Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Jainarayan]

Perhaps this could apply to this situation as well?

No.

 

[Jainarayan]

The purpose of marriage is to find your eternal mate. The person with whom you will progress with, both complementing and struggling against the other, until the perfect day. This perfection is not obtainable in this life, but can be accomplished in the next.

You're missing the point that not everyone believes that everything revolves around your God, nor does everyone believe in him.

You're not expressing opinions, you're making your statements as fact, preaching and sermonizing.

 

[Prestor John]

No.

Why not?

 

[Prestor John]

You're missing the point that not everyone believes that everything revolves around your God, nor does everyone believe in him.

You're not expressing opinions, you're making your statements as fact, preaching and sermonizing.

If you took the time to actually read my little spiel about marriage, the first sentence began with, "I believe..." and the last sentence began with, "That is why I believe..."

I was most definitely expressing my opinion.

I have already stated many times in this thread that I understand that the SCOTUS has made their decision and "same-sex marriage" is the law of the land.

 

[omega2xx]

Doesn't work. If the facility receives funding or assistance from any public source they cannot discriminate on religious grounds.

All I know is what came up when I tried to make sure I had properly put in the link.

 

[omega2xx]

I wasn't allowed access either.
So what's the point?
Tom

The point is it actually happened. If you google "apartment not rented to homosexual couple, you can get the article. That is how I found it.

 

[omega2xx]

I was commenting on what you had said. It is not my fault that you went off topic.

You believe it is alright to refuse to sell a cupcake to someone because of their sexual preference. That makes you the bigot.

You need to get a good dictionary and read the definition of a bigot until it sinks in. Then you need to come back and apologize to me for your snotty remark, based on your ignorance.

 

[Prestor John]

You need to get a good dictionary and read the definition of a bigot until it sinks in. Then you need to come back and apologize to me for your snotty remark, based on your ignorance.

I know what "bigot" means.

I can understand someone who owns a flower shop not wanting to sell flowers to a homosexual couple for their wedding if the flower shop owner has religious views against homosexuality.

However, there is no reason to refuse to sell a cupcake to an individual just because they are homosexual.

You even tried to use your religion as an excuse, which is disgusting.

That is intolerance and predjudice. It is bigotry. You are a bigot.

 

[Prestor John]

You do realize that atheist heterosexual couples are married, right? Without a state-issued license no marriage is valid. Clergy are permitted to sign marriage licenses as a nod to tradition but they cannot validate a marriage without a license. So it would seem that God actually takes a back seat where marriage is concerned.

A heterosexual marriage at least has the potential to become a sealing, if the couple converts and has a desire to be sealed.

A homosexual couple will never have that option.

Just because God allows us our freedom to do as we wish with what He has given us (marriage), that doesn't mean His Law is void or that He does not care about how we use it.

 

[Prestor John]

I think you're playing semantics here. Or tell me what you mean by not qualified, nor authorized. It's still discrimination.



Due to your discrimination (following from your if statement).

As a male I should not enter the female restrooms. That is not a matter of worthiness, it is a matter of qualification. I do not possess the necessary qualities to be able to enter and use the female restroom.

Denying me access to the female restroom is not discrimination.

I believe that there are absolutes set in the universe by God. I cannot deny what I believe to be true. You can call that discrimination if you want, but there is not prejudice in my heart.

 

[Prestor John]

And you'd be wrong. Denying them marriage is both a breach of the First Amendment and a removal of rights & legal protections the Fourteenth Amendment (obviously I'm strictly talking about American law here) says they are entitled to. And yes, you've made plain you're talking about marriage in a religious context, but you can't just ignore the legal one because it's inconvenient. The legal aspect is an important one for marriage and the Supreme Court decided that religious beliefs are not sufficient justification for restricting legal rights & protections.

If I say you shouldn't be allowed to marry because you and your spouse refused to say your vows before Zeus & Hera then that would be advocating for discrimination against you.

I think that denying them marriage would only violate those things if the definition of marriage was changed to include all "unions".

I do not agree with that change. I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman.

I am also already forced to go through the State to certify something I believe is strictly divine in nature, so isn't the State discriminating against me?

 

[Prestor John]

While I don't disagree there's a distinction, I would say if they really are completely separate, then the legal one isn't actually union. Which is kind of what I am saying in my other posts. Hence why discerning Christians ought to have little issue with it. Just realize the State is asking for the illusion of union to be upheld and move on. Perhaps even have wedding cakes that read, "Congratulations on your illusion of marriage. We are so happy for you!"

I would gladly celebrate their happiness, but I would also mourn because I believe that that happiness would be fleeting and not last after death.

It is important to denounce "illusions" of true happiness because we should love one another and want others to have joy that will last forever.

It is because I believe these things that I can't say nothing. I must speak.

 

[Jainarayan]

A heterosexual marriage at least has the potential to become a sealing, if the couple converts and has a desire to be sealed.

A homosexual couple will never have that option.

Just because God allows us our freedom to do as we wish with what He has given us (marriage), that doesn't mean His Law is void or that He does not care about how we use it.

I think you're making this up as you go along, because I've never heard such drivel as you've spouting. My husband and I are quite sealed, thank you.

I have no desire to have any relationship with your God. I gave him his pink slip a long time ago. I have a very good and loving relationship with my Gods. And yes, they are real and not false. They are not deceptions of Satan. Satan doesn't provide good things. Billions of Hindus over the course of 5,000 years cannot have been wrong.

 

[Prestor John]

Uh... yes. The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I said "should", meaning that forcing a private business owner to hire so

I think you're making this up as you go along, because I've never heard such drivel as you've spouting. My husband and I are quite sealed, thank you.

I have no desire to have any relationship with your God. I gave him his pink slip a long time ago. I have a very good and loving relationship with my Gods. And yes, they are real and not false. They are not deceptions of Satan. Satan doesn't provide good things. Billions of Hindus over the course of 5,000 years cannot have been wrong.

What an incredibly rude and intolerant thing to say.

What if I claimed that your beliefs were "drivel" or that you and all those other Hindus were just "making it up as you went along."

You being ignorant of my beliefs is no fault of mine and it does not give you license to be a D-bag.

According to my beliefs, unless your marriage is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise by one who has the authority given him of the Lord Jesus Christ in His Holy Temple, it will have no efficacy after death.

I don't care if you believe it, but if you want to be toxic, take it elsewhere.

We adults are trying to have a mature discussion.

 

[Prestor John]

Billions of Hindus over the course of 5,000 years cannot have been wrong.

That is an illogical assumption.

I believe they are wrong and that they apparently do not make polite or courteous people.

 

[Jainarayan]

What if I claimed that your beliefs were "drivel" or that you and all those other Hindus were just "making it up as you went along."

Hold on cowboy, I'm not insulting your religion. I'm saying your reasons why homosexuals can't have valid marriages are drivel. What you're making up and is drivel is not based in Christianity. I have noticed in all your posts a tendency to twist words and respond to what was not said.

 

[Jainarayan]

That is an illogical assumption.

I believe they are wrong and that they apparently do not make polite or courteous people.

Then you don't know Hindus or what Hinduism teaches. Therein lies the problem: a very narrow view and understanding of people thst too many people hold.

 

[Prestor John]

Hold on cowboy, I'm not insulting your religion. I'm saying your reasons why homosexuals can't have valid marriages are drivel. What you're making up and is drivel is not based in Christianity. I have noticed in all your posts a tendency to twist words and respond to what was not said.

I am a Latter-day saint Christian. What I have shared are actual beliefs of my religion. I have not made anything up.

Again, your ignorance of my beliefs is not my fault.

Could you please supply an example of me twisting words?

 

[Prestor John]

Then you don't know Hindus or what Hinduism teaches. Therein lies the problem: a very narrow view and understanding of people thst too many people hold.

Wait.

Are you saying that people only disagree with Hinduism because they are ignorant of Hinduism or because they don't know any Hindu people?

Is that your claim?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The point is it actually happened. If you google "apartment not rented to homosexual couple, you can get the article. That is how I found it.

A judge ruling that Christians cannot discriminate against homosexuals and that they must rent apartments to a homosexual couple is not an attack on Christianity. Also, you can say homosexuals are sinful Hellbound ******** all you want, and there is no law against it. Personal/private speech is not the same as public business. It was ruled, decades ago, that discrimination based on race, sex, creed, national origin, and so on is illegal regardless of the reason, including religious. That is not an attack on Christianity, not even on the First, but rather it is making society more equal for all of those who make it. Being told you have to at least get a long in the public sphere is not being attacked.

You need to get a good dictionary and read the definition of a bigot until it sinks in. Then you need to come back and apologize to me for your snotty remark, based on your ignorance.

Straight from the OED:
b. In extended use: a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or strongly partisan beliefs.

I can understand someone who owns a flower shop not wanting to sell flowers to a homosexual couple for their wedding if the flower shop owner has religious views against homosexuality.

I can understand it as well, but a healthy society is not one that makes such divisions and allows for such discrimination. We can have a free and open society, or we can have one heavily bogged down by special privileges granted to special groups, with equality under the law becoming a secondary characteristic of the law. When you allow special privileges for one group, you have to allow them for all, that a healthy society cannot exist or function with such unreasonable demands.

As a male I should not enter the female restrooms. That is not a matter of worthiness, it is a matter of qualification.

That's entirely a cultural thing, and many places don't segregate restrooms based on sex.

Denying me access to the female restroom is not discrimination.

The thing is, in most places you aren't legally denied access (and I'm sure most of us have at least seen, if not done ourselves, someone use the restroom opposite of their sex for various reasons, such as one being busy, being cleaned, or out of order). It wouldn't be a law that you'd brake, it would be a social norm.

Satan doesn't provide good things.

I strongly disagree.