cake he is in bondage. As for pay, slaves were given board and room. Not very good accommodations but they were provided.
ERayR Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I think that's a reasonable position to take with the one clarification that the citizens of the state (at least in the U.S.) must also comply with the federal constitution. Providing you allow fo disagreements and efforts to change laws. (i.e. the likes of prop 8 and legislative efforts).
pogi Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Wrong. Mariage as prcticed in the US anyway is through the auspices of the state and must be licensed by the state and we do not have a state religion. Though it is licensed by the state, do we not practice marriage as a religious ceremony or "practice"? Let me rephrase if that helps, gay marriage is recognized by religion as a sacrament. Though it is licensed by the state, it is recognized by religion as a sacred practice.
pogi Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Please I know that you know the difference between enforcing sanitary health codes and forcing someone to bake you a cake. And I know that you know the difference between enforcing equal treatment and slavery. Edited January 30, 2015 by pogi
Danzo Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Again. I have no problem with good arguments to support or decline any law. Make the best argument you can and we can reason together to see if it holds true. How do we determine something is wrong? Now substantiate your argument without appeal to God. Because any appeal to God can be made by any number of people with the same God but with different results. IE; The US is a secular society and must by law keep the argument secular when dealing with law. IE; Chattel slavery was perfectly legal for thousands years using the Bible as substantiation. What made the Christian abolitionists arguments better than the Christian slave owners? I think it is wrong to force people to do what they don't want to do. Slavery is Wrong. Mainly because it involves forcing people to what they don't want to do. I appeal to God as the basis of my opinion (but according to you, this invalidates my argument, Oh well) I do recognize that sometimes society must force people to do what they don't want to do, but I think that this force should only be applied when there is clear danger or harm to to other people. Force should still be the least force necessary and should be used as sparingly as possible. I don't think the presence or absence of a particular cake rises to level of requiring force. 2
ERayR Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 And I know that you know the difference between baking a cake and slavery. It all depend whether you are being forced or if you are doing it willingly. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Wrong. Mariage as prcticed in the US anyway is through the auspices of the state and must be licensed by the state and we do not have a state religion. Marriage as practiced in the US is a religious rite supported by the state. It is a civil contract. The state can and does control who can legally become a spouse, and under what circumstances. The state has little to no control over the ceremony itself. Agreed we don't have a state supported religion, but the state does recognize some religious rites as binding on the state, legal marriage being one of them. When I was married in the Oakland; California Temple a Temple worker having authority from the state married us. The Church made it for eternity.
Calm Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Marriage as practiced in the US is a religious rite supported by the state. Not by everyone. For many it is has nothing to do with religion. 2
pogi Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 It all depend whether you are being forced or if you are doing it willingly. If it is only a matter of being forced to do something against your will, then I think my comparison to building standards apply. I used to work construction, I know that contractors are forced to do lots of things that they don't want to do and don't agree with. A slave is the legal propery of another. Big difference.
ERayR Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Not by everyone. For many it is has nothing to do with religion. I have been trying to make the point although religions perform it in some cases it is a governmental licensed ceremony.
ERayR Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 If it is only a matter of being forced to do something against your will, then I think my comparison to building standards apply. I used to work construction, I know that contractors are forced to do lots of things that they don't want to do and don't agree with. A slave is the legal propery of another. Big difference. Building standard and sanitary regulations have to do with the welfare and safety of society. Society can function safe and health without a cake. Perhaps safer. Remember the movie Roots? There was a scene where the slave owner handed his cup to one of the slaves to fetch him a drink. She went to the well and on the way spat in his cup then filled it with water and handed it to him to drink.
Calm Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I have been trying to make the point although religions perform it in some cases it is a governmental licensed ceremony. I would agree. Everyong who wants to be married officially must go through the government. They can however choose to not attach any religious significance to the ceremony itself. After all pleny of atheists get married.
ERayR Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Marriage as practiced in the US is a religious rite supported by the state. It is a civil contract. The state can and does control who can legally become a spouse, and under what circumstances. The state has little to no control over the ceremony itself. Agreed we don't have a state supported religion, but the state does recognize some religious rites as binding on the state, legal marriage being one of them. When I was married in the Oakland; California Temple a Temple worker having authority from the state married us. The Church made it for eternity. IMO you have it reversed. the religions recognize it as sufficient for their needs. In order to perform marriages a religious leader has to be licensed by the state to perform marriages and participants must have a license to be married. It is totally controlled by the state. It is a state ceremony.
pogi Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Building standard and sanitary regulations have to do with the welfare and safety of society. Society can function safe and health without a cake. Perhaps safer. Remember the movie Roots? There was a scene where the slave owner handed his cup to one of the slaves to fetch him a drink. She went to the well and on the way spat in his cup then filled it with water and handed it to him to drink. Right, but your definition of slavery is - forcing someone to do something against their will. My example would be considered slavery under that definition, and you would be a supporter of slavery under the condition that it is for the "welfare and safety of society"? I'd prefer for your sake and mine, that we drop the comparison, because we will both come off as pro-slavery with that definition. 1
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 You are putting words in his mouth. Elder Oaks never said that people should refuse to serve gay folks, only that they shouldn't be punished for doing so. But thanks for trying to demonize and manipulate his words. Doesn't do your side any favors. Elder Oaks is starting a campaign to use religious beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against those that sin. I am starting a campaign to use religious beliefs as an excuse to serve others. Instead of denying someone a cake for their wedding, I am saying to bake the very best cake you possibly could bake even if the couple is sinning. We are all sinners. We are all beggars. It is God's job to judge us all. It is our job to worry about our own salvation. I don't support discriminating against anyone for any reason, and especially for the reason that they might be a sinner. You can join me and others to pledge to serve others even if they are sinning. Or you can join Elder Oaks in his campaign to break the anti-discrimination laws of this country by using religion as a weapon. The choice is yours.
ERayR Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Right, but your definition of slavery is - forcing someone to do something against their will. My example would be considered slavery under that definition, and you would be a supporter of slavery under the condition that it is for the "welfare and safety of society"? I'd prefer for your sake and mine, that we drop the comparison, because we will both come off as pro-slavery with that definition. Okay as long as you stop pretending it is alright to force someone to provide a non-essential, something they can provide for themselves because they want it.
Ahab Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Yes, as a matter of religious & individual freedom, the baker should not be forced to bake the cake. And for those same reasons, the gay couple asking for the cake should be allowed to marry.As long as I don't have to consent or agree that any 2 people of the same sex should "marry" each other. They would be doing it, if they did it, over my objections. Do you see now how people don't necessarily have to agree? 1
ERayR Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Elder Oaks is starting a campaign to use religious beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against those that sin. I am starting a campaign to use religious beliefs as an excuse to serve others. Instead of denying someone a cake for their wedding, I am saying to bake the very best cake you possibly could bake even if the couple is sinning. We are all sinners. We are all beggars. It is God's job to judge us all. It is our job to worry about our own salvation. I don't support discriminating against anyone for any reason, and especially for the reason that they might be a sinner. You can join me and others to pledge to serve others even if they are sinning. Or you can join Elder Oaks in his campaign to break the anti-discrimination laws of this country by using religion as a weapon. The choice is yours. I wholeheartedly support that if they want to. It would be wrong and counterproductive to force it.
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 The assertion that Elder Oaks has issued a "call to justify discriminating against someone who is sinning" is a lie.And there has not been even one instance put forward of anyone refusing to serve someone because they were "gay."People have tried to refuse to participate in certain types of immoral activities, especially "gay weddings," but that does not constitute a refusal to serve people because they were "gay."Get it right.Regards,Pahoran Baking a cake for a sinner is not a sin. Attending a wedding of a sinner is not a sin. If either of those were true, no baker would bake a cake for anyone. No person would attend a wedding for anyone. We are all sinners. We are all beggars. We are all asked to serve others by the Savior. I choose that path. I choose to serve both saints and sinners. I choose not to discriminate against those that sin. I am compelled to show charity compassion and service to all by Him who I follow. You are free to choose a different path.
california boy Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Rockpond wrote:Interesting logic. Let's see if I can do that too.If refusing to be forced to enter a brothel is a matter of religious freedom, then frequenting the brothel itself must also be a matter of religious freedom.What a remarkable argument.Regards,Pahoran Visiting a brothel is not a sin. Showing charity and service to a prostitute is not a sin. It is an example the Savior set on more than one occasion. Only sex outside of marriage is a sin. I have never been to a gay wedding where guests were required to have sex with the couple celebrating their wedding.
Tacenda Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Again. I have no problem with good arguments to support or decline any law. Make the best argument you can and we can reason together to see if it holds true.How do we determine something is wrong? Now substantiate your argument without appeal to God. Because any appeal to God can be made by any number of people with the same God but with different results. IE; The US is a secular society and must by law keep the argument secular when dealing with law. IE; Chattel slavery was perfectly legal for thousands years using the Bible as substantiation. What made the Christian abolitionists arguments better than the Christian slave owners?Excellent post TSS!
ERayR Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Baking a cake for a sinner is not a sin. Attending a wedding of a sinner is not a sin. If either of those were true, no baker would bake a cake for anyone. No person would attend a wedding for anyone. We are all sinners. We are all beggars. We are all asked to serve others by the Savior. I choose that path. I choose to serve both saints and sinners. I choose not to discriminate against those that sin. I am compelled to show charity compassion and service to all by Him who I follow. You are free to choose a different path. When one attends a wedding it is tacit approval for what is taking place so unless you really do approve one ought not lend tacit approval. One ought to serve ones neighbor with the same goal that was the saviors goal, namely to lead them to repentance.
Recommended Posts