Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

If you notice in your examples, this person offered the customer the supplies to do it themselves. The bakers refusing the gay couple have no similar thing mentioned.

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 if you note that the bible forbids graven images? What then? Why should I take "religious beliefs" seriously if they ignore the actual "Word of God" they supposedly reference?

Jesus never told anyone not to make someone a cake. It's practically blasphemous to say he did.

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

Lifestyles don't trump biological differences, though. This is why racism and sexism and ageism is wrong.

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

Jesus, I note, attended a wedding despite his constant griping about how awful families and marriages were.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Nonsense:

Consider: more than 58 Arabic linguists have been kicked out since “don’t ask, don’t tell” was instituted. How much valuable intelligence could those men and women be providing today to troops in harm’s way?

In addition to those translators, 11,000 other service members have been ousted since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was passed by Congress in 1993. Many held critical jobs in intelligence, medicine and counterterrorism. An untold number of closeted gay military members don’t re-enlist because of the pressure the law puts on them. This is the real cost of the ban — and, with our military so overcommitted and undermanned, it’s too high to pay.

In response to difficult recruiting prospects, the Army has already taken a number of steps, lengthening soldiers’ deployments to 15 months from 12, enlisting felons and extending the age limit to 42. Why then won’t Congress pass a bill like the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell”? The bipartisan bill, by some analysts’ estimates, could add more than 41,000 soldiers — all gay, of course.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Translate

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, let's ignore the freedoms ensured by the Constitution and keep giving special protections to the tyrannical minorities.

What "freedoms ensured by the Constitution" do you think are being ignored?

 

[Prestor John]

If you notice in your examples, this person offered the customer the supplies to do it themselves. The bakers refusing the gay couple have no similar thing mentioned.

That is true.

Then, in your opinion, the baker offering all the ingredients necessary for the homosexual couple to make their own wedding cake would be acceptable?

What if you note that the bible forbids graven images? What then? Why should I take "religious beliefs" seriously if they ignore the actual "Word of God" they supposedly reference?

In this example, no one is asking the woodcarver to believe anything or to take any belief "seriously".

Should a woodcarver be allowed to refuse to make a crucifix for a customer if the woodcarver would feel uncomfortable doing so?

Jesus never told anyone not to make someone a cake. It's practically blasphemous to say he did.

No one has said that He did.

However, His servant, the Apostle Paul, taught followers of Christ to "avoid the appearance of evil."

If "same-sex marriage" is considered "evil" by a baker, shouldn't he/she be allowed to not participate in that practice in order to avoid even the "appearance" that they find it acceptable?

Lifestyles don't trump biological differences, though.

A homosexual man is not at all biologically different than a heterosexual man.

This is why racism and sexism and ageism is wrong.

I agree. We should not hate one another.

Jesus, I note, attended a wedding despite his constant griping about how awful families and marriages were.

Jesus never spoke ill of families or marriage.

Why would you assume that He did?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Should a woodcarver be allowed to refuse to make a crucifix for a customer if the woodcarver would feel uncomfortable doing so?

The woodcarver is free to choose the products he wants to sell, but is obliged to sell those products to all customers without discrimination.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nonsense:


Don’t Ask, Don’t Translate

Thank you!

 

[1robin]

Nonsense:

I am done with this off ramp every at the same concentrated on instead of defending homosexuality. However I remember you as a reasonable poster (though I may be mistaken. So I will state for about the sixth time why my point about the military will no longer be debated by me.

1. I stated specifically (in post #840 as well as many others) that I did not intend to debate the solution to homosexual behavior.
2. I even stated why. I can know for a fact my car is not working even if I have no idea how to fix it. I do not have to have a solution to identify a problem.
3. I also emphatically stated that I would not debate the solution. In that same post as well as others I restated my two simplistic arguments I was debating. I said that if anyone brought up the solution issue I would end my debate with them.
4. However I had a person post a reply that was new to me and I did not know if he saw my post #840 so I generously said I would offer a few suggestions as to a solution.
5. As usual my generosity was wasted. For some bizarre reason no even attempted to defend homosexuality it's self after that point, instead (as if every one on the other side has swarm logic apparently) every other poster switched to the military point I made a single exception and posted.
6. Even if I was completely wrong about the military it would not help to justify homosexual behavior one bit. I have no idea why everyone switched to talking about the military since I am almost certainly more knowledgeable about it than anyone else who is debating it in this thread.

I currently do not have time to chase others down meaningless rabbit holes.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Translate

You already posted a link to this meaningless issue. I yet again gave you a break and stated what you needed to post before I can debate this issue, however you switched gears entirely and brought up something else entirely. I will even be generous again (though my generosity is seldom returned). You actually copy and paste from your link that which I need to investigate and then I will evaluate it. I won't make this offer again so please take advantage of it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Fine, but you at least know why you did what I pointed out but you did not state why yet. BTW my military point was not even close to the last thing I posted, it was certainly not the thing I posted the most, it wasn't relevant to the justification of homosexuality at all, and of all the relevant issues it is the one I am far more suited to know than those who responded to it. I even said several times that to respond to my pointing out a problem by demanding I post a solution was a mistake and why.

Whatever is going on it isn't rational.


This post was not what I had hoped for. I will make a few brief responses and then restate why the morality debate must be had first before any of this other stuff is.

It does not matter if a few closeted homosexuals showered with some straight people caused any problem or not. For the exact same reasons women in the military will not let straight or gay soldiers shower with them, heterosexuals do not want to shower with homosexuals. Since they are very vocal about being gay today and are in fact accepted in large numbers then it is a problem (even if the straight soldiers were wrong) and my argument is valid, but not relevant to homosexuals justifying their behavior.

Maybe such people should get over their unfounded and irrational fears. I don't think it's ever a good idea to make policy decisions based on unfounded beliefs and/or fears. Do you?

If some members don't trust black people, should they (black people) be forced out of the military based on some peoples' unfounded fears because it may affect unit cohesion?

So if you ever admit the nature of morality, then we can debate whether homosexuality is justifiable, then maybe we can debate homosexuals in the military. First things first.

It does not matter if their distrust is justified. Their distrust in this case is perfectly natural whether you believe in evolution or creation. However it doesn't have to be, if that distrust is wide spread it will harm battle effectiveness. That is the militaries job, once the left finally destroys it, what will replace it will be far far less tolerant.

What I said was that in the military environment it would be next to impossible to hide being a homosexual, that is the opposite of what you say I said. Unless you served in the military you will never understand the level of intimacy soldiers do and should have. Their are few secrets. In the past most of the few homosexuals in the military that were discovered either had accidents until they gave up or were discharged. In fact several categories of people are treated this way, the main one being what we called "bugs" who screw up a lot of what they do, because in a war they will get you killed. One almost got me killed simply loading out an Iraqi ship. My plan is much more gentle, don't let them in.

I see. And you say this person almost got you killed specifically because he was a gay person? How does that work?

I think you're dealing with a bit of confirmation bias here. No heterosexual military members have ever messed something up? I think you're just seeing what you want to see.

I don't know what evolution or creation have to do with anything.

None of this matters until you come to terms with moral facts. You want to assume what you can't know, that God does not exist, fine. Without God there are no objective moral value or duties. All we have left is your opinion and mine, and since there is no objective moral standard to determine which one of us are right then your claiming anything is morally right or wrong is meaningless. What can be more relevant to a debate about what is right or wrong if on your view actual right and actual evil do not even exist? That is why you must first show actual good and evil exists before you can claim that anything is either one. Good luck.

I'm not sure that's necessary as I'm not so sure morality has much to do with this discussion. This is more a matter of practicality, if you ask me. All that should be required is analysis of the facts, logic and reason.

 

[1robin]

Maybe such people should get over their unfounded and irrational fears. I don't think it's ever a good idea to make policy decisions based on unfounded beliefs and/or fears. Do you?

If some members don't trust black people, should they be forced out of the military based on some peoples' unfounded fears because it may affect unit cohesion?

1. Yes, if in no other place we must deal with the actual reality that exists for the sake of our national defense. If you research military history you will find that nations have ceased to exist for far less obvious reasons than unit cohesion. For example Nazi Germany ceased to exist because of ones man's ambition, the confederacy was annihilated because one man's frustration cost him his entire previously undefeated army, a unit of the greatest soldiers that have ever existed were killed to a man because they were nice to a farmer. Big things can turn on small matters.
2. The military's purpose is to destroy people and things. Whatever results in that being done with the most efficiency is what the militaries standards should be. You do not risk unit cohesion (in most cases even if their reasoning is faulty) unless you must. The military does not need homosexuals but to have them risks unit cohesion.
3. As to the rationality of their fears. Evolution or God made us that way. Why do you guys throw out evolution if it ever results in anything inconvenient, while raising it to an almost divine status for all other issues.
4. I will agree their fears are irrational only if you take a poll and almost all women will admit their not wanting males in their own showers is irrational.
5. I am so desperate I keep trying to tell others what arguments they should make. First you must show that on your worldview moral good and moral evil actually exist, then show that our battle effectiveness goes up on average if our military includes homosexuals than if it excludes them, then show that women (being forced at gun point) are irrational in feeling uncomfortable with men of any orientation in their showers. At this point I would take any one of the three.

I see. And you this person almost got you killed specifically because he was a gay person? How does that work?

Once again you are either not reading or intentionally using my statements in illegitimate ways. I tried to help you see what I am saying by giving you examples of other groups which meet with abuse because they demand inclusion. I gave another example that the military refers to as bugs. They are a group composed of people who simply fail at their tasks very often which can get others killed. In my example a chief we called (cartoon) who was completely incompetent. My C.O. loved me because I helped him do something on another exercise, this chief had a crane swing a load straight at my head. All I could do was jump, luckily I landed on a small platform or I would not be around to make you miserable. The chief was relieved of duty and I did not see him the rest of that deployment but I can give you a hundred similar cases that did involve injury and death at the hands of people who later paid dearly for it. I believe I also mentioned a while back what a Navy corpsman told me about the health issues associated with homosexuals. Instead of you using the data to determine your position you instead complained about the disclosure violation you wrongly thought was committed.

I think you're dealing with a bit of confirmation bias here. No heterosexual military members have ever messed something up? I think you're just seeing what you want to see.

Of course we did, however the military must have heterosexuals to function properly, it does not have to have gays. In addition to this the mistakes made by heterosexuals are not the result of their being heterosexual, however the costs of what I have claimed about homosexuals is because they are homosexuals.

I don't know what evolution or creation have to do with anything.

They are the only two options for what resulted in our sense of morality. At least with God that is possible, with evolution it isn't. However I am not listing the options I believe are valid, I am using evolution because secular scholars use it to explain out sense of morality. So if you presume God does not exist because you prefer it that way then the only game in town left is evolution. So according to secular evolutionary biologists whatever we believe about morality is the result if evolution. If you are not prepared to deny evolution then the reason most of us feel uncomfortable around homosexuals in some context isn't our fault, it evolutions fault. All secular world views eat themselves if left alone long enough.

I'm not sure that's necessary as I'm not so sure morality has much to do with this discussion. This is more a matter of practicality, if you ask me. All that should be required is analysis of the facts, logic and reason.

If it is not morally wrong for me to reject homosexuals which I rarely do anyway then what on Earth are you complaining about. Without God nothing can be wrong or right, so what are we discussing? Your definitely not talking about pragmatism. The most pragmatic thing the military should do is maintain it's previous no homosexuals policy, that is unless you can show that homosexuals have some inherent skill set related to their sexual orientation which makes them worth the costs that come with their inclusion in our military.

Ok, this military off ramp (which even if I am wrong does nothing to justify homosexual sexual behavior) has wasted more time than can be justified, long before this point.

If your position has anything to do with right and wrong you need to show that on your worldview actual moral right and wrong even exist. If not then what is the point?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Even if what I said was completely false it does nothing to justify homosexual behavior.

Guess what? They don't have to justify themselves to you.

You are right that no one knows how many homosexuals were in a specific military.

Some of them, such as the Spartans, had a ton of them, if not everyone. And even though the ancient Spartans were "super gay," they were also one of the fiercest, toughest, and most extensively trained military forces in history. And how they loved them some man booty.

The reason we must resolve the nature of morality is because if God exist then he has specifically stated that homosexuality is immoral, and if he does not exist there no longer exists any objective moral values and duties for anyone's actions to be judged by or to indicate who is right. Without God the most you can possibly muster is someone's preference or opinion and mine is just as valid as yours (in fact more so).

What I find alarming is that it's only Christians who bring this argument up. To those of other religions and no religions and so on, we don't have these discussions of "god said this is moral" but rather we tend to base our actions on what will do the least harm. On the flip side, many great evils have been justified and considered moral because indeed such things are mandated in the Bible.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I am under no obligation at all to sell my art to just anyone who seeks to purchase it. I can turn down services to anyone, for any reason I wish, even if those reasons were to be discriminatory. I do not even have to explain my reasons.

You're actually right. But you have to be prepared to suffer the consequences of doing this because you are not above the law. Seriously, you have no room to complain.

The funny thing is when it comes to discrimination lawsuits, the onus for proving discrimination occurred is on the party filing the suit. Christians who own businesses tend to make it that much easier on those claiming discrimination because they just can't refrain from trumpeting their piety to the world when they do it. If they'd just simply refuse to offer services to start with then it'd be a lot easier for them in some cases. Admittedly doing that is a potentially disastrous business tactic because if you do it often enough people will become suspicious as to why. And just as you're not obligated to sell anyone anything, nobody is obligated to buy anything from you.

Honestly, the sensible & easiest path for everyone is not to let your prejudices get in the way of your business.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Then, in your opinion, the baker offering all the ingredients necessary for the homosexual couple to make their own wedding cake would be acceptable?

No, but it would have a better standing legally.

In this example, no one is asking the woodcarver to believe anything or to take any belief "seriously".

So, the baker isn't being asked to take gay marriages seriously?

However, His servant, the Apostle Paul, taught followers of Christ to "avoid the appearance of evil."

If you want to be shallow. Jesus hanging out with "sinners" would violate Paul's rules. As a Christian, which person should I follow?

If "same-sex marriage" is considered "evil" by a baker, shouldn't he/she be allowed to not participate in that practice in order to avoid even the "appearance" that they find it acceptable?

Should they gain the legal right to do so, which they won't, since discrimination without good reason is illegal, then they shouldn't whine when everyone ELSE stops going to a bigot's bakery. After all, judging others is the "appearance of evil", so we should all let them go bankrupt, per their own logic.

A homosexual man is not at all biologically different than a heterosexual man.

*sigh*

The horny hormones in a gay man are active when viewing a man. The horny hormones in a straight man are active when viewing a woman. The horny hormones in a sex addict just simply won't care.

Jesus never spoke ill of families or marriage.

Why would you assume that He did?

If you love your family, you can't follow Jesus. In fact, he says you have to hate them specifically. He never says anything good about his family and refuses to call Mary "mother", much less treat her right. He encourages people to dump their families, even for funerals, to follow him, like it can't wait a few hours to bury someone. Jesus could've HELPED bury the guy out of compassion for the grieving person, but nooooooooo ...

2. I even stated why. I can know for a fact my car is not working even if I have no idea how to fix it. I do not have to have a solution to identify a problem.

I've also seen people panic over non-problems as though they are severe problems.

Random individual: NURSE! NURSE! MY MOM IS HAVING LOOSE STOOL!

Me: (sigh) Your mother is on tube feeding. Solid in, solid out. Liquid in, liquid out. It is not a problem.

Random individual: NURSE! SHE MUST HAVE C-DIFF! SHE'S RUNNING A TEMP!

Me: (sigh) Of, like, half a point, plus you covered your mom in half a dozen blankets. GO AWAY.

And, and 1Birdbrain (I mean @1robin), there is NO "SOLUTION" TO HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR, unless there is also a "solution" to heterosexual behaviour.

I was under the impression that all people who had "solutions" had stupid little mustaches and bad haircuts.

. Yes, if in no other place we must deal with the actual reality that exists for the sake of our national defense. If you research military history you will find that nations have ceased to exist for far less obvious reasons than unit cohesion. For example Nazi Germany ceased to exist because of ones man's ambition, the confederacy was annihilated because one man's frustration cost him his entire previously undefeated army, a unit of the greatest soldiers that have ever existed were killed to a man because they were nice to a farmer. Big things can turn on small matters.

So, none of that happened because anyone was gay. Got it.

2. The military's purpose is to destroy people and things. Whatever results in that being done with the most efficiency is what the militaries standards should be. You do not risk unit cohesion (in most cases even if their reasoning is faulty) unless you must. The military does not need homosexuals but to have them risks unit cohesion.

If seeing a gay guy makes your gun jam, you may want to buy some rainbow fatigues yourself...

I am under no obligation at all to sell my art to just anyone who seeks to purchase it. I can turn down services to anyone, for any reason I wish, even if those reasons were to be discriminatory. I do not even have to explain my reasons.

Philosophically, yes. Legally, no.

The funny thing is when it comes to discrimination lawsuits, the onus for proving discrimination occurred is on the party filing the suit. Christians who own businesses tend to make it that much easier on those claiming discrimination because they just can't refrain from trumpeting their piety to the world when they do it. If they'd just simply refuse to offer services to start with then it'd be a lot easier for them in some cases. Admittedly doing that is a potentially disastrous business tactic because if you do it often enough people will become suspicious as to why. And just as you're not obligated to sell anyone anything, nobody is obligated to buy anything from you.

Exactly. Just replacing "I won't do it because you're gay" to "I don't have time in my schedule" will "prevent" a lot of lawsuits. I mean, it's still wrong because you're lying, but at least you don't say the magic lawsuit words.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

2. The military's purpose is to destroy people and things. Whatever results in that being done with the most efficiency is what the militaries standards should be. You do not risk unit cohesion (in most cases even if their reasoning is faulty) unless you must. The military does not need homosexuals but to have them risks unit cohesion.

No, irrational bigotry towards others risks unit cohesion. Hatred of difference risks unit cohesion. Ignorance risks unit cohesion. Acceptance and good will enhance unit cohesion (unless you're a bigot, of course).

 

[Jainarayan]

The reason we must resolve the nature of morality is because if God exist then he has specifically stated that homosexuality is immoral

Who cares what your God specifically stated? He didn't say anything to me! We don't need to resolve anything, at least not as it pertains to the God you believe in, but billions of us don't. Given that, and having been away from this silliness for a few weeks, it's all the more puzzling to me why this subject takes up so much room in your head.

 

[Jainarayan]

Our discussions are over. One more obnoxious response from you to or about me and I will put you on ignore and may or may not report you to the site's staff.

C'mon now, how many times is this?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What "freedoms ensured by the Constitution" do you think are being ignored?

Anyone else feel like answering?

 

[Jainarayan]

they just can't refrain from trumpeting their piety to the world when they do it

Which goes against what Jesus said about not making outward displays of piety.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Would you please explain? There is no law commanding me to create art for everyone who wants art from me.

But there are laws which you say if you're going to sell art to the public then you can't base any refusal to sell to the public on certain criteria. Sexual orientation is one of them.

 

[columbus]

C'mon now, how many times is this?

I think it's about time for @1robin to declare victory and move on for a few months.
Again.
Tom

 

[1robin]

No, but it would have a better standing legally.


So, the baker isn't being asked to take gay marriages seriously?


If you want to be shallow. Jesus hanging out with "sinners" would violate Paul's rules. As a Christian, which person should I follow?


Should they gain the legal right to do so, which they won't, since discrimination without good reason is illegal, then they shouldn't whine when everyone ELSE stops going to a bigot's bakery. After all, judging others is the "appearance of evil", so we should all let them go bankrupt, per their own logic.


*sigh*

The horny hormones in a gay man are active when viewing a man. The horny hormones in a straight man are active when viewing a woman. The horny hormones in a sex addict just simply won't care.


If you love your family, you can't follow Jesus. In fact, he says you have to hate them specifically. He never says anything good about his family and refuses to call Mary "mother", much less treat her right. He encourages people to dump their families, even for funerals, to follow him, like it can't wait a few hours to bury someone. Jesus could've HELPED bury the guy out of compassion for the grieving person, but nooooooooo ...


I've also seen people panic over non-problems as though they are severe problems.

Random individual: NURSE! NURSE! MY MOM IS HAVING LOOSE STOOL!

Me: (sigh) Your mother is on tube feeding. Solid in, solid out. Liquid in, liquid out. It is not a problem.

Random individual: NURSE! SHE MUST HAVE C-DIFF! SHE'S RUNNING A TEMP!

Me: (sigh) Of, like, half a point, plus you covered your mom in half a dozen blankets. GO AWAY.


I was under the impression that all people who had "solutions" had stupid little mustaches and bad haircuts.


So, none of that happened because anyone was gay. Got it.


If seeing a gay guy makes your gun jam, you may want to buy some rainbow fatigues yourself...


Philosophically, yes. Legally, no.


Exactly. Just replacing "I won't do it because you're gay" to "I don't have time in my schedule" will "prevent" a lot of lawsuits. I mean, it's still wrong because you're lying, but at least you don't say the magic lawsuit words.

Ok, I see your thin veneer of civility has been quickly discarded, and the default position of the left (pure sarcasm) is all that is left which is usually the last shriek of a dying argument.

1. Virtually everyone that argues from emotion rather than facts, arguments, and reason does exactly what you have been doing.

2. You very quickly see that your arguments cannot possibly be justified by facts and logic, so after a post or two you abandon the attempt all together and start seething and foaming at the mouth.

3. In addition to this you add on the fact that you respond to large posts from others by cherry picking a few statements, taking them out of the context they were given in, and instead apply them in a context you simply invented out of thin air.

4. You have run up against a person you can't intimidate, you can't back up, you can't shout down, you can't get fired, who doesn't care if you need a safe space, does not care if you feel you are micro aggressed or triggered. I only care about good arguments and the truth. You apparently can not compete on the actual field of rational argumentation so you engage in the above.

5. In addition when after I spend an hour responding to you, you disappear, and when you show back up you do not even respond to what I had said. What justification could I possibly have to invest even more time?

What has happened to this forum, a few years back I could hope to see a challenging argument from time to time? Worse than all the above, your boring me to tears. This current sad cycle of pathetical arguments defending homosexuality (which no one is even attempting at this point) must end. I am short on time these days and cannot invest enough time to show you how to make meaningful arguments. We are done at least in this thread and depending on how many insults you engage in when you respond we may be done in all future threads. So you may let the explicatives fly as long as you want, but I am done.