Ashers Baking Company: 'Gay cake' row could end up in court

[rah]

I don't even remember Ben calling my wife a feminist. And I don't know why I would have found that offensive. Probably just another thing he made up. Wouldn't be the first time and we all know it won't be the last.

FOR THE RECORD, I dislike ben because he's a hateful bigot who uses the church to justify it since the church considers it a sin. YES BEN we all get it, it's a sin. Whoot Whoot.
But that doesn't give you a right to persecute them as a class and deny them some basic rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

Usually you do that when you want to say 'well, I do YYYY, but at least I don't do XXXX, so I am OK.'

Uh, I converted. Pretty sure I did so because I was totally happy with my life before becoming Christian and that I was perfect in every way.

[DaShi]

I don't even remember Ben calling my wife a feminist. And I don't know why I would have found that offensive. Probably just another thing he made up. Wouldn't be the first time and we all know it won't be the last.

FOR THE RECORD, I dislike ben because he's a hateful bigot who uses the church to justify it since the church considers it a sin. YES BEN we all get it, it's a sin. Whoot Whoot.
But that doesn't give you a right to persecute them as a class and deny them some basic rights.

We should sacrifice him to our god!

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't even remember Ben calling my wife a feminist. And I don't know why I would have found that offensive. Probably just another thing he made up. Wouldn't be the first time and we all know it won't be the last.

Odd. You were pretty angry about it at the time. I was a bit taken back. It was just an honest assessment.

FOR THE RECORD, I dislike ben because he's a hateful bigot who uses the church to justify it since the church considers it a sin. YES BEN we all get it, it's a sin. Whoot Whoot.
But that doesn't give you a right to persecute them as a class and deny them some basic rights.

Are you saying that the ability to marry whomever you want is a basic right and if someone whom you proposed to turned you down that this would be persecution?

Marriage ain't a basic right, rah. I can't go to the state and demand that someone marry me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marriage as recognized by whom? The state or the church?

Which came first? Marriage or the state? Marriage predates the concept of the nation-state at present (which dates only to the Congress of Vienna). Why should the state get to change the definition?

In addition, why does it teach this? What is the purpose of it?

Good question. Christ talks about this in Matthew 19. Why is marriage for men and women? Because that's how he designed men and women. He designed all of us for each other. Not men for men or women for women.

Two, the purpose is to bind men and women together (for life), and for procreation and the provision of children.

This, btw, is one of the big reasons why theology is useful, even while some literal-types seem to think its "overthinking" things.

There are solid reasons behind Christian marriage, look at the out of wedlock statistics in the US. You're assuming that 'one conjugal bond is the same as any other'. What if it's not? What if the conjugal bond between a man and a woman is different both physiologically and spiritually?

[Ben Kenobi]

The Bible is also, while divinely inspired, written by men. Who, are flawed and have their own biases and preconditions. St. Paul, as well as in plenty of places in the Old Testament, slavery was not spoken against.

I'm not sure how one can read the Old Testament and come to the conclusion that YHWH supports slavery. I'm sorry, I just don't. Please, tell me how, "let my people go", can be turned into support for slavery.

St. Paul attempted to more humanize the institution than it had been before, but he told slaves to obey their masters and didn't tell the masters to free their slaves, but to love them.

He also said if you can obtain your freedom do so. The choice to stay was not that of the owner, but of the slave. The slave could offer up his suffering to Christ.

Read the Old Testament as a complete narrative and you'll see greater and greater understanding of God, from someone who seems very harsh in Genesis at times to Jesus Christ. The Spirit has been sent to continue to the process, while, of course remembering what God has told us through Scripture and through the Tradition of His people.

Why don't you try reading the Old Testament without assuming that God is harsh and angry?

A nitpick - God is the only one who is authoritative and He uses Scripture to attain His purposes, which mainly are concerned with the reconciliation of all Creation to Himself (as began with God the Son and will be fully realized in the Second Coming when Heaven and Earth are swept away to be replaced by a New Heaven and a New Earth and God will live with His people once more).

If scripture is in error, what do you have? You don't have a magisterium, Imran. You don't have apostolic succession because your denomination rejected the entire concept many years ago. I agree with you that there is more than scripture - the problem is that your own theology doesn't support you here.

[rah]

Are you saying that the ability to marry whomever you want is a basic right and if someone whom you proposed to turned you down that this would be persecution?

Marriage ain't a basic right, rah. I can't go to the state and demand that someone marry me.

Straw man, I haven't said anything about forcing anybody to get married. You think it has some meaning here but that's not part of the argument so quit saying that every time.

And you're the only one here saying it is not a basic right. Most other's here think otherwise. The courts are going to make what you think immaterial.
I can see you going to the state. "I'm such a horrible person that I can't sucker anybody into marrying me so please find someone and force them too, oh please oh please"

DENIED

[Ben Kenobi]

Straw man, I haven't said anything about forcing anybody to get married.

That's what 'basic right' means. Nobody can take away your right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. There is no 'basic right' to marriage. If there were a basic right to marriage, you could demand that someone marry you, because you'd be deprived of your right to marry otherwise.

There is a right to freedom of association. Which means you have the right to associate with anyone, but it also means they have the right to tell you to **** off too.

The Catholic church has a right not to associate with those who deny the teachings of the Catholic church. They have the right to excommunicate folks, and they have the right, not to marry someone that they don't want to.

You think it has some meaning here but that's not part of the argument so quit saying that every time.

You're arguing that marriage is a right like free speech, and I'm explaining why that argument doesn't work.

And you're the only one here saying it is not a basic right.

Things are right or wrong based on whether or not apolyton, as a majority, believes in it? Terrible argument.

Most other's here think otherwise.

Just because Apolyton has a prevalent opinion says nothing about the rightness of said opinion.

The courts are going to make what you think immaterial.

Then this is tyranny and contrary to freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We will resist.

We aren't going to do gay marriage in any of our parishes, any of our halls and any of our churches. Ever.

You're gonna have to arrest and kill all of us.

[Dinner]

We should sacrifice him to our god!

The God of light wants him for his fires.

[Dinner]

You're missing the point. They (pre-Christian Romans and Greeks) didn't believe male-male sexuality was sinful- only that a certain role was unsuitable for free men. And this wasn't always a hard and fast rule.

As you said it wasn't a hard and fast rule. They believed for young, unmarried men it could be a good thing to help them get out their lusts and for combat units they believed gay sex would make them more attached to each other and so fight harder to save the other members of the unit. It was only after they were married that gay sex became socially unacceptable and even then it wasn't as long as you were the guy ****ing the other guy in the ass and only the guy getting it in the ass was considered to be gay. The Greeks and Romans also believed that men would be men and that they would **** just about any woman they came across be her a slave or free woman and guys got a free pass for that. As boys would be boys.

[molly bloom]

Uh, I converted.

To an unnatural gasbag.

[molly bloom]

it was a misplaced apostrophe joke

I know. Mine was a reference to a French film about a married woman who has an affair with another woman.

http://www.allocine.fr/video/player_gen_cmedia=19404494&cfilm=11550.html

Zut alors.

[Sava]

i didn't get yours

[molly bloom]

Actually you are missing the point. You are answering a question you wished Elok would have asked rather than the one he actually did ask.

I direct you to 'Sex Before Sexuality: Pederasty, Politics, And Power In Classical Athens' by David Halperin.

From the introduction:

...'sexuality' conceived as an autonomous dimension of human life, and 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality' understood as the fundamental organizing principles of sexual object-choice. According to Halperin, 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality' do not properly name eternal aspects of the human psyche but represent, instead, a distinctively modern cultural production alien to th eexperience of the ancient Greeks.

It's in that laugh a minute volume 'Hidden From History- Reclaiming The Gay And Lesbian Past'

[molly bloom]

I'm not sure how one can read the Old Testament and come to the conclusion that YHWH supports slavery. I'm sorry, I just don't.

Then you must be missing the bits of the Old Testament where it mentions Jews owning slaves and how slaves should be treated.


You're a cretin, obviously.