Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[ADigitalArtist]

Two million people is NOTHING! About what .66% of the population?

How many of those people were voting illegally?

The losing side always complains when the system, which allows the intellectually diverse populace have a voice, ends up working against them.

You're trying to change the rules of the game after you lost. Sore losers much?

We are going to make America great again.

Two million people is not nothing, it is in fact a wider margin than five presidential elections.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/clinton-vote-lead/508667/

And while you're whining about people not providing sources, why don't you source Trump's claim that any percentage of note are illegal votes despite there being no evidence of any localized let alone systemic illegal voting?

People have been against the EC for far longer than this election, it just got a lot stronger this election because Trump and his Trumpets keep lying about being the popular decision like the person who I was replying to. They pretend Trump is the will of the people when the people can see just fine the orange buffoon he is.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Actually, I should say that Catholics are the largest religious group in America and most support gay marriage being legal.

I know every place and person is different, but many Catholics I've talked with (more than fifty) throughout my time as a Catholic do not support gay marriage being legal. A lot of conservative Catholics don't support gay marriage.

Instead, they have this program: Courage

"His Eminence, the late Terence Cardinal Cooke of New York, was aware of, and troubled by this situation. He knew that the individual dealing with same-sex attractions truly needed to experience the freedom of interior chastity and in that freedom find the steps necessary to living a fully Christian life in communion with God and others. He was concerned that many would not find this path and would be constantly trying to get their needs met in ways that ultimately do not satisfy the desires of the heart"​

Supporting means accepting who LGBT people are and accepting their attractions, sexual identity, gender identity, without promoting the need to lead a life of chastity (unless that's what that LGBT person wants) or displacing that attractions and love are two different things.

Supporting is saying "we support and believe that you are a woman (rather than a disordered person thinking that you are a female in a male's body). We see you as a female. We know you are a female. You are a female. We accept this. We support you."

Unless the LGBT person feels he or she is disordered and needs help in not feeling separated from his or her own biological body or seeing themselves as having temptation attraction and needs support, if that is not the case, support should help the individual be who they are and understand who they are not how the Church defines them and how they should live their life.

It puts a barrier between that Catholic (some) and the Church when the Church (or god) says a person should be male when that person knows she is a female. I use transgender since that's a more concrete way to express my point since attraction is on a spectrum but not all transgender are LGB (going by my cousin who is transgender, straight, and in a beautiful marriage with a male).

I agree that Catholics (lay) are accepting and supportive of the LGBT community but not on that LGBT person's point of view. I don't feel supportive is the right word. Maybe accepting and welcoming that person as a person but I feel if you don't accept who I am as a person rather than tell me who I should be, that's not support.

But people are different. Not a debate, just saying that I don't understand how Catholic's can be supportive of a person when they don't agree with who that person is but define them as something else that that LGBT Catholic may not agree to in his or her heart.

 

[Skwim]

Let's back up a second, because I think I see where the problem is: You don't seem to think it's an injustice to jail a Christian for saying what they believe.

Do you think it is a just thing for a Christian to be put in jail because they publicly state they believe, according to the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin?

Because you not only seem to think that is nothing to be concerned about, but you are even trying to call someone homophobic for being concerned about such a thing happening.

Is that how you define homophobia: Someone who values their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and religion?

Let's back up a second, because I think I see where the problem is: You don't seem to think it's cricket to answer questions that are put to you. So be it. Have a good day.


.

 

[Prestor John]

Two million people is not nothing, it is in fact a wider margin than five presidential elections.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/clinton-vote-lead/508667/

I have an Ad-Blocker so I was unable to see your source.

Perhaps you misunderstood my comment. I said that two million was approximately .66% of the population, not solely of those who voted.

Sorry if that caused any confusion.

How many of those past election results had people protesting and rioting in the streets?

And while you're whining about people not providing sources, why don't you source Trump's claim that any percentage of note are illegal votes despite there being no evidence of any localized let alone systemic illegal voting?

I did not see a need to provide a source when all I did was ask a rhetorical question.

Why did you accuse me of "whining" when I asked why people here do not like sharing their sources?

People have been against the EC for far longer than this election, it just got a lot stronger this election because Trump and his Trumpets keep lying about being the popular decision like the person who I was replying to.

Where is your source for this claim?

And you accuse me of whining while you whine about the system our country has been using for centuries?

That is hypocritical.

They pretend Trump is the will of the people when the people can see just fine the orange buffoon he is.

According to the Democratic Republic of the United States of America, Trump is the will of the people.

We do not operate in a pure democracy because that system would constantly marginalize minority groups.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I have an Ad-Blocker so I was unable to see your source.

How conveniant.

How many of those past election results had people protesting and rioting in the streets?

Just about every close election, and even some that weren't that close. Or do you not remember these? http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aERxyXN_700b.jpg

I did not see a need to provide a source when all I did was ask a rhetorical question.

You didn't ask a rhetorical question, you asked a leading question. Making an accusation and then hiding behind the question mark because you know there's not actually anything suggesting the question is a necessary one.

Where is your source for this claim?

Google 'electoral collage debates'.

And you accuse me of whining while you whine about the system our country has been using for centuries?

A system that has had problems for centuries and has historically only favored one party and been moved in such a way to do so. Seeking to change isn't whining, what's whining is making feeble arguments such as what conservatives make regarding Trump.

We do not operate in a pure democracy because that system would constantly marginalize minority groups.

EC doesn't make us a constitutional republic nor would removing the EC make us no longer a constitutional republic, let alone changing how EV are distributed based on the states or other proposed ways and reason for change.

 

[Rise]

Wait, wait wait. Do you guys in America not have the idea of professionalism? You can argue that people providing a public service to the general public should be able to hide behind their religious beliefs (which are a private matter only) to discriminate against gay people?

...

Do they also refuse all customers who are remarrying? All customers who are overweight? All customers who have committed adultery?
I mean if you're going to be selective of your customers (which is the very first thing retail businesses tend to avoid because it's unprofessional and idiotic) then at least be consistent.

You're missing a key distinction. We are not talking about Christians simply refusing to let practicing homosexuals in their business establishments, or refusing to sell them products.
This isn't just refusing to deal with people because they are homosexual. This is about instances where Christians are being forced to commit what they believe is a grave sin against God, and violate some of their most sacred religious convictions, by actively participating in creatively planning and participating in a homosexual wedding ceremony (Such as being a wedding planner). You may not be able to see it that way, but according to their deeply held religious convictions they cannot in good conscious actively participate in a homosexual wedding ceremony.
Christians would equally choose to refuse a polygamous, beastial, or any other kind of marriage ceremony that was a mockery of the sacred marriage institution which God Himself ordained as a reflection of His relationship with His church - Ephesians 5:31-32.

It's even worse than that, though: We are also talking about Pastors who are sentenced to jail, in America, because they will not officiate the marriage ceremony of a homosexual couple.
http://nbc.com.co/christian-pastor-...in-prison-after-refusing-to-marry-gay-couple/
Even if you were to try to argue that Christian business owners aren't entitled to live by their religious convictions (which is not a standard that would hold up under the American constitution), you would never be able to justify forcing a pastor to marry a homosexual couple; because by their very act of officiating they are putting God's blessing on the union and declaring it to be a God honoring ceremony. They cannot lie about that and misrepresent God to the people. They would be forced to pretend that God blesses something which He has expressly already forbidden as a grave sin. No pastor could ever allow themselves to be put in that position and call themselves a faithful minister of God's truth.
If this ruling of punishment stands up to being challenged then other pastors around the country may be forced to marry homosexual couples; in which case you will see the majority of pastors resign their publicly recognized ordinations (which gives them the legal right to declare people married) rather than commit sin in the eyes of God. They may continue to be a part of Godly marriage ceremonies as a pastor who officiates and declares them to be married in the sight of God, but the couple will have to go to some other state recognized official to get legal recognition for their marriage.

And for the record, yes, many pastors will also refuse to perform the marriage ceremony of a couple that is living together and having sex outside of marriage. They believe marriage is a holy union and institution, and they can't in good conscious endorse relationships that have shown no respect to God's intent for marriage. If the couple will agree to stop having sex prior to marriage then they will do it. Pastors often require couples to attend pre-marriage counseling classes for a couple months before they will marry them, to make sure they are prepared for the decision they making and entering into this union with the right motives and mindsets - because helping bind two people together in the sight of God, for a life long commitment, is no light matter to a pastor. The pre-marriage counseling is also a lot of practical stuff to help set newlyweds up for success, dealing with common issues they will face during the transition. Consequently, many pastors will refuse to marry anyone who is not willing to go through some pre-marriage counseling first. Here again we see Pastors using discretion of various kinds to make sure they marry people in a way that honors God and His institution.

 

[fantome profane]

I believe that any private business owner should be able to deny services to their customers if they believe that providing that service will violate their religious views.

So to be clear, are you saying that you would have no problem with an owner of a restaurant refusing to serve Blacks if the owner thought doing so would violate the tenants of his religion? Is that your position?

 

[Prestor John]

How [convenient].

What would be convenient is you providing another source that does not require me to swim through ads.

Just about every close election, and even some that weren't that close. Or do you not remember these? http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aERxyXN_700b.jpg

No, I didn't remember those.

Did these people stop highway traffic, vandalize property, break in and loot local businesses, threaten or physically assault those who voted for Obama?

You didn't ask a rhetorical question, you asked a leading question. Making an accusation and then hiding behind the question mark because you know there's not actually anything suggesting the question is a necessary one.

I just Googled "rhetorical question" and got,

"A rhetorical question is a question that you ask without expecting an answer. The question might be one that does not have an answer. It might also be one that has an obvious answer but you have asked the question to make a point, to persuade or for literary effect."

I also Googled "leading question" and got,

"a question that prompts or encourages the desired answer."

Considering that I was not "prompting" or "encouraging" you to answer with any "desired answer" and that I was not expecting an answer nor do I claim that the question even has an answer - sounds like I asked a rhetorical question.

Google 'electoral collage debates'.

No, you already forced me to Google two unnecessary things. Share your source.

A system that has had problems for centuries and has historically only favored one party and been moved in such a way to do so.

Source.

Seeking to change isn't whining, what's whining is making feeble arguments such as what conservatives make regarding Trump.

Seeking change only when you lose is whining.

Choosing what the Founding Fathers set up in order to protect the nation from the "tyranny of the majority" over your whining is not a "feeble argument."

EC doesn't make us a constitutional republic nor would removing the EC make us no longer a constitutional republic, let alone changing how EV are distributed based on the states or other proposed ways and reason for change.

State representatives already have the authority to change how electoral votes are distributed.

The "winner-takes-all" approach is not a Federal mandate or anything.

 

[McBell]

So let's be clear here:
Are you saying you don't want to jail Christians for believing the BIble, just for telling people they do publicly?

To be more direct and specific, because you seem to be trying to weasel away from having to answer this question: do you agree with jailing someone who publicly says they agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin? Because that's exactly what has already happened in western countries.

You keep adding a whole bunch of conditional modifiers AFTER you get an answer.
Conditional modifiers that change what was agreed to to something different.

That is dishonest at best.

I was clear on what I said.
People should not be jailed for their opinions.
HOWEVER, there are ways of sharing said opinion that are illegal.

The fact is, your example is not an example of what you claim.
He was not merely offering to pray with women.
He was harassing them.
He got arrested for the harassing part, not the praying part.

The part you keep dancing around...
the part you keep ignoring...
the part you are at this point just flat out being dishonest about, is the part where he was in fact harassing people with his "prayer".

Again, is the how you read the Bible?
Would explain quite a bit.

 

[McBell]

I placed in quotes the portion of your post that I quoted.

I never claimed that you used the word "simply" so don't worry about.

Are you ready to clarify what you said?

Except that your adding the word "simply" changes what I said.
I said that there are ways of sharing your opinion that are illegal.
You changed it to simply sharing your opinion.
If you cannot see the difference....

Also, I said illegal.
I do not believe all laws are moral.
But then, I believe Prop 8 to be immoral.

According to the OP, Christians are all the time being persecuted for "simply" sharing their opinion.
it matters not how "simply" you share your opinion of "you should kill yourself" to another.
You will likely be arrested for sharing said opinion.
I know you will here in my neck of the woods.
Even if you are minor talking to an older minor.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What would be convenient is you providing another source that does not require me to swim through ads.

No, I didn't remember those.

Did these people stop highway traffic, vandalize property, break in and loot local businesses, threaten or physically assault those who voted for Obama?

I just Googled "rhetorical question" and got,

"A rhetorical question is a question that you ask without expecting an answer. The question might be one that does not have an answer. It might also be one that has an obvious answer but you have asked the question to make a point, to persuade or for literary effect."

I also Googled "leading question" and got,

"a question that prompts or encourages the desired answer."

Considering that I was not "prompting" or "encouraging" you to answer with any "desired answer" and that I was not expecting an answer nor do I claim that the question even has an answer - sounds like I asked a rhetorical question.

No, you already forced me to Google two unnecessary things. Share your source.

Source.

Seeking change only when you lose is whining.

Choosing what the Founding Fathers set up in order to protect the nation from the "tyranny of the majority" over your whining is not a "feeble argument."

State representatives already have the authority to change how electoral votes are distributed.

The "winner-takes-all" approach is not a Federal mandate or anything.

If you're not going to bother turning off an ad blocker (which I doubt, I use ad block and can see the content just fine ) then I'm not going to bother. You clearly only accept sources that conform to your world view.
Do some basic research and you'll find that I and others have been talking about the EC since the 90s, and you'll also find those violent rioters on your side you refuse to see. I'm out.

 

[McBell]

Do you believe that the current moral standards of the world in general are higher or lower than they were fifty years ago?

A perfect example has already been brought up in this thread about the latest generation of Catholics.

The first thing you are going to have to do is present a system of "measurement" for morals.

The reason being that I do not believe the Catholic Church to be any sort of reliable standard for morals.

Funny how I do not see a list.
Or is it your claim that the Catholic Church is your list?

 

[Rise]

You keep adding a whole bunch of conditional modifiers AFTER you get an answer.
Conditional modifiers that change what was agreed to to something different.

That is dishonest at best.

I was clear on what I said.
People should not be jailed for their opinions.
HOWEVER, there are ways of sharing said opinion that are illegal.

The fact is, your example is not an example of what you claim.
...

I don't know what you are saying with regards to conditional modifiers.
I am simply asking you to clarify what you meant by "ways of sharing your opinion".

Because I specifically gave you an example of a man in Sweden who did absolutely nothing other than preach a sermon, in his church, about the nature of homosexuality as a sin; and they are trying to jail him for it:
http://chalcedon.edu/Research/Artic...ces-Jail-For-Preaching-Against-Homosexuality/
No hateful rhetoric, no inciting of violence, no intimidation or harassment. He's not even doing it outside of his church.

So, given that this was the kind of stories I was talking about, when you wont say that persecuting Christians like this is wrong; I have to assume that when you said "illegal ways of sharing your opinion", what you meant was: "it's ok to have your opinion about the Bible and homosexuality, but the moment you express it publicly you are doing something illegal - no matter how express it, it's always wrong".

That's why I am asking you to clarify: Do you think that is wrong for him to be persecuted for expressing his view publicly in a peaceful manner?

 

[McBell]

.. when you disagree with me that persecuting Christians like this is not wrong;

When did I say persecuting Christians is not wrong?
Post numbers please.

I have to assume that when you said "illegal ways of sharing your opinion", what you meant was: "it's ok to have your opinion about the Bible and homosexuality, but the moment you express it publicly you are doing something illegal - no matter how express it, it's always wrong".

You assume to much.
You keep making strawmen with your assumptions, then attack the strawmen wondering why no one is taking you seriously.

That's why I am asking you to clarify: Do you think that is wrong for him to be persecuted for expressing his view publicly in a peaceful manner?

Was his expressing it legal?
If not, he should be arrested.
If so, he should not be arrested.

No idea why this is such a difficult concept.

 

[McBell]

Liberals aren't missing the key. They don't about "the key". They don't care about your rights and freedom any more than any of the most evil dictators in history cared about the rights and freedom of the people.



They don't care... You're trying to reason with fecal golems. You're trying to appeal to the decency of indecent people.

And here is a prime example of my point.

 

[columbus]

It's even worse than that, though: We are also talking about Pastors who are sentenced to jail, in America, because they will not officiate the marriage ceremony of a homosexual couple.
http://nbc.com.co/christian-pastor-...in-prison-after-refusing-to-marry-gay-couple/

You are missing a key point.
From the article:

But the church is also registered as a for-profit business and city officials said that means the owners must comply with state and federal regulations.

Why the pastor chose this I don't know. But apparently he did. Your statement was quite misleading because you failed to point out that this is not just a church, it's a business. So they are required to follow the applicable laws.
Tom

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Religiously, marriage is a holy thing. To say that it can be participated in by any two people other than a male and a female is sacrilege.

You should be protesting against atheist marriage then.

 

[kaoticprofit]

Two million people is not nothing, it is in fact a wider margin than five presidential elections.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/clinton-vote-lead/508667/

And while you're whining about people not providing sources, why don't you source Trump's claim that any percentage of note are illegal votes despite there being no evidence of any localized let alone systemic illegal voting?

People have been against the EC for far longer than this election, it just got a lot stronger this election because Trump and his Trumpets keep lying about being the popular decision like the person who I was replying to. They pretend Trump is the will of the people when the people can see just fine the orange buffoon he is.

I'm proud to be in the basket of deplorables. May God bless us all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Inherently, Atheists should have no interest in same-sex marriage. Atheists tend to be practical and non-religious. The practical value of marriage comes mainly from reproduction, which doesn't apply to same-sex marriage. Marriage is also a religious institution. So, why are generally Atheists treating same sex-marriage as some sort of holy and practical thing that our culture must bow to? Because Atheists define themselves as anti-God.... Opposing Christian values is a way to express their Atheism.

I love it when non-atheists decide they can interpret 'atheists', and their rationales.
1) Unless it starts a sentence, atheist starts with a lower case a. Just as theist does.
2) I'm an atheist, and can speak only for my own motivations. Atheists dont have an agreeed dogma.

That said;
I think arguments about reproduction are horrendous. Why would I want to limit marriage to those who are going to reproduce? What is my interest in that?

Philosophically, I want people treated the same. I don't want sub-groups with less rights. I don't want to teach my daughters that certain groups are not deserving of the same considerations as others. I want society on a level footing.

And I don't think a public expression of love is bad for the world. Quite the contrary.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Really, it's this.
People I know who are planning weddings are probably not a representative sample of the country. But many of them, including white bread straight people, factor "inclusivity" into the plan.
Sometimes they start with that, and simply eliminate bakers and photographers who don't overtly work with gay couples. More often they respond to other people saying things like "Ew, Joe's Bakery turned down my cousin because they're gay", and then cross Joe off the list.
It happens a lot.
Tom

I'm very much straight, white-bread, and I would. Same as I would if someone turned down people having an inter-racial marriage.