Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Rise]

I wanted to respond sooner, but I got busy with other responsibilities and couldn't keep taking the time to post:

Blatant lie, and you know it. Most times the pressure from Christians is so great that they may as well be forcing the issue

As I already pointed out, you tried to draw an equivalence between two things where there is none.

One the one hand you have people using the power of law and force to trample on the religious liberty of Christians, and if they had their way they would silence Christians from even speaking what they believe on the topic.

On the other hand, you have Christians who offer help to Christians who don't want to deal with homosexual temptation any longer, but make no attempt to force it on anyone through the power of the law. No effort at all is being made by Christians to silence people from speaking pro-homosexual positions publicly, even when the way they do it is hateful to Christians as a people group and religion.

First problem is labeling a place of business a "Gay bakery" or a "Christian bakery". You're "A bakery" - stop being an idiot.

You're ignoring the real point I was making: The hypocrisy in unequal standards and expectations.

The hypocrisy of a baker who is able to deny service to a customer who wants a Christian message on their cake, only on the basis that the baker disagrees with it, even though they have no religious reason for the objection.

Yet you don't extend the same right to a baker who wants to deny service to a customer who wants to put a homosexual agenda message on their cake, when they actually have a religious reason for the objection.

Religion is actually a protected status in this country. You can't demand sexual preference become a protected status when you aren't even willing to recognize that someone's religion is also a special status that is entitled to certain protections and exceptions that otherwise wouldn't be.

Good, then we're in agreement on that point - but what I was trying to get you to realize is that perhaps it gets to a point where you are cut deeply enough that you do believe you need to take some sort of action.

But, as you can see, I respect the founding principles of this country enough that I am not going to try to shut down people I disagree with.

I also happen to think I'm on the side of right and truth, so I am perfectly happy to debate these ideas in the marketplace of ideas to win people over to what I think is right and true.

What you don't see from a lot of these leftists in our country, is a respect for either the constitution or a confidence in their cause that leads them to think they can win over the public to their side without publicly executing dissenters (either firguratively, legally, or in some cases, literally).

What can you do? Go beat the people up who are trying to damage you emotionally? No. So if it gets bad enough someone is going to seek legal recourse.

If the basis of the foundation of our country was "stop people from saying things that offend others", then we wouldn't have a bill of rights.

There's a reason our country has a long history of upholding people's right to say things that offends others. We have decided it's more important to guarantee people's right to freedom of speech because the danger of having the government dictate what is or is not acceptable speech is an existential danger to our representative form of government and individual liberties.

You can't have freedom of speech and also be protected from hearing things you disagree with.

You also make a basic error in your accusation - Someone who merely states they disagree with homosexual marriage is not automatically "trying" to cause emotional damage to them.
They could speak in the most loving, peaceful, and benign way possible, but they don't have control over how people choose to react to their words.

Freedom of speech would be completely untennable in this country if you started regulating speech based only on how people react to it, rather than the intent behind the speech, because that automatically makes everything subject to silence and regulation - because there's always someone, somewhere, who will be deeply offended, enraged, or hurt by an opinion you express, regardless of whether or not they have a legitimate reason to be.

You HAVE TO expect that when you're spouting off all the time that certain people are sub-human (let's face it - THAT IS THE MESSAGE - don't lie to yourself).

I've never said that.
I don't personally know anyone who's ever said that.
I've never heard a respected Christian leader ever say anything like that.
So I reject your premise that that is what is being communicated when someone talks about issues related to homosexuality.

This gets into the whole issue of the speaker's intent vs how people recieve it.
If the Christian communicates peacefully and lovingly about their belief that homosexuality is a wrong behavior, it's not their fault if someone misinterprets that as a rejection of them as being human beings.

I understand you think that Christianity contains no "harmful lies about what society should look like", which is what gives you the ability to plausibly state the above. Your mind is trained to filter out those things so that your version of Christianity, in your mind - the ONLY place that that version of Christianity exists - is "pure". I feel otherwise. SO this is the pot calling the kettle black from my perspective.

As someone posted in a graph, those who engage in homosexual activity have catastrophically higher rates of AIDS.

Objectively we can say this is a more harmful behavior, a behavior that would have been avoided if they had followed God's design for them.
God did not design men to have sex with other men. The anus is not designed for intercourse. Harm results when you treat it as though it were, going against it's design.

In a similar way, we can point out that those who have multiple sexual partners prior to marriage have higher STD rates. Well, they didn't follow God's design. God intended for one man to be joined to one woman for life. If everyone did this, STDs would not be a societal plague.

Of course there are other reasons why we could argue that these behaviors are harmful, from a relationship, societal, and emotional/mental standpoint; but it's harder to argue against simple facts about the physical effects that results from not doing things God's way.

Do you AGREE with the people who bash your religion? Does it make you upset that they have no respect for your beliefs? Of course it does.

John 16:2-4
Matthew 5:11-12
2 Timothy 3:12-13
Actually, we were warned this would happen by Jesus and the apostles.
It was a reality for them for the first several hundred years.
It still is, in many parts of the world, a reality for them, to varying degrees of severity.

Does it upset me that people like you disagree, disrespect, or even mock my beliefs? No.
For one, Christians around the world are facing far worse than the ridicule, scorn, or hatred of secular unbelievers. If anything I should be glad, because it shows I'm on the right track, and Jesus promised we'd be blessed on account of it. Actually, Christians should be worried if their beliefs line up so much with people who don't follow God that the world has no problem with what they believe. That's a sure sign they probably are following the world's ways rather than God's ways (James 4:4).
Second, I don't need their validation or acceptance of what I believe or who I am - That validation and recognition comes from God (Matthew 10:32). If I did care about what they thought about me personally then I'd be in trouble of living my life to please man, out of fear of what man thinks, which would conflict with the command to obey God. The Bible has a lot to say about the dangers of living to please men contrary to God's ways.

Does it upset me in another sense? Only in the sense that it's painful to see how society is groping in darkness and hurting themselves because they are ignorant of God's ways and don't desire to seek Him for restoration (Matthew 23:37-38, Luke 19:41-44). Out of compassion and love for the world, it bothers me to see people being hurt in a variety of ways that could be avoided if they would only turn to God. I speak not just of sexual sins but all kinds of other sins that are harmful to individuals and nations.

There are some homosexual individuals who WANT TO BE CHRISTIAN, and WANT TO FEEL ACCEPTED. Not all of them, obviously, but some. And most of those feel they can't publicly be Christian - feel that they won't be accepted.

How do you think the Church would or should react to a professing Christian who was engaged in extra-martial affairs, daily pornography use, and weekly visits to prostitutes?

Surely you don't think that a church leader should tell them "What you do is ok with God?" Especially when the Bible clearly says otherwise, and the leader knows that for them to continue in those sins would lead to all kind of destruction for them and their family.

The answer is obvious: You accept the person as they are (ie. you don't reject them because they have problems), but you also tell them lovingly that these are all bad behaviors that Christ would have them stop doing immediately. If they respond with humility and are open to change, then you patiently walk with them and help them overcome these issues.
If, however, they are unrepentant and unwilling to change, then you are not doing them any favors by pretending their sin is acceptable to God and that there are no consequences for it. In fact, it would not be loving if you didn't try to bring correction to a professing Christian who was stuck in such deep error that it imperiled their ability to have relationship with God. Because they've already stated they want to have relationship with God, repent of their sins and submit to His ways, by the very confession of their faith in Jesus. If they truly want that, then it would be a crime not to be honest with them about things which imperial their eternal relationship with God.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Too bad you are so blinded by how the religious vote that you ignore this very issue behind the results.

Whatever. I was about to like your post, agree with it, because we are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority, which is what I was getting at and should have been obvious by using Prop 8 as an example, and then you post this piffle.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

As I already pointed out, you tried to draw an equivalence between two things where there is none. One the one hand you have people using the power of law and force to trample on the religious liberty of Christians...

So all the lobbying vs. Gay Marriage wasn't "people using the power of law and force to trample" the sexual liberty of homosexuals. Got it.

No effort at all is being made by Christians to silence people from speaking pro-homosexual positions publicly, even when the way they do it is hateful to Christians as a people group and religion.

Maybe you don't come right out and say "Those people shouldn't be allowed to say that! Or BE that!", but that is the message you are constantly sending by actively and continually stating that you have problems with homosexuality. How can you not understand that? Christians are bullies. Plain and simple. You pray over someone to try and "heal" them... doesn't work, so you ask to pray again. The person suddenly, and "miraculously" reports feeling some change - they felt cornered, and the second praying attempt made them feel that the "healer" wasn't going to give up until they said it worked. Bullying. You don't see it that way because you're ultra-conditioned to accept it as "normal", even "kind". But that is the way I and others will ALWAYS see it.

The hypocrisy of a baker who is able to deny service to a customer who wants a Christian message on their cake...

I didn't know whether or not that had actually happened... so I looked it up, and apparently there have been some Christian messages denied on cakes. However, please note my position - the person who refused the religious message is also an idiot. As much as the Christian idiot who denied the gay-marriage message on a cake. That was my point. I don't care about hypocrisy - NEITHER "side" should do it - and therefore avoid behaving like morons.

Yet you don't extend the same right to a baker who wants to deny service to a customer who wants to put a homosexual agenda message on their cake...

As stated above AND PREVIOUSLY - I wouldn't "extend the right" to ANYONE. It's a CAKE for goodness sake. Who cares?

But, as you can see, I respect the founding principles of this country enough that I am not going to try to shut down people I disagree with.

Not everyone thinks the way you do, and sometimes when people feel cornered, especially people who have been fostered into an unstable emotional state (possibly because there are people constantly telling them that what they are doing is wrong when there is no real, moral basis for such accusations), they may lash out in completely unexpected ways - ways that may even be contrary to their belief structure under "normal" circumstances. Again... I'll liken it to a bully poking and prodding at their target and then being surprised when on day that target strikes back.

If the basis of the foundation of our country was "stop people from saying things that offend others", then we wouldn't have a bill of rights.

I don't agree with trying to silence people just because their words offend you. But I understand that not everyone else out there takes that to heart as much as I do. What's to stop a homosexual who Christians and other anti-gay stance individuals and groups have constantly talked down to, or even in a negative offhand manner about, from getting fed up, and hurting someone or themselves? Hopefully rationality and a strong personal moral conviction - but in reality? Probably not much in some very particular cases. We already know suicides have happened because of the persecution some homosexuals have sincerely felt. Ever see the movie "Full Metal Jacket"? What I got out of that movie is entirely applicable here. When you decide to push people, you'd better be ready to get some push back. And if you aren't ready? Good luck. You never TRULY know who you are pushing. Perhaps "pushing" in the first place should be a very reserved activity?

You can't have freedom of speech and also be protected from hearing things you disagree with.

I agree wholeheartedly. Just don't push around people who aren't really doing anything wrong and you should be fine. Listen - the united States was formed when we decided that the British were pushing us around when we didn't feel we were doing anything wrong. We broke laws, and in many cases, individuals went against their own, personal convictions in order to get the job done. To not expect other people and groups to feel the same pressures just because it's "YOU" or "MY PEOPLE" doing the pressuring? Naivete - plain and simple.

And you know the real joke here? Try practicing your "freedom of speech" in a church... any church. See how far you get if your words don't jive with the feel-good vibes of the day. You will be quickly silenced, taken down/out, etc. I have seen this happen first-hand on multiple occasions. Churches don't want their happy-happy, joy-time boats rocked in any way, shape or form. Perhaps the church does not uphold the same values as you do on this point? You bet they don't. This is a tried and true fact that has been proven throughout thousands of years now.

Someone who merely states they disagree with homosexual marriage is not automatically "trying" to cause emotional damage to them. They could speak in the most loving, peaceful, and benign way possible, but they don't have control over how people choose to react to their words.

Oh my gosh!! Is that a glimmer of understanding I am reading here?! There is hope for you yet.

Freedom of speech would be completely untennable in this country if you started regulating speech based only on how people react to it...

Again, you're free to speak however the heck you want about whoever the heck you want. Go for it. And you'e actually free to be as surprised as you want when they RETALIATE - especially in ways you couldn't predict or didn't anticipate. You may not look too smart with that surprise stuck on your face... but you'e perfectly within your rights to look and act as dumbfounded as you want.

I've never said that.
I don't personally know anyone who's ever said that.

Sure, I'll grant that you have never said it "directly". And it doesn't matter even if you sincerely believe that you are not conveying that message. That's what some people will hear, and feel. Again, homosexuals HAVE EVEN EXPRESSED THIS to Christians and other persecutors... to no avail. You don't listen. You just keep talking and expecting different results. There's something in there... definition of insanity or some such... anyway, good luck with that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If the Christian communicates peacefully and lovingly about their belief that homosexuality is a wrong behavior, it's not their fault if someone misinterprets that as a rejection of them as being human beings.

When they know full well that that is how the receiving party is interpreting the message, I'm sorry, but yes, yes it is. I even had one Christian woman use this as an argument against homosexuality when I was debating with her (keep in mind, I am not homosexual):

"God doesn't create any imperfect beings."

I was astonished, and almost left speechless. I didn't disagree with her point. She was completely right. If God exists, and He's tooling with anything and everything going on, then He would not create any beings who didn't fit "the plan". It took me several moments of hard thinking to realize what she was trying to say. basically it was this: "Homosexuals are created perfect (as in, non-homosexual), and then they go and screw it all up". So... as innocuous and non-threatening as you may feel the statement "God doesn't crate any imperfect beings" is, point it at an individual as an argument against their behavior and you have, quite literally, told them that they have screwed up "something good" - which is what they supposedly had before they were homosexual. She probably even thought that such statements would have been the "loving" way to go about reproving homosexual behavior!!! The inanity is just astounding!

As someone posted in a graph, those who engage in homosexual activity have catastrophically higher rates of AIDS.

And if that weren't the case you'd still have objections, which is the real crux of the issue I take with your stance. Not the "secular" argument from "loss of profit", and not that people are "hurt" by the STDs - it takes two to tango, and as I stated, responsibility is key in homosexual relationships just as much as heterosexual relationships. And just think of how much money legalized abortion saves us as a nation. The money isn't where the objection lies from your perspective - it's a crutch that "let's you in the door" to an actual, fact-based discussion - but it's all a facade, a front - smoke and mirrors. A lie.

Objectively we can say this is a more harmful behavior, a behavior that would have been avoided if they had followed God's design for them.
The anus is not designed for intercourse. Harm results when you treat it as though it were, going against it's design.
In a similar way, we can point out that those who have multiple sexual partners prior to marriage have higher STD rates. If everyone did this, STDs would not be a societal plague.

Driving you car is "more harmful behavior" than not driving. Drive responsibly and things are fine. Same can be said for any of the things you mentioned above. Responsibility is a key factor. You can also endanger people engaging in all sorts of behavior that has no real moral implication. International flights - when people travel internationally they come in contact with numerous strains of bacteria and viral entities that aren't usual for them. Any real moral impact with international travel? No. Get sick however and start transferring that sickness to others because you're contagious, then everyone will be up in arms. The real issue is the sickness, not the act of traveling internationally. And in the case of homosexuality, you only pretend (because it is convenient) that your issue is with the sickness (STDs)... when really, you just want to stop people from being homosexuals.

Does it upset me that people like you disagree, disrespect, or even mock my beliefs? No.

If you are being truthful, then this is good. Stray strong, stay steadfast. In the end, it won't have mattered anyway, and so you may as well make yourself happy.

Does it upset me in another sense? Only in the sense that it's painful to see how society is groping in darkness and hurting themselves because they are ignorant of God's ways...

It is so interesting to note that I share that same feeling - a realization that even as "in the dark" as I myself am to a great many things, there are so many others who don't even have a rudimentary understanding of certain concepts that I deem important, or eye-opening, freeing. So many willing to be "in the dark", and don't even give philosophical, spiritual, societal or intellectual concerns even the slightest of attention. The only difference being that I'd rather they all remain "ignorant of God's ways".

How do you think the Church would or should react to a professing Christian who was engaged in extra-martial affairs, daily pornography use, and weekly visits to prostitutes?

This is the very reason homosexuals view your ideas as an insult - because you compare their behavior to things that actually hurt others and have distinct moral implications that we (most of us) share as a society or even species. Extra marital affairs hurt the spouse. Buying pornography furthers the demand, and the women in that industry are basically abused - even if they delude themselves into believing they aren't. And prostitution also comes with the exploitation and abuse of the women involved. However, where is the corollary to responsible homosexual behavior? I mean, there are responsible and irresponsible ways of doing nearly everything. And you know that there are responsible homosexuals out there in loving, and monogamous relationships - no need to deny it. Yet you liken that behavior to the things listed above - and your Christian brethren have often likened it to worse - murder, pedophilia, etc. Still shocked that your message isn't received as "loving"?

The answer is obvious: You accept the person as they are... but you also tell them lovingly that these are all bad behaviors...

But again, you only see these things from your own point of view. If I were to attempt to enter a church wearing a button that said "My pet cat is awesome!", and someone at the door were to say:

"Hey, c'mon in! Welcome... welcome!!! It's great to have you here. We're all a great bunch of people and we're excited to see fresh faces. Just one thing... you have a pet cat, right? Well... we discourage that here. In fact, our God vehemently despises cats. So, if you're going to stick around, you're going to have to have your pet cat put down - humanely of course."

At about sentence six, I would start thinking "Wow, what a bunch of nut jobs." And this is nearly exactly the same feeling I get when I hear Christians talking about embracing homosexuals and then admonishing their behavior in a "loving way". Outside of your world-view (your world-view being that The Bible is great, God exists, and all that), your rules for consensual sexual interaction are just as arbitrary as having rules about the types of pets you're allowed to have. And yeah - I have even gauged some Christians as "nut-jobs" who start spouting off their thoughts about how abominable homosexuality is.

 

[Shad]

Whatever. I was about to like your post, agree with it, because we are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority, which is what I was getting at and should have been obvious by using Prop 8 as an example, and then you post this piffle.

Yet you bury your points in what religion a specific voter happens to follows as if they are required by law to abandon their convictions in order to vote. You distort secular to mean every citizen must vote from a basis of atheism or "objectively" while secular is regarding religion within government, vice-verse, not citizens themselves. It is hard to take your point seriously when you do not address the point you claims to be using

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yet you bury your points in what religion a specific voter happens to follows as if they are required by law to abandon their convictions in order to vote.

I'm saying some things, such as rights, should not be up for vote by the public. Religious based laws should not be brought up or passed. Especially so when there is very little agreement within that religion over what they should and shouldn't be doing. Laws should be based on facts and evidence, not on personal convictions. People can vote on their convictions, but without evidence laws should not exist and morality should never be legislated.
And while we're at it, the default tax-exempt status of a church needs to go, and a good number of televangelist need to be charged as the scam artists they are. Overall, I think we are too relaxed with religion. If it were up to me, it would be illegal to perform any non-medically necessary body modification on a child, meaning, by default, circumcising an infant is not allowed. The debate with wanting to teach Creationism in public schools would have ended a long time ago. Religion needs to be reigned in, because left unleashed it tramples rights and even lead to massacres and genocide. I really don't care what people believe. However, I do care when their beliefs start to have unreasonable consequences on others. If you want venomous snakes biting you, go for it. But don't involve your kids or people who don't believe in that. If people want to ban same sex marriage, they need to produce more than an ancient book that claims the value of pi is 3 and discredited and discarded Freudian nonsense. They need more than studies that focus on very specific groups and omit the bigger picture. They have nothing to stand on when it comes to the debate, as the evidence heavily stands in favor of allowing same-sex marriage and parenting. The same goes for transgender rights. The evidence is not in their favor. Women's rights just as well, with the evidence not supporting their positions. Their approach to sex ed is an abject failure. Because of our love affair with "religious rights," America suffers and lags behind the rest of the "modernized" and "developed" world.

 

[Shad]

I'm saying some things, such as rights, should not be up for vote by the public. Religious based laws should not be brought up or passed. Especially so when there is very little agreement within that religion over what they should and shouldn't be doing. Laws should be based on facts and evidence, not on personal convictions. People can vote on their convictions, but without evidence laws should not exist and morality should never be legislated.

The criminal codes shows otherwise. Although a criminal code does not require a holy book as the only basis

And while we're at it, the default tax-exempt status of a church needs to go, and a good number of televangelist need to be charged as the scam artists they are. Overall, I think we are too relaxed with religion. If it were up to me, it would be illegal to perform any non-medically necessary body modification on a child, meaning, by default, circumcising an infant is not allowed. The debate with wanting to teach Creationism in public schools would have ended a long time ago. Religion needs to be reigned in, because left unleashed it tramples rights and even lead to massacres and genocide. I really don't care what people believe. However, I do care when their beliefs start to have unreasonable consequences on others. If you want venomous snakes biting you, go for it. But don't involve your kids or people who don't believe in that. If people want to ban same sex marriage, they need to produce more than an ancient book that claims the value of pi is 3 and discredited and discarded Freudian nonsense. They need more than studies that focus on very specific groups and omit the bigger picture. They have nothing to stand on when it comes to the debate, as the evidence heavily stands in favor of allowing same-sex marriage and parenting. The same goes for transgender rights. The evidence is not in their favor. Women's rights just as well, with the evidence not supporting their positions. Their approach to sex ed is an abject failure. Because of our love affair with "religious rights," America suffers and lags behind the rest of the "modernized" and "developed" world.

Most of these points are not topics I want to address. Although I do agree with some of these points. However I would contest America's position given that competing nations have as many if not more issues than America nor are the socialist democracies of Europe sustainable. I would live rather be in America than in any European nation in the foreseeable future.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The criminal codes shows otherwise. Although a criminal code does not require a holy book as the only basis

Criminal codes mostly do not show otherwise. Of course we do have such laws on the book, but that does not mean they are good, just, or proper. And I'm not referring to just criminal law, but law in general including civil law. Laws prohibiting alcohol sales on Sunday, for example, need to go. Restrictions on sex toys need to go. Any law that lacks concrete evidence to support it needs to go. Homosexuals should be able to get married while Creationism should be forced out of science classes, via legislation in need be given the lack of evidence to support Creationism outside of the realms of religious belief.

 

[Shad]

Criminal codes mostly do not show otherwise.

Murder, theft, fraud, etc.

Of course we do have such laws on the book, but that does not mean they are good, just, or proper.

Of course our ideas of what is good will vary. However I do not think many think an act like murder is good.

And I'm not referring to just criminal law, but law in general including civil law. Laws prohibiting alcohol sales on Sunday, for example, need to go.

Sure I agree as far as laws go. If business wishes to close on Sundays it is up to the owner.

Restrictions on sex toys need to go.

This is not something I am familiar with. I have no idea what is legal, regulated, restricted, illegal, etc.

Any law that lacks concrete evidence to support it needs to go.

Could you clarify by what you mean by evidence? What I mean by this that evidence can be used to support what is seen as best for society as a whole or what is best for the individuals of that society. Individual vs collective. For example alcohol. While there restrictions on it in Western civilizations the individual has many options from proof to flavour, quantity to quality, sober or alcoholic, etc, etc. Individuals which act outside the bounds of law are handed on an individual basis. In Muslim civilizations there are bans as the collective is to be protected above individual.

Homosexuals should be able to get married while Creationism should be forced out of science classes, via legislation in need be given the lack of evidence to support Creationism outside of the realms of religious belief.

A problem which the public education system is the fact that government and general public are involved and can put forward their opinions even if they know nothing about a specific subject.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Murder, theft, fraud, etc.

We can put far more than a religious text into justifying why there are laws against murder, theft, and fraud.

Of course our ideas of what is good will vary. However I do not think many think an act like murder is good.

I law in Indiana states that if a male driver over the age of 18 has a female who is under the age of 16 and has no shoes or socks on, the driver can be charged with statutory rape. Many times it's just not a question.

If business wishes to close on Sundays it is up to the owner.

This I have no issue with.

This is not something I am familiar with. I have no idea what is legal, regulated, restricted, illegal, etc.

In various places throughout America, sex toys and pornography are banned. You're not even supposed to own them.

Could you clarify by what you mean by evidence?

Empirical, systematically gathered, and thoroughly tested evidence. Placing objective standards on law that exist outside and above us as individuals and our agendas.

what is seen as best for society as a whole or what is best for the individuals of that society. Individual vs collective.

It shouldn't be thought of as one or the other, but rather a fine balance of maximizing personal liberties while working to elevate society as a whole.

A problem which the public education system is the fact that government and general public are involved and can put forward their opinions even if they know nothing about a specific subject.

The government being involved need not be a problem, but the general public should not be involved with decisions about education. In America we also have a very terrible and unfortunate habit of placing those with very little or no experience as an educator in very important positions over education. Indeed I do believe we are at a point where we must begin incorporating aspects of a Meritocracy to keep those with experience in charge of what they have experience with.

 

[Shad]

We can put far more than a religious text into justifying why there are laws against murder, theft, and fraud.

That wasn't my point

I law in Indiana states that if a male driver over the age of 18 has a female who is under the age of 16 and has no shoes or socks on, the driver can be charged with statutory rape. Many times it's just not a question.

Sounds like an urban myth. Do you a legal source for this?

In various places throughout America, sex toys and pornography are banned. You're not even supposed to own them.

Seems odd

Empirical, systematically gathered, and thoroughly tested evidence. Placing objective standards on law that exist outside and above us as individuals and our agendas.

I disagree with the agenda part as the same-sex movement was an agenda given form. I disagree with the individual part as rights are for the individual citizen. What you mean is specific agendas that run counter to the ideals of a nation.

It shouldn't be thought of as one or the other, but rather a fine balance of maximizing personal liberties while working to elevate society as a whole.

There are idea put forward that attempt to elevate society which I disagree with.

The government being involved need not be a problem, but the general public should not be involved with decisions about education.

Many officials are elected by the public. School boards for example can be elected while also being the source religion into school.

In America we also have a very terrible and unfortunate habit of placing those with very little or no experience as an educator in very important positions over education.

Sure but this goes into my point above.

Indeed I do believe we are at a point where we must begin incorporating aspects of a Meritocracy to keep those with experience in charge of what they have experience with.

This is already within the American system of government. The problem with public education is that certain positions are based on administrative abilities and certification not degrees in education nor specific subjects taught.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That wasn't my point

It's been my whole point.

Sounds like an urban myth. Do you a legal source for this?

Legit, on the books, Indiana law. Much like how liquor stores here cannot sell a cold soft drink. Or more locally, pinball machines being illegal because they "encourage gambling."

Seems odd

Odd, wrong, but true.

What you mean is specific agendas that run counter to the ideals of a nation.

What I mean are laws based on facts and evidence, not what "I want." By adapting science to the state, we have a model for obtaining goals that exist outside of our own personal agendas.

This is already within the American system of government.

If by "already within" you mean people can complain and request things change, but other than that there is no such means of addressing such grievances or preventing them in the Constitution. After all, the only real criteria established for Presidency, other than being a naturalized citizen, is to be a minimum age. Not even our highest office requires experience.

 

[Shad]

It's been my whole point.

No I mean you missed the point I was making regarding some laws.

Legit, on the books, Indiana law. Much like how liquor stores here cannot sell a cold soft drink. Or more locally, pinball machines being illegal because they "encourage gambling."

This does not address my point. I found no source for the "No shoes means rape" law in the books. All I found were randoms sites which no sources. Hence was it seems like a modern myth to me.

Odd, wrong, but true.

It was more of an opinion comment. I find such laws odds.

What I mean are laws based on facts and evidence, not what "I want." By adapting science to the state, we have a model for obtaining goals that exist outside of our own personal agendas.

Science may not result in positive outcome as it can be very brutal at time. Brutal as in a conclusion may not pleasant for those that find themselves on the wrong side of a conclusion or are part of the conclusion themselves. At times emotions temper the "matter of fact" nature of science.

If by "already within" you mean people can complain and request things change, but other than that there is no such means of addressing such grievances or preventing them in the Constitution. After all, the only real criteria established for Presidency, other than being a naturalized citizen, is to be a minimum age. Not even our highest office requires experience.

This can lead to an oligarchy. Which I would argue has already begun to emerge within the two major political parties.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I've posted often in this thread, and given my opinions. But it doesn't seem to get anywhere.

So, I've created a little "Thought Experiment" in another thread, which I would urge everybody who's willing to try. It is designed to get you to think about how you make judgements regarding others, with whom you might not agree, or who you do not understand, but cannot get away from.

Please try it. A Thought Experiment, related to current debates elsewhere

 

[Prestor John]

Sorry for the wait.

Before I address these new comments I am going to reiterate some stuff.

I don’t hate you or any other homosexual.

I believe that all people sin and fall under condemnation. The only way anyone can overcome and be forgiven of sin is through the merits and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

All people need to have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and sincerely repent of their sins in order to be saved from sin.

I believe that homosexuality is sinful behavior. It frustrates God’s plans for His children and stunts an individual’s eternal potential.

It is a behavior that can be overcome and changed through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and sincere repentance.

All people who enter into this world are imperfect and equipped with weaknesses. We all have weaknesses in our flesh that make us vulnerable to one sin or another. We were given these weaknesses to make us humble and remind us of how much we need the Lord Jesus Christ.

Having a weakness is not sinful. It is only by succumbing to that weakness that we sin.

Having a predisposed desire to take from others does not make a person guilty of the sin of stealing. It is only after succumbing to that weakness and actually stealing that they sin. A person having a same-sex attraction does not make them guilty of the sin of homosexuality until they act on that attraction and commit homosexual acts.

I believe that everyone can overcome their weaknesses because the Lord Jesus Christ has given us the means to do so. He wants everyone to come unto Him, lay aside their weaknesses and sins, forsake them, and receive true joy and eternal life.

Even though He loves us all and calls us to follow Him, He cannot look upon weakness and sin with any degree of allowance, for He is perfect and the place He has called us to enter into is also perfect and free of those things.

The Lord Jesus Christ mourns for those who refuse to accept Him and His Atoning Sacrifice, yet there is a place prepared for those and they will receive as much joy as they will be able to bear, but it will not be a fullness of joy and they can never become perfect like Him and His Father.

My issues with the idea of “same-sex marriage” are:

1. Same-sex couples should not receive the same incentives for marriage that I do because I am producing children when they are not,
   
   
2. Allowing same-sex couples to marry was not worth the eventual violations to people’s freedom of religion ensured by the Constitution,
   
   
3. “Civil unions” already offered the same legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples,
   
   
4. My belief that marriage is a divine institution given by God to Man and intended only for a man and a woman,
   
   
5. The idea that allowing same-sex couples to marry would lead to further moral dysphoria.
   

The LDS Church does not consider attending or otherwise participating in a same-sex wedding to be sinful. The leaders of the Church have left it up to the individual member to decide how they would like to view or engage this issue as long as they continue to adhere to the dictates of the Church, such as not acting with hate or violence or engaging in homosexual behavior.

Even though I do not believe participating in a same-sex marriage is sinful I understand that participating in that event may be considered sinful by others and their ability to avoid sin should not be infringed because of the freedoms ensured to them by the Constitution.

The case of the baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding is not one of discrimination. Any other baked goods were offered to the homosexual couple for any event except a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. The baker did not refuse to bake the wedding cake on the grounds of the couple’s sexual orientation, but rather on the fact that his service would force him to participate in an activity he considered to be sinful which would violate his religious beliefs.

Another example would be if a baker refused to bake a cake for an African American Black-Lives-Matter activist who wanted the baker to decorate the cake with the statement, “Kill All Cops”. The baker’s refusal would not be because of the customer’s race, but rather, the baker did not want to participate in, or want his business to be associated with, something they found distasteful or offensive.

The freedom to live and act in accordance with our religious beliefs and to do business in good conscience are protected by the Constitution.

Considering that there are many other bakers who would be willing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, why is there any need to force those bakers who may have religious convictions against participating in such an activity to participate?

Now on to your new comments.

What I believe in, and the courts have been consistently ruling, is that if you sell a cake to one person, you have to sell a cake to everyone.

This is demonstrably false.

Goods and services may be legally refused for a variety of reasons.

For example, a high-end restaurant may refuse service to someone who is wearing jeans if they have a policy about required forms of attire.

Just because that restaurant serves one person, that does not mean they have to serve everyone.

It depends on the preferences and policies of the restaurant.

Even your “stalker ex-boyfriend” is a good example of a business not having to serve everyone.

What you believe and what the courts have ruled are wrong in the instance of this baker.

Look at a company like Pure Romance. Their parties are girls only, but they still sell to men. They are running a business and they have buyers.

They are free to do that. They have that right. They can decide how they would run their business.

However, there are many organizations that offer services only to women or only to African Americans or other minorities.

You believe these organizations should stop serving only these select groups and serve everyone?

I have not taken a single business course, my own business is ran in a way that makes other business owners cringe, but even I see the very self-defeating nature of a business discriminating in such a way.

Even if it were “self-defeating”, is it any business of yours if they want to choose a “self-defeating” business practice?

Doesn’t a business owner have the right to fail if they so choose?

I know you want this to be a simple case of discrimination like, “I hate gays so I refuse to serve them!”, but it is not.

The baker in question did not refuse to serve that couple because they were homosexual. Even though he knew they were homosexual he still offered them all kinds of baked goods. He just did not want to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding because it would violate his religious convictions and the Constitution protects his freedom to live by his religion.

If a heterosexual had come in and asked for a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, the baker still would have refused to bake it. The sexual orientation of the customers was not the factor in his decision to refuse to bake the cake. This is not a case of discrimination.

If you don’t mind my asking, what kind of business do you own? What do you do?

So, it's illegal already in many ways, it's largely considered immoral and unethical by everyone who is in full support of allowing it, and it's a dumb business practice.

This would only be relevant if the baker’s decision to refuse service was because of the sexual orientation of the customers, but it wasn’t.

It is immoral and unethical to place a person in a position to either be forced to commit what they believe to be sin or lose their livelihood.

It does not matter if you support same-sex marriage or not, it is very wrong to place anyone in that kind of position.

I don’t believe anyone should need to violate their personal beliefs in order to open or to stay in business. It is very wrong to try to force that position upon anyone, especially when there are so many other places willing to bake that cake with no problem.

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Matthew 8:36)

I don’t understand why anyone would want to place someone in that kind of position. I would seriously question the morality of a person who thinks that it is okay to do that.

 

[Prestor John]

If your stalker ex boy friend comes in, if someone is known as a trouble maker, those examples that are justifiable.

I’m going to ask a couple questions that may seem insensitive, but I only ask them in order to place some things into perspective and to build my case. Just don’t jump to conclusion too quickly.

Why do you believe you would be justified denying your stalker ex-boyfriend service?

I’m asking this seriously. To anyone else other than you, he would appear to be just a guy sitting there drinking his coffee.

Why do you feel that you would be justified denying him service?

Do you feel as though he threatens you with bodily harm?

If he does not have a weapon or is not acting threatening, how could you justify that assumption? He would not appear threatening to anyone else.

Of course, you could use your own intimate knowledge of your ex-boyfriend to come to the conclusion that he might mean you harm, but none of your co-workers would have that same knowledge or opinion of him, so your justification to refuse to serve him would depend only on your own personal experience.

If you know that he does not mean you bodily harm, why would you care if he came into your place of business and asked you to serve him?

Is it because you would feel uncomfortable or anxious? It might cause you mental stress?

That is understandable, however, the potential mental damage is only perceived by you. Your co-workers may not feel uneasy around him at all. They might not see any reason to refuse him service, so again, the justification to refuse to serve him would depend only on your own personal experience.

I am not claiming that you would not be justified in denying him service. I would understand, from your own personal knowledge and experience, why you would want to refuse him service or ask him to leave. Everyone should believe you and support your decision to refuse him service or ask him to leave or to even call the cops.

I don’t believe that anyone could tell you to, “Suck it up” and then force you to serve your stalker ex-boyfriend. I don’t think anyone has the right to tell you, “He doesn’t look like a bad guy to me. You’re just imagining stuff. Stop discriminating! Go over there and get his order.”

No one should be able to disregard your desire to not associate with your stalker ex-boyfriend, no matter what they themselves personally believe about the man.

You don’t want to associate with your stalker ex-boyfriend. It does not matter what other people have come to perceive or believe about him or you. You don’t want to and you should not have to and you definitely should not be placed in a position where you would have to either serve your stalker ex-boyfriend or lose your job.

I believe that that would be evil.

So, when it comes to the example of the baker, he does not want to associate with or participate in a same-sex wedding. He believes his participation in that activity would do him some sort of harm. Whether or not you believe it will actually harm him in any way is irrelevant.

He should not be forced into doing something that he has religious convictions against and he should not have been placed into a position where he had to choose to commit what he believed was sin or lose his livelihood.

He did not refuse service to anyone because of their sexual orientation. He just did not want to participate in the same-sex wedding.

One is prone to violence and typically a psychological struggle to maintain power and control, and the other could do anything from costing money to annoying other customers.

If you have intimate knowledge of your stalker ex-boyfriend to lead you to the conclusion that he may be violent or psychologically manipulative toward you, you’d have every right to refuse him service, ask him to leave or call the cops no matter what anyone else believes or claims about him.

No one has the authority to contradict, oppose, undermine, threaten or in any attempt to force you to associate with your stalker ex-boyfriend.

You should never be placed in any sort of compromising situation where you would have to choose between associating with your stalker ex-boyfriend and losing your job.

That would be evil and I feel it is comparable to what has happened to the Masterpiece baker.

I don’t believe that anyone had the right to place him in a situation where he had to choose between committing what he believed was sin and losing his livelihood.

He did not refuse service to anyone because of their sexual orientation. He just did not want to participate in a same-sex wedding.

But, when it comes to differences in ideology, that includes religious, you shouldn't be running a business if you can't get over it.

I disagree.

I don’t think a Jew who opens a restaurant should be forced to serve pork products.

No one should be able to force him to “get over it” no matter what anyone else believes about eating pork.

He has religious reasons to not associate with it so no one should be able force him to.

Does that mean he should be able to refuse service to a pork-eater? Of course not!

However, if a pork-eater wants to hire him to cater an event, does he have to serve pork dishes if the pork-eater asks for it?

He is willing to cater, but he doesn’t want to associate with pork products.

What if, as unlikely as it sounds, someone asked him to cater for a KKK event?

Does he need to cater that event, even though he has misgivings about associating with that group and their activities?

What if he had previously and unknowingly catered a birthday party for one of the members of the KKK, does he now have to cater the event that celebrates the KKK’s ideals and agendas?

Would you accuse the Jewish restaurant-owner of discriminating against the member of the KKK who had asked him to cater a KKK event if he refused? Even if the Jew was willing to cater for any other kind of event, just not that one?

Isn’t it possible to refuse to serve someone because you don’t want to be associated with a particular activity or event and not be guilty of discrimination?

Why couldn’t I tell you to “get over” the experiences you had with your stalker ex-boyfriend and then force you to serve him?

It's not the thing for you, because you end up meeting a whole bunch of weirdos.

You assume hatred and intolerance.

You assume that the baker did not want to participate because he didn’t want to meet any homosexual people.

It couldn’t be because he has religious beliefs about the sanctity of marriage and therefore a conviction against the idea of a same-sex marriage. (Note sarcasm)

Does a person not attending a Black Lives Matter rally mean they hate black people, or could it mean that they simply do not agree with their mission and agenda?

What if you were invited to a baby’s baptism but you didn’t want to go because you don’t agree with the practice of baptism or with Christianity in general.

Would people be justified in assuming that the reason you didn’t want to go was because you hate all babies and Christians?

 

[Prestor John]

But, ultimately, you are not there to like them, you are there to get their money, ideally in a way that gets them to come back and spread the word.

That is one of the core issues.

The baker did not want himself or his bakery to be associated with same-sex marriage. He does not want the word to spread that his bakery bakes wedding cakes for those events. He considers participating in those events to be sinful.

He has every right to defend the image of his bakery if he does not want it to be associated with certain events.

What if he did not want to bake a cake for a KKK rally because he didn’t want it to appear that he and his bakery were sympathetic to their cause?

What if he didn’t want his business associated with the Communist Party? ISIS? Abortions? Black Lives Matter? Anti-LGBT rallies?

Does he need to make cakes for every event celebrating everything even though he may believe it would be bad for his image and the reputation of his business?

Equality under the law is not a special privilege, it is a right.

Equality under the law would be him respecting your right to marry and you respecting his right to not want to be involved with your wedding.

He would not do anything to stop you from getting married while you would not do anything to force him to participate in it.

Since you don’t want these things, you don’t want equality.

Since you want to force people to do what you want them to do despite their personal beliefs, you want tyranny and oppression.

You want to place people in a situation where they have to choose between living their religion and losing their means of livelihood.

Because I am an American citizen, I am fully entitled to the rights bestowed on other citizens.

Yes, you are.

But an American Citizen does not have the right to rob someone of their religious freedom ensured by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

You have every right to get married and to have a wedding cake, but your rights end when they start to infringe on someone else’s rights.

You cannot force someone to participate in your wedding if they have religious convictions against your union and believe any participation on their part would result in them committing sin.

The baker not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding was not discrimination.

This includes the right to not be discriminated against and be protected from it.

A baker not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding is not discrimination.

We are a nation for all, not just white heterosexual Anglo Conservative Protestants and Catholics.

This is funny because,

1. Not all heterosexuals are white.
   
   
2. Not all heterosexuals are Anglo Conservative Protestants or Catholics.
   
   
3. Not all white people are Anglo Conservative Protestants or Catholics.
   
   
4. Not all Anglo Conservative Protestants and Catholics are heterosexual.
   
   
5. Not all Anglo’s are heterosexual, Conservative, Protestants or Catholics.
   
   
6. Not all Conservatives are heterosexual, Anglo, Protestant or Catholic.
   
   
7. Not all Protestants are heterosexual, Anglo or Conservative.
   
   
8. Not all Catholics are heterosexual, Anglo or Conservative.
   
   
9. It’s not just heterosexuals, Anglos, Conservatives, Protestants and Catholics that don’t want to participate in same-sex weddings.
   
   
10. Not all homosexuals believe that the baker should have been sued for not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding.
    
    
11. Many homosexuals are white.

You just made huge generalizations about every single kind of person there is, including homosexuals.

You try to paint a false picture. You try to put a “face” on hatred and discrimination.

Yet you fail to realize that you can’t do that. Not only can people have issues with same-sex marriage without being hateful or discriminatory, but issues with same-sex marriage are not had by only one group or type of people.

It is not only white people who can have issues with same-sex marriage.

It is not only religious people who can have issues with same-sex marriage.

It is not only conservative people who can have issues with same-sex marriage.

It is not only Christians who can have issues with same-sex marriage.

It is not only heterosexuals who can have issues with same-sex marriage.

People outside of that group believe differently, and generally do see those wanting to bar homosexuals from marriage and control education to be the ones demanding special privileges.

I feel safe to say that most people “outside of that group” either don’t care about same-sex marriage or also would not want to be forced to participate in an event against their will that violates their personal beliefs.

We petition the state that we legally be acknowledged as equal, you want to run the state.

No, you don’t want to be “equal.”

You want to force people to violate their religious freedom to appease you. That is not wanting to be “equal.”

Just like I said in my last post,

“I do not have the right as a citizen of the United States of America to force someone to participate in an activity that they have reservations against and do not want to participate in.

If I do not have that right then you and any other homosexual does not have that right.”

You want to be “special”, “superior”, “oppressive” and “controlling.”

Why didn’t you address the fact that you can judge what people do without judging the person?

Don’t you remember trying to claim that the baker was “judging” and “condemning” all homosexuals because he did not want to participate in a same-sex wedding?

You don’t remember trying to use this logic to prove that the baker hates homosexuals?

Why didn’t you address your proven hypocrisy in regards to this argument?

Also, remember when you intimated that I and the baker had claimed that God found homosexuality “detestable” and that homosexuals were “an abomination” and that we talked about “how horrible they [were]”?

Why didn’t you provide any examples of me or the baker saying anything like this after I asked you to?

Their attractions will never go away though.

According to who? You don’t believe that anyone could ever change their nature? Everyone’s actions are predestined by their nature?

They don't have to work against, they have to work with it, admit to themselves what they are, and find outlets that do not involve children.

First, I do not believe that a person having an attraction makes them anything.

I don’t believe that a person who is attracted to children is instantly a pedophile until they act on and indulge that attraction in some way. If they have the attraction, but never entertain it in their minds, they are not pedophiles.

So, I actually like what you were trying to say here, but I would amend it by saying that they would need to “admit to themselves that they have an inappropriate attraction toward children”, not that they are something.

I would then usually say some stuff about Jesus being able to help them overcome, but I know we would agree to disagree on that part.

Otherwise, I agree with your approach. They need to recognize that they have a problem and focus on uplifting and constructive activities, topics, hobbies or whatever.

They shouldn’t be demonized, but their inappropriate attraction should not be entertained in any way either.

 

[Prestor John]

One British man some years ago had the creative idea of photoshoping adult women into children. Sounds odd and maybe horrible at first, but there was zero harm done overall.

I vehemently disagree.

That would cause serious harm to the person indulging in their attraction to children. They would never get over it. They may never be able to have a normal relationship with any adult or child.

It does not help resolve their issue. It would only exacerbate it.

Some opt for castration (chemical typically) just to do away with the strong sexual urges.

I don’t find this necessary unless they have actually touched a child.

As long as they refrain from entertaining their attraction and rely on the merits and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, they can overcome it and live on to have sexually healthy and satisfying lives.

I don't think pedophiles should be stripped of their rights because I find their attractions reprehensible.

Well, yes you do. You don’t believe they have the right to satisfy their sexual urges in the way they would prefer, because it victimizes children.

You also believe that Christians or other religious people should be stripped of their right to practice their religion because you disagree with it and them.

However, I feel that we have gone off-topic. Why didn’t you answer my question? I asked you,

“You do not condone pedophilia, does that mean you hate all people who are attracted to children?”

If you are able to oppose the actions of others without hating them, why can’t I or the baker be able to do that too?

Why can’t we oppose homosexuality or same-sex marriage without hating homosexuals?

If you are allowed to do that, why can’t we?

Now, back let’s get back to your off-topic comment.

What “rights” are you talking about above?

Are you saying that a pedophile has the right to demand that a baker bake a cake commemorating their first rape of a child?

You keep trying to blow this thing out of proportion. No one wants to take away a homosexual’s right to vote or to have gay sex.

All we are talking about…I repeat…ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT…is you wanting to force a baker to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. That’s it.

Stop trying to blow this thing out of proportion.

Children cannot consent and are mostly not sexually curious or interested.

It feels like you would be open to a child being exploited sexually if that child was sexually curious or interested.

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but this sentence sounds like it.

The actions cannot be condoned because it involves abusing a position of authority.

So, if the abuser was another child, you would condone the abuse?

Again, I’m just getting a vibe that you have more to say on this then you are letting on.

However, they should be fully entitled to use public shops just like anyone else.

Yes, but are they entitled to force people to accept their behavior?

They can force people to participate in activities that they find offensive or sinful?

A pedophile is entitled to use the shop owned by the parents of the daughter that he molested?

If your stalker ex-boyfriend can be refused service then I think a pedophile can be refused service too.

What it all boils down to is no one should be forced to participate in any pedophile’s lewd fantasies, actions or events.

A baker should not have to make a cake depicting a naked little boy for a pedophile. Nor a cake commemorating an event that the baker finds distasteful or offensive, like the anniversary of a pedophile’s first rape.

I've never claimed that.

Yes, you did.

Every time you try to conflate the baker’s right to freedom of religion with “hatred”, “judgment” or “condemnation” or are claiming that that baker is incapable of hating a practice and not the person participating in the practice.

For example, in post #1099 you responded to my claim that you assumed that the baker “hated” homosexuals by saying,

“When you want to strip someone of equality under the law, it is hatred. That is not love, that is not tolerance, it is hatred and seeing that group as "unworthy" and "undeserving" of the full privileges and rights of citizenship.”

You see how you went out of your way to take this simple matter of religious freedom and trump it as a case of hatred and intolerance?

You said that the baker saw homosexuals as “unworthy” and “undeserving” of cake against all the evidence to the contrary. He would have served them any and all baked goods, just not a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage.

Your next comment in the same post is also a good example. When I said that the baker did not judge or condemn anyone, you said,

“Yes, the baker did judge by claiming that a homosexual marriage is wrong.”

What?

So, since the baker disagrees with same-sex marriage, he is judging and condemning homosexuals?

You are saying that it is impossible for this baker (or anyone else) to be against the practice of same-sex marriage without judging, condemning or hating homosexuals.

Therefore, you have most emphatically claimed that it is not possible to hate a practice without hating the individuals who participate in the practice.

Hatred is something that causes harms or reduces the quality of life for another.

So the IRS hates everyone?

A parent spanking their child hates that child? A parent grounding their child hates that child?

The real definition of the word “hatred” is, “intense dislike or extreme aversion or hostility.”

However, let’s use your definition of hatred for a minute.

In the case of this baker, who had the most harm done toward them or their quality of life reduced the most…? Oh yeah…it was the baker, because he lost his livelihood.

The homosexual couple could have gone to the bakery across the street to get their wedding cake, but no, they decided to ruin the life of this baker instead.

According to you, that is hatred. According to you, the homosexual couple is guilty of hatred.

Not being able to get a cake from one baker and being inconvenienced by walking across the entire street to get their cake from another baker! Oh the humanity! So much harm done! Their quality of life is non-existent! (Note sarcasm)

Saying they are not fully entitled to the rights freely given to everybody else when there exist no objective facts to oppose it, that is causing needless harm and reductions in their quality of life.

Yet, your example of a stalker ex-boyfriend is completely subjective, as I pointed out.

Only you would have an issue serving him, based on your personal knowledge and experience, yet no one should be able to force you to serve him. That would be evil.

I believe that both the homosexual couple and the baker have the right to live according to their conscience and are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

The baker did not want to participate in their wedding. The homosexual couple should have accepted that and gone somewhere else. But instead they decided to hate the baker and ruin his life.

It is safe to say that the baker would not have made a cake for any other activity he considered offensive, so it was not the sexual orientation of the customer that affected his decision.

 

[Prestor John]

The issue really is which Christians?

That is not the issue at all.

Anyone, despite their religious affiliation, can hate a practice without hating the people participating in that practice.

I can hate war and not want to participate in it, but still love and honor those who would go to war in my stead.

It does not matter what type of Christian someone is. It does not matter what religion someone has. Everyone is capable of doing this.

Yet, you instantly assume that they are incapable. You assume they must hate those they disagree with.

You, as a group, do not agree over this issue.

Yes, just as homosexuals, as a group, also do not agree over this issue.

I, however, am not about to assume that these disagreements are had because one person or other hates, judges or condemns someone else.

You would, but I don’t.

Many claim the love of Jesus mandates the Church welcome homosexuals with open arms, to tolerate, accept, and love them like anyone else, and to not turn them away but show them the love of Jesus.

That is exactly what this baker did.

Loving, tolerating and accepting a person is not the same as loving, tolerating and accepting everything they do.

It is possible to not agree with homosexuality and same-sex marriage and still love homosexuals, as this baker did.

You assume that just because someone doesn’t like what you do, they must hate you.

I keep pointing this out to you, but you keep coming back to it.

It proves to me that you are not mature enough to handle this discussion.

Many, however, also claim that because of a law given to the Jews that is actually more specific to the ritual practices of those "other tribes" but-who-really-cares-about-context gives them a right to turn such people away.

This is irrelevant because they baker offered to bake them any and all baked goods. He just did not want to be involved in their wedding.

Jesus never taught that we need to accept or participate in all the activities of others. In fact, He taught against many immoral practices and told His followers to avoid them.

Hate the sin, not the sinner.

The courts have consistently ruled you can't discriminate, and future generations see this once great evil or mark of shame as "no...offensive activity."

Again, this is irrelevant because this was not a case of discrimination. The sexual orientation of the couple was not the determining factor in the baker’s decision to refuse service.

The eventual fall of future generations into moral decay is also irrelevant.

It will forever be wrong to force someone to choose between committing sin and losing their livelihood.

By the end of this century, it will be no different with homosexuals, and it will be of morbid curious wonder how anyone could ever hate someone for being homosexual or say they don't deserve equal rights.

All you can do is build up these strawmen.

No one said that anyone should hate homosexuals or that homosexuals don’t deserve equal rights. They deserve those rights, but just like with everyone else, their rights should not infringe on the rights of others.

You want special treatment. You want to be able to trample the rights of others under your feet.

Really, no different than how today we have a hard time comprehending the idea of racial discrimination and home-bound women.

I believe this issue is significantly different, but I need to ask, what is a “home-bound woman”?

Are you saying that we today can’t comprehend a woman wanting to be a stay-at-home mom?

You may be the only person who thinks that.

I “lol’d” when I read this.

I highly doubt I am the only one.

I actually do have to put up with a lot, for just about everything, but yet I've not killed or even punched or slapped anyone.

Bravo. Congratulations on being just like everyone else.

I think it is funny that you pat yourself on the back for being civil and not assaulting someone, like it is some kind of achievement.

I really do want to slap some people though, especially those who doubt I can be a moral or good person without god, but I don't.

Do you want a high five?

It is not an achievement to live in a world of conflicting ideas without slapping someone.

I tend to civilly just end it and go along with my way to focus on things I'd rather be doing. Though some do provoke me into deciding that better thing is giving them a course on "this is what your religion actually says 101."

I am sure you do so by taking things out of context or some such other nonsense.

You'd be amazed at how many people want to tell me to serve Jesus and the Bible proves it all yet they have absolutely no idea of what is really in there.

I am familiar with these people. Yet, it is important to note that not everything in the Bible is intended for us today.

I am being none of those. Of both of us, I am the one saying if you serve the public, you serve the public.

But you said that you could justify not serving your stalker ex-boyfriend.

So, you obviously don’t believe “if you serve the public, you serve the public.”

You believe that a person can refuse service to someone based on personal knowledge and experience.

But that’s neither here nor there because the baker did not refuse to serve the homosexual couple. He just did not want to participate in their same-sex wedding.

There's nothing else to discuss because it's too hard, lengthy, and complex of a process of letting everyone claiming to be a special snow flake have special privileges.

This is funny because you are the special snowflake demanding all the special privileges.

What the baker wants is nothing new. He wants what the Constitution claims is his right. To live his religion.

Yet, we all know that you hate the Constitution and want to replace it, so I guess I’m just talking to a wall at this point.

You serve the public, you serve the public.

Except stalker ex-boyfriends...

Inconsistent...

Simple, easy, smart, rational, it says no conflicts before they can start, and it affirms everyone is legally equal and protected under the law.

Except stalker ex-boyfriends…

You can’t force people to accept, love and tolerate what you do.

That is tyranny and oppression.

You special snowflake.

Not really. Not that I'm totally bored with or completely turned off from women, they just really aren't my preference.

So you aren’t a homosexual?

You claim this, yet you state your entire position on appeals to your religion, and insisting that homosexuals do not deserve to be treated equally under the law, which includes protection against discrimination.

First, my religion is not the same as the baker’s.

As I said earlier my religion does not consider participating in a same-sex wedding to be sinful.

Second, I insist that homosexual should be treated equally under the law, yet they seem to think that they are due special privileges. They believe that they should be able to force people to violate their rights in order to appease them in their lifestyle.

Not everyone agrees with the homosexual lifestyle and they do not want to participate in any activity that celebrates it.

An atheist baker should not be forced to decorate a cake with pictures of Jesus and Bible verses for my baptism if they consider that to be offensive.

Get over it.

Lastly, this is not a case of discrimination. No service was denied the homosexual couple due to their sexual orientation.

The baker did not want to participate in an activity he considered sinful. He equally would not want to participate in any activity he considers sinful.

 

[Prestor John]

Yet at some point in time such things were considered offensive enough that eventually someone called fowl loud enough to get things changed and now of course it's just unthinkable to see anything wrong with being black or a woman in the work place (especially in positions of authority).

It would be wrong to force a woman to work if she wants to be a stay-at-home mother.

It would be wrong to force someone to hire a man based solely on the fact that he is black.

It would be wrong to force someone to participate in an activity they find offensive.

Really until not that long ago women wearing jeans was considered very improper and immoral, but hardly anyone cares today and the general consensus is only an abusive ******* would tell a woman she can't wear jeans.

Yet, it would be wrong to force a woman to wear jeans against her will.

You might think a guy is a ******* for not wanting to participate in or support a same-sex wedding, but it would be wrong to force him to participate against his will.

If you are a hardcore Buddhist or Hindu or Jainist pacifist, it would be illegal for you to turn away current or former members of the military because of their military status.

Again, that is not what happened.

No one was refused service because of their sexual orientation. The baker refused to participate in an activity he found offensive.

If a former member of the military wanted a Buddhist baker to bake and design a cake commemorating the first time he had killed a man, the baker should be able to opt out, because they don’t want to be associated with that kind of celebration.

They don't necessarily have that as a right. In general, they don't.

Yes they do. It is ensured them by the Constitution (remember that document you hate?)

When it comes to who someone is a person, they don't.

I don’t understand.

You believe that you can refuse service to a stalker ex-boyfriend. That is “who” he is.

There was a recent case involving the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. The choir was invited to sing at President Trump’s inauguration, however, a member of the choir opted out claiming that she could not sing for Trump because she believes he is a new Hitler and she would never sing for Hitler.

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir sings all over the world for many different events. They have sang at many other Presidential Inaugurations.

So, it is your opinion that that choir member should have been forced to sing at President Trump’s inauguration?

No one should be forced to participate in an activity they have moral objections to.

The baker did not refuse service to the homosexual couple because of their sexual orientation. He just did not want to participate in a same-sex wedding.

I've never claimed that.

Your entire argument is based on it.

I will challenge religion, but I would not tell someone they cannot believe something.

Religion is not simply believing in something. It was a way of life. A lifestyle.

What you are saying is that people are free to be attracted to the same-sex, but they should never act on that attraction.

They can feel all they want, but they can’t live the way they want.

I believe certain things about women based on my religion which cause me to not want to visit a strip club. I can’t visit strip clubs and continue to believe what I do about women.

If my boss invited me to go to a strip club with him, I would turn him down.

What you are saying would be akin to my boss saying, “I understand that you have beliefs about women that give you reservations about coming with me to the strip club. I would never tell you that you cannot believe in that. But, you either come with me to the strip club or you’re fired.”

Don’t you understand how pointless it is for you to say, “You’re free to believe what you want, but you can’t live it.”

My boss trying to force me to go to the strip club with him or I’d lose my job would be evil.

You claiming that you’d never tell people what to believe, but that you have the right to force them to act against their belief is evil.

No. I find saying "you are not deserving of equality" to be hateful.

First off, I have already proven that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you must hate you.

Your comments from post #1099 were enough to prove that.

And you still keep trying to make this about equality when it is not. I do not have the right to force a homosexual to do something they find offensive, so to be equal, a homosexual does not have the right to force me to do something I find offensive.

That would be equality, but you don’t want that.

I disagree with members on various things on here, but for the most part I do not assume they hate me. But you don't have to hate an individual to hate who they are. However, it calls much into question when one side would stand up for the rights of both, but the other side only their own, their own side that wants to deny rights to a group that is harming no one or having any sort of negative influence on society.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

I happen to believe that homosexuality is harmful to society and that all the confusion and controversy regarding “gender” and sexuality that is being had today stems from society’s acceptance of homosexuality.

That is my opinion.

Let it be clear that I am standing up for both sides of this issue.

I don’t think it would be right to force anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, religious or irreligious, theist or atheist, to participate in an activity they found offensive.

It would be wrong to force them to participate when they don’t want to.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

No. Are you even paying attention?

The State does not recognize all relationships. For example, incestuous or polygamous unions are not recognized by the State.

It is a fact that the State recognition of marriage is not a universal right.

Get over it.

I said nothing about going to war. Defending your home and community, yes, but defending yourself is not going off to war. Every state needs a survival plan, mine would ensure the common citizen can fight back rather than being nothing more than cattle waiting for the slaughter.

So, you would force the citizens of your community to participate in some kind of training regimen?

Do any of your opinions not involve forcing people to do what you want?

No wonder you hate the Constitution. You hate freedom.

You say I have this ignorance of god, but yet you do not support it.

Pray tell, how would I go about supporting that?

Do you want me to quiz you?

Rather, it is because I ceased my ignorance that I no longer follow your God. I read his words, his Bible, front to back, and realized he is very different from what they preach on the pulpit.

It is possible to read a book without understanding any of it.

That's called a measurement of progress.

No. That’s called Presentism which is a form of cultural bias that historians try to avoid because it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.

If someone [loses] weight, they can only say they have lost because they are comparing today with yesterday.

This analogy only works when you assume that losing weight is always a good thing.

It is not always a good thing

If something is better, it can only be better because it was worse.

It’s a give and take scenario.

What we should be doing is rejecting what was bad from then past learning from it and then taking what was good from past and building on it.

However, people tend to reject the past entirely because they disagree with something that happened, and then end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.

They are doomed to repeat the deeds of the past and by trying to make up for what happened, which is insanity.

Racism in the past was wrong, but hiring someone only because they are black is equally wrong and just as racist.

The persecution of homosexuals by religionists in the past was wrong, but homosexuals persecuting religionists today is just as wrong.

You can't understand the past by today's standards, but we can still judge them.

What good is a judgment made that has no understanding?

Such as, the Inquisition and Crusades were so horrible that many Christians today claim that "no true Christian" would do such a thing, yet, to the people doing those deeds, "no true Christian" would be opposed to it.

I don’t know much about the Inquisition.

However, as I studied, I ended up generally agreeing with the Crusades. It was in retaliation to the violent expansion and persecution of Muslims who invaded Christian lands.

With individual atrocities aside, I feel that the Christian world was justified in fighting back against Islamic tyranny.

Your judgment of the Crusades is worthless because it was made without any understanding.