Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[columbus]

A. The massive cost of homosexual behavior is not justified by any benefit of the behavior.
B. The costs of heterosexual behavior is justified by the benefits of the behavior.

This is just your opinions based on selecting information you prefer and assessing what you think are the costs and benefits.
You have no arguments that are any better. I understand perfectly why you put us on ignore.

Merry Christmas @1robin.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

@A Vestigial Mote @Shadow Wolf @Jainarayan @SkepticThinker @Carlita @omega2xx @columbus @Saint Frankenstein @Acim @jonathan180iq @Evangelicalhumanist @sayak83 and everyone else on the wrong side of this debate. Before I launch into this, Merry Christmas.

I was completely over whelmed by 50+ responses over only 3 days in this thread alone. So I promised to go back and make this post because only after posting this can I reduce the absurdities I have to address in the amount of time I actually have. What follows is primarily what arguments will fail and why, concerning any defense of homosexuality you have all engaged in. Not everyone of you have made everyone of the following mistakes but you have all made at least one, most over and over. So the following are examples of arguments that you should not make if you wish to debate me. If you run afoul of any of the following mistakes I will not explain the mistake again as I have been doing over and over, I will merely refer you to this post and the specific mistake you made.

1. The first mistake is the most common. My two simplistic arguments have been misrepresented by those defending homosexual behavior over and over and over. So I will restate them again with some additional clarification.

A. The massive cost of homosexual behavior is not justified by any benefit of the behavior.
B. The costs of heterosexual behavior is justified by the benefits of the behavior.

I am referring to homosexual sexual acts, not the orientation. I believe both to be wrong but the orientation requires another argument altogether and is not the subject of those two arguments. I can post all kinds of statistics but the following is all I require until it can be countered.

Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC
U.S. Statistics


2. Do not claim that some other behavior is wrong or right, and insist that it has any effect on the issue of homosexual sexual behavior. You cannot get your client off the hook by condemning another, since I am not attacking a person, but judging a type of behavior it's self. All behaviors are justifiable or unjustifiable without regard to another behavior. Even similar behaviors do not all stand or fall together.

3. Do not use an argument that would result in condemning all behaviors unless you will except that conclusion. Do not say that since in vitro fertilization exists that no sexual behavior is justified unless you agree that that just means homosexual sex has another reason to be considered unjustifiable. Unless you want to engage in a meaningless nihilistic scorched earth campaign this is a waste of time.

4. Do not subdivide the category of homosexual behavior by arbitrary means and into cherry picked sub categories. I can not debate concerning left handed, red haired, taller than six foot, or lighter than 200lbs, etc.... homosexuals. That is to needlessly over complicate the discussion to make it impossible to actually have it. It also would only separate the horrifically unjustifiable from the mildly unjustified groups.

5. I made secular arguments above so do not mention my faith unless you want a completely new debate about properly basic beliefs. Also never ever even hint that I do not like or want to do anything to homosexuals just because I do not agree with you. If you do our conversation will quickly end.

6. Do not say that unless I have a solution I can not claim something is a problem. I do not have to know how to fix my car to be certain it is not working.

7. Do not say that heterosexuality causes more new aids cases (for example) in total, so that new aids cases caused by homosexuality is justified or excusable. For one I do not even think that is true but more importantly because 96% of the population is heterosexual and merely the orientation has no causal relationship with aids cases. It may be true that because most of us are right handed that right handed people cause more new aids cases than left handed people but handedness does not stand in a causal relationship with aids, it is incidental. Do not engage in an evidenced based discussion if you have no experience in the use of statistical data.

8. Those who defend a position because they are emotionally invested in what they prefer do not do well in debates. A debate occurs on the common ground of objective evidence. If I am supplying evidence and another is fighting with their emotions then my facts will not persuade the emotionally invested. No other topic in my experience can touch the emotional motivation of those who defend homosexuality. That explains the 50+ responses I received in 3 days in this thread.

9. Do not take an entire list of statistical data I post, merely make a complaint about one possible source and write off the entire list. I posted approximately 10 sets of data in one post, I had two people mention they did not accept one possible source and then never even addressed the remaining 90% of the data I supplied. I was not shown that the person they complained about was even the source to begin with, or why even if he was the source his data was wrong.

10. Do not keep asking me to go back and repost over and over what I posted days ago. I do not have the time to do it nor the responsibility. Do not respond to the vast posts I make with mere quips or commentary. I expect that those who engage me be sincere and that they will devote more than what the average troll would on their response.

11. Do not make a reference to or play the victim card. However some arbitrary group of homosexuals was treated, thought they were treated, or lied about how they were treated has no relevance to whether homosexual behavior can be rationally justified or not. Many in the modern liberal movement respond to anyone who disagrees with them by yelling racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, that they be fired, they need a safe space, their triggered, micro aggression, check your privilege, and if all that fails they simply scream at the top of their lungs without regard to whether any of those things are applicable, useful, or even true. However it will not work with me. In a choice between someone's feelings and truth, your feelings are going to lose every time as far as I am concerned. I will answer to God for how loyal I was to the truth as best as I could determine it, not anyone else's feelings being hurt by that truth. I am never intentionally offensive but will not put up with arguments that violate the things listed above for too long.

12. Do not argue by proxy. Do not fail to offer your own argument and instead refer to other poster's arguments. Do not appeal to some real or wished for solidarity with others as if doing so was an argument its self.

13. Do not attempt to debate me about the points above. I have beaten each one to a pulp in many threads which can be searched. At this point I am done with exhaustively showing over and over all the reasons the mistakes above are mistakes. I only mentioned them again here to know I drew a clear line in the sand to reduce my work load from here on in.

Anyway enough of the bad stuff. Let me get to what should be done.

1. Make arguments that account for the entire spectrum of data and evidence.
2. Do not get emotional when I disagree with you.
3. I am here not to have anyone agree with me, I spend little time singing Kumbaya with my fellow Christian posters.
4. I am here to make arguments I think are based on evidence and obey academic standards of science, history, philosophy, moral theory, and theology (where applicable).
5. I want most a meaningful challenge to my arguments so that I can withdraw bad arguments, perfect good arguments, subject great arguments to effective counter arguments to see if they withstand them, and to be intellectually engaged.
6. I was even satisfied with a poster who stated that he knew my arguments were valid but he wanted to punch me in the face anyway. If you can't do anything else here, at least be funny.

I am not asking for much but so far the homosexual threads (more than any other) have failed on all counts.

So if you want a debate then don't make the mistakes above and try to accomplish at least one of the goals I listed. Merry Christmas and good luck to everyone.

A really long post in which @1robin makes arbitrary rules on which arguments he will or will not accept, because his own arguments can't stand on their own two feet.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

and everyone else on the wrong side of this debate. Before I launch into this, Merry Christmas.

I was completely over whelmed by 50+ responses over only 3 days in this thread alone. So I promised to go back and make this post because only after posting this can I reduce the absurdities I have to address in the amount of time I actually have.

So, a truly honest question - taking all of your evidence into consideration, and considering that you want all emotionality removed from the discussion, what do you propose be done with all of the homosexuals currently in existence, and those who will exist going into the future?

And after you answer for yourself, I'd like you to postulate on what you believe that Jesus Christ would answer.

Also, Merry Christmas to you in return.

 

[1robin]

So, a truly honest question - taking all of your evidence into consideration, and considering that you want all emotionality removed from the discussion, what do you propose be done with all of the homosexuals currently in existence, and those who will exist going into the future?

And after you answer for yourself, I'd like you to postulate on what you believe that Jesus Christ would answer.

Also, Merry Christmas to you in return.

Ok, this is not my usual debating time but I happen to see your post.

First I want to point out you violated point #6 in my post #840. However it is Christmas time and you violated point 6 in a civil and reasonable fashion. Also, since you are an unfamiliar poster to me I will not be emphatic at this point with you.

1. Anyway, I have no requirement to provide a solution to a problem to have a good argument that it is a problem. Providing a solution is completely unrelated to pointing out what the problem is. To provide a solution only confuses the unjustifiability of a voluntary act with what can be done about it. It also needlessly amplifies my liability without cause.
2. Only with you, and only for an unspecified time frame will I even attempt to provide a starting point for a solution. I have not thought much about the solution so I am just going to wing it, but I make no guarantee I will spend much time on something I have thought very little about.
3. Thinking for about 2 minutes on it, I would start by not granting legal sanctification of the behavior. I would not care about what went on in a person's bed room, but I would care about who must bear the majority of the fall out and what relationships receive legal recognition, blessings, and approvals.
4. In addition I would have the great moral philosophers investigate and formally debate these issues. I would do so in the attempt to make which ever side had the better argumentation dominate the public forum. I would take the actual data about these issues, one example of which I provided, and teach it as the dominant theme in all sexual education classes. If the evidence was as bad as it seems to be concerning what homosexuality causes at vastly higher rates I would make the information and recommendations concerning homosexuality similar to we do concerning smoking, for example.
5. And lastly I would outlaw homosexuals from serving in the military, but that action would for other reason than whether the behavior is justifiable or not. The military is not in anyway what so ever the place to carry out social experiments. It is a place where the absolute greatest unit cohesion and effectiveness trumps all other concerns. The militaries job is to overcome their enemies to the greatest extent possible, in the least amount of time possible, at the least loss possible. It's job is not to be fair, not to be inclusive, not to have different standards for each arbitrary sub group. Political correctness is perhaps the greatest modern evil in the US and it is ruining the military. When liberalism finally destroys it, it will be replaced by forces far less tolerant.

Let me get back to my element. You asked what Jesus would say about homosexuality. Let me point out that you again violated one of the points I made. This time the first half of point #5. By now you can probably see why making that post saves me time.

Regardless, one of the greatest sayings about Christ came from a secular Scottish historian who's name I just forgot. But the quote he made said "No one ever spoke such scorching words against sin, and no ever spoke kinder words toward sinners". So I believe he would do something similar (but probably much better) than I have. I condemned a behavior but never spoke a word against any specific person engaged in the behavior.

Now as I additionally stated. If you want to mention my faith in connection to homosexuality then it will be a completely different debate. If you want it, I can certainly supply it, but you need to start by looking up the philosophic concept of properly basic beliefs, as well as what the bible says about homosexuality its self because I cannot supply the years worth of home work you will need before we can even begin to meaningfully debate my religion.


In summary,

*I have no mature position concerning what to do about homosexuality, and no burden to have any.
*I think my claims to be at least along similar lines of what Christ might do or say (except he would do better) about any sin or any sinner.
*The reason I want emotion removed from homosexual debates is so no one uses them to defend it and so no one uses them to condemn it either. I want simple facts to do the defending and condemning concerning the behaviors, not the people. In my faith I cannot condemn any person, that is God's sovereign right to do, alone.

Ok, please review my post #840 one last time. I will be more exacting in our next post.

BTW I did not even attempt to post a bunch of evidence in the post you responded to, and I won't until the one statistic I did give is meaningfully countered.

 

[columbus]

First I want to point out you violated point #6 in my post #840. However it is Christmas time and you violated point 6 in a civil and reasonable fashion. Also, since you are an unfamiliar poster to me I will not be emphatic at this point with you.

1robin so beautifully illustrates The True Spirit of Christmas. Brings a tear to the eye....
Tom

 

[Skwim]

A really long post in which @1robin makes arbitrary rules on which arguments he will or will not accept, because his own arguments can't stand on their own two feet.

Yeah that. And hey, if a guy insists on being naked when playing tennis doesn't mean I'm obligated to play him. Ignoring is no biggie.


.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And lastly I would outlaw homosexuals from serving in the military, but that action would for other reason than whether the behavior is justifiable or not. The military is not in anyway what so ever the place to carry out social experiments. It is a place where the absolute greatest unit cohesion and effectiveness trumps all other concerns.

It is a function where we send people we think are largely expendable to go kill other people we thought were MORE expendable. What does gender or sexual orientation or religion or whatever have to do with it?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

First I want to point out you violated point #6 in my post #840. Let me point out that you again violated one of the points I made. This time the first half of point #5. By now you can probably see why making that post saves me time.

I didn't violate either of your "rules", if you care to take a look.

Firstly, I didn't say you couldn't claim it was a problem... I honestly asked what you would propose to do given that it was deemed a problem. The fact that I, personally, don't consider it a problem is completely beside the point in this instance. If you can't see that then I don't consider you properly engaged to withstand the sort of debate that I could bring your way. It is, quite honesty, a very simple thing to understand. That you so blatantly take EVERYTHING as a personal attack is quite telling about your nature. The center of the universe, my friend, is nowhere near "you".

I also didn't mention your religion. I only asked to get your reaction to what you feel a (supposedly) perfectly loving and clear-headed individual like Jesus Christ would believe about a "solution". I honestly only brought him into the conversation because I knew he'd be an easily identifiable figure for you, someone that would be pure of heart, by your estimation. Once again, the center of the universe is probably even further away from "your religion".

Would you seriously contend that other posters are "not allowed" to ask you questions about your, personal opinion? I would have thought you'd rather like people asking you your opinion - it certainly seems like you enjoy the attention.

 

[Acim]

1. The first mistake is the most common. My two simplistic arguments have been misrepresented by those defending homosexual behavior over and over and over. So I will restate them again with some additional clarification.

A. The massive cost of homosexual behavior is not justified by any benefit of the behavior.
B. The costs of heterosexual behavior is justified by the benefits of the behavior.

I am referring to homosexual sexual acts, not the orientation. I believe both to be wrong but the orientation requires another argument altogether and is not the subject of those two arguments. I can post all kinds of statistics but the following is all I require until it can be countered.

Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC
U.S. Statistics

This is not explaining benefits of sexual behavior for either population. Thus not possible to put into context the weight between costs and benefits, at this point, other than through inference, which stems from the debate you are engaged in, and that likely varies from person to person (responding to this thread).

2. Do not claim that some other behavior is wrong or right, and insist that it has any effect on the issue of homosexual sexual behavior. You cannot get your client off the hook by condemning another, since I am not attacking a person, but judging a type of behavior it's self. All behaviors are justifiable or unjustifiable without regard to another behavior. Even similar behaviors do not all stand or fall together.

Following from point 1, all sexual contact is seemingly 'wrong' because of the noted cases in all populations. Again, without explanation of benefits (within both populations), it is hard to interpret otherwise.

3. Do not use an argument that would result in condemning all behaviors unless you will except that conclusion. Do not say that since in vitro fertilization exists that no sexual behavior is justified unless you agree that that just means homosexual sex has another reason to be considered unjustifiable. Unless you want to engage in a meaningless nihilistic scorched earth campaign this is a waste of time.

Why not? Cause you say so? I see all sexual behavior as neutral, at best. It technically has no spiritual benefit, but given the nature of the world (where separation from God and brothers/sisters appears real) it has relativity going for it. It can be relatively good or relatively bad or something in between, and is likely best judged by each individual rather than onlookers who likely have plank in their own eye when trying to remove any specks from another person's eye.

5. I made secular arguments above so do not mention my faith unless you want a completely new debate about properly basic beliefs. Also never ever even hint that I do not like or want to do anything to homosexuals just because I do not agree with you. If you do our conversation will quickly end.

I personally see it as unavoidable to crossover the two, given the nature of this world (noted above) and the built-in, obvious solution (or in reality that it is impossible to be actually separate from God, despite perception). Therefore, laying judgment on people as engaged in sexual behavior and filtering that from entirely a secular framework, can work for an individual. I see it as myopic or very shortsighted. Intellectually immature, or spiritually manipulating a discussion to an end that is, as I understand it, not clear/is confused. Such that when I said previously, what about homosexual sexual behavior that is devoted to celibacy, that could be filtered, rather easily, as only pertaining to secular position. When I added on the, 'and is then having more time, or devotion to God' that is perhaps (or likely is) filtered through the spiritual. But whatever time is being devoted to, it is not the physical connection of that relationship, if that is the behavioral choice of that couple, and likely some form of 'god' is occurring, which is possibly another debate, but still is implied in the sexual behavior that I noted.

Do not engage in an evidenced based discussion if you have no experience in the use of statistical data.

I have experience in such data. Collecting it, analyzing it, presenting it to a community of peers and citizens. Even with all that said, my general belief is that statistics are made up. I derive that idea from my experience, from what I've observed in a whole lot of methodologies that produce statistics, and particularly in what is being concluded. I have encountered CDC blatantly manipulating statistics, so your choice of using that source I'm sure works for others. For me, I find it laughable. And is why I'm not engaging in that side of the debate.

13. Do not attempt to debate me about the points above. I have beaten each one to a pulp in many threads which can be searched. At this point I am done with exhaustively showing over and over all the reasons the mistakes above are mistakes. I only mentioned them again here to know I drew a clear line in the sand to reduce my work load from here on in.

Do not try to control the debate. With others perhaps you think you'll have some sense of victory in what you are aiming for as your position's objective. In our exchanges, I'm yet to see you move from square one.

 

[McBell]

@A Vestigial Mote @Shadow Wolf @Jainarayan @SkepticThinker @Carlita @omega2xx @columbus @Saint Frankenstein @Acim @jonathan180iq @Evangelicalhumanist @sayak83 and everyone else on the wrong side of this debate. Before I launch into this, Merry Christmas.

I was completely over whelmed by 50+ responses over only 3 days in this thread alone. So I promised to go back and make this post because only after posting this can I reduce the absurdities I have to address in the amount of time I actually have. What follows is primarily what arguments will fail and why, concerning any defense of homosexuality you have all engaged in. Not everyone of you have made everyone of the following mistakes but you have all made at least one, most over and over. So the following are examples of arguments that you should not make if you wish to debate me. If you run afoul of any of the following mistakes I will not explain the mistake again as I have been doing over and over, I will merely refer you to this post and the specific mistake you made.

1. The first mistake is the most common. My two simplistic arguments have been misrepresented by those defending homosexual behavior over and over and over. So I will restate them again with some additional clarification.

A. The massive cost of homosexual behavior is not justified by any benefit of the behavior.
B. The costs of heterosexual behavior is justified by the benefits of the behavior.

I am referring to homosexual sexual acts, not the orientation. I believe both to be wrong but the orientation requires another argument altogether and is not the subject of those two arguments. I can post all kinds of statistics but the following is all I require until it can be countered.

Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC
U.S. Statistics


2. Do not claim that some other behavior is wrong or right, and insist that it has any effect on the issue of homosexual sexual behavior. You cannot get your client off the hook by condemning another, since I am not attacking a person, but judging a type of behavior it's self. All behaviors are justifiable or unjustifiable without regard to another behavior. Even similar behaviors do not all stand or fall together.

3. Do not use an argument that would result in condemning all behaviors unless you will except that conclusion. Do not say that since in vitro fertilization exists that no sexual behavior is justified unless you agree that that just means homosexual sex has another reason to be considered unjustifiable. Unless you want to engage in a meaningless nihilistic scorched earth campaign this is a waste of time.

4. Do not subdivide the category of homosexual behavior by arbitrary means and into cherry picked sub categories. I can not debate concerning left handed, red haired, taller than six foot, or lighter than 200lbs, etc.... homosexuals. That is to needlessly over complicate the discussion to make it impossible to actually have it. It also would only separate the horrifically unjustifiable from the mildly unjustified groups.

5. I made secular arguments above so do not mention my faith unless you want a completely new debate about properly basic beliefs. Also never ever even hint that I do not like or want to do anything to homosexuals just because I do not agree with you. If you do our conversation will quickly end.

6. Do not say that unless I have a solution I can not claim something is a problem. I do not have to know how to fix my car to be certain it is not working.

7. Do not say that heterosexuality causes more new aids cases (for example) in total, so that new aids cases caused by homosexuality is justified or excusable. For one I do not even think that is true but more importantly because 96% of the population is heterosexual and merely the orientation has no causal relationship with aids cases. It may be true that because most of us are right handed that right handed people cause more new aids cases than left handed people but handedness does not stand in a causal relationship with aids, it is incidental. Do not engage in an evidenced based discussion if you have no experience in the use of statistical data.

8. Those who defend a position because they are emotionally invested in what they prefer do not do well in debates. A debate occurs on the common ground of objective evidence. If I am supplying evidence and another is fighting with their emotions then my facts will not persuade the emotionally invested. No other topic in my experience can touch the emotional motivation of those who defend homosexuality. That explains the 50+ responses I received in 3 days in this thread.

9. Do not take an entire list of statistical data I post, merely make a complaint about one possible source and write off the entire list. I posted approximately 10 sets of data in one post, I had two people mention they did not accept one possible source and then never even addressed the remaining 90% of the data I supplied. I was not shown that the person they complained about was even the source to begin with, or why even if he was the source his data was wrong.

10. Do not keep asking me to go back and repost over and over what I posted days ago. I do not have the time to do it nor the responsibility. Do not respond to the vast posts I make with mere quips or commentary. I expect that those who engage me be sincere and that they will devote more than what the average troll would on their response.

11. Do not make a reference to or play the victim card. However some arbitrary group of homosexuals was treated, thought they were treated, or lied about how they were treated has no relevance to whether homosexual behavior can be rationally justified or not. Many in the modern liberal movement respond to anyone who disagrees with them by yelling racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, that they be fired, they need a safe space, their triggered, micro aggression, check your privilege, and if all that fails they simply scream at the top of their lungs without regard to whether any of those things are applicable, useful, or even true. However it will not work with me. In a choice between someone's feelings and truth, your feelings are going to lose every time as far as I am concerned. I will answer to God for how loyal I was to the truth as best as I could determine it, not anyone else's feelings being hurt by that truth. I am never intentionally offensive but will not put up with arguments that violate the things listed above for too long.

12. Do not argue by proxy. Do not fail to offer your own argument and instead refer to other poster's arguments. Do not appeal to some real or wished for solidarity with others as if doing so was an argument its self.

13. Do not attempt to debate me about the points above. I have beaten each one to a pulp in many threads which can be searched. At this point I am done with exhaustively showing over and over all the reasons the mistakes above are mistakes. I only mentioned them again here to know I drew a clear line in the sand to reduce my work load from here on in.

Anyway enough of the bad stuff. Let me get to what should be done.

1. Make arguments that account for the entire spectrum of data and evidence.
2. Do not get emotional when I disagree with you.
3. I am here not to have anyone agree with me, I spend little time singing Kumbaya with my fellow Christian posters.
4. I am here to make arguments I think are based on evidence and obey academic standards of science, history, philosophy, moral theory, and theology (where applicable).
5. I want most a meaningful challenge to my arguments so that I can withdraw bad arguments, perfect good arguments, subject great arguments to effective counter arguments to see if they withstand them, and to be intellectually engaged.
6. I was even satisfied with a poster who stated that he knew my arguments were valid but he wanted to punch me in the face anyway. If you can't do anything else here, at least be funny.

I am not asking for much but so far the homosexual threads (more than any other) have failed on all counts.

So if you want a debate then don't make the mistakes above and try to accomplish at least one of the goals I listed. Merry Christmas and good luck to everyone.

Kent?
Kent Hovind?
Is that you?

 

[Prestor John]

Sorry for taking so long to respond. It gets really crazy at work during the holidays, but then it completely dies on Christmas Day.

I try to only write responses while at work when I have some down time.

There was no "I believe", or "I think" or "my belief/opinion is" anywhere. I take them as you making statements of fact.

Before I begin addressing this unfounded claim I just want to point out that you had already tried to use this very same argument against me on another vein of discussion in this thread.

In post #522, you quoted a sentence I had written to Acim in post #519 and then you claimed that,

“You're not expressing opinions, you're making your statements as fact, preaching and sermonizing.”

However, in post #524 I corrected you by saying,

“If you took the time to actually read my little spiel about marriage, the first sentence began with, "I believe..." and the last sentence began with, "That is why I believe..."

I was most definitely expressing my opinion.”

I don’t think you ever actually read my post to Acim because the very first line of my comment to him was, “I believe that marriage is a covenant between husband, wife and God.”

I was obviously sharing my opinion to Acim and it was not necessary for me to say “I believe…” at the beginning of every single one of my sentences because I had already made it clear that I was speaking about my personal beliefs.

It was your laziness of thought that led you to claim that I had made any statements as fact, preaching or sermonizing.

Now on to our current discussion:

You are again trying to use this very same argument against me again. And again it is unfounded.

This discussion actually shows you to be dishonest and hypocritical.

You began this current vein of discussion by quoting a personal belief that I had shared with Mestemia in post #449, which was, “I consider marriage to be a divine institution given to Man by God.” (Bold added)

In post #502 after you quoted my personal belief above, you said,

“You do realize that atheist heterosexual couples are married, right? Without a state-issued license no marriage is valid. Clergy are permitted to sign marriage licenses as a nod to tradition but they cannot validate a marriage without a license. So it would seem that God actually takes a back seat where marriage is concerned.”

This led me to say in post #529,

“A heterosexual marriage at least has the potential to become a sealing, if the couple converts and has a desire to be sealed.

A homosexual couple will never have that option.

Just because God allows us our freedom to do as we wish with what He has given us (marriage), that doesn't mean His Law is void or that He does not care about how we use it.”

I made the above comment in response to the comment you made ABOUT my personal beliefs.

Therefore, it was completely reasonable for me to address your questions and concerns ABOUT my personal beliefs with MORE of my personal beliefs.

It was these personal beliefs that you claimed were “made up” and “drivel” in post #533.

Then again in post #533, after you had claimed that my personal beliefs were “made up” and “drivel”, you began to make various statements of fact about your own personal beliefs, which were:

“I have a very good and loving relationship with my Gods. And yes, they are real and not false. They are not deceptions of Satan. Satan doesn't provide good things. Billions of Hindus over the course of 5,000 years cannot have been wrong.”

I have no choice but to consider these comments about your personal beliefs as statements of fact because you said that the absence of "I believe", or "I think" or "my belief/opinion is" makes them so.

However, since my original sentence, which you quoted, began with me saying “I consider...”, it was obviously me sharing my opinion or personal belief. I was not making any statement of fact.

So, twice now you have nosed your way into a conversation that I was having with someone else about my personal beliefs and you then tried to claim that I was making statements of fact about my beliefs or that I was proselytizing or sermonizing when I was not.

Not only has it been proven that you have done this but you have also been proven to be a hypocrite for doing the very thing that you falsely accused me of doing.

You shared your personal belief as if it were a statement of fact. You did not say “I believe” or "I think" or "my belief/opinion is".

Again, it was your laziness and inconsistency that has led you to look foolish.

You mocked my beliefs and instead of owning up to that fact and apologizing you tried to explain it away by claiming that you were mocking what I had said and not my beliefs, even though what I had said were my beliefs.

Did you not say or at least indicate that you don't know anything about it?

No. It was you that had claimed that I did not know anything about Hinduism.

All I said was that I did not agree with Hinduism, which led you to make a statement of fact that only ignorance of Hinduism leads people to disagree with it.

In post #535 I claimed that your assumption that “Billions of Hindus over the course of 5,000 years cannot have been wrong” was illogical.

Then I shared my personal belief that those “billions of Hindus” were wrong.

You then responded in post #537 by saying,

“Then you don't know Hindus or what Hinduism teaches.”

It was this comment that led me to ask you in post #539,

“Are you saying that people only disagree with Hinduism because they are ignorant of Hinduism or because they don't know any Hindu people?”

You answered this question with another question in post #550 when you asked,

“Do you have a different reason?”

You made a statement of fact about your personal beliefs which again proves you to be a hypocrite because you did the very same thing that you falsely accused me of doing.

I did not say that I did not know anything about Hinduism. It was you that tried to force that condition upon me.

You're not sharing beliefs, you're making statements.

I have very soundly proven that I did no such thing.

I was obviously sharing my personal beliefs with both Acim and Mestemia before you made comments about my personal beliefs to which I responded with more of my personal beliefs.

Then you hypocritically made statements of fact about your personal beliefs while trying to erroneously condemn me for doing that same thing.

You are being dishonest. You are being a hypocrite.

Both of which were caused by your laziness and inconsistency.

I'm saying that if you think and purport that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality and/or homosexuals and/or homosexual sex, I reject that.

Then you reject my personal belief, which you have every right to do.

However, I am not about to say that the only reason you reject my beliefs is because you are ignorant of them.

I am not as unreasonable as you have been.

Merry Christmas

 

[Prestor John]

Let me know which parts specifically, I'll be happy to clarify.

Pretty much when you said, "Either way, they're both man made versions of what our Father has already joined long before the physical existed" and everything thereafter.

In response to the stuff that came before I would ask you to provide an example of where I emphasized worthiness and I would also ask you to use the word "discrimination" within the context of this discussion, which is not necessarily the dictionary definition, but rather on societal expectations, such as having a hate-driven motivation for the discrimination.

Hurt us how? Please provide examples.

Sin separates us from God the Father and it causes harm to our spirits. It is akin to someone who cuts themselves. It hurts the body, but it provides the abuser with some sort of superficial release. Sin hurts our spirits, but we try to take comfort in it when it actually does anything but.

He knows we are sinless. He knows we are Perfect as we are (in Spirit).

I disagree and believe that everyone sins and that no one who has entered into mortality, besides the Lord Jesus Christ, has been or will be perfect. I believe these teachings are affirmed in scripture and they have been witnessed to me by the Holy Spirit of God.

He knows we are incapable of truly rendering ourselves as less than perfect, but understands that we see our own selves (and hence God) as less than perfect.).

I consider God to be perfect in every way.

Forgiveness overcomes this perspective.

I disagree. Forgiveness can make us innocent, but that does not make us perfect.

I remember when I used to think like this. Now, I find this between challenging and impossible to defend.

How so?

I am not having any difficulty.

 

[Prestor John]

Sounds to me like we need to start actually teaching sex ed in high school, rather than pretend there is a possible way to make teens not have it.

Better safe than sorry, am I right?

 

[Prestor John]

Lawsuits like those are about past conduct. Someone who has been sued for discriminating against LGBT customers could close their shop tomorrow and never have to deal with another same-sex couple ordering a wedding cake ever again.


Absolutely. I have no problem with prohibiting discrimination by businesses in the provision of goods and services.


I don't see anything wrong with it at all.


There are any number of industries out there where business owners never have to deal with same-sex weddings at all. Some are even more profitable than the wedding cake business.


I'm saying that businesses who sell to the public are prohibited from discriminating in the provision of goods and services. If someone feels that they can't participate in their industry without behaving in a discriminatory way, it's up to them to figure out a solution.


Absolutely none.


It's not especially onerous to require businesses to carry on business in a non-discriminatory way.

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.


Why should they have to?

Wow.

You only like the First Amendment when it applies to you and those that agree with you.

You believe that someone's lifestyle choice should allow them to force others to violates their personal beliefs or be forced out of business.

You want your personal views to be enforced. You have a complete disregard for the religious views of others.

That is so sad.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wow.

You only like the First Amendment when it applies to you and those that agree with you.

You believe that someone's lifestyle choice should allow them to force others to violates their personal beliefs or be forced out of business.

You want your personal views to be enforced. You have a complete disregard for the religious views of others.

That is so sad.

Do you take this attitude when it comes to racial discrimination? If an interracial couple was refused a wedding cake by someone with religiously-motivated racist views, would you rush to the baker's defence?

 

[Prestor John]

Do you take this attitude when it comes to racial discrimination? If an interracial couple was refused a wedding cake by someone with religiously-motivated racist views, would you rush to the baker's defence?

Yes. Without question.

Unlike you, I do not feel that I need to agree with someone in order for their freedom to have value.

There should be no laws or public services that discriminate, but an owner of a private business should have every right to.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Better safe than sorry, am I right?

Pretty much. And not only is it impossible to prevent teens from having sex, the information they learn from a proper sex ed would even be highly relative to them as married adults, as it covers way more than just contraception.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes. Without question.

Unlike you, I do not feel that I need to agree with someone in order for their freedom to have value.

There should be no laws or public services that discriminate, but an owner of a private business should have every right to.

They are serving the public though, and, ultimately, Congress does have authority over interstate commerce. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that businesses, regardless of the reason, cannot discriminate against many different groups.
Really, the position you hold is old, tired, and has been beaten many times, and will be beaten again. As it should be, and for the better, religion's privileged status is waning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. Without question.

Unlike you, I do not feel that I need to agree with someone in order for their freedom to have value.

... unless someone has religious motives for infringing on their freedom.

There should be no laws or public services that discriminate, but an owner of a private business should have every right to.

I disagree, obviously. Our society is made up of the sum total of all our actions. When you support the "right" of businesses to discriminate, you support a discriminatory society.

I hope for your sake that people don't take advantage of the purported rights you defend to discriminate against Mormons the way that was done in the (relatively recent) past.

 

[Jainarayan]

A homosexual couple will never have that option.

Based on your beliefs. You still don't get it that many of us don't believe in your God. And that's as much as I'm going to respond to your inconsequential wall of text. I've spent far too much time letting myself be drawn into a pointless exchange. Same sex marriage is the law in the US, something your God is irrelevent too.

Glaðileg Jól. ​