Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh we are done all right. In fact you did not even start. I will give you a parting shot here but that's it.

Any behavior which results in unimaginable death, misery, and cost must sufficiently justify it's self morally if the 96% of us that are heterosexuals are being asked to accept a behavior practiced by 4% of us that are homosexuals.

Well, now that you mention it, it is a fact that the actions of heterosexuals have led to the deaths (or upcoming deaths) of every human being. Most homosexuals have never brought forth a new recruit for the Grim Reaper.

(By the way, you quote "4% of us that are homosexual" is a bit confusing -- are you including yourself?

But fine, let's ask the question: what "behavior" of homosexuals exactly are you claiming "results in unimaginable death, misery..." etc? I'm homosexual. I'm not dead. I'm not miserable. I've lived with the love of my life for decades, all of them happy? Are you commanding me to be miserable to support your stupid cause? Sorry, can't do it. I'm quite content, thank you. Are you?

You have taken this to an even lower low. I said that those who demand we accept the behavior should have better arguments that justify it than any I have seen. You, for pity's sake can't even see why moral justification for what kills millions and costs billions is relevant.

War kills millions and costs billions -- homosexuality has never done either. You Christians are great supporters of war, as I understand it. Explain that. Go ahead, tell me about the millions that homosexuality has killed, and the billions it has cost. Gonna mention AIDS? Sorry, most of the dead, most of the money -- straight folks -- boy-in-girl stuff. Oh, wait, maybe this was just another bad aim by God -- a little punishment that unfortunately omnipotence wasn't able to control.

Ok, that was even more than your claims merited. This morally insane train wreck is over. We are done.

Well, you are, anyway. As I said, the last refuge of the loser. Run and hide. I'll be here to fight another day, when you man up.

 

[Jainarayan]

I am out

At least until your post more homophobic drivel.

In...

5

4

3

2

1 ...

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Unfortunately I do make the rules concerning what I will put up with before I end a debate.

No, but both required that I took the majority of the probability and statistics classes that statistical majors do. In fact I may have taken more because I took a bunch of engineering statistic classes they do not have to. It also does not matter anyway because the CDC has forgotten more about statistical data that a hundred of you will ever know. Regardless, you are not qualified to assess anything about me or mathematics apparently. I can't even get you to properly format a post. We are done.

"Unfortunately I do make the rules concerning what I will put up with before I end a debate."

Well if you don't like it simply don't do it.

" No, but both required that I took the majority of the probability and statistics classes that statistical majors do."

I have serious doubts you did, as you are displaying a clear ineptitude on the subject. I posted a citation from a very reliable authoritative source, so you are gonna have to do better then just puff up your chest and brag.This is observational study from data collect from the States; this is not a designed experiment in which you can establish causality. Furthermore your claim here: "The massive cost of homosexual behavior is not justified by any benefit of the behavior." is unfalsifiable. When you use words like justified you are asking a subjective question. While science can inform us on the details, it ultimately cannot answer the question on what behavior is justifiable.

You just do not display a strong understanding of science, and because of this I don't find all your bragging and chest puffing very convincing.

"CDC"

The CDC is not making your claims. In fact if you read the web link you posted you'd see that they are supporting the Gay and Bisexual community. They even say (in your link under Prevention Challenges),

• Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination may place gay and bisexual men at risk for multiple physical and mental health problems and affect whether they seek and are able to obtain high-quality health services.

You are the one who is trying to use the data to condemn homosexuality. Take some ownership of your own claims and have enough pride to stand by your own words.

 

[Skwim]

While at first glance I thought someone posted something that was at least rational even if not effective. However when I went back and started to reply your data has no effect on the data I provided. I have already demonstrated why these attempts to defend homosexuality that rely on arbitrarily subdividing data or groups until they mean nothing relevant.

So you think. Sorry for your lack of critical thinking.

Have a nice day.
.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh we are done all right. In fact you did not even start. I will give you a parting shot here but that's it.

And knowing you'd prefer not to read it (and likely won't) I'll answer your parting shot.

Any behavior which results in unimaginable death, misery, and cost must sufficiently justify it's self morally if the 96% of us that are heterosexuals are being asked to accept a behavior practiced by 4% of us that are homosexuals.

What is it about homosexuality that you say causes "unimaginable death, misery and cost?" And in particular, why don't you mention religion, political ideology and war as also causing "unimaginable death, misery and cost?" And while on the subject, I'm having trouble finding any answer to the first. So far in history, most of the deaths associated with homosexuality were actually homosexuals being killed by heterosexuals, usually obeying some religious twaddle or other. So is the "proximate cause of death" the homosexuals involved -- or the heterosexual killers and their religion.

Now, I will grant that a lot of people died of AIDS. Many of them were my friends, and I mourn their loss always. But it is also important to point out that the killer in this instance is a virus, and that the very large majority of people with AIDS in the world today are heterosexual. Homosexuals didn't cause that virus -- actually, if you believe most of what you preach, you have to believe that God did, and that God has, once again, exhibited pretty clumsy aim if His divine purpose (as decreed by several American fundamentalists) was to exterminate gays.

You have taken this to an even lower low. I said that those who demand we accept the behavior should have better arguments that justify it than any I have seen. You, for pity's sake can't even see why moral justification for what kills millions and costs billions is relevant.

Don't suppose you (or anyone else) noticed that you ignored a few of my pointed questions above. Religion and sex have never got along well, have they? Yet, religion and war dance cheek-to-cheek with no reservation. You had most a nation during my youth supporting the Vietnam War, for example, or the Korean War (slightly before), which did indeed kill millions and cost billions.

You had priests running rampant up the tiny hineys of children, or with each other, or with hidden women.

Yet, we all mumble words like "sex" and "masturbate" like some shameful things we'd like to deny about ourselves, but proudly enunciate "war" and "murder" as if they're our proudest accomplishments. I grew up in a world of television cartoons that couldn't possibly display genitalia, but had no problem with mutilations, eviscerations and death. We'd be a better species if we mumbled and enunciated in the opposite order.

And with reference to the priests, above, and to the questions I put to you about masturbation or being recipient of a blow-job or other non-procreative activities (which you refused to answer), I think we'd be a better species if we stopped being such bloody hypocrites.

You want "morally corrupt? Your world is filled to the brim with it, and blithely ignores it -- while you want to concentrate on whether it's okay for me to make sweet love to my partner of decades. You are, in a word, ridiculous.

 

[1robin]

Oh no, the precious snow flakes are all melting down. Oh the humanity..............

 

[columbus]

Oh no, the precious snow flakes are all melting down. Oh the humanity..............

You're the one putting people on <ignore>, making rules against arguments, and threatening to just leave if we don't follow your rules.
Again! You and I have been discussing this on RF for years and you're still the same. You can't explain the difference between correlation and causation. You make emotional arguments. You get blown out of the water. You leave for awhile.
Then you come back to RF and start it all over.
Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well I see you surfaced. I hope you had a good Christmas. I am in all likelihood going to end my debates with others in this thread. However since I requested you to give me an argument I will make an exception in your case.


Anyway it should be easy to address your claims here.

My Christmas was fantastic. I hope yours was too.

There is almost never a thing in all cases, there are usually some exceptions. For instance one of the most famous military units in history was the Greek "sacred band" thought to be 100% homosexual. Of course there was only a handful and they were annihilated to a man in a battle with other Greeks. There is also a belief that the Spartans (the finest soldier for their time to have ever lived) allowed homosexuality among their troops, but these are merely rumors.

I’m not talking about exceptions or 100% “homosexual” armies. I’m talking about the obvious fact that gay people have served in militaries since they were first invented because gay people have always been around.

Your entire position here seems to be a semantic technicality over what is an experiment. I do not know how to determine when an action is an experiment or not. However in this context I was referring to the finest military in human history, the US military. I am not sure why you opened with a semantic technicality but this issue at best can be resolved to probabilities. In this case it is far more likely that a behavior that was not officially allowed for 98% of our history is a social experiment than that a behavior officially tolerated for 2% of our history is not a social experiment.

My position is that it’s not a “social experiment” to allow gay people to serve in the military and that they are just as capable as any other human being of serving in the military. It’s not some new thing that’s never been tried before. Countries all over the world allow men to serve without a care as to their sexual orientation.

Whose history are you talking about? And what behaviors are you specifically talking about?

You always seem to conflate sexual orientation with sexual behavior and I think it’s because it’s the only way you can even attempt to make your argument work (though I still don’t think it works anyway). You associate certain behaviors with homosexuality (though it’s been pointed out to you that the same behaviors are engaged in by heterosexuals all the time), yet you don’t define heterosexuals by such behaviors – only homosexuals. I don’t define people by their sexual behaviors in that way.

Also please stop virtue signaling by claiming homosexuals are people. I never said nor hinted they were not people and it is irrelevant anyway.

I don’t know what “virtue signaling” is.

I point out that they are human beings because you seem to be implying that they are some kind of subhuman or alien or something, just in the way you refer to them. They are not less capable of serving honorably simply because they are gay. They care about the same basic things as most other people. Are you seriously worried that they wouldn’t be able to stop themselves from hitting on someone in the shower? As though all gay people are defined by these specific behaviors you have chosen that are not in fact carried out exclusively by gay people in the first place.

Do you have a hard time not throwing yourself all over women you come into contact with that you find attractive? Are you completely unable to control yourself? Why do you think gay people aren’t able to control themselves?

Why since I made my big post about what and why the arguments used so far to defend homosexuality all fail, has every single person defending homosexuality given up the effort? Instead everyone has decided to contest a minor point I made about the military as an exception I made in one persons case for a single post.

I can only speak for myself and articulate how I feel about it.

Lastly to invent a hypothetical about things which by your own definition no one can know occurred is to really be desperate. None of this is a defense of homosexuality, not even a bad one. It is merely an argument concerning hypothetical military history, semantic technicalities, and virtue signaling. By the way I have recently become educated about all the modern buzzwords that apply liberals. So be prepared, I have dozens of them in my quiver.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. What hypothetical?

I haven’t presented a hypothetical situation – you did.

 

[1robin]

My Christmas was fantastic. I hope yours was too.

Good, and yes.

I’m not talking about exceptions or 100% “homosexual” armies. I’m talking about the obvious fact that gay people have served in militaries since they were first invented because gay people have always been around.

There has not been enough gay people in our military to mean anything. It is not merely a far too small sample size to be meaningful but it was a completely negligible amount until recently. I was not appealing to anything where the few people who are gay being in the military was even relevant. I was talking about the issues involved. I can lay out all kinds of data concerning all kinds of increased problems with homosexuals in our military, in fact I have posted them in the past but I try to not post stuff I feel is disgusting to describe. I also hesitated to invest much time with the military issue because it was a one time exception made for a single poster and not related to my arguments about homosexual behavior.

Let me point this out again.

1. My two arguments about cost verses benefit are what we have been debating.
2. One person asked me as a sort of size issue to list some solutions to homosexuality.
3. I responded that I have given little thought to what should be done about homosexuality but because he asked I gave him 3 or 4 things I personally would do as a start.
4. For some bizarre reason every person talking to me instantly switched from failing to defend homosexuality. They did not even switch to all of my suggestions, everyone targeted my military comment about which I am in a far better position to understand and defend than my homosexual behavior arguments.

Can you please explain the above? Now if you want to discuss the military that is fine but first I want to know why and then we need to clear out all other issues to make enough room for a military discussion to be meaningful.

My position is that it’s not a “social experiment” to allow gay people to serve in the military and that they are just as capable as any other human being of serving in the military. It’s not some new thing that’s never been tried before. Countries all over the world allow men to serve without a care as to their sexual orientation.

Like I said you have gotten away from defending homosexuality, then moved on to the military, and are now concentrating on a semantic technicality. I have no need or interest to worry about semantics. You can apply whatever label you wish to what I brought up. Semantics change absolutely nothing that I described.

It is worse than if I said the brown colored bear I see ahead is acting territorial or threatening, and you respond that only cinnamon bears are territorial. What matters is that bear up ahead is acting territorial and aggressive. The danger or problem is the bear that is eating your face off, not what terms should be used to describe the event.

BTW my point about the military has nothing to do with any specific behavior, that's why I did not mention any specific behavior.

Whose history are you talking about? And what behaviors are you specifically talking about?

You always seem to conflate sexual orientation with sexual behavior and I think it’s because it’s the only way you can even attempt to make your argument work (though I still don’t think it works anyway). You associate certain behaviors with homosexuality (though it’s been pointed out to you that the same behaviors are engaged in by heterosexuals all the time), yet you don’t define heterosexuals by such behaviors – only homosexuals. I don’t define people by their sexual behaviors in that way.

First if you review my posts in the thread you will find dozens and dozens of examples where I said emphatically over and over that my primary arguments about homosexuality are based exclusively on homosexual behaviors not the orientation. I even pointed that out in my opening posts because I know from the past that others will take my posts concerning behaviors and completely rewrite them to apply to an orientation, once that straw man is erected then they destroy it and claim victory.

Second, please quote anything in what you responded to by me that has anything to do with an orientation.

Third, do not confuse an implication concerning my one time exception concerning what to do about homosexuality with the claims I made concerning my primary argument condemning homosexual behavior. That is exactly why it was an exception. It just proves the famous saying that to give truth to those who love it not is only to increase contentions.

Fourth it was the CDC that said that 60% of aids cases are attributable to the 4% of us engaged in homosexual sexual behavior. Argue with them, not me. I am running out of room just pointing out the mistakes in your argumentation.

I don’t know what “virtue signaling” is.

It is basically making a vacuous argument by claiming whatever your defending is virtuous. It is something the modern left does better than any group in history but never mind.

I point out that they are human beings because you seem to be implying that they are some kind of subhuman or alien or something, just in the way you refer to them. They are not less capable of serving honorably simply because they are gay. They care about the same basic things as most other people. Are you seriously worried that they wouldn’t be able to stop themselves from hitting on someone in the shower? As though all gay people are defined by these specific behaviors you have chosen that are not in fact carried out exclusively by gay people in the first place.

We do not have badgers in the army, no sloths in the Marines, no barn owls in the Navy, and no penguins in the Air Force. Aside from a few dogs and maybe a couple of dolphins (neither of which apply) we only have humans in the military. These days we probably do have illegal aliens but then again they are all HUMANS. I did not even suggest they were less capable though that may very well be true on average. I said their inclusion in the military is a net loss in capability for the military as a whole. Even though it was a one time exception, I did list a few reasons why. However you did not even attempt to hint why any of them were wrong, but you instead claimed I think they are less than human, which is complete BS. That is a violation of two of the 10 or so things I said that if anyone did I would end the discussion with them. I will temporarily not do so with you because I did not call your attention to that email but do not even hint that I think less of homosexuals because I disagree with them again.

Do you have a hard time not throwing yourself all over women you come into contact with that you find attractive? Are you completely unable to control yourself? Why do you think gay people aren’t able to control themselves?

When boys are young that is a problem that gets countless young folks in trouble. However, I will stop having a problem with showering with homosexuals as soon as women allow heterosexual males in their showers. Actually I won't stop having a problem with it but I might shut up about it. Just like I said nothing about homosexuals being less than human, I said nothing about anyone's ability to control anything, yet you claimed I did both instead of making any actual defense of homosexual behavior.

I can only speak for myself and articulate how I feel about it.

I do not care how anybody feels about it, in fact the emotional commitment people have to defending homosexual behavior is the problem. I am responsible to God for how I reacted to truth, I am not responsible for how you feel about the truth.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. What hypothetical?

You brought up a hypothetical scenario in which gays who do not tell anyone they are gay are serving in the military then drew some conclusions about it. I would need you to supply countless facts, that you in fact cannot not possibly know to make this hypothetical meaningful. For example how many gays are flying below the radar. 1, 10, 100,000? You can't possibly know, and to be relevant you must know.

I know I asked you to debate me, but I hope you will stop being sensationalistic. I need facts, not color commentary.

 

[Acim]

If I mentioned you here it is because each of you has committed at least one of the following mistakes. In fact most of you have committed most or all of the following.

1. Even after...

You violated my 17th rule (paragraph 8, sentence 7) for proper internet debate. When you mention many people in a post and I am one of them, but do not specifically address which point applies to me, then you are wrong and there's no nice way to state that. My rules are the nicest way I can state it, and they are supremely logical and consistent and are what runs the internet as you / we know it and experience it.

Because you have violated this rule, I shall allow you to address me, but only if you start your posts with, "I am truly and sincerely sorry ACIM for my past mishap, will you please consider this point, when you have the time."

Further violations of the rules I have put forth will mean I shall ignore you and then guess what happens? You won't have the privilege of engaging me in the most intelligent and reasonable debate you will ever have opportunity to engage in, in this life. Yeah, I know, it sucks. But rules are rules.

 

[1robin]

You violated my 17th rule (paragraph 8, sentence 7) for proper internet debate. When you mention many people in a post and I am one of them, but do not specifically address which point applies to me, then you are wrong and there's no nice way to state that. My rules are the nicest way I can state it, and they are supremely logical and consistent and are what runs the internet as you / we know it and experience it.

Because you have violated this rule, I shall allow you to address me, but only if you start your posts with, "I am truly and sincerely sorry ACIM for my past mishap, will you please consider this point, when you have the time."

Further violations of the rules I have put forth will mean I shall ignore you and then guess what happens? You won't have the privilege of engaging me in the most intelligent and reasonable debate you will ever have opportunity to engage in, in this life. Yeah, I know, it sucks. But rules are rules.

I no longer care. For pity's sake, please ignore me. Come on, I dare you. One more post to me in this thread from you, and I will do it for you. Let these horrifically pathetic attempts to defend what is indefensible end.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I no longer care. For pity's sake, please ignore me. Come on, I dare you. One more post to me in this thread from you, and I will do it for you. Let these horrifically pathetic attempts to defend what is indefensible end.

I delight knowing your ways are on the way out. It brings me joy the world is much more accepting of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgender people than it was when I was born 30 years ago. In another 30, it will probably be inconceivable for people to even think or insinuate there is something wrong with such people. We may even see something like Blazing Saddles, but instead of laughing at how dumb racism is, it will be laughing at how dumb homophobia and transphobia are.

 

[Kirran]

I delight knowing your ways are on the way out. It brings me joy the world is much more accepting of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgender people than it was when I was born 30 years ago. In another 30, it will probably be inconceivable for people to even think or insinuate there is something wrong with such people. We may even see something like Blazing Saddles, but instead of laughing at how dumb racism is, it will be laughing at how dumb homophobia and transphobia are.

30 years after that I hope people will be looking back at all these strange identities people had to give themselves and wondering what all the deal was about.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh no, the precious snow flakes are all melting down. Oh the humanity..............

Accusations of "precious snow flakes" says the one wanting special privileges.

 

[columbus]

30 years after that I hope people will be looking back at all these strange identities people had to give themselves and wondering what all the deal was about.

I believe that in well under 30 years 1robin's religious compadres will be claiming that Christians led the fight for marriage equality. And when folks bring up 1robin and his ilk, the Christians will claim that he had nothing to do with "True Christianity".
Tom

 

[Kirran]

I believe that in well under 30 years 1robin's religious compadres will be claiming that Christians led the fight for marriage equality. And when folks bring up 1robin and his ilk, the Christians will claim that he had nothing to do with "True Christianity".
Tom

Well, to be fair, some Christians have been involved in leading the fight. The UCC has been pretty outstanding.

But yeah, that kind of all-out co-opting might well happen

 

[Prestor John]

The baker took the job as a baker, runs a bakery business, and generally they serve the general public. Artists, on the other hand, frequently work on a freelance/commissioned basis. Artists also generally are not serving the general public, and rarely do they run businesses dedicated to their art. But, if they do run a business serving the public, then they are obliged to serve the public.

Alright, let’s use a more relevant example.

A baker in Colorado was asked to bake cakes in the shape of Bibles and to then decorate the cakes with images of two grooms having an “X” drawn over them as well as anti-homosexual statements and Biblical references.

The baker baked the cakes, but declined to decorate them as requested, claiming that they were offensive to her. She provided the customer with icing and a pastry bag and told him that he could decorate the cakes himself.

The customer claimed that he was denied services because of his religious views, yet he lost because it was clear that the baker would have declined to decorate any cake with what she found offensive, despite the religious beliefs of any of her customers.

https://rewire.news/article/2015/04/07/colorado-baker-didnt-discriminate-refusing-decorate-anti-lgbt-cakes/

In the above mentioned example, a baker could opt out from doing what she felt was offensive to her. She was willing to do business, but there was a line that she would not cross.

Now, the case that I have been referencing throughout this thread has been the case of the Masterpiece Cakeshop (also in Colorado) denying to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple celebrating their “same-sex marriage.”

The owner of that shop (who claims to be a “Cake Artist”) claimed that he would make the couple any type of baked goods they wanted, but he would not make a wedding cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith.

The shop owner obviously lost his case (thus this argument), but my question is why?

Why is it okay for one baker to refuse to cross the line into what she considered to be offensive, but another baker cannot?

Also, I noticed that you failed to comment about my woodcarver example.

If a woodcarver owns a store full of various things he has carved, can he refuse to carve a crucifix for a customer? Even if he claims that he would carve anything else for the customer, he just is not a fan of Christianity and would consider carving the crucifix to be offensive.

You believe that the woodcarver is free to do this?

What standards are being mandated?

Your standards.

My statement was specific they do not have to host gay weddings in their church, and they don't have to even welcome gays in the door.

You need to understand that someone’s religion is a lifestyle and is not confined to within a church building.

If you tell someone when something should or should not violate their beliefs then you are telling them how to practice their religion.

You saying, “Your beliefs are not being violated because no one is forcing your church to marry gays or you to accept gays”, you are telling that person what their beliefs are.

What if a person believes that offering any type of service to a same-sex marriage ceremony violates their beliefs?

They set the bounds, not you.

Churches are not businesses, and they do not serve the general public.

Not at all relevant.

I'm not. I even said it's your right to believe such. But that does not mean you have the right to guide public policy.

You are. To some people, offering any service that aides a same-sex wedding is unacceptable. Their belief leads them to that practice.

What is wrong with protecting a person’s freedom of religion? That should be the public policy.

We pretty much are talking about just that.

Not at all. The baker was willing to serve the homosexual couple in any way that did not violate his beliefs.

Obviously, he was willing to serve that homosexual couple with any other baked good and that is evidence against the idea that he does not like homosexuals.

They aren't supporting anything, other than their business.

So, you believe that the baker that refused to decorate those cakes with what she believed was offensive imagery and language was wrong to do so?

Her making those cakes would not be her supporting those ideas, right?

People should violate their own codes of conduct and decency all the time so they can support their business?

Their job isn't to make moral judgements about people, it's to bake and sell cakes to the general public.

What moral judgment?

Jews don’t eat pork products. Are they making a moral judgment against pig farmers and the pork industry?

The baker that thought the images and language she was asked to decorate the cakes with was offensive, does that mean she made a moral judgment about her customers?

You can disagree with what people do without condemning them.

True, but even the so-called "positive" discrimination has no place in society.

I disagree. My decision to marry my wife meant that I would now discriminate against every other woman in the world. Sorry ladies.

Do understand, I provided that as an example of when free speech is not free, and to demonstrate there are multiple instances in which it is limited and restricted.

I understand that calls to action to harm someone or that are based on a false witnesses are not protected speech.

Someone refusing to do something they consider to be offensive should be protected speech.

No one is saying you can't express that.

Yet, you believe that you can force someone to participate in a practice that they believe is sinful?

True, but much like it was predicted the Supreme Court would inevitably legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states and what arguments and precedence they would base that decision on, we can expect the Supreme Court to not overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, and they are probably not going to reverse any of their positions of LBGT protections, and if anything, make it more clear you cannot discriminate against sexual orientation or gender identity and expectations. They have actually already ruled on these, but some people need a reminder and need it spelled out for them, and in a few instances they just need to take another half-step.

I understand that we are already riding that slippery slope prophesied in the scriptures.

That does not mean we should not swim against the tide or give up our Constitutional freedoms without a fight.

Also, just to be clear, denying to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding is not discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation.

The baker was willing to do business with the homosexual couple, but he just would not violate his beliefs.

Don’t even get me started on “gender identity.” There are only the two genders. Someone is born as either a male or a female and it is determined by their genitalia.

I don’t care if you have a penis but identify as a woman, you are a man. I don’t care if you identify as a cat, you are a human being. I don’t care if you identify as a child, any sexual relationship with a child is pedophilia.

All this delusion began with normalizing premarital sex. Slippery slope.

 

[Prestor John]

That is irrelative, as I gave a position based on precedence, not a centuries old system we only selectively adhere to.

Soon the entire Constitution will be referred to like that.

Unless you can provide evidence showing they really weren't seriously using the Bible as justification of their ways, you do not get to decide whenever someone's religious appeals are central and authentic or not.

This same argument can be used against you. You’d need to prove that wealth was not the motivating factor.

Permitted it, demanded it, and not once condemned it as inhumane and barbaric.

He has in these Latter Days.

Anyways, the Israelites were barbarians living amongst other barbarians. Slavery in Israel was superior to other cultures in various ways and many people, rather than being slaughtered, were converted to the truth.

No, rather it says to go ahead and beat them as severely as you want, just as long as you don't kill them, because they are your property.

As I said, the Israelites were given a lesser law.

Yes, it is that. They don't like homosexuals, thus they did not want to serve them as they would serve anyone else.

Yeah, it sounds like you are projecting.

Just because you cannot comprehend the idea of “Hate the sin but love the sinner” does not mean others cannot understand and live by it.

Your entire argument falls under this false pretense. You assume hatred. If someone is against same-sex marriage, it must be because they HATE homosexuals.

Your entire argument is built on something you can never prove.

Yes. They were denied the ability to be served the same as any other member of the general public.

The baker didn’t force them to do something that offended him.

So, a baker must bake a cake for someone who wants to celebrate the “unbirthday” of the child they aborted, no matter how the baker feels about abortion?

What if someone wants a cake to celebrate the start of the Holocaust and wants the names of several Holocaust victims displayed on the cake?

No one is forcing these people to do things that may offend these bakers, but these “Cake Artists” should be able to opt out if they feel that their participation may violate their personal beliefs.

Oh well. As we say around here "if you're going to do the crime, you need to be prepared to do the time." If you [break] the law, there are consequences.

So, you believe that people who helped smuggle slaves out of the South should have been charged and jailed?

Sending people to death camps for speaking out against Hitler was justified?

I mean, they broke the law, they should have been prepared to do the time, right? Nothing wrong with that?

They are secondary, as the issue revolves around business policy, a policy that is based on their religion. However, it is illegal for a business to discriminate.

Tell that to the baker who refused to make those Bible cakes. She definitely discriminated against her customer.

Businesses are not entitled to the same rights as people, and they have many additional laws that must be followed that people do not have to follow.

Not wanting to participate in an offensive practice is not the same as discriminating against someone due to their sexual orientation.

Opening a business, after all, is not a right.

Neither is having cake.

It depends on the situation. If you are being invaded and you don't fight to defend yourself, your neighbors, and your community (and, of course, assuming you are physically able to), you probably shouldn't even be a member of that community.

You believe yourself qualified to make that determination?

How valiant do they need to be? Do they need to jump in front of bullets intended for others in order to be considered “worthy” of being a member of that community?

It doesn’t matter what anyone believes? They have to fight and kill? What if they believe surrender is the better option? Or turning the other cheek? Or being murdered rather than committing murder?

You consider yourself qualified to force people to do things against their beliefs?

Honestly, it depends as there is no blanket one-size-fits-all approach to this.

Why not? Isn’t it so for bakers? Aren’t these Social Justice Warriors fighting for “equality”? Everyone being “equal”?

Doesn’t the blanket have to fit everyone in order for there to be equality?

We in America are privileged enough to have a large enough population that volunteer for it that we don't really need mandatory conscription.

Kind of like how we have so many bakers who are willing to bake wedding cakes for same-sex weddings that we don’t need to force bakers who don’t want to bake them into baking them?

Not all nations are that privileged, and they need mandatory conscription for at least cases of national defense.

Yes, countries with no freedom of religion have no issue with denying their citizens the freedom to practice their religion.

I thought the U.S. was different than those countries.

No one is saying you can't believe that.

Yet everyone is saying that you cannot practice that belief.

Then take the advice of your Jesus and focus on the moat in your own eye rather than the splinter in the eye of another.

This is very hypocritical of you.

You hate someone for doing what they believe Jesus would have them do and then ruin their lives because of it, yet you tell them to continue to do the thing you initially loathed them for?

So, you like Christians when their beliefs align with yours or if it can get them to shut up, but when their beliefs slightly inconvenience a homosexual couple – it’s a religion of hate!

Or, as we say today, mind your own business.

No one forced the homosexual couple to get married. No one forced them to want to buy a cake from that bakery.

When they entered that bakery and laid out their plans – they made their intimate life the bakery owner’s business – of which he did not want to be a part of.

However, instead of “turning the other check” or telling themselves that it was none of their business, the homosexual couple decided to ruin the life of that bakery owner.

Realize we are a pluralistic society with freedom of and from religion, and you have no right to dictate the lives of others based on your own sense of morality.

Yet, you and these homosexuals have no qualms with dictating the lives of others based on your own sense of morality?

That is hypocritical.

If something offends you, for the sake of an open and free society, chances are pretty good you're just going to have to learn to tolerate it.

How hypocritical!

That homosexual couple became offended and instead of tolerating it they decided to ruin a man (and his family’s) lives.

In other words, not wanting to serve "their kind."

Nope. The baker was willing to serve them. He just did not want to participate in same-sex marriage.

Your argument hinges on this and it fails.

Their right to equal application of the law has been violated because the baker wants to believe special privileges have been granted, even though they haven't.

So you believe that the initial baker should have been forced to decorate those cakes with that imagery and language she considered offensive?

That woodcarver would have to carve me that crucifix?

Or, is it only the irreligious who have the right to equal protection under the law?

And the chances they will reverse same-sex marriage is less than abysmal.

I agree, but that doesn’t make it right.

Notice how all the impositions you would place on this baker and others you are unwilling to place upon yourself and homosexual couples?

Hypocrites all day long.

 

[Shad]

Accusations of "precious snow flakes" says the one wanting special privileges.

You mean wanting these privileges back

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If a woodcarver owns a store full of various things he has carved, can he refuse to carve a crucifix for a customer?

If he doesn't take special orders.

The baker baked the cakes, but declined to decorate them as requested, claiming that they were offensive to her. She provided the customer with icing and a pastry bag and told him that he could decorate the cakes himself.

She should have made these cakes. And then once the transaction was finished, declared the HRC's or ACLU's gratitude for the donation.

Your standards.

If my standards were mandated, people would be too well educated in school to accept a single story from the Bible as true.

You need to understand that someone’s religion is a lifestyle and is not confined to within a church building.

I know. But that is a part of society. No one can ever entirely get their way, no one's personal beliefs have any business guiding public policy, and it is ultimately for the greater good of society if people cooperate rather than bickering over such petty things. You serve the public, you serve the public. No special privileges, no special excuses, no special laws. You serve the public.

You saying, “Your beliefs are not being violated because no one is forcing your church to marry gays or you to accept gays”, you are telling that person what their beliefs are.

If that is what they believe, there is nothing wrong with that example. They don't want to participate in gay marriages, fine. No one is forcing them to rent out their church anyways.

Soon the entire Constitution will be referred to like that.

Good. It was written for a world that lived and died centuries ago.

This same argument can be used against you. You’d need to prove that wealth was not the motivating factor.

It doesn't work like that. We have proof the Bible was used to justify slavery. Because this is documented, it is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.

He has in these Latter Days.

Then thus god does change is not eternal.

Anyways, the Israelites were barbarians living amongst other barbarians. Slavery in Israel was superior to other cultures in various ways and many people, rather than being slaughtered, were converted to the truth.

When it comes to owning humans as property, there is no such thing as "superior." They could be beaten as severely as the master wanted just as long as they weren't killed. The Ottomans afforded Christians and Jews far more legal tolerance than the Christians showed Jews and Muslims (and often other Christians), but it was still hardly ideal or even praiseworthy.

As I said, the Israelites were given a lesser law.

Why? If god is truly omnipotent, he could have just given them an a humane law and protected Israel from the others who were the barbarians.

Your entire argument falls under this false pretense. You assume hatred. If someone is against same-sex marriage, it must be because they HATE homosexuals.

I don't assume hatred. When you make it your business for no other reason than your religious views, especially to the point of wanting to deny basic human rights, it is hatred. When you go out of your way to judge and condemn, it is hatred. When you tell people they are wrong and their love is an abomination, that is hatred.

I mean, they broke the law, they should have been prepared to do the time, right? Nothing wrong with that?

If you break the law, if you take a stand, you need to be ready for whatever comes your way.

Neither is having cake.

No, but if you serve the public and deny certain members of the public, you are denying them a civil liberty, one that has already been addressed and ruled: A business cannot legally discriminate.

You believe yourself qualified to make that determination?

Why should a community not band together for defense? Invading a city is one thing, but invading that city when everyone is trained to defend it, that is another situation all together.

How valiant do they need to be? Do they need to jump in front of bullets intended for others in order to be considered “worthy” of being a member of that community?

Does it really matter when you are protecting yourself, your loved ones, and your community?