Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[1robin]

Why is it pathetic and wrong? If you can't fix the problem you are complaining about, you're contributing to its continuation. Why complain about the weather when the weather does what weather does? If you don't want to get soaked in a downpour, either use an umbrella or don't go out. It makes no sense to go out without an umbrella and then complain about the rain.

Your on the raged edge of my no longer responding to you, I hope you do not keep doing what you have been. The ability to point out something is wrong has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with having a solution. It is in fact more common to not be part of a problem just because you do not have a solution than the opposite so your platitude is wrong more often that is right, therefore it is pathetic.

We do not merely complain about the weather. Those that can access the problems that weather creates rely on groups of other people to build dams, levies, and tornado shelters. Meteorologists do not know how to raise houses upon stilts, they know how to predict how high the water will be.

Very few positions I have ever heard of are as obviously flawed as what you are saying here.

You're certainly not paying mine. I pay my insurance premiums, and my company contributes. Where are you contributing to my insurance or medical bills? Your argument fails.

All health care expenses are covered by all those that pay health care premiums. I was on a jury one time where a woman was suing the hospital. Expert testimonies were given by many economist showing how expenses born by hospitals are transferred to the premiums paid for by everyone that has insurance and even those that do not if they get treatment. It is an unequivocal fact all those who pay premiums or have medical expenses must absorb the medical costs of others. Please visit reality when you have a chance. It's ugly but at least it actually exists.

OK, buh bye. But don't think I'm going to stop pointing out the epic failures of your comments. You should examine your own arguments and posts, since the best one you can come up with is "I am done with you", no matter whom you are talking to. You will find that their epic failures are epic. It is a very typical and common "my way or no way, so I'm taking my toys and going home" mindset that people of a certain belief system have.

You mean I was out of this cycle of ignorance and didn't know it? I think every statement you have made so far is known to be wrong by the consensus of all human beings currently alive. If you want to start pointing out failed arguments you really need to look closer to home.

 

[1robin]

But you never can clearly explain the causative link and ignore the obvious fact that the vast majority of HIV victims aren't even in the USA.
Tom

Why don't your make the absurd case that the aids virus' acts differently in other nations? Or posts any facts at all for anything. I do not even care if your facts are wrong, I just want to see if you know how to present data at all. You know what, never mind, please do not respond to me at all.

 

[columbus]

Why don't your make the absurd case that the aids virus' acts differently in other nations?

I am not claiming any such thing. You are.
I am pointing out the easily available fact that HIV is a blood borne illness and the vast majority of cases are in Africa. I expect Wikipedia has a thorough article on the subject. But I have been pointing out the weakness of your arguments for years and don't expect you to start taking facts seriously now.
Tom

 

[1robin]

If my memory serves as well as yours does, I think you are correct about the divorce rates. I'll have to get to work on the others a bit later tonight when I've got more time to think about it.

For the sake of a specific poster, let me ask you something. Which type of argument would feel is more compelling for you, being that your not a Christian.

1. My simply posting scriptures as to what the God I believe in has said about homosexuality.

Or

2. My using facts, evidence, and data to make an appeal to reason and logic.

Which type of argument would you personally find more persuasive?

Given our posting history, I'm not sure that is possible. But I'll try.

That is all I can ask.

BTW, forgive me for using you as an example for others. It might make for an awkward debate but I am exhausted with responding to bad arguments. I hope to use you as example of what an actual argument looks like.

 

[Jainarayan]

Your on the raged edge of my no longer responding to you

OK.

I hope you do not keep doing what you have been.

Why? I do what I do. I believe what I believe. You know, I can believe things too. See, that's where the "my way or no way" comes in with your arguments.

The ability to point out something is wrong has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with having a solution.

It's only your opinion that it's wrong. Right and wrong are subjective.

... consensus of all human beings currently alive.

Not logical. I am a human being, I am alive, and I do not agree with you. Several other posters are human, alive and do not agree with you. You see, that's where your position falls apart... broad, sweeping generalizations.

 

[JustWondering]

That is a baseless assumption.

In what way is it baseless? You stated that you didn't consider depriving rights to OTHER people discrimination. Do you not understand what discrimination is?

I have been denied things due to my religion and race and I wouldn't label any of it harassment or discrimination.

I guess you don't understand what discrimination is.

Because they were being attacked by violent mobs, arrested by dirty officials and were denied protection from a Government that claimed to uphold religious freedom.

That is discrimination, just so you know, since you don't know what discrimination is.

Trying to compare the denial of marriage to homosexuals to the denial of life, liberty and happiness among the early Saints is shallow and offensive.

Denial of life, liberty and happiness to homosexuals is also shallow and offensive. Are you starting to see a trend here yet.

What makes you think I do not empathize or have respect for homosexuals?

The fact you do not consider them worthy of the same rights you enjoy.

In your mind, a person cannot empathize or respect another person if they disagree with that person?

Disagreeing on something is one thing, wanting to deprive a whole group of people equal rights is discrimination which, yes, is at least disrespectful.

 

[sayak83]

Applause

Appreciation from someone who differs from my own views is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Trying to compare the denial of marriage to homosexuals to the denial of life, liberty and happiness among the early Saints is shallow and offensive.

Persecution & discrimination isn't a competition. Just because your group suffered discrimination to what you perceive as a greater degree than another group does not give you the right to tell members of that group they're not really being discriminated against. The comparison is valid because, like the early LDS community, LGBTs have been, and still are, shunned for being who they are. Even today gay kids are driven out of their homes by parents who more often than not care for the word of God as they see it more than their own flesh & blood and in some places they can even be fired from their jobs for being LGBT.

 

[sayak83]

And our right is to quote the Bible about God's opinion of homosexual acts. This is in violation of our right of free speech and is not hate speech. Quoting the Bible is not about force, it is about education.

That fact that it can be taught in schools as an alternate lifestyle and the other side is not allowed to speak against it, is indoctrination and unless both sides of the subject can be presented, it is an attempt to force homosexual ideas on others. When only one side is allow to be presented, that is not a true education.


It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. Blaise Pascal

I have a question. Do you believe that the laws in US should only promulgate laws that cater to views held by certain Christian groups (in which you belong) because they are (as you believe) given to you by God? That would be a theocratic state. Or do you accept the notion that people of other religions can choose to live and marry in accordance to their beliefs?

The specific question is this. In my religion (Hinduism), I possess both the traditional authority to marry others and the capability of doing so should I so desire and if somebody asks. I am well versed in both Hindu theology and exegesis and see nothing there that prevents me from officiating and blessing same-sex marriage. Who are you to lobby the state and prevent me from exercising my proper religious function and responsibility in the activities of my religious community based on your religion. And why are you being so shy? If you truly believe you have such rights, lobby to ban worship of all other religions outright. That will be the end of the matter.

 

[Watchmen]

Fortunately, your opinion is of little value to me.

Do you believe that the Federal Government or the Courts should be able to force you to purchase a product or service?

No.

Do I believe government should be able to penalize a business for racist/sexist practices? Yes.

 

[omega2xx]

Neither one of those scenarios is true in the US. The end.

Yes it is. A few years back in California, San Francisco as I remember, a Christian couple refused to rent an apartment they owned to a homosexual couple. They were thrown in jail and eventually they lost their apartment.

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.---Jn15:18
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you---Mt 544

 

[omega2xx]

Where in your religion are you commanded to not sell cupcakes to someone?

The subject is not about selling cupcakes.

 

[omega2xx]

I have a question. Do you believe that the laws in US should only promulgate laws that cater to views held by certain Christian groups (in which you belong) because they are (as you believe) given to you by God? That would be a theocratic state. Or do you accept the notion that people of other religions can choose to live and marry in accordance to their beliefs?

People are free to do whatever they want to as long as it is not against the law. That does not make the law right. Abortion is legal, but in God's eye, it is murder.

The specific question is this. In my religion (Hinduism), I possess both the traditional authority to marry others and the capability of doing so should I so desire and if somebody asks. I am well versed in both Hindu theology and exegesis and see nothing there that prevents me from officiating and blessing same-sex marriage.

As long as it is not against the civil laws where you live, do what you think is proper according to your religion. If my religion says same-sex marriages are a perversion of God's ordained marriage, should I be required to perform such marriages? If a doctor believes abortion is murder, should he be required to perform abortions(I know that i not required at this time)?

Who are you

to lobby the state and prevent me from exercising my proper religious function and responsibility in the activities of my religious community based on your religion.

Who are you to say what I can or can't lobby about? Do you want to deny my right of free speech?

And why are you being so shy? If you truly believe you have such rights, lobby to ban worship of all other religions outright. That will be the end of the matter.

Free speech gives me the right to lobby for anything I want to.

 

[McBell]

Free speech gives me the right to lobby for anything I want to.

For the most part, yes.

But then, it also gives me the right to ridicule you for it.

 

[Prestor John]

In what way is it baseless? You stated that you didn't consider depriving rights to OTHER people discrimination. Do you not understand what discrimination is?

Yes, I understand what discrimination is.

I do not believe that a homosexual couple qualifies for marriage because I believe that marriage is between only a man and a woman.

I would not consider it discrimination to deny someone something that they do not qualify for.

It would not be discrimination for Secret Service to boot me out of the White House would it? Even if I claimed that I was the POTUS?

I do not qualify. Therefore, it is not discriminatory.

Even though I understand that the Supreme Court has made their decision, I believe that they had to first change the definition of marriage in order to make that decision.

I do not agree with that change of definition.

I will honor and sustain these “same-sex marriages” as far as the law requires, but I am not required to personally consider them marriages, because it is my opinion that two people of the same-sex cannot marry.

Marriage is only between a man and a woman.

I guess you don't understand what discrimination is.

It is my opinion that only victims are discriminated against. I am not a victim.

Yes, I have been denied service because of my religion. Twice. Each time I just went somewhere else that would accept my business.

I believe that a business owner has every right to refuse service to me because I am not entitled to their service and they should not be constrained to offer me that service. They are free and so am I.

I do not believe that homosexual couples are entitled to marriage because marriage is only between a man and a woman. I do not agree with the change to the definition of marriage made by the Supreme Court.

That is discrimination, just so you know, since you don't know what discrimination is.

No, that is persecution. They are similar in definition, but are in reality worlds apart.

Denial of life, liberty and happiness to homosexuals is also shallow and offensive.

Again, I think it is shallow and offensive of you trying to equate the violence, murder, rape and destruction forced upon the early Latter-Day Saints to the denial of marriage to same-sex couples.

A homosexual’s right to life, liberty and happiness are not being contested by denying them something they do not qualify for.

Again, I understand that the Supreme Court made its decision and changed the definition of marriage and I will honor that decision as far as I am required.

That does not (should not) force me to change my opinion that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Are you starting to see a trend here yet.

Yes, you are trying to over exaggerate the issue by equating my belief that homosexuals do not qualify for marriage with the violence, murder, rape and destruction of the early Latter-Day Saints.

It is not an attractive trend.

The fact you do not consider them worthy of the same rights you enjoy.

This is not an issue of “worthiness.” I believe they do not qualify. They do not meet the definition of marriage. They do not have the prerequisites.

I am a man, is my denial to enter the women’s restroom based on my worthiness or on the fact that I am not a woman and therefore do not qualify?

I am not retired or disabled, therefore I cannot receive social security benefits. Is this due to worthiness or to the fact that I do not qualify?

I am not a Canadian citizen so I can’t vote in a Canadian election. Is that due to worthiness or to not meeting a certain prerequisite?

Disagreeing on something is one thing, wanting to deprive a whole group of people equal rights is discrimination which, yes, is at least disrespectful.

I did not invent marriage or homosexuality. It is not my fault that they do not qualify. It is not discrimination to deny someone something they don’t qualify for.

 

[Prestor John]

Appreciation from someone who differs from my own views is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Hey man. The truth is the truth. There can be no arguing with it.

 

[Prestor John]

Persecution & discrimination isn't a competition. Just because your group suffered discrimination to what you perceive as a greater degree than another group does not give you the right to tell members of that group they're not really being discriminated against. The comparison is valid because, like the early LDS community, LGBTs have been, and still are, shunned for being who they are. Even today gay kids are driven out of their homes by parents who more often than not care for the word of God as they see it more than their own flesh & blood and in some places they can even be fired from their jobs for being LGBT.

Whoa. Hold on there. I never said that homosexuals were not being discriminated against. Of course they are.

I only said that denying them marriage would not be discrimination.

 

[Prestor John]

No.

Do I believe government should be able to penalize a business for racist/sexist practices? Yes.

You don't believe the market should be free?

 

[McBell]

Yes, I understand what discrimination is.

I do not believe that a homosexual couple qualifies for marriage because I believe that marriage is between only a man and a woman.

I would not consider it discrimination to deny someone something that they do not qualify for.

It would not be discrimination for Secret Service to boot me out of the White House would it? Even if I claimed that I was the POTUS?

I do qualify. Therefore, it is not discriminatory.

Even though I understand that the Supreme Court has made their decision, I believe that they had to first change the definition of marriage in order to make that decision.

I do not agree with that change of definition.

I will honor and sustain these “same-sex marriages” as far as the law requires, but I am not required to personally consider them marriages, because it is my opinion that two people of the same-sex cannot marry.

Marriage is only between a man and a woman.

It is my opinion that only victims are discriminated against. I am not a victim.

Yes, I have been denied service because of my religion. Twice. Each time I just went somewhere else that would accept my business.

I believe that a business owner has every right to refuse service to me because I am not entitled to their service and they should not be constrained to offer me that service. They are free and so am I.

I do not believe that homosexual couples are entitled to marriage because marriage is only between a man and a woman. I do not agree with the change to the definition of marriage made by the Supreme Court.

No, that is persecution. They are similar in definition, but are in reality worlds apart.

Again, I think it is shallow and offensive of you trying to equate the violence, murder, rape and destruction forced upon the early Latter-Day Saints to the denial of marriage to same-sex couples.

A homosexual’s right to life, liberty and happiness are not being contested by denying them something they do not qualify for.

Again, I understand that the Supreme Court made its decision and changed the definition of marriage and I will honor that decision as far as I am required.

That does not (should not) force me to change my opinion that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Yes, you are trying to over exaggerate the issue by equating my belief that homosexuals do not qualify for marriage with the violence, murder, rape and destruction of the early Latter-Day Saints.

It is not an attractive trend.

This is not an issue of “worthiness.” I believe they do not qualify. They do not meet the definition of marriage. They do not have the prerequisites.

I am a man, is my denial to enter the women’s restroom based on my worthiness or on the fact that I am not a woman and therefore do not qualify?

I am not retired or disabled, therefore I cannot receive social security benefits. Is this due to worthiness or to the fact that I do not qualify?

I am not a Canadian citizen so I can’t vote in a Canadian election. Is that due to worthiness or to not meeting a certain prerequisite?

I did not invent marriage or homosexuality. It is not my fault that they do not qualify. It is not discrimination to deny someone something they don’t qualify for.

On what legal grounds do you feel same sex couples do not "qualify" for the legal contract of marriage?

Please note I am asking for LEGAL grounds concerning a LEGAL contract.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yes it is. A few years back in California, San Francisco as I remember, a Christian couple refused to rent an apartment they owned to a homosexual couple. They were thrown in jail and eventually they lost their apartment.

As you remember? Provide a source.