Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[sayak83]

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 disagree that State's definition of marraige in a secular society is less fundamental in its own worldview than Christianity'S definition of marraige under God in its worldview or Hinduism's definition of marraige around the sacred fire in its worldview and.. etc. Each worldview has its own foundational fundamental units ( rights and responsibilities instantiated as laws and contracts for secular state, divine commandments of Christianity, the Yajnya under Hinduism etc.) and marraige invokes these fundamentals in its ritual in each of these worlviews. So unless you are willing to assert that one worlview is more fundamental here than another it's difficult to sustain the argument that one wedding is more fundamental than another.

 

[JustWondering]

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.

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.

So what it boils down to is that you think everyone has to accept YOUR definition of what discrimination and marriage are, which was determined by YOUR beliefs.

The big wide world doesn't work that way. Your current mindset (whether you see it or not) is disrespectful to others and confrontational. I find it ironic that someone who belongs to a group who has had their rights regarding marriage stripped from them due to another's religious based beliefs is so ready to do the same to others. You have learned NOTHING from your own people's history. Have fun being TRAPPED in your closed minded, us versus them mentality. Have a nice day.

 

[Shad]

Yeah...that clause deals with the making of laws at the local, State and Federal levels, not privately owned businesses.

Business regulations are created and maintain by the government which has used this clause as a basis for anti-discrimination. Just as the idea of voting which was for men at the time was used to support the rights of women to vote. Neither was directly stated in the Constutions. Therefore by your argument women can not vote.

Which was the actual topic of the discussion.

Not really, you created a false appeal based on your ignorance, nothing more.

 

[omega2xx]

I know what "bigot" means.

Actually you don't. Bigotry includes intolerance of other views. Refusal to do what someone wants, if done on religious grounds, is not intolerance.

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.

I guess I got you off on the wrong foot. The refused to bake a wedding cake for that couple.


Who are you to decide what is reasonable for someone else. How about refusing to make them a wedding cake. That was the real issue. They owned a bakery that specialized in cupcakes.

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

What you thing should have happened is worse. You wanted them to disobey their religious convictions.

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

And you are an ignorant, intolerant bigoted liar.

I have never put anyone on ignore. You will be my first.

 

[Acim]

Same-sex couples have not been authorized by God because they frustrate His plans for His children as well as stunts their potential. Members of a same-sex couple cannot obtain perfection nor can they have seed. At death the members of the same-sex couple will be separate. Their relationship will be terminated. Their case will be miserable.

I heard/read everything you said before this, but find you are not actually distinguishing between the two, other than based on what you think God wants in union. I consider that pretty darn close to blasphemy. To help you realize how mistaken you could be is a) the idea that the same-sex couple could express great love for each other but remain celibate and devoted (instead) to serving God. And b) to realize that Jesus when he walked the earth very much had loving relationships with male counterparts.

Part of what you're conveying and what everyone usually conveys when discussing this topic is the 'sex' aspect of the coupling. As if that is unavoidable in the discussion. Must be brought up that the female-male can procreate (via intercourse) and that the same-sex couple cannot, even while they can have intercourse. All of (their type of intercourse is that) which makes for utter disgust from the homophobic persons amongst us. The heterosexual non-homophobic people don't share this disgust. So, is it possible that these people are above God in wisdom and patience with such people? Or is it more likely that God being asexual is also not, even a little bit, disgusted by all the fascinating and/or perverse sexual behaviors that humans (regardless of orientation) may get themselves into?

That is why I believe it is important to not blur the lines of what marriage is. There are no double sided coins in the Father's Kingdom.

You've actually presented a case for such coins in the Father's pocket. That He would separate a relationship that he already joined, at time of death, because they 'loved wrong.' Yet, the couples that are all heterosexual have loved right, is your implication. Never mind the reality that our Father is not the God of Separation. Such a 'god' exists. Take a guess where this god resides. Could take a long time to find this god, or could just look in a mirror and if you see an entity as a body, rather than 'only as Spirit' then chances are you are seeing through that god's eyes.

There are purposes for everything God does. And everything He does is mandated by Law.

It is the Law of the Universe that only opposing genders can be joined in a marriage covenant, because they have the potential to become perfect and to have seed.

God did not create imperfection. He didn't start us out at square one to work our ways up. We did this to ourselves, via subverted divinity, listening to (and become as) the god of separation. Rendering us blind to (not seeing) only Spirit as Own Self. The Law is as simple as Love your brother/sister as Your Self, and Love Almighty God with all your heart and mind. Or put another way, teach only Love for that is What You Are.

I believe that we entered into a covenant, as the spiritual family of God, to love and respect one another and help everyone return to the Father after the completion of this mortal test.

We can only enter into a marriage covenant here in mortality. There were no marriages before this life and there will be no new marriages after this life.

We can all partake of the Holy Spirit, but that is not the same as the marriage covenant.

The Father's Kingdom is a kingdom of law and order. We are not all married one to another nor should we engage in behaviors that God deems only appropriate between married couples.

With you on much of this, but the appropriate behaviors part. At the very least, I would suggest let the Father alone, be judge of what is appropriate and be willing to forgive all possible notions you (or I) hold that seek to separate you from another based on feeble judgment of inappropriate behavior. Return to Love as the Judgment that makes sense, is sane.

I believe that there are absolutes in the universe. Light will always banish darkness. Marriage will always be only between a man and a woman.

In the Kingdom there are absolutes. Here, where separation is perceived real, not so much. Marriage concept is not needed in the Kingdom, because again, what God has joined together, let no man tear apart. That truly is an invitation to see perfection as it is now, not entertain ideas that separation could possibly, just maybe actually occur. It can't. Not in the Kingdom.

 

[Prestor John]

I can understand it as well, but a healthy society is not one that makes such divisions and allows for such discrimination.

I believe that the society with the most freedom is the healthiest.

I think my Church handled this situation the best. When certain members asked if they should refuse to offer wedding related products or services for same-sex weddings, the Brethren told them to do whatever they felt was right. They neither encouraged nor discouraged any action.

It is not up to you or me or to any legislation to tell a person how they are to adhere to their religious beliefs. If a private business owner believes that “same-sex marriage” is morally wrong and that offering support in any way would violate their religious belief, then that business owner should be able to offer alternate businesses where those couples can get what they need.

I would not consider it prejudiced or intolerant of them to do so.

If the government cannot force anyone to buy a product or service then they should not be able to force anyone to offer a product or service.

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.

It would not be “free and open” if people are denied the right to the freedom of their religion.

That would be a partial system. Homosexual couples are free to choose any alternative.

They do not need to force anyone to act against their religious beliefs.

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.

Freedom of religion is not unreasonable.

What would be a reasonable is going to another business that will offer you their service, rather than forcing a business that doesn’t want to serve you to serve you.

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

I using an example from my country. I think separating restrooms is a good thing.

 

[Prestor John]

So what it boils down to is that you think everyone has to accept YOUR definition of what discrimination and marriage are, which was determined by YOUR beliefs.

No. I never said either of those things.

The big wide world doesn't work that way.

I am well aware.

Your current mindset (whether you see it or not) is disrespectful to others and confrontational.

How? I don't have the right to disagree with people?

I find the situation of homosexuasl suing people for adhering to their religious convictions to be disrespectful and confrontational.

I find it ironic that someone who belongs to a group who has had their rights regarding marriage stripped from them due to another's religious based beliefs is so ready to do the same to others.

The LDS Church no longer practice polygamy because the Lord commanded it.

I never claimed that homosexuals cannot be together or share a union.

I have said multiple times on this thread that the SCOTUS has made their decision and I live by the land of the land.

I just wish they didn't have to change what marriage has always been in order to make their decision.

You have learned NOTHING from your own people's history.

You need to learn to read then you can go to hell.

Have fun being TRAPPED in your closed minded, us versus them mentality. Have a nice day.

If you even read my posts on this thread I was the one who condemned the "Us vs Them" mentality on this thread.

Go screw yourself. Have a nice day.

 

[Acim]

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.

It literally is just a room. You can go in there. I know of males that do use that room for relieving themselves. If in a place where that is somehow guarded/watched over, then it poses a problem. In most cases it is not watched over, and so usually not a problem. I think most people on the planet don't really care, but admittedly, we in the West have been conditioned to care who goes where. When I traveled to Africa, a room was seen as sheer luxury. LOL, but true.

Denying me access to the female restroom is not discrimination.

It definitely is. The idea of having one room for a type of person and another for another type is 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.

If you truly think there are absolutes, but also many differences that seek to dictate which way people ought to go, then there is discrimination. To think the discrimination is part of the Father is where we'd have religious debate. The only distinction I'm aware of that the Father makes is that He is Father and We are His Creation, and even then I see Him as perfectly willing to see Us as Co-Creators, realizing that in His Kingdom there is literally nothing that can threaten this. IOW, it is not possible to overthrow God, but to think it possible and to construct a world (really an illusion) where that is constantly attempted to occur, equals a detour into fear. Where fear of own Self (and brothers / sisters) replaces God's Love.

 

[1robin]

OK.



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.

I do not care what you believe, I do care how civil and empirical you are in a debate. I could not have a debate unless I allowed others or even myself to be wrong. What I do not have to do is put up with sarcasm and you camouflaging your preferences in botched attempts at reason and rationalizations. Concerning no other subject are people as emotional and irrational as those who defend homosexuality. I have witnessed this for so long I have grown intolerant of it.

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

That is completely untrue. There are only two possibilities here.

1. If God exists then objective moral values and duties do exist. Right and wrong are absolute categories of truth even if no one on earth knew what they even were.

2. If God does not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist. The categories of right and wrong do not even exist unless God does.

And not just any God either, there must be a certain kind of God for objective morality to exist.

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.

I try and choose my words carefully, please try reading them as carefully. I said a consensus of human beings, I did not say anything about all human beings agreeing. Consensus means a majority of opinion. If you post a single example from all the abortive arguments you have used I will show you why most people would not accept it as a sound argument.

 

[Jainarayan]

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?

Do you have a different reason?

 

[Acim]

I disagree that State's definition of marraige in a secular society is less fundamental in its own worldview than Christianity'S definition of marraige under God in its worldview or Hinduism's definition of marraige around the sacred fire in its worldview and.. etc. Each worldview has its own foundational fundamental units ( rights and responsibilities instantiated as laws and contracts for secular state, divine commandments of Christianity, the Yajnya under Hinduism etc.) and marraige invokes these fundamentals in its ritual in each of these worlviews. So unless you are willing to assert that one worlview is more fundamental here than another it's difficult to sustain the argument that one wedding is more fundamental than another.

I'm willing to assert that the spiritual (gnostic Christian) worldview is the fundamental one. And willing to discuss/debate it. Feel in this discussion I already have, so won't be shy about continuing in that vein.

 

[Jainarayan]

That is completely untrue. There are only two possibilities here.

1. If God exists that objective moral values and duties do exist. Right and wrong are absolute categories of truth even if no one on earth knew what they even were.
2. If God does not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist. The categories of right and wrong do not even exist unless God does.

And not just any God either, there must be a certain kind of God for objective morality to exist.

Sorry, I do not believe any of that.

 

[Acim]

So what it boils down to is that you think everyone has to accept YOUR definition of what discrimination and marriage are, which was determined by YOUR beliefs.

I don't think his argument boils down to this. It's the counter argument in this thread. Its saying that if this business is desired to be of service in a wedding event, they ought to have religious freedom (right) to not participate.

The big wide world doesn't work that way.

From the other understanding of what this thread is about, it is actually the way the big wide world operates. Or if it doesn't, then we are truly living in utopia where no one's personal beliefs/prejudices are ever getting in the way of doing right by each person, all the time.

I think it likely, going forward, that Christians learn to accept SSM in the business world, and thus will lose on this issue, politically. I'm sure some will still maintain personal/private beliefs that disdain SSM, but will no longer resist this in the business world. How long this all takes to play out, I'm not sure, who knows? But once this is sorted out, it will open other doors that I'm willing to bring up right now, and that even many pro SSM people seemingly can't handle that discussion. That's okay, I can.

 

[Prestor John]

Business regulations are created and maintain by the government which has used this clause as a basis for anti-discrimination. Just as the idea of voting which was for men at the time was used to support the rights of women to vote. Neither was directly stated in the Constutions. Therefore by your argument women can not vote.



Not really, you created a false appeal based on your ignorance, nothing more.

You make it sound like the Federal Government is enforcing this when it isn't.

Sure, some local and State authorities have tried to deny people their right to practice their religion, but these are still being contested in the courts.

The Constitution gave us a gray-area which the local and State governments are interpreting differently.

 

[Prestor John]

Actually you don't. Bigotry includes intolerance of other views. Refusal to do what someone wants, if done on religious grounds, is not intolerance.

I agree. That is why I asked you to show me where in your religion it claims that you cannot sell cupcakes to homosexuals.

Since no religion claims that anywhere, your desire to refuse this service to someone just because they are a homosexual is intolerant. It is prejudiced. It is bigoted.

I guess I got you off on the wrong foot. The refused to bake a wedding cake for that couple.

I can understand that. They don't want to support what they consider sinful behavior.

In post #408, you talked about a person refusing to serve a cupcake to a homosexual. That was what I was running with.

Who are you to decide what is reasonable for someone else. How about refusing to make them a wedding cake. That was the real issue. They owned a bakery that specialized in cupcakes.

Gotcha. I'm cool with this then. People should not be forced to do something that violates their religious beliefs.

What you thing should have happened is worse. You wanted them to disobey their religious convictions.

Naw, if this whole thing was about a wedding cupcake, then I agree with you.

I have never put anyone on ignore. You will be my first.

That would be a shame.

 

[Prestor John]

Do you have a different reason?

Yeah. They don't agree with it.

Someone could learn every facet of Hinduism and meet every Hindu in the world and still not agree with it.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yeah. They don't agree with it.

Someone could learn every facet of Hinduism and meet every Hindu in the world and still not agree with it.

When we come right down to it, there's nothing to agree or disagree with. It is what it is. I said people don't understand and take a narrow view of things. It's not "your way or no way".

 

[1robin]

Sorry, I do not believe any of that.

Sorry, what you believe has nothing what so ever to do with what is true. As I stated before, I do not care about your feelings and I do not care about what you believe. I care about what is true. It is obvious to anyone who is honest that your not here to present some well reasoned and evidenced position. Those who are do not bother saying only what they merely believe. Unless you post the actual reasons why what you believe is actually true, your wasting every ones time. There are few arguments in the context of theology that are absolute. Moral theory as it relates to God happens to be one of those absolute issues. However I will try and get you to actually post something other than what you believe.

Please prove that any action that can be performed by anyone, anywhere, at anytime, of any type is actually wrong, without appealing to the transcendent or without telling me merely what you prefer or believe. Just a single objective moral value or duty that exists if God does not. Good luck.

The only moral issues that exist if God does not exist are Mallum prohibitum (merely subjective ethics). However if God does exist then the category labeled Mallum en se' (objective morality) exists.

 

[Watchmen]

Welcome to the open forums. Enjoy your stay.

Welcome? I was here years before you.

 

[Watchmen]

Well, it was technically legal to kill a "Mormon" in Missouri up until 1975.

Do you know why it was legal to kill a Mormon as you put it?