Yachtie
Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: njlauren
quote:
ORIGINAL: Yachtie
quote:
ORIGINAL: njlauren
quote:
ORIGINAL: Yachtie
quote:
ORIGINAL: njlauren
Your quote said that people would be forced to change their religious beliefs because they would be forced to marry same sex couples, and that isn't true.
Quote me. Where did I say that? Don't say I said that, quote me... or I ask that you retract.
"Christians I have had such discussions with most all say "no problem" with a form of civil union which allows what you wish. But they do draw a line at altering their religious institution(s) allowing inclusion at the cost of opposition to God's Game, God's rules. In a sense one might argue that such are not prejudicial, their wanting to find a way without falling into opposition."
The key word here is altering their religious institutions, which implies that they would be forced to marry same sex couples..and you posted in a discussion about whether churches should be forced to marry people, which strongly says you believe the same thing, otherwise you wouldn't post in.
No, the key phrase you used is "change their religious beliefs." Nowhere did I say anything remotely like that. Yours is a bait and switch.
It is entirely possible to change an institutions doctrine by law without altering members beliefs. For instance, a wedding photographer who objects to gay marriage being forced, by law, to offer said service only alters the photographer's practice, not their belief. The photographer's belief, though still intact, is now sorely tested by the change in practice (doctrine) which, by doing such, is in opposition to God.
Wait a minute, where the hell did a photographer taking pictures come from?
Why, after the two words "for instance"
Stop the typical tactic of those in arguments who start using shotgun arguments to try and get out of a corner.
No shotgun argument at all. It was but a "for instance", being representative of making a point and not of anything else.
You were talking about religious institutions, not individual beliefs,
Yes, I was. I'm still curious as to why you attributed to me something other. (see green above) You still have not admitted you were wrong.
and I specifically pointed out that religious institutions don't have to marry anyone nor do they have to change their teachings, and the law cannot force a church to change its teachings....
Not yet at least. I do not put it past those who make laws.
A photographer is not a religious institution
You are correct. That should give you a warm fuzzy. But the "for instance" point is other than your objection, being as to practice regardless of belief.
and the subject of photographers
Was never any subject at all, again, was only to practice regardless of belief.
is a very, very different argument,
Which is why I did not argue it but merely used it as a point maker.
The rest is not germane as far as I am concerned.
< Message edited by Yachtie -- 3/25/2014 4:59:10 AM >
_____________________________
“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC
“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell
|
RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as raci... - 
Profile
Is he perhaps secretly in love with me. Does he fancy me. And they get 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread