Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Prestor John]

It is often difficult to distinguish between "a Mormon's beliefs" and "Mormons beliefs". Especially when Mormons have spent millions of dollars and man hours on a campaign of lies trying to impose Mormon beliefs on everyone, including me.
You and Katzpur might prefer to distance yourselves from the actions of your church, but as one of the people your church persecutes I find it difficult to parse out the difference.
Tom

I don't distance myself from anything.

I completely agreed with and supported the Church's actions in respects to Proposition 8.

It is completely legal and moral for any church to lobby for or against certain legislation. There is nothing wrong with it.

Marriage is regulated by the State and when that Proposition was placed on the ballot, it was placed in the hands of the people to decide what to do.

The Church disagreeing with your lifestyle is not persecution. The Church lobbying for Proposition 8 was not persecution.

My voting according tot he dictates of my own conscience is not persecution if it happens to disagree with yours.

Get over it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

He just did not want to participate in an activity that was in violation of his religions convictions.

No discrimination. End of story.

Religious convictions, especially by Christians in the United States, are often fascinatingly confused. The same texts (Exodus, Leviticus) that informs the religious conviction against homosexuality also provides quite explicit instruction on how to slaughter your wayward daughter, rather than forgive her.

But it's rather like a smorgasbord, so far as I can tell. Various Christians pick the bits that are tasty to them, and leave the other stuff for others who prefer that sort of thing. They pay enormous attention to two things, so far as I can see: the Bible, and their own preferences. Any actual knowledge of human nature, psychology, etc. is obviously ignored, as that gets to be too hard to work with -- and not nearly as satisfying.

When I find myself most disliking Christians (as Gandhi did, too) it is for that reason. They are so often so unlike their Christ.

 

[Shad]

I don't distance myself from anything.

I completely agreed with and supported the Church's actions in respects to Proposition 8.

It is completely legal and moral for any church to lobby for or against certain legislation. There is nothing wrong with it.

Marriage is regulated by the State and when that Proposition was placed on the ballot, it was placed in the hands of the people to decide what to do.

The Church disagreeing with your lifestyle is not persecution. The Church lobbying for Proposition 8 was not persecution.

My voting according tot he dictates of my own conscience is not persecution if it happens to disagree with yours.

Get over it.

Freedom of Religion does not matter when your opinion happens to disagree with the left's narrative. You also have no right to Freedom of Speech nor can you vote according to your own conscious if it disagrees with some narrative people hold

/Sarcasm

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Church lobbying for Proposition 8 was not persecution.

Saying people who are harming no one are undeserving of basic human rights freely given to others is indeed persecution.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Freedom of Religion does not matter when your opinion happens to disagree with the left's narrative.

There is a difference between people believing what they want, and expecting others who believe otherwise to live in accordance with what they do not believe in or adhere to. I am not a Christian, thus it should never be expected of me to adhere to Christian dogma at the legal level. No one should be denied rights over this either.

 

[Shad]

There is a difference between people believing what they want, and expecting others who believe otherwise to live in accordance with what they do not believe in or adhere to. I am not a Christian, thus it should never be expected of me to adhere to Christian dogma at the legal level. No one should be denied rights over this either.

The reply was regarding voting practices. Prestor John voted according to his view point which is his right as a citizen in a democratic nation. You seem to have an issues with this which is merely you not liking how people can freely vote. Your problem isn't religion it is government allowing people that you disagree with to vote.

Get over it or move to a nation which has no voting rights so you can avoid being offended by other people voting against how you vote.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your problem isn't religion it is government allowing people that you disagree with to vote.

My problem is with religion in the state. Religion should not drive state policy. Same-sex marriage is a great point with this. Only certain types of religious people, overwhelmingly Conservative Abrahamics, and because there are no other "real" reasons to object to (meaning, none that science will support; "icky" is just as invalid as religion to ban it) homosexuals should be allowed to get married. Laws should be based on facts, evidence, and reason, not the morality of any specific group.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The reply was regarding voting practices. Prestor John voted according to his view point which is his right as a citizen in a democratic nation. You seem to have an issues with this which is merely you not liking how people can freely vote. Your problem isn't religion it is government allowing people that you disagree with to vote.

Get over it or move to a nation which has no voting rights so you can avoid being offended by other people voting against how you vote.

And, yes, I have a huge problem with people being able to vote my rights away. It has nothing to do with disagreements, it has to do with people who are denied for no other reason than the way some people interpret some ancient religious book that says slavery is ok. That should not be going on.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Freedom of Religion does not matter when your opinion happens to disagree with the left's narrative. You also have no right to Freedom of Speech nor can you vote according to your own conscious if it disagrees with some narrative people hold

/Sarcasm

Well, let's talk more about this "Freedom of Religion." What if I belong to a religion that insists upon human sacrifice -- how far does Freedom Religion extend in that case, or should I expect a lethal injection at the expense of the state?

And the left has zero ability to constrain your right to Freedom of Speech (short of shouting you down, which the right also enjoys and does), nor with casting your vote. But the left does enjoy the right to disagree with what you say, just as you have the right to disagree with what they say.

You know, it is now known that homosexuality is a natural occurrence. It has been present in humans (and many animals) at the same rate for as long as we've been keeping tack. About 1 in 50 people, in fact, end up homosexual.

But consider this: Albinism is also completely natural. It's not pleasant, but it is a natural genetic development in about 1 in every 17,000 people (or at approximately 0.29% as many as there are gays).

Now, there are many quite ignorant people (often "Christian") in Africa who feel that some body parts of albinos can confer magic powers, and as a result albinos are quite frequently killed for what can only be described as "superstition based on ignorance." And I have little doubt that you would agree completely -- ignorant superstition that causes harm to others. You're way more sophisticated than that, right?

And as it happens, that is how I see modern Christians who trumpet religious beliefs to discriminate against gays -- when they should actually know better. To do so should also be called "superstition based on ignorance."

Now, I can't control what you think or what you believe, but as with the sacrifice example, above, or the albinos in Africa -- if what you believe causes you to behave in ways that expressly offend the dignity of gay people, well, I would expect them to fight back, wouldn't you?

 

[Shad]

Well, let's talk more about this "Freedom of Religion." What if I belong to a religion that insists upon human sacrifice -- how far does Freedom Religion extend in that case, or should I expect a lethal injection at the expense of the state?

Irrelevant as I am talking about voting rights in regarding to Prop 8. A Mormon voting has nothing to do with child sacrific

And the left has zero ability to constrain your right to Freedom of Speech (short of shouting you down, which the right also enjoys and does), nor with casting your vote. But the left does enjoy the right to disagree with what you say, just as you have the right to disagree with what they say.

Never said constrained. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of accepting various rights of citizens then complaining that a Mormon dare vote according to their conscience

You know, it is now known that homosexuality is a natural occurrence. It has been present in humans (and many animals) at the same rate for as long as we've been keeping tack. About 1 in 50 people, in fact, end up homosexual. But consider this: Albinism is also completely natural. It's not pleasant, but it is a natural genetic development in about 1 in every 17,000 people (or at approximately 0.29% as many as there are gays).

Irrelevant. I am not against same-sex marriage. I am against the idea of government dictating how and with whom consenting adults conduct their relationships.

Now, there are many quite ignorant people (often "Christian") in Africa who feel that some body parts of albinos can confer magic powers, and as a result albinos are quite frequently killed for what can only be described as "superstition based on ignorance." And I have little doubt that you would agree completely -- ignorant superstition that causes harm to others. You're way more sophisticated than that, right?

Irrelevant as I am talking about voting rights in America not African customs which are backwards.

And as it happens, that is how I see modern Christians who trumpet religious beliefs to discriminate against gays -- when they should actually know better. To do so should also be called "superstition based on ignorance."

Which goes back to my point about removing government from marriage. You can not stop people believing what they want to believe. You can only punish acts which cross the line.

Now, I can't control what you think or what you believe, but as with the sacrifice example, above, or the albinos in Africa -- if what you believe causes you to behave in ways that expressly offend the dignity of gay people, well, I would expect them to fight back, wouldn't you?

Those are acts of murder not the act of voting.

Stay on topic next time or do not bother

 

[Shad]

And, yes, I have a huge problem with people being able to vote my rights away.

No you have issues with government opening the vote to the general population to decide. You have issues with government allowing the public to dictate what rights the government protects. You only focus on the result not the cause of the issue.

It has nothing to do with disagreements, it has to do with people who are denied for no other reason than the way some people interpret some ancient religious book that says slavery is ok. That should not be going on.

Which is a disagreement with what people believe and how they should vote.

 

[Shad]

My problem is with religion in the state. Religion should not drive state policy.

Sure. However do you think the vast majority of humanity is going to drop their religious point of view merely for your sake? They aren't. Instead the better option to remove the very ability for the public to vote for what rights you have or not. The public should not determine rights as this leads to tyranny of the majority

Same-sex marriage is a great point with this. Only certain types of religious people, overwhelmingly Conservative Abrahamics, and because there are no other "real" reasons to object to (meaning, none that science will support; "icky" is just as invalid as religion to ban it) homosexuals should be allowed to get married. Laws should be based on facts, evidence, and reason, not the morality of any specific group.

So? The problem is still with the government allowing the public to dictate what rights you have by vote

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No you have issues with government opening the vote to the general population to decide. You have issues with government allowing the public to dictate what rights the government protects. You only focus on the result not the cause of the issue.

Yes, I have a problem with what rights are given and protected being open to the general public. California's Prop 8 is a great example of this, where people where able to strip an entire group of their rights over nothing more than religious dogma. We are a secular nation, and those who do not believe in any certain religion or denomination or interpretation should not be legally bound to it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So? The problem is still with the government allowing the public to dictate what rights you have by vote

And because I am a tax paying United States citizen, this is a problem. I am guaranteed equal protection under the law, equal access, and all that, and no one should be able to take it away just because their "holy" book tells them to.

 

[Shad]

Yes, I have a problem with what rights are given and protected being open to the general public. California's Prop 8 is a great example of this, where people where able to strip an entire group of their rights over nothing more than religious dogma. We are a secular nation, and those who do not believe in any certain religion or denomination or interpretation should not be legally bound to it.

A secular nation in which citizens have freedom of religion and a right to vote according to their conscience. If government opens votes over what rights people have this is a problem with government not the people themselves. The government has turned over it's responsibility to protect the rights of the citizen and minorities over the the masses. That is called tyranny of the majority. That is a problem. Too bad you are so blinded by how the religious vote that you ignore this very issue behind the results.

 

[Shad]

And because I am a tax paying United States citizen, this is a problem.

A problem of government handing over it's responsibility to the masses by using the public vote.

I am guaranteed equal protection under the law, equal access, and all that, and no one should be able to take it away just because their "holy" book tells them to.

Then you should be on board with government not dictating marriage at all considering marriage for various religions have different meaning as much as marriage has a meaning to you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The basis of the baker's refusal of service was not the sexual orientation of the couple.

This is obviously from the fact that he offered that homosexual couple any other baked good for any event, even their wedding.

He just did not want to participate in an activity that was in violation of his religions convictions

Just for the sake of clarity here, by the way, I do not think the baker's "religious convictions" have anything to do with the matter. The baker was not asked to participate in a same-sex marriage (much less participate in any same-sex activity). He was asked to bake and decorate a cake. Since that is what the baker does, clearly it is not against his religious convictions. Putting a plastic doll on top of a cake is mere decoration, and involves no moral issues whatever. Putting a plastic male beside a plastic female is the same, and no doubt he would be happy to do that. And in doing so, he is no more "participating in a wedding" than is the truck that delivered the flowers. And therefore, I contend that placing two female or two male plastic dolls represents precisely the same activity.

This is a baker, whose job it is to bake, ice and decorate cakes. That is the job he was asked to do, and nothing else.

That is my opinion, in any case. I, too, serve the public, and there are things I don't like, or that I find offensive, or that go against my values. I do not withhold my services as a result. (Well, full disclosure, being Canadian I wouldn't be permitted to, either.) And I'm okay with that. I do not make it my business to insist that everybody else share my values.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A secular nation in which citizens have freedom of religion and a right to vote according to their conscience. If government opens votes over what rights people have this is a problem with government not the people themselves. The government has turned over it's responsibility to protect the rights of the citizen and minorities over the the masses. That is called tyranny of the majority. That is a problem. Too bad you are so blinded by how the religious vote that you ignore this very issue behind the results.

I am happy that I live in Canada, which has in its constitution a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms." You could have 100% of voters on a proposition like Prop 8, but if it violates that Charter, it ain't law, and never will be -- until the constitution is amended.

In my country, we strongly recommend that if you find what somebody else is doing offensive (but not illegal), that you "look the other way" and don't do it yourself. And we do strongly insist that you don't attempt to force your views and life-style on others. We make the assumption that they are competent to live their lives in their own way.

 

[Shad]

I am happy that I live in Canada, which has in its constitution a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms." You could have 100% of voters on a proposition like Prop 8, but if it violates that Charter, it ain't law, and never will be -- until the constitution is amended.

Well our government did pass same-sex marriage without all the nonsense down south. However it is still reactive rather than proactive. I think this is an issue when it comes to hot topics especially when religion is involved.

In my country, we strongly recommend that if you find what somebody else is doing offensive (but not illegal), that you "look the other way" and don't do it yourself. And we do strongly insist that you don't attempt to force your views and life-style on others. We make the assumption that they are competent to live their lives in their own way.

I guess you have not been around Vancouver in the last few days. The protests were hilarious especially when a number of the protestors had nothing beyond slogans based rhetoric as their arguments.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I guess you have not been around Vancouver in the last few days. The protests were hilarious especially when a number of the protestors had nothing beyond slogans based rhetoric as their arguments.

No, Vancouver is about 4382 kilometers to the left (oops, mean west) of me. Rarely make the commute -- especially not to see protestors. I've had quite enough rhetorical sloganeering for one lifetime.