Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Rise]

No you don't.
You post links to false and grossly misrepresented information. I've watched you do it.
Did a Vermont Christian get jailed for preaching the Gospel or not?
It's a yes or no question.
Tom

Try actually reading the thread if you want to have a serious conversation:

↑
Fake news, check your sources.

I apologize for not checking that particular source more carefully. However, because there are so many stories like it that are true, several of which I posted, the basic points I was making about the persecution of Christians for their religious beliefs on homosexuality in western society remains unchanged.

 

[Skwim]

I'm not the one who posted any sources. I didn't research it or know whether to believe or not believe it.
I asked for sources because I didn't read all the replies on the thread. I questioned it and if you can't see that your an idiot.

My mistake and apologies for confusing you with Rise.


.

 

[columbus]

Try actually reading the thread if you want to have a serious conversation:

I did.
I read and responded to your Fake News.
Tom

 

[Rise]

Except the claim that he was arrested for preaching to his congregation when the fact is he was arrested for putting it in the paper...

Even the link you posted to doesn't claim that his crime was publicly publishing his sermon.
He was arrested on the basis of the content of what he said, not simply the means by which he delivered it.
He could have been found just as guilty if he had been preaching it and homosexuals listening to it had decided to report it to the police for finding the content offensive.
The only reason prosecution came after it was published in a newspaper is because prior to that LGBT groups didn't know he had said it. Once they found out they went to the police and claimed it was hate speech.

The prosecutors claimed that peacefully explaining that homosexuality is wrong, according to the Bible, amounted to trying to "intimidate and agitate" homosexuals.
The original purpose of the hate speech law was to deal with that. The government decided that merely telling people the Bible says it is wrong amounts to intimidation.

Do you agree with the prosecutor's definition of intimidation?

Because by your standard, you're basically saying that it's ok to have an opinion on what the Bible says about homosexuality so long as nobody hears it who could be offended by it. So you're effectively barring them from engaging in public discourse of any kind of this issue, and forcing them to be guarded even about what they preach to their congregation because someone might be in there that could take offense to it.

A case like this is meant to stifle public debate, as a way of protecting the status quo from being challenged in the marketplace of ideas, not to protect individuals from genuine harassment.

 

[Shad]

I apologize for not checking that particular source more carefully. However, because there are so many stories like it that are true, several of which I posted, the basic points I was making about the persecution of Christians for their religious beliefs on homosexuality in western society remains unchanged.

There is a balancing act between people being protected from discrimination and religious freedom. Think how far religious exemptions can be taken. What if the situation involved someone's life rather than a cake or the pulpit? Also keep in mind religious view have been used as support for racism, segregation, bars on marriage, etc. The current problems did not develop in isolation but is part of a long line of issues with discrimination, religious beliefs and freedom which more often than not the one(s) discriminating had the law on their side not the discriminated. America has a long history of supporting Christianity than it did minorities.

 

[Shad]

I haven't been snookered. I wouldn't marry a homosexual couple anyway. I just asked you about fake news and YOUR source. Thanks for responding. There are several people who will NOT marry Homosexual couples and I agree with them. If they get in trouble over it it's the law that's wrong not the pastor. One woman did go to jail for a short while for not issuing a marriage licence. PASTORS should be able to marry who they want.

She went to jail for contempt of court. She could of quit but she didn't.She could of asked for a transfer, she didn't. She ignored a court ruling, nothing more.

Pastors are not government officials thus are not bound by the same regulations

 

[McBell]

A case like this is meant to stifle public debate, as a way of protecting the status quo from being challenged in the marketplace of ideas, not to protect individuals from genuine harassment.

Then your examples should show the former, not the latter...

So far, you have failed in that respect.

 

[McBell]

She went to jail for contempt of court. She could of quit but she didn't.She could of asked for a transfer, she didn't. She ignored a court ruling, nothing more.

Pastors are not government officials thus are not bound by the same regulations

She could have let other clerks issue the marriage licenses to same sex couples....she didn't.

 

[Prestor John]

Because it is not as apparent as you seem to think.
But no worries.
I figured it was yet another bold empty claim


That you want me to take your word for it is rather amusing.
Especially given your track record in this thread.

I have a track record?

What have you heard?

Seriously, be completely honest.

 

[Rise]

Then your examples should show the former, not the latter...

So far, you have failed in that respect.

So you're saying you agree with prosecutor that the pastor engaging in "intimidation and agitation" of homosexuals rather than public discourse on what the Bible says about it?

How do you define intimidation?
Is intimidation defined by whether or not the person who hears your words takes offense to them?

Agitation certainly would be defined by the person who hears what you say, choosing to find it agitating.
But people can choose to be agitated by anything anyone says, even if they said nothing wrong and said it in a loving way.

Do you realize that the US system doesn't work that way because it is inherently antithetical to the principle of freedom in speech? If nobody was ever agitated by anything anyone said when we wouldn't need laws that protect people's right to say things that agitate others.

Are you saying that as an American, you have no moral objection to a system that shuts down people's right to public speech on the basis of whether or not someone is agitated by what they said? Presumably then you'd prefer to see our constitution changed to reflect those values that protecting people from being offended is more important than protecting the free public expression of ideas?

 

[McBell]

So you're saying you agree with prosecutor that the pastor engaging in "intimidation and agitation" of homosexuals rather than public discourse on what the Bible says about it?

How do you define intimidation?
Is intimidation defined by whether or not the person who hears your words takes offense to them?

Agitation certainly would be defined by the person who hears what you say, choosing to find it agitating.
But people can choose to be agitated by anything anyone says, even if they said nothing wrong and said it in a loving way.

Do you realize that the US system doesn't work that way because it is inherently antithetical to the principle of freedom in speech? If nobody was ever agitated by anything anyone said when we wouldn't need laws that protect people's right to say things that agitate others.

Are you saying that as an American, you have no moral objection to a system that shuts down people's right to public speech on the basis of whether or not someone is agitated by what they said? Presumably then you'd prefer to see our constitution changed to reflect those values that protecting people from being offended is more important than protecting the free public expression of ideas?

I have clearly answered your (bad) examples.

It is in no way my fault that your presented examples fail to support your bold empty claim.

Please let me know if you ever find an example that actually supports your "innocent Christians being persecuted for being innocent" claims.

I have no doubts that it probably happens.
It's just that you have not presented an example of it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Subjective abstract ratings are just that - Subjective, and they don't necessarily deal with reality.

Whilst there is an element of subjectivity, of course, they use a lot of objective measures to determine the ratings. It's really quite interesting, and looks at the society as a whole. This is far LESS subjective than cherry-picking incidents and making judgements about the society in which they occurred.

Put it this way...Americans are not all fat, racist gun maniacs prepping for Armageddon. But I bet I can find a lot more anecdotal stories along those lines than you can about Christian persecution in Sweden.

Further, if studies of this type are so subjective, I'm sure you can find one somewhere outlining the lack of religious freedom in Sweden. Right?

Let's stick with the reality that they tried to jail as pastor for teaching the content of the BIble to his congregation, and this is seen an acceptable course of action by enough of the people in the country that it became law and is enforced by those in government.

It wasn't an anti-religious law. They simply don't grant additional protections to religions. They are subject to the same hate speech laws as anyone else.

And your version of reality is pretty damn subjective, by the way. He didnt teach a message of tolerance for sinners, thats for sure...

Swede's Sermon on Gays: Bigotry or Free Speech? (washingtonpost.com)

A pastor who is put in that position is no longer do the very thing that they are commanded to by God - Teach the world to follow Jesus.

If I thought for a moment that the crap he was talking is a true Christian message, I'd become anti-Christian overnight. Please allow me the comfort of thinking it's possible to teach about Christ without denouncing gays as possible animal rapists and pedophiles. But whatever...he's on the 'right team' so defend him if you must.

Do you realize that this is what China does? They may have come to terms with the fact that they cannot prevent the spread of the Christian church in their country, but they decided the next best thing was to put restrictions on what pastors can teach about from the Bible. You're not allowed to teach that your loyalty and obedience belongs to God above everything else. You're not allowed to talk about the return of Jesus and setting up his rulership on the earth.

China? CHINA???
You're conflating China and Sweden in terms of freedom?
That's like me bringing up Saudi Arabia to argue that atheists are repressed in America.

For what its worth, Cato puts them 141st in the world for freedom (of 159) and gives them 2.5/10 for religious freedom.
China is not free, and I wouldn't defend them.

They are preventing people from actually doing what Jesus commanded them to, by restricting them from being able to preach and teach the whole truth to their people.

As I said, they consider the mouth of the speaker and the ear of the listener to both have rights, and try to balance those. They're not shutting down Christianity. Making an argument that Sweden is intolerant of Christians lacks credibility.

It should concern you anytime you see people using the power of government to silence Christians from speaking what they believe the truth is. At that point you're abusing the power of the state to protect the ruling paradigm from competing ideas. You don't have enough confidence in what you believe, and why, to let it be challenged by competing worldviews in open and peaceful discussion.

Competing ideas? You can go to Sweden and argue against the government all you like. They're not hiding from 'competing ideas'. They have laws against hate speech. I get that there is an argument to be had in terms of where the line is on free speech vs censorship, but you're not really making it.

This was neither a directed instance of suppression of religion, nor of suppressing subversion. It is also not representative of any pattern.

Instead, it was an instance of a pulpit not providing and additional protection under law to anyone else. I like that. People should be treated the same. Personally, I wouldn't treat what was said here as hate speech, since it's too abstract. But the preacher believes it to be a literal truth, and made comment as to the nature of homosexuals which go beyond biblical teaching.

 

[Jainarayan]

She could have let other clerks issue the marriage licenses to same sex couples....she didn't.

In retrospect, that made it all the worse. If one of the other clerks had no religious objections, it might be argued that she prevented them from exercising their First Amendment right to not recognize a religion.

 

[McBell]

Whilst there is an element of subjectivity, of course, they use a lot of objective measures to determine the ratings. It's really quite interesting, and looks at the society as a whole. This is far LESS subjective than cherry-picking incidents and making judgements about the society in which they occurred.

Put it this way...Americans are not all fat, racist gun maniacs prepping for Armageddon. But I bet I can find a lot more anecdotal stories along those lines than you can about Christian persecution in Sweden.

Further, if studies of this type are so subjective, I'm sure you can find one somewhere outlining the lack of religious freedom in Sweden. Right?



It wasn't an anti-religious law. They simply don't grant additional protections to religions. They are subject to the same hate speech laws as anyone else.

And your version of reality is pretty damn subjective, by the way. He didnt teach a message of tolerance for sinners, thats for sure...

Swede's Sermon on Gays: Bigotry or Free Speech? (washingtonpost.com)



If I thought for a moment that the crap he was talking is a true Christian message, I'd become anti-Christian overnight. Please allow me the comfort of thinking it's possible to teach about Christ without denouncing gays as possible animal rapists and pedophiles. But whatever...he's on the 'right team' so defend him if you must.



China? CHINA???
You're conflating China and Sweden in terms of freedom?
That's like me bringing up Saudi Arabia to argue that atheists are repressed in America.

For what its worth, Cato puts them 141st in the world for freedom (of 159) and gives them 2.5/10 for religious freedom.
China is not free, and I wouldn't defend them.



As I said, they consider the mouth of the speaker and the ear of the listener to both have rights, and try to balance those. They're not shutting down Christianity. Making an argument that Sweden is intolerant of Christians lacks credibility.



Competing ideas? You can go to Sweden and argue against the government all you like. They're not hiding from 'competing ideas'. They have laws against hate speech. I get that there is an argument to be had in terms of where the line is on free speech vs censorship, but you're not really making it.

This was neither a directed instance of suppression of religion, nor of suppressing subversion. It is also not representative of any pattern.

Instead, it was an instance of a pulpit not providing and additional protection under law to anyone else. I like that. People should be treated the same. Personally, I wouldn't treat what was said here as hate speech, since it's too abstract. But the preacher believes it to be a literal truth, and made comment as to the nature of homosexuals which go beyond biblical teaching.

Did you know that Westboro Baptist Church has a monument in his "honour"?

Ake Green Monument

 

[McBell]

I have clearly answered your (bad) examples.

It is in no way my fault that your presented examples fail to support your bold empty claim.

Please let me know if you ever find an example that actually supports your "innocent Christians being persecuted for being innocent" claims.

I have no doubts that it probably happens.
It's just that you have not presented an example of it.

Furthermore, it is a good thing that there are governments out there that refuse to allow hate speech disguised as "religious freedom" to go un answered.

Sad that you feel it should be allowed.
Pray tell, have you read the actual sermon you are claiming is "simply teaching the Bible"?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Did you know that Westboro Baptist Church has a monument in his "honour"?

Ake Green Monument

Did you not realise that the WBC fully support freedom of speech and self-expression?
Or maybe it's a narrative of Christian persecution they support. I always forget. Pretty sure its not both.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

That is, care if others engage in them?


I know homosexuality has pretty much run its course here on RF, but I can't remember this specific point having been addressed, and just to be clear I'll restate the question.

Why do Christians care that people of the same gender engage in sex, and why do they care that they marry each other? Even caring to the point of voicing their objections and protesting?

.

.


.

Well here is the silly thing they went on protests; whatever community of what they believed in that includes gay or whatever but they get to call it peace and love or for a good cause.
Protests of whatever means there something to protest about or make prohibition scare or law about.
or make people believe something even if it's not true.
I would say they are stating their beliefs in signs.
This is all street talk to me.
So okay.
Some might push their intent into laws and you cant say anything for to them; it's offensive and everyone gets sued or thought of in a different manner; (which people just aren't stereotypes) or that people are being treated badly when sometimes they are not, and its okay to have feelings that may have a legitimate reason. Sometimes true but if its aggrandize and fitted for an agenda (yeah right); they will pull strings no matter what.
It's like watching people from unions run around trying to get people signed up because it has a potential of being big business; when there are no jobs they'll take it and run; when they stood for a good cause to prevent child labor and working in poor conditions, it doesn't mean it's never necessary yet its completely the opposite of what it stood for, and people think well maybe I could turn to..... Now they go to companies that have good working conditions you get whatever you need; they only preach the social issues race gender stuff but some of these companies are legitimate and none overseas. They do everything they can to show people quality and equality to the point it's like now it even feels brainwash-y. But they want them to sign up where they cant guarantee jobs just like they did in las vegas housing market, and also they were no help when there were no more jobs no more houses to be made. Well they still got the money. And all those people paid them well.
Like for example they want a company of 70,000 to join even if they got only a 20 dollars every month or week they are banking which I think they get more.
It's ironic that when all these American jobs left they don't go running to them to make them follow in foreign countries but yet they want to rub shoulders and say your not equal (again the union was made for very poor conditions not grab association dues)
Like paying association dues on your free self or property. No body wants that.
I'm not off topic; You can see the point of all these protests pointing in on itself... it's like uni commy not so free.
I thought 911 was something people would actually be starring at. A lot of emotional feeling with this stuff.
So many protests but nothing on that.
Critical thinking went out the window.

 

[1robin]

That is, care if others engage in them?


I know homosexuality has pretty much run its course here on RF, but I can't remember this specific point having been addressed, and just to be clear I'll restate the question.

Why do Christians care that people of the same gender engage in sex, and why do they care that they marry each other? Even caring to the point of voicing their objections and protesting?

.

.


.

Well to start with I can give an answer that is perfectly justified. God created the institution of marriage as a type of analogy which exhibits the arrangement between the Church (the bride), and Jesus (the bride groom). His revelations also condemn homosexual acts as an abomination. That justification is perfectly valid but it isn't much fun so lets go a little deeper.

I will make a secular argument against homosexuality but before I do, if anyone has logical reasons to think I am wrong then bring them on, but if as in most cases your objection is simply your emotional preference dressed up in a mere veneer of logic then please do not respond to me.

1. Homosexual acts produce far more damage than any potential gains can justify. For example 4% of the US population are homosexual yet they create 60% of new aids cases, and homosexual life spans are drastically shorter than heterosexual life spans. That is just the tip of the ice burg.

2. Heterosexual acts do cause some damage but far less than homosexual acts do and unlike homosexual sex heterosexual acts are necessary to perpetuate the human race.

That is my preliminary argument. Again don't bring emotion to a logical debate, these discussions are always disappointing and at this point I will no longer waste evidence on an emotional position.

 

[columbus]

2. Heterosexual acts do cause some damage but far less than homosexual acts do and unlike homosexual sex heterosexual acts are necessary to perpetuate the human race.

Around 650,000 humans died of abortion last year in the USA alone. None of those deaths were caused by homosex.
You can kid yourself all you want to, but heterosex causes more deaths than homosex.
Tom

 

[columbus]

. Homosexual acts produce far more damage than any potential gains can justify. For example 4% of the US population are homosexual yet they create 60% of new aids cases, and homosexual life spans are drastically shorter than heterosexual life spans. That is just the tip of the ice burg.

Nevertheless, the large majority of people who contract AIDS are heterosexuals. It is not a gay disease so much as an African disease, and the cases have skyrocketed as Christianity has spread through Africa.
Tom