Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't expect everyone to share my beliefs; I enjoy learning about world religions, therefore I expect others to not believe what I do. I have never been one to force my religion and beliefs onto others - I don't like it when people force religion onto others.

Unfortunately there are too few like you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No it doesn't, however the Bible references homosexuality - this is written as a man having sexual intercourse with another man, however I believe this to be the same for a women. It is still unnatural according to the Bible.

I still don't think you can quite get around the fact that the Bible ONLY mentions men, and it doesn't reference "homosexuality" in general. I think any inference with regards to the Christian stance on lesbianism is clearly extra-Biblical.

 

[kiwimac]

Homosexuality is a modern concept never mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Skwim]

Homosexuality is a modern concept never mentioned in the Bible.

Hmm. . . . a pot stirrer for sure, but go ahead and prove it isn't mentioned. I dare you.



.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Part of growing up and being an adult is living in a world of conflicting beliefs and opinions and realizing that you cannot force people to accept your way of life or participate in your activities that they might find offensive.

If that's how you really feel, why do you support businesspeople who force their clientele to accept their way of life?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Go for it.

Debate.

There's a long British common-law tradition that upheld bigamy as a crime. The United States inherited that tradition and considered it to be precedent-setting, even after the Revolution.

Bigamy was also illegal in Mexico. Utah was technically part of Mexico when the Mormons first settled there, and other Mormon settlements continued to be in Mexico even after the Mexican-American War.

No. Not at all.

Marriage has always been defined as a covenant between one man and one woman. Since the beginning. Adam and Eve.

There have been times when the Lord commanded that His faithful take up the practice of plural marriage, but those were never calls for all men to take on multiple wives.

The Bible is full of faithful men, but not all were called by God to take on multiple wives. For example, Abraham and his grandson Jacob had multiple wives, however Isaac, Abraham's son and Jacob's father, had only the one wife.

In the early LDS Church God called some of His faithful servants to enter into the practice of plural marriage. That was His Law to them. They followed His Law and were blessed.

Plural marriage is the exception not the rule.

Or, expressed more honestly: plural marriage under certain conditions is one particular accepted case within a larger rule.

Nope. I sure don't.

Except you did right here:

"When the law was eventually set up to oppose the practice it was a violation of the Saint's right to practice their religion and many members and leaders voiced their arguments against the law."

The law you're referring to is the law allowing marriage only between one man and one woman... i.e. the law you're defending now.

In mortality, yes.

The laws of Man have no authority after death.

If the "laws of Man" can tell Mormons that that can't engage in even God-sanctioned polygamy "in mortality", why can't they also tell them that if they serve the public, they can't deny their services in a discriminatory way?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Homosexuality is a modern concept never mentioned in the Bible.

I am sorry, but we didn't invent same sex relations, that has likely been around since long before we were homosapians. People from a few thousand years ago definitely were engaging in same sex relations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Homosexuality is a modern concept never mentioned in the Bible.

I'd say that marriage as a partnership of equals is a modern concept nevet mentioned in the Bible.

... which is actually a point on the side of those saying that same-sex marriage is unbiblical.

If marriage is chattel slavery involving women bought and sold by men - and in the Biblical formulation, it is - then it makes no sense to have a marriage of two men (who's the property?) or two women (who's the owner?).

I think there's a fair bit of sexism behind most opposition to same-sex marriage.

 

[Prestor John]

There's a long British common-law tradition that upheld bigamy as a crime.

Would you mind citing a source?

Anything before the Morrill Act?

The United States inherited that tradition and considered it to be precedent-setting, even after the Revolution.

Source?

Were the LDS the only people in the U.S. who practiced bigamy?

Bigamy was also illegal in Mexico. Utah was technically part of Mexico when the Mormons first settled there, and other Mormon settlements continued to be in Mexico even after the Mexican-American War.

By "technically" you mean by claim alone, right? Since they never made any effort to colonize it?

A true "no man's land."

Or, expressed more honestly: plural marriage under certain conditions is one particular accepted case within a larger rule.

Why don't you dumb this down for me.

All I see is an attempt by you to claim that I am somehow being dishonest and then saying nonsense.

Except you did right here:

"When the law was eventually set up to oppose the practice it was a violation of the Saint's right to practice their religion and many members and leaders voiced their arguments against the law."

The law you're referring to is the law allowing marriage only between one man and one woman... i.e. the law you're defending now.

Are you trying to conflate polygamy with same-sex marriage?

I am defending that marriage should only be between members of the opposite sex.

The "law" I was referring to was the outlawing of plural marriage.

If the "laws of Man" can tell Mormons that that can't engage in even God-sanctioned polygamy "in mortality", why can't they also tell them that if they serve the public, they can't deny their services in a discriminatory way?

In the case of this baker no such discrimination took place.

Unless you want to also claim that the other Wisconsin baker (who denied to decorate a cake with anti-LGBT slurs) was also guilty of denying services in a discriminatory way.

At the least you would be confirming the double-standard in the state of Wisconsin and the worst you'd be saying that all business-owners must participate in events/activities/messages they find offensive.

 

[Prestor John]

If that's how you really feel, why do you support businesspeople who force their clientele to accept their way of life?

I don't. I never said I did.

What makes you think that I would?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't. I never said I did.

What makes you think that I would?

The fact that you've been arguing for it for most of this thread gave me an inkling.

 

[Prestor John]

The fact that you've been arguing for it for most of this thread gave me an inkling.

When did this baker ever force anyone to accept his way of life?

He never tried to convert anyone to his religion or to change how other people live their lives.

How is he not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding him trying to force people to accept his way of life?

Would you say that the other Wisconsin baker who refused to decorate a cake with anti-LGBT slurs was also trying to force other people to accept her way of life?

Do you disagree with her refusing to do something she found offensive?

You are trying to make this into something that it is not.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

When did God ever tell someone to not bake someone a cake?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When did this baker ever force anyone to accept his way of life?

He never tried to convert anyone to his religion or to change how other people live their lives.

How is he not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding him trying to force people to accept his way of life?

The baker is trying to make it as difficult as possible - within the limited scope that he's able - for the same-sex couple to live in peace together as a married couple.

The effect is more clear when you consider all the other business owners that might feel like the baker does: being refused a wedding cake is merely inconvenient and demeaning; being refused, say, an apartment lease or a cab ride in an emergency could have much more critical ramifications.

Would you say that the other Wisconsin baker who refused to decorate a cake with anti-LGBT slurs was also trying to force other people to accept her way of life?

Do you disagree with her refusing to do something she found offensive?

It seems like you still have a mental roadblock about what differentiates that case from the ones you're defending:

Every business makes decisions about what products they sell. This is not discriminatory. That Wisconsin bakery refused to sell a particular product - an anti-LGBT cake - but would have sold the exact same people a plain cake. If the customers wanted to decorate that cake with bigoted slurs - or anything else - afterward, this would be the customer's own concern, not the baker's.

If these anti-LGBT bakers followed the same approach, they would sell same-sex couples wedding cakes. They might refuse to decorate them with "Adam and Steve" or refuse to sell "groom/groom" cake topper figures, but if the customer chose to buy one of those toppers somewhere else and put it on the cake, that would be on them, not on the baker.

Again: there's a fundamental difference between refusing to sell a particular product to anyone and refusing to sell a product to particular groups of people when you normally offer it.

You are trying to make this into something that it is not.

It's a demeaning, bigoted insult that's defended using arguments that would justify even more harm. What have I misrepresented?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you trying to conflate polygamy with same-sex marriage?

I'm trying to say that a member of a church that suffered significant persecution for departing from a "one man & one woman" standard for marriage ought to have more compassion for people who depart from that standard today.

It's always bigotry to oppose same-sex marriage; the fact that a Mormon is doing it adds an extra element of callousness and hypocrisy.

 

[Sonofason]

More to the point, why do they believe the rest of us should be subject to their religious narrative alone?

There are a whole lot of science fanatics who believe that human beings are responsible for global warming. Whether or not what they believe is true, why on earth should they be permitted to create laws and place restraints on others who do not believe as they do? If we who believe in the God of Abraham were able to prove that God exists, and that there is indeed a narrative that God expects human beings to follow, would we then have the right to force our religious beliefs and narratives upon the rest of the unbelieving world and force them to comply?

I know, I know...you believe that people who pollute the earth and its atmosphere are causing harm to others, and for some reason, you believe that it is wrong to cause harm to others. And you then take these two beliefs that you have and use them to justify constraining others, and forcing them to comply with your own personal beliefs.

I personally believe that homosexual marriages and homosexual unions and homosexual relationships are a destructive force upon the society in which I have been raised. A society is the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. The society in which I desire to be a part of is, more or less, the society in which I have been raised. Homosexuality is in fact destructive to the society in which I desire to be a part of. Since a society is the people living together in community, harm caused to a society is a direct harm to the people who are a part of that community. Like you, I desire to prevent people from causing harm to others. I do not want my children hanging around with drunks and drug addicts because I do not want my child to become a drunk or a drug addict. I do not want my child hanging around with thieves, because I do not want my child to become a thief. These behaviors would be, in my opinion, destructive for my child, and I will do what I can to prevent my child from being harmed by the influences of these kinds of people. Put them in jail, let them die...whatever it takes to remove their evil influence over my child and the rest of the world. I believe in God, and I believe in the precepts that I believe that He has placed upon us.

Sin leads to death...not just death...death alone is no big deal. We all die...so what? I am referring to an eternal death of the soul. I know, I know...you don't believe in such things, but I do. Lots of people think it is wrong to harm others. But, not everyone that is a part of "our society" feels the same way. Some people have no sense of right and wrong. Some people take pleasure in causing pain and suffering to others. There are people that are a part of our society who do not believe in all of the precepts that have been lain down by the society in which I was raised. But like you, I see no problem restraining people from doing things that I believe cause harm to others. There are five basic components of human societies: population, culture, material products, social organization, and social institutions. These components may either deter or promote social change. The common components across cultures are symbols, values and norms. But people within a society do not always share the same values. When the people within a society do not all agree on the basic precepts of that society, those precepts and therefore that society is subject to change, for better or for worse. Homosexuality is sin. That is what I believe. Those who sin are subject to a judgement of God that leads to eternal death. Eternal death, in my opinion is bad. It is something to be avoided. It is something that should be prevented whenever possible, what ever it takes. And so I also believe that those of us in this society who believe as I do, must do what we can to restrain other members of this society from causing harm, whether it be to others, or to themselves. By allowing people to marry other persons of the same sex, we are in essence saying that we don't really give a damn about homosexuals, and that we're really quite content letting them rot in hell.

I actually care to much about people in general to not want to subject them to my own personal religious beliefs.

 

[columbus]

Homosexuality is sin. That is what I believe. Those who sin are subject to a judgement of God that leads to eternal death. Eternal death, in my opinion is bad. It is something to be avoided. It is something that should be prevented whenever possible, what ever it takes. And so I also believe that those of us in this society who believe as I do, must do what we can to restrain other members of this society from causing harm, whether it be to others, or to themselves. By allowing people to marry other persons of the same sex, we are in essence saying that we don't really give a damn about homosexuals, and that we're really quite content letting them rot in hell.

I actually care to much about people in general to not want to subject them to my own personal religious beliefs.

You really seem not to notice the bizarrely hypocritical contradiction in these two assertions.
You want to impose your religious beliefs on me, but not impose your religious beliefs on me.
At the same time.
In the same post.

The ability of religionists to be this hypocritical is "compelling evidence" (AKA proof) that you don't know any more about God than I do.
Tom

 

[Sonofason]

The baker is trying to make it as difficult as possible - within the limited scope that he's able - for the same-sex couple to live in peace together as a married couple.

The effect is more clear when you consider all the other business owners that might feel like the baker does: being refused a wedding cake is merely inconvenient and demeaning; being refused, say, an apartment lease or a cab ride in an emergency could have much more critical ramifications.


It seems like you still have a mental roadblock about what differentiates that case from the ones you're defending:

Every business makes decisions about what products they sell. This is not discriminatory. That Wisconsin bakery refused to sell a particular product - an anti-LGBT cake - but would have sold the exact same people a plain cake. If the customers wanted to decorate that cake with bigoted slurs - or anything else - afterward, this would be the customer's own concern, not the baker's.

If these anti-LGBT bakers followed the same approach, they would sell same-sex couples wedding cakes. They might refuse to decorate them with "Adam and Steve" or refuse to sell "groom/groom" cake topper figures, but if the customer chose to buy one of those toppers somewhere else and put it on the cake, that would be on them, not on the baker.

Again: there's a fundamental difference between refusing to sell a particular product to anyone and refusing to sell a product to particular groups of people when you normally offer it.


It's a demeaning, bigoted insult that's defended using arguments that would justify even more harm. What have I misrepresented?

It seems to me that while the baker may not have the right to not sell a cake to someone based on their supposed sexual identity and/or preferences, the baker has every right to discriminate with regard to what is to be written on the cake.

 

[Sonofason]

You really seem not to notice the bizarrely hypocritical contradiction in these two assertions.
You want to impose your religious beliefs on me, but not impose your religious beliefs on me.
At the same time.
In the same post.

The ability of religionists to be this hypocritical is "compelling evidence" (AKA proof) that you don't know any more about God than I do.
Tom

Not once have I suggested that I do not want to impose my religious beliefs upon you. I assure you, I do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me that while the baker may not have the right to not sell a cake to someone based on their supposed sexual identity and/or preferences, the baker has every right to discriminate with regard to what is to be written on the cake.

That's what I've been saying: a baker doesn't need to sell "same-sex" wedding cakes, but does have to be willing to sell their wedding cakes to a same-sex couple for a same-sex wedding.