Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Sonofason]

I don't really care, but I would wonder what the point is (aside from people who are elderly or can't perform due to health reasons).

Is it necessary that you see the point?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And surely you would not expect me to believe that homosexuality is not about sodomy either.

I don't believe in the concept of "sodomy" in the first place, so, no - I don't believe it's about that. Of course I would expect gay married couples to have sex with each other. Duh.

Well there is that, and also the detrimental affect of homosexual influences upon children, and the judgement of God which follows.

The former doesn't exist and the latter is a matter of religious bigotry that only exists in people's minds.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well there is that, and also the detrimental affect of homosexual influences upon children

Heaven forbid we teach children love and tolerance for those who are different.

And surely you would not expect me to believe that homosexuality is not about sodomy either.

No more than heterosexuality being about vaginal/penile penetration. There are of course plenty of other activities to do, and relationships built on sex are doomed to fail.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is it necessary that you see the point?

It's necessary for you to get to the point.

 

[Sonofason]

Except it's not a belief when I can pile up the evidence (and there indeed has been much posted on other threads to avoiding derailing this one).

Interestingly, I haven't seen that pile of evidence that you claims exist. But you're right we better not derail this thread. That is far more important than you providing evidence to support your claims.

Actually, I am pretty open minded. However, I am also very rational and realistic, and talking burning bushes, people walking on water, turning water into wine, a woman suddenly and instantly turned to salt, and the dead returning to life, these things just are not possible.

I disagree.
Again, I disagree.
And yet again, I disagree.

Again, not an opinion but fact.

I guess I'm going to have to take your word for it. Well, not really.

No, I wouldn't. For one, I know it wouldn't work, for two it would help spread it, and three I have no desire, will, or urge to do so.

How reassuring it is to know that.

Except it's not because a homosexual will not be happy or satisfied in a heterosexual marriage. They don't want it or desire it. That's not equal. That's like saying AC is pretty equal to DC because they are both electricity, but they are anything but equal.

Not everyone is cut out for marriage, a social arrangement that was intended for a man and a woman for providing a caring and nurturing environment for raising children.

Very true. However, our culture celebrates formal unions that we call marriage. This is a right, and it is unconstitutional to not grant this right to a group of people who are doing no harm to anyone (save for those such as yourself who make it a point to be *harmed* by it). It is a legal contract, if both parties are of legal age and sound mind, religious objections are not enough to prevent two people from enjoying this right.

And that is your opinion.

 

[Sonofason]

Heaven forbid we teach children love and tolerance for those who are different.

No more than heterosexuality being about vaginal/penile penetration. There are of course plenty of other activities to do, and relationships built on sex are doomed to fail.

We can teach children to love and be tolerant without having to also teach them ways to avoid the degenerative diseases associated with sodomy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not everyone is cut out for marriage, a social arrangement that was intended for a man and a woman for providing a caring and nurturing environment for raising children.

More typically, the environment for raising children includes far more than just the father and mother, and often times includes grandparents, siblings, aunts/uncles, and the rest of the household and community. There is also the fact that various forms of polygamy have been practiced more frequently and commonly than monogamy.

And that is your opinion.

No, it's pretty much a legal fact.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We can teach children to love and be tolerant without having to also teach them ways to avoid the degenerative diseases associated with sodomy.

There are transferable diseases related to sex. These little bacteria and viruses do not care if you're male or female, straight or gay.

 

[Sonofason]

I don't believe in the concept of "sodomy" in the first place, so, no - I don't believe it's about that. Of course I would expect gay married couples to have sex with each other. Duh.


The former doesn't exist and the latter is a matter of religious bigotry that only exists in people's minds.

I am going to have to ask you for your evidence. You say that there are no detrimental affects associated with the exposure of innocent children to homosexual influences, but I am not convinced. Convince me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am going to have to ask you for your evidence. You say that there are no detrimental affects associated with the exposure of innocent children to homosexual influences, but I am not convinced. Convince me.

The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim.

 

[Sonofason]

There are transferable diseases related to sex. These little bacteria and viruses do not care if you're male or female, straight or gay.

Yeah, that cat is already out of the bag. I do wish to thank all of the homosexuals and unfaithful heterosexuals out there for causing so much death and disease in the world.
What is interesting to me is that it is absolutely impossible for someone like me to become afflicted with these transferable diseases that you refer to. I wonder why?

 

[Sonofason]

The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim.

I feel no burdens at the moment. I have however placed the burden of proof upon you. You can refuse to show evidence if you want. That is your choice.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What is interesting to me is that it is absolutely impossible for someone like me to become afflicted with these transferable diseases that you refer to.

Yes, you actually can be. Some of them can be transferred via contact with contaminated blood or saliva, some can be transmitted by skin-to-skin contact.
Please educate yourself about diseases, infections, bacteria, viruses, and how they are spread. You'll probably never get syphilis, but wrong place/wrong time type of situation it is very possible to get HIV. And the less you know, the more likely you are to spread it to others, regardless of what you have.

 

[Prestor John]

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.

That is a very narrow and limited perspective. It is centered completely on the homosexual couple.

His unwillingness to participate in a same-sex wedding has nothing to do with the individual couple.

He offered them cakes, he just did not want to decorate a wedding cake. He told them of another baker that would be willing to bake and decorate a wedding cake for them.

His decision had to do with his own personal convictions, not about making things difficult for others.

You instantly assume bigotry as the motivation for the baker's decision.

Do you not understand that a lot of people in our world have decided to try to live their lives according to a system of belief that is independent of other people's lifestyles and choices?

No one should be forced to violate their beliefs, especially in the U.S. where one's religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

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.

What does an apartment or a cab ride have to do with same-sex marriage?

You are trying to equate someone's sexual preference with the practice of same-sex marriage. They are not the same thing.

Obviously, the sexual preference of his customers was not a determining factor in his decision to not make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, because he offered to bake them all kinds of baked goods, even for their wedding.

However, it was the direct participation in their ceremony, which he considered a perversion of his deeply religious views on marriage, that caused him to refuse to make the wedding cake.

If a heterosexual couple asked him to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, he would still have refused.

If his grandmother asked him to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, he would still have refused.

The sexual preference, gender, age, race, religion or the customer has nothing to do with his unwillingness to participate in a same-sex wedding.

Being refused an apartment lease or a cab ride because of their sexual orientation would be discrimination similar to if the baker had decided not to serve homosexuals at all. Yet, he did offer services to homosexuals.

He just did not want to participate in a practice that he felt was a violation of his religious beliefs.

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

No. You are the one who cannot separate an event/activity/practice from someone's sexual preference.

Not wanting to participate in a Black Panther or Black Lives Matter event does not make a person racist. The race of those hosting the event is not the only factor to consider. The views/beliefs of these groups might conflict with other's personally held views/beliefs.

Not wanting to attend a baby's baptism does not mean that you hate babies, baptisms or water. You might have religious views against the practice of baptizing infants.

You assume hatred is everyone's motivation for not supporting same-sex marriage. That is your "mental roadblock."

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.

Exactly what the baker in question offered. He refused to sell a particular product, but offered other cakes and baked goods.

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.

Exactly. The baker did not want to participate in a message/event that she found offensive or had beliefs against.

It did not matter who asked her to make the cake. She would have refused to do it for anyone.

If these anti-LGBT bakers followed the same approach, they would sell same-sex couples wedding cakes.

Here you are claiming that this baker is "anti-LGBT."

So, in your mind, anyone who does not want to participate in a same-sex wedding is "anti-LGBT"?

To you, it is impossible for someone to love and accept a person, yet reject what they do? Everyone is shallow? A person is nothing more than their sexual preference? They can't be anything else?

Not wanting to participate in a same-sex marriage does not make someone anti-LGBT.

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.

All I know about this particular case is that the baker offered to make them other cakes, but they refused them and wanted him to make a wedding cake according to their preferred design.

It was the customer's unwillingness for compromise that led to the conflict.

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.

Yet, that was the case with the other baker.

She made cakes that were decorated with messages all the time. "Happy Birthday" and "Congratulations" were probably common ones.

However, she did not want to decorate that cake with that particular message because she did not want to participate in something that was offensive to her.

It was her personal preference that led her to make her decision which the Courts supported.

Even though the baker in question makes wedding cakes for others, he felt that making one for this particular event would cause him to violate his religiously held views concerning marriage.

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

It is only demeaning and insulting to those who decide to be victims rather than being adults and realizing that they need to accept other people's personal views even if they don't agree with them.

I have been refused service due to my religious beliefs and I didn't bat an eye. I just went somewhere else.

Why do you feel it is not demeaning, or bigoted or insulting to force someone to violate their religious beliefs considering that there are many other businesses willing to take your money?

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.

That would be equating plural marriage with same-sex marriage. They are not at all the same thing.

I don't think the State should be involved with marriage whatsoever. But since it is, then all voices should be heard concerning it, yet the State should not force anyone to violate their religious beliefs.

Having "one man and one woman" marriage does not violate Latter-Day Saint beliefs, since it is the standard of marriage that the Church operates by.

It's always bigotry to oppose same-sex marriage;

Thank you for sharing your opinion but I vehemently disagree.

the fact that a Mormon is doing it adds an extra element of callousness and hypocrisy.

There is no State-enforced law against same-sex marriage and it is not comparable to plural marriage.

How about I decide what to be offended by/support and you decide what to be offended by/support?

Let's not try to decide for one another.

 

[Prestor John]

I know the Bible well enough to know that Saul of Tarsus was no Apostle.

Your interpretation. Your opinion.
[QUOTE="columbus, post: 5160613, member: 52258"But apparently Christians don't have a problem with appearance of bigotry and hypocritical teachings. That's why Mormons both claim that a marriage is between one woman and one man, and also that a polygamous prophet had the True Religion.
Tom[/QUOTE]
If only you knew LDS history and teachings well enough to have a worthwhile opinion.

Marriage has always been between one man and one woman. That is the standard.

Yet there have been times when the Lord has commanded His faithful servants to practice plural marriage, to "raise seed" unto Him.

The Prophet and those others who were called to enter into the practice of plural marriage did so to be obedient to the commands of the Lord.

 

[McBell]

...
Well there is that, and also the detrimental affect of homosexual influences upon children,
...

Source please

 

[outlawState]

Why do Christians care that people of the same gender engage in sex, and why do they care that they marry each other? Even caring to the point of voicing their objections and protesting?.

They would not care, except that they have to live in a single society with such people. If they did not have to live in their society they would not care. Thus when you turn on the TV, there are frequently seen depictions of homosexuals. That comes from social degeneration in the context of a formerly Christian society. 50 years ago it did not happen. 100 years ago it would have been unimaginable. Of course real Christians don't have TVs but plenty of self-professing Christians do and so become exposed to the evil. Same thing goes for walking down the street. No Christian should have to be exposed to the ∑ⅎ who walk by arm in arm and holding hands.

Society today is not far away from Sodom and Gommorah. It can't get much worse. If Christians want to protest, I say let them. It might help stave off WWIII.

 

[Skwim]

They would not care, except that they have to live in a single society with such people. If they did not have to live in their society they would not care. Thus when you turn on the TV, there are frequently seen depictions of homosexuals. That comes from social degeneration in the context of a formerly Christian society. 50 years ago it did not happen. 100 years ago it would have been unimaginable. Of course real Christians don't have TVs but plenty of self-professing Christians do and so become exposed to the evil. Same thing goes for walking down the street. No Christian should have to be exposed to the ∑ⅎ who walk by arm in arm and holding hands.

Society today is not far away from Sodom and Gommorah. It can't get much worse. If Christians want to protest, I say let them. It might help stave off WWIII.

Oke dokey.

.

 

[Katzpur]

Of course real Christians don't have TVs but plenty of self-professing Christians do and so become exposed to the evil.

I bet real Christians don't have computers either, do they?

 

[Prestor John]

Bravo, you have provided good reason to reject Mormonism.