Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[1robin]

Actually, while lactose intolerance already isn't a huge or widespread problem, fewer and fewer people are being born without the alleles to tolerate it.

Are those alleles an analogy in the same way the milk and meat in my post were?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ooh gosh.

To which I relied: No straight people do not. Not that straight people's behavior never produces harmful effects but just that they do not do so at the same rate as homosexuals do, it is not even close.

Context is everything and I cannot spend hours going back and stating what the context was for all those unwilling to do so themselves.

You said homosexuals have higher crime rates than heterosexuals.

I said we are not defined by our behavior (sexual behavior if you like) and "I said" we do not have a predepositon to commit crimes More than heterosexuals do.

Logically, that does not make sense. We can argue statistics all day but I have no time to check to see if " I and many people like me" fall into these statistics and how so?

I am saying now- that because I and many people like me do not fall under those statistics by what Moral and Logical means can you connect (my words) homosexual sexual behavior and higher crime rates?

Whats the details that link the two that make our crimes (our-mine too) higher chance than others?

If you quote a statistic I would assume you know or understand the reasoning behind the numbers and "facts" by explaining what you got from them and how they apply to me ans many homosexuals like me.

I connected homosexual behavior to the destruction it causes. However reality has deemed that homosexual behavior is related to homosexuals, not me.

How is that so? If you state it in a post, do you agree with it? If so, what is the reasoning? If not, what are you contrasting it with?

By what logic does same-sex acts (my words) or homosexual sexual behavior, if one likes have to do with homosexuals? Its like saying Black behavior has to do with playing hip hop and jazz. Its dirogatory.

Do you agree with that? If so, why and how?

Exactly how many times do I have to state that I am not discussing homosexuals specifically but that I am discussing homosexual sexual behavior before you get it?

Homosexual behavior and homosexual sexual behavior are the same thing. What is the difference? We are talking about the same subject. Read the context. I will use sexual behavior words then. Either or its dirogatory.

I do not give a rip about how anyone identifies them selves. I am discussing what homosexuals do not who they think they are.

This is a spelling or grammar error. I dont understand.

... whst homosexuals do not ??? who they think they are?

I understood the first part. That makes me sad only because I dont separate (My words not yours) I do not separate identites to where I respect an Chinese person but disrespect a Deaf person. I have many identities.

One persons identity is a child of christ

Another is a practitoner of the gods

One is a servant of the creator

Another an Deaf woman not a deaf woman.

I respect each person and who They say they are not how I want them to be.

So I dont understand how you dont care unless its just certain people you do not care about? (These are my words and its a question)

That is incoherent and, I yet again can't figure out what your saying. This is a debate forum, it is not a campfire where we sit around supporting each other because we have been triggered and need a safe space or where we can all sing kumbaya and cry on each others shoulders. A debate is a war of ideas, not a war between or on people.

I dont care debating. I like to "discuss and compare" religions and other subjects. If you want to debate wih heated feelings (my words) thats your choice. I have seizures and try to keep my emotional level down.

So I discuss to understand If I misinterpreted something, I dont mind being corrected in a nice manner. (to All people). I also dont mind understanding others by what they believe and why.

But arguing is something I dont do. I got angry for I dont know how long recently and it took my therapist to make me realize I get angry I just repress it.

So, anyway. I hope you actively read this.

1. Please no assuming I said anything about you and referring to a specific point you said unless I quote it. (Hence the words "my words")

2. Sarcasm and fustration for example "I dont give a rats .. " is something that bothers me especially when we (all posters) have time to think about what we post, why, and take a breather, get coffee, reread, before hiting "post reply."

In person we cant always control this. Online we can.

Jesus did a good job with the beatitudes and other examples of unconditional love.

WE ALL can learn from his examples among others.

 

[omega2xx]

Or I need to stop discussing with someone who spouts off two different messages about God's Word.



If circular reason can be circular, and exclude what pseudo believers think is accurate to dismiss, then what they think is what they thought. - is how I read what you wrote.

After you see the optometrist you will be able to see better and that will help your reading,

 

[omega2xx]

Sorry, Omega but the way you formatted your post meant that the only statement by you that I could quote was this one. Again I am going to have to disagree.

1. It is the case that God's nature does not change.

But

2. There is no reason to even think God's revelation has not changed.

Examples: 3500 plus years ago he stated that even earlier he had created the Earth. Around 2000 years ago he said he would destroy that same Earth several thousand years after that date. That is in no way the same revelation.

You are right, they are not the same, they are different, b they are not related. God never said He would snot destroy the first earth He created, In fact Peter says He will and then create a new heaven and a new earth.

He said in the OT that the Hebrews could enslave others (which was necessary at that time), in the NT he said he came to set captives free. Those are not the same thing. Or even easier to see his first covenant was defined by and even named after the law, where as Christ came to introduce a completely different covenant because the bible says God found fault with the first covenant and so revealed a better one that the bible refers to as the covenant of grace. Those cannot even begin to be the same thing.

The captives are not the literal captives, They are the spiritual captives; those caught in false religions, and those who are captives, slave, to the law as the means of salvation. If He came to free slaves, He failed.

There is also no reason why God should have given the same revelations over time. Mankind has been evolving and growing its storehouse of knowledge as well as our living in our time so radically different a lifestyle compared to that which Noah for example had lived that God should have given different but not self contradictory revelations to us over time.

Our life style now is not different than it was basically the same as Noah's----They were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage... The new covenant is first mentioned in the OT. It is not a new revelation, it is a replacement of the one that was not adequate. God gave the same revelation to the generations who did not know about it when it ws given.

Find me any scripture that says God has always said the same exact thing in merely different ways over time, keep in mind that we are not talking about God's nature which does not change over time but simply about his revelation.

He said the same thing in different way in the same book.
Hosea 2:23 - I will sow her(Israel) for Myself in the land. I will have compassion on her who had not obtained
compassion...
Hosea 14:4 - I will heal their apostasy, I will love them freely...
Hosea 2:13 - I will punish her for he days of the Baals...
Hosea 4:9b - ...I will punish hem for their ways, and repay them for their deeds.

I have so many emphatic ways to demonstrate what I am stating but maybe this is not the thread to do that in.

Sure it is, give me one example.

 

[1robin]

Thanks. But next time, please do not use caps and bold front. In internet this conveys shouting.

1. Sorry but the reason I posted in the format I used was to draw the attention of all those who made horrific arguments to me in this thread, to an argument which was at least not pathetic.
2. I am the least knowledgeable person in the world concerning pop cultural issues, and I am proud of it. So I know little about LOLs, LMFAOs, BFFs, and even less about what you referred to.

I will topically arrange your replies. But this is your main argument quoted here below

Now, I completely disagree, that each morally relevant situation is so so specific that it is isolated from any other morally relevant situation. In fact, I consider morality to be just the opposite. There are fundamental general principles in the realm of morality (just as there are in the realm of physics or the realm of economics) which can be applied in a consistent, logical, rational and empirical manner in the each and every specific case. Consider the case of civil engineering. Every bridge, skyscraper or house is different from each other...but in each and every one of them, the universal laws of solid mechanics, Newtonian mechanics and structural mechanics are applied consistently and rationally so that robust structures tuned to the needs of that specific condition and that specific material and function. So it is in the case of morality. There are certain universal moral principles that applies everywhere which connects every moral application to every other in one logically consistent net, and then there is the case of moral engineering where we apply these principles for the needs of the specific situation in that specific time and space.

It depends on what context we are talking about. If the context is a discussion about Homosexual behavior then yes, it must stand of fall regardless of what is true or false about any other behavior. In fact I would wager that in more contexts than not most moral issues must be examined in a vacuum.

Regardless, it is a fact that homosexual behavior should be considered in isolation in a thread about homosexuality concerning other behaviors. Your right that generalized principles are applicable but definitely not behaviors. However it was not because I did not want to discuss other moral issues but was because once you start down that road my posts would be the size of libraries, it is simply as self prohibitive as debating arbitrary subgroups of homosexuals would be. It is also just a poorly veiled attempt to try and link all moral issues together so that none can be justified or condemned unless all are.

Consider the simple case of moral theory flowing logically from a simple rule:-
1) An individual person (rather than the whole community) is the unit of moral concern.
2) One is immoral to willfully act in such a manner so as to cause avoidable suffering to others.

If we were in a foundation of legality or moral theory thread this may be relevant. I also have already given the specific moral principle that is applicable here. No need for ones more generalized.

Given the above principle one can ask the specific ways in which avoidable suffering can be willfully caused and penalties determined based on the extent of harm caused and the amount of willfulness involved. I can find no moral question that does not basically boil down to this. Forms of avoidable suffering includes willful endangerment of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness/property of others without their consent.

This is to bog down the issue of whether my car no longer works, by linking it to my being able to fix it.

That is it. Now, nowhere here do I see anything that makes consensual self-risk taking behavior for one's own pursuit of happiness something of moral concern. It never is, in fact outlawing behaviors that individuals feel will increase their happiness, even if risky is an infringement on personal liberty, and is in itself an immoral law. That is why punching another without their consent can land you in prison, but doing the same with their consent (as in boxing) can earn you money.

1. Even if the entire set of homosexuals consisted of 2 would it necessarily be true that both took on known and equal risks.
2. It is also the case that more often than not that the two engaged do not fully know the risks to themselves.
3. It is also true that even if they do understand the risks for any 1 couple, and that since homosexuals are far more promiscuous than others, they will endanger countless others and even heterosexuals as well.

Only if perfect knowledge and a perfect willingness to convey knowledge exists in every homosexual relationship would your point hold.

Thus I see what you fail to see. All these actions form a single coherent category. Eating red meat, drinking alcohol, boxing, mountaineering, white water rafting, homosexual sex are all, at best, examples of individuals engaging in behavior that has some risk to his/her own life but which they believe are important for their own pursuit of happiness. There is no moral foundation based on which one can infringe on liberty to make such consensual behavior one engages in to pursue one's own happiness illegal.

I do not care if red meat killed everyone who merely looked at it, or if eating red meat would cure cancer, it has no effect what so ever on whether homosexual behavior is morally justifiable or not. No moral theory and no system of legality in the history of man works like that.

Correct. Which is irrational.

Arriving at the correct understand is the least irrational action a person can make.

One should tax addictive substances to recoup costs associated with healthcare burdens usage of such substances cause, not ban their consensual use. That is a socialist idea inimical to liberty. This is an argument for making drugs legal (and lots of activism going on around this), and not making alcohol illegal.

Create a moral foundations for taxation thread and we can debate it. I have not mentioned taxation here.

It is not.

There are some cases where a mix of individualistic and socialistic ideas have created rationally inconsistent systems in USA in the early 20th century. (Remember alcohol getting banned and then made legal again? Drugs are going the same way) But those days are gone. US overall has always chosen individual freedom and liberty over greater good and is doing so with increasing pace recently.

I can only think of three possibilities here.

1. Consider one type of behavior within the context with which it is being examined, in a vacuum.
2. Lump any moral behavior in with all others and spend years wasting your time.
3. Start determining which morals get grouped with certain other morals which must be done subjectively and most likely by preference.

I am going with 1. You can waste your time in which ever way you deem best.

But you are asking for a rationally consistent, logical and empirically adequate moral theory based on which secular concepts of right and wrong can be determined. I just provided you with one, which many people in the West will agree upon. Why are you falling back to messy and sub-rational ways in which laws are actually made? At least US and Western democracies follow a partially rational system, if we lived in some other country (Saudi Arabia), would you fall back on those laws to justify your moral arguments?

I merely asked for a challenging argument and I have not really gotten on yet. You think I would ever gotten an argument which meant all those conditions you mentioned? All you should do is tell me how behaviors which produce 60% of new aids cases despite composing only 4% of the population are morally justifiable. That is it, nothing else, one task, yet I have seen everything under the sun except for the one thing others need to do.

Please provide data to demonstrate your case that the health-care burden of eating red meat is greater (and by how much) than the health-care burden of homosexual behavior. Then provide a moral argument showing that an action that increases health-risks to person who voluntarily wishes to engage in it for his/her pursuit of happiness should be made immoral. I am still waiting for that argument.

Since I never claimed that, I do not think you understood what I stated. It appears your asking me to prove what your argumentation requires, but I can't be sure exactly what your talking about.

Absurd.

We are only adapted to eat fruits as far as I can see, everything else we need to cook and cannot eat raw. We cannot be adapted for something we need technology to use. Evolutionary adaptations has no relevance to morality whatsoever. If you are going to hew that line, present an argument for it.

Ok, now your losing credibility. We are officially labeled as Omnivores, not herbivores. For mity's sake, look at your teeth in a mirror.

As far as I can see, HIV is (in US and developed world) a minor disease, that is no longer life threatening, not virulent and both preventable and treatable. In the litany of diseases that produce health burdens on society and concern for me, it does not even enter the top 20 in my list (half of which are various types of cancer, then flu, Alzheimer, heart and auto-immune diseases etc.). So, no, I am not even remotely concerned about the minuscule costs of HIV treatments in the general healthcare costs of US. If you want to argue otherwise (that HIV is somehow an important and growing spending category), please show the data. Here is mine
https://bea.gov/scb/pdf/2016/3 March/0316_comparing_u.s._health_care_expenditures_by_medical_condition.pdf

At this point your ability to challenge me and connect to reality is loosing ground fast to your jump up and down on your keyboard for long periods of time. It is the CDC that considers Aids a devastating disease, not me.

I do not see HIV anywhere because it is insignificant.

Ok, that is it. I see I gave you too much credit. I cannot justify this much time debating a person who is that disconnected to reality.

You must either make short but bad posts or long but engaging posts. Not the other way around.

 

[1robin]

Can you support this claim with anything other than your interpretation of Christian scripture?

First let me see how much information you are going to require.

1. If you are a Christian you should already know this as virtually every Sunday school student is aware of what I stated.
2. If you are not then when I post scriptures you are going to say you do not care about them.

What are you and exactly what are you asking for? Also keep in mind that what you responded to was a post to another person who asked my for a biblical response, specifically.

Using your source material, eating sacrifices that are more than 2 days old is also an abomination... God specifically says so in Leviticus 19.

I do not eat sacrifices either. Regardless God is more digital, and we are more analogue. To God a thing is either wrong or right, we are not so exacting. So do not look at the way God thinks by over laying your own way of thinking. Also, you did not do the very first thing anyone serious would do if they were interested in determining exactly what is going on here. Any serious bible student knows the first thing to do is determine whether what you quoted in English is adequately attested throughout the textual tradition, this allows us to then examine the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek to determine what was intended.

God equally calls incense an abomination, as well as psychic readings, unbalanced scales, and people who dress up in non-customary clothing...

As I said you cannot (or you should have known better) than to start throwing around conclusions without doing what is required before you can justify them.

Now, before we draw any conclusions are you willing to make a proper investigation or not?

I do not have the time to invest if your unwilling to do your share of the work.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

However, of all the things that happen to men's penis' I do not think breaking is high on the list.

You don't think a man braking his penis is a high concern of his list?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hence your discrimination. Which in turn justifies the other. There is clearly reasons for (literally) all businesses to discriminate, and all of them do. When they are discriminatory, it raises red flags for some, but that's going to continue. And when new laws are passed that violate some people's sense of morality, it takes time to sort that out. Given that some are so afraid to consider doors that are being opened on certain policy decisions, and won't speak to such things for various reasons, then the goal becomes to repeal the law that is causing turmoil. As long as repealing is not occurring, then the businesses having problem will just resist any alleged mandate and hope a higher court can understand their side, and seek to undermine any sense of mandate.

In case you missed it earlier:

I have no more sympathy for a baker that refuses to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple than I do for a landlord who refuses to rent an apartment to an interracial couple.

If bigots have trouble adapting to a world that treats people with fairness and decency, that's their cross to bear. The alternative - i.e. going back and removing that fairness and decency - is unacceptable. Generally speaking, freedom is won over the objections of the oppressors.

 

[Jainarayan]

I connected homosexual behavior to the destruction it causes.

What destruction? To what and to whom?

 

[Jainarayan]

How have I missed this glorious thread?!?

I have so much to read!

You'll be sorry!!!

 

[Jainarayan]

they will endanger countless others and even heterosexuals as well.

How?

 

[Acim]

If bigots have trouble adapting to a world that treats people with fairness and decency, that's their cross to bear. The alternative - i.e. going back and removing that fairness and decency - is unacceptable. Generally speaking, freedom is won over the objections of the oppressors.

Your earlier argument is challenging to go along with because 'a place to live' vs. 'wedding cake' are hard to put on same level. But in truly free market, I'd say allow the person selling to do as they wish, and let it be known what their reasoning is.

I find that many in the world, but surely not all, are bigoted toward smokers/smoking indoors (heck even outdoors in some places). Good to know you agree with me that it is their cross to bear, in denying other people (smokers) their freedom. Used to be you could do it everywhere, but now people are conditioned to believe it can't be done anywhere, based on myths that have been debunked (i.e. secondhand smoke is very harmful). And not based on free market, or freedom, but on regulations that are clearly zealous. This is just one of many examples I can think of where discrimination is not only allowed (can think of many like that) but where it is seen as between acceptable and righteous by several others (arguably a majority).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your earlier argument is challenging to go along with because 'a place to live' vs. 'wedding cake' are hard to put on same level. But in truly free market, I'd say allow the person selling to do as they wish, and let it be known what their reasoning is.

Regulation is fine in the cases of market failure... and when same-sex couples are denied the opportunity to buy otherwise-available wedding cakes, there's a market failure.

I find that many in the world, but surely not all, are bigoted toward smokers/smoking indoors (heck even outdoors in some places). Good to know you agree with me that it is their cross to bear, in denying other people (smokers) their freedom.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. You're awful at mind-reading.

 

[1robin]

Ooh gosh.


You said homosexuals have higher crime rates than heterosexuals.

I never intended to say anything about crime, and I have no recollection of having done so. Please quote my post where I talked about homosexual criminal or crime.

I said we are not defined by our behavior (sexual behavior if you like) and "I said" we do not have a predepositon to commit crimes More than heterosexuals do.

I did not say anything about who is defined by what. I said homosexual sexual behavior causes higher rates of all kinds of bad stuff than heterosexual sexual behavior.

Logically, that does not make sense. We can argue statistics all day but I have no time to check to see if " I and many people like me" fall into these statistics and how so?

We have not argued statistics at all, I posted some but you haven't.

I am saying now- that because I and many people like me do not fall under those statistics by what Moral and Logical means can you connect (my words) homosexual sexual behavior and higher crime rates?

If you are a homosexual then you fall into the same risk category that all homosexuals do unless you are a lifelong celibate.

Whats the details that link the two that make our crimes (our-mine too) higher chance than others?

What crimes are you talking about? Please quote where I said crimes.

If you quote a statistic I would assume you know or understand the reasoning behind the numbers and "facts" by explaining what you got from them and how they apply to me ans many homosexuals like me.

I do but I do not have to. The CDC linked homosexual behavior to new aids cases, not me. They may be the most qualified agency in human history concerning health related statistics.

How is that so? If you state it in a post, do you agree with it? If so, what is the reasoning? If not, what are you contrasting it with?

I cannot keep posting the same statistics in post after post as posting my arguments over and over. Please review my recent posts where I have already done so, and find the one where I mentioned crimes.

By what logic does same-sex acts (my words) or homosexual sexual behavior, if one likes have to do with homosexuals? Its like saying Black behavior has to do with playing hip hop and jazz. Its dirogatory.

I do not care about your feelings, I care about what is true. Being black is not a choice, engaging in homosexual acts is a choice. So no they are not the same. Yet again it was the CDC and other organizations that linked the stats I have given to homosexuality, not me. I can not spend hours explaining to a dozen posters why reality exists.

Do you agree with that? If so, why and how?

It is hard to agree or disagree with a bunch of questions.

Homosexual behavior and homosexual sexual behavior are the same thing. What is the difference? We are talking about the same subject. Read the context. I will use sexual behavior words then. Either or its dirogatory.

You started splitting semantic hairs so I started being far more specific.

This is a spelling or grammar error. I dont understand.

... whst homosexuals do not ??? who they think they are?

I understood the first part. That makes me sad only because I dont separate (My words not yours) I do not separate identites to where I respect an Chinese person but disrespect a Deaf person. I have many identities.

One persons identity is a child of christ

Another is a practitoner of the gods

One is a servant of the creator

Another an Deaf woman not a deaf woman.

I respect each person and who They say they are not how I want them to be.

So I dont understand how you dont care unless its just certain people you do not care about? (These are my words and its a question)

I did mess up my statements here, it appears you did as well. Since this is not a discussion about how anyone was treated let's just forget about this portion of our posts.

I dont care debating. I like to "discuss and compare" religions and other subjects. If you want to debate wih heated feelings (my words) thats your choice. I have seizures and try to keep my emotional level down.

There are forums for simple discussion, this isn't one of them.

So I discuss to understand If I misinterpreted something, I dont mind being corrected in a nice manner. (to All people). I also dont mind understanding others by what they believe and why.

That is fine.

But arguing is something I dont do. I got angry for I dont know how long recently and it took my therapist to make me realize I get angry I just repress it.

I am a debater. I am here to challenge and be challenged concerning the condemnation or validation of a position. As a Christian I want to confront a person with evidence and argumentation that may one day save their soul, I am not here to placate anyone's feelings. I am direct, blunt, but never hostile because a sharp knife cuts the cleanest and heals the fastest.

So, anyway. I hope you actively read this.

If I replied to this that requires that I must have read this.

1. Please no assuming I said anything about you and referring to a specific point you said unless I quote it. (Hence the words "my words")

Well if your words have to do with my position and they get it completely wrong then I must either ignore what you say or point out why it was wrong.

2. Sarcasm and fustration for example "I dont give a rats .. " is something that bothers me especially when we (all posters) have time to think about what we post, why, and take a breather, get coffee, reread, before hiting "post reply."

My faith commands me to affirm or condemn arguments, I am also commanded NOT to condemn people. Here lately I have been having a dozen or so discussions at a time and I post during down time in my lab. So I must be emphatic, blunt, and direct to respond to everyone.

In person we cant always control this. Online we can.

I have different priorities than you and have different conditions I debate within. You would be happier in one of the other forums I believe.

Jesus did a good job with the beatitudes and other examples of unconditional love.

WE ALL can learn from his examples among others.

You mean that same Jesus which called his own priests a brood of vipers and said they could not hope to escape Hell?

Jesus said many things, you can't cherry pick. Every homosexual I personally know is a friend of mine, debates and face to face interactions are not the same thing. I am going to tear your arguments to pieces if I feel they are untrue, I won't find you and personally treat you badly so please stop being triggered. There are no safe spaces in a debate once you agree to engage.

 

[1robin]

You are right, they are not the same, they are different, b they are not related. God never said He would snot destroy the first earth He created, In fact Peter says He will and then create a new heaven and a new earth.

I never said that what he said at one point was contradicted in a later point. I said he reveals new information over time.

The captives are not the literal captives, They are the spiritual captives; those caught in false religions, and those who are captives, slave, to the law as the means of salvation. If He came to free slaves, He failed.

I guess I can agree with this but never the less he revealed something at a later date which was new. I can post thousands of examples of this.

Our life style now is not different than it was basically the same as Noah's----They were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage... The new covenant is first mentioned in the OT. It is not a new revelation, it is a replacement of the one that was not adequate. God gave the same revelation to the generations who did not know about it when it ws given.

That is precisely my point, humankind has changed in profound ways over the course of time, it stands to reason that that would mean we can handle one revelation at one point and a new one at another point in time.

He said the same thing in different way in the same book.
Hosea 2:23 - I will sow her(Israel) for Myself in the land. I will have compassion on her who had not obtained
compassion...
Hosea 14:4 - I will heal their apostasy, I will love them freely...
Hosea 2:13 - I will punish her for he days of the Baals...
Hosea 4:9b - ...I will punish hem for their ways, and repay them for their deeds.

I also never said that God would not reveal the same thing in different ways over time. However it is simply undeniable that he reveals things at one time and then adds new ones over time.

Sure it is, give me one example.

It is not exactly relevant to discuss progressive revelation in a homosexual thread but who cares. The following scripture concerns what will occur after Christ was gone and the Gospels had been written.

New International Version
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

If that does not indicate that God will continue his revelations to us throughout time then I do not know what does.

 

[1robin]

You don't think a man braking his penis is a high concern of his list?

No, I have never heard any man state he worried about that occurring.

 

[Acim]

Regulation is fine in the cases of market failure... and when same-sex couples are denied the opportunity to buy otherwise-available wedding cakes, there's a market failure.

Are they unable to buy cakes from anywhere in the market? Don't see you addressing this point.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I did not, nor did you quote from a place where I did.

 

[1robin]

What destruction? To what and to whom?

I have given several types and sourced them correctly over and over and over in this thread and others. Just how many times am I obligated to post the same thing over and over? Regardless, I am no longer going to.

 

[1robin]

How?

If you do not know how the STDs and the expense associated with them can bleed over from the homosexual community into the heterosexual community then your unqualified to debate these issues, you need to take a sex education course, or at least have your parents give you the birds and bees talk.

 

[Jainarayan]

I have given several types and sourced them correctly over and over and over in this thread and others. Just how many times am I obligated to post the same thing over and over? Regardless, I am no longer going to.

So give it one more time, a concise answer to my last question.