Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Prestor John]

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.

Even though I did not have sex until I was married I think the more we can teach our children about this topic the better.

I'd hope they'd get the bulk of this information from their parents, but since many parents don't do that it then falls on our schools to inform.

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.

Private business owners are not "public servants" though.

What Congress or the Supreme Court has said is irrelevant to my opinion that private business owners should be able to refuse service to anyone.

I have seen no evidence that has "beaten" my position. What the Supreme Court has ruled has no bearing on what I believe is morally acceptable.

You are confusing "religion" with "freedom of religion."

The freedom of religion should be equitable to freedom of speech. Neither should be infringed.

You can't legislate morality.

 

[Prestor John]

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

Since bakeries are not "blacklisting" homosexual couples, their freedom to go to another bakery is not infringed.

...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.

The same can be said of supporting Affirmative Action.

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.

I am not advocating violence, rape or murder. I am not saying that private business owners should have the right to force people from their homes at gun point and then steal all their possessions.

I have been denied service due to my religious affiliation. I just went somewhere else. If they did not want my money I'll just find someone else who'll take it.

I personally would not deny anyone service because of their race, religion or sexual orientation. I believe that would be wrong.

I can understand why a religious person may disagree with homosexual marriage, but I don't think they should deny same-sex couples wedding services.

However, I also do not believe that my personal beliefs should be forced on anyone else.

 

[Prestor John]

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. ​

Yes, based on my beliefs. Just as I said.

Why do you refuse to recognize your dishonesty and hypocrisy?

I shared a lot of text because you supplied a lot of evidence of your dishonesty and hypocrisy.

You claim that I am ignorant while you don't even know what you have said!

You can continue to ignore it if you want. It's a free country.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yes, based on my beliefs. Just as I said.

Why do you refuse to recognize your dishonesty and hypocrisy?

I shared a lot of text because you supplied a lot of evidence of your dishonesty and hypocrisy.

You claim that I am ignorant while you don't even know what you have said!

You can continue to ignore it if you want. It's a free country.

I never said you are ignorant. I know better than to make personal comments. But you can continue to make them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since bakeries are not "blacklisting" homosexual couples, their freedom to go to another bakery is not infringed.

So if a couple was denied a wedding cake by every bakery they went to, their freedom wouldbe infringed? How do you guard against this?

I am not advocating violence, rape or murder. I am not saying that private business owners should have the right to force people from their homes at gun point and then steal all their possessions.

No, but you are saying that if every, say, grocery store in an area decided to discriminate, the people being discriminated against should be denied the ability to buy food. It's a fine line, IMO.

I have been denied service due to my religious affiliation. I just went somewhere else. If they did not want my money I'll just find someone else who'll take it.

You should have the option to choose to go somewhere else, of course... but sometimes there is nowhere else.

I personally would not deny anyone service because of their race, religion or sexual orientation. I believe that would be wrong.

I can understand why a religious person may disagree with homosexual marriage, but I don't think they should deny same-sex couples wedding services.

However, I also do not believe that my personal beliefs should be forced on anyone else.

... on any other business people, you mean. If you owned a business, you do think that you should be free to force your personal beliefs on whoever you want... right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have seen no evidence that has "beaten" my position. What the Supreme Court has ruled has no bearing on what I believe is morally acceptable.

That's just it. No one is telling you what to believe, even though businesses cannot discriminate against people over a number of various reasons, regardless of what excuse is given.

The freedom of religion should be equitable to freedom of speech. Neither should be infringed.

But, to many varying degrees, both do have responsible infringements on them. Such as, you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater because people may get seriously injured, possibly killed. With religion, the Supreme Court has ruled that regardless of reason, one of which frequently was religion, businesses cannot discriminate against things like race and gender. We fought a war to end slavery. Slavery was intended to be abolished in the Constitution, but the South wouldn't have it, partly because of their "god given/Biblical right" to own slaves. If anything, America has always been extremely generous of the extent it allows for religious freedom. But there does come a time when it does become a legitimate concern, especially when it infringes on the rights of others. But we've already ruled businesses cannot discriminate.

 

[Acim]

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.

Civil unions and marriage both are manmade versions of 'joining together.' Technically, neither one actually joins two together, but are symbolic of that. To signify commitment and devotion to another, as physical beings in a loving relationship. Our Father (Creator God) has, in reality, already joined together the two beings spiritually, actually, long before the decision for the symbolic arrangement.

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.

In post #627 by you, you added bold emphasis to the word "worthiness" in response to a quote by me that did not (then) use that word. You were saying that your choice to discriminate against (in case of bathrooms) was not based on worthiness, but on qualifications. This stems back to my claim in post #503, that you are playing semantical game, and my claim in post #503 where I said: "Pertinent to the discussion, it is discrimination by (some) Christians to not recognize same-sex couples as being worthy of (actual, Christian) marriage (in their eyes)." I asked for explanation of (based on) qualifications to overcome the semantical debate. I would still ask that, and choose to stick to Christian understanding of marriage, knowing we are really only looking at the symbolic version, not the spiritual kind that deals with what God has actually joined together.

Sin separates us from God the Father

Not possible from Creator God's perspective, to be separate from Him. I grant that it induces belief within us that we have conceivably done something (made a mistake in judgment, about who we are) that appears to separate us from Him, or distinguish what God has made perfect and rendered less than perfect. Here, I would emphasize the word appears, for the reality of God's Creation is actually unchanged, while the perception, by us as judges, is that it has impacted us greatly.

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.

I find no way to understand this other than to reference the body and it's undeniable ability to appear hurt or maimed. For Spirit, it takes a belief that what God has created can be altered in such a way that is knowingly different. Thus, I appreciate your examples, but I would disagree that it (sin) is akin to anything in the physical, even while that is always where we perceive it to be manifest. Without reference to the physical and its apparent and inherent imperfection(s), I see no way to understand how it harms spirit actually. That would be interesting if you could provide such an example. And one that forgiveness couldn't overcome.

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.

So, we disagree. I have, by God's Grace, experienced and witnessed to everyone's inherent perfection. During such experience, I knew then that I had always known this, but that I've had my moments of doubting this, in a vain attempt to see myself as able to judge error better than God can, by noticing what doesn't appear right in another. With God's Grace, this all washed away into the silliness of judgment that it actually is. Since that experience, via intellectual considerations, I have understood how Jesus, while on earth, even during his mission, engaged in what could be perceived as imperfection and desire to have his (Jesus) will invoked above God's, thus judging others in a way that is technically sinful. He did this as a teachable moment that has worked for many, but doesn't necessarily allow him to escape the repercussions that came from such a decision (to turn over tables in a market he deemed, out of ignorance, to be God's House). Jesus didn't lay claim to that ignorance, but used it as part of the teachable moment, and which certainly had spiritual elders of the time sit up and take notice, but also set him, Jesus, on the path toward religious persecution by same elders.

Since my Grace experience, I continue to be amazed that anyone, includes me, can think they understand perfection in another (i.e. as you have identified perfection in Jesus) without first realizing that perfection has to start with own self, for you/anyone to be able to perceive it, in the other. IOW, your self doubt that you have not this perfection while Jesus does have it, or had it while walking the earth, is very interesting to me. I see it as self deceptive to claim you understand, even a little bit, that Jesus is/was perfect, and that you are not worthy/qualified to hold such perfection of own self. In reality, I see this as an error in judgment. That you understand perfection, perhaps even better than God, to be able to see it in Jesus and to 'know' that you do not have such perfection with own self. Again, from my Grace experience, such a judgment wouldn't fly, wouldn't stand up to Reason. It is your own perfection, from God, that allows you to share it with others and see it in anyone. Otherwise, it is mere projection and akin to idolatry where you don't actually get what perfection is, but think another has it, whereas you do not.

I consider God to be perfect in every way.

If this is true, then you must consider your self perfect in every way. If so, I rejoice.

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

It actually does. Intellectually, I barely grasp what is meant by Spiritual Innocence. During time of Grace, it was crystal clear to me. To grasp it intellectually, I find it can help (though is also a bit confusing) to see perfection in Jesus even while he was doing things that were clearly violating the norms of the day, and in doing so, was countering the earthly wills of others (i.e. turning over tables in the marketplace). To see that as innocent, even if not first consideration, but at any point to filter that as Jesus is innocent in that teachable moment, is grasping it intellectually. With Grace, it is clear it is always occurring in all situations. I do recall understanding this and not just seeking to understand it, but welcoming more opportunities to understand it even more. The welcoming of opportunities is the part that I perhaps struggle with from non-Grace perspective, because mind may already be made up to anticipate some moments as less worthy of spiritual progress when compared to others. Thus, I may loath certain events / moments coming up and deem them beforehand as not worthy of anything but following the norms, seeing through earthly eyes. If they do not follow in the way my earthly self has come to understand, then I may actually, as judge deem certain things as qualified and unqualified of righteousness, and think this discrimination thing makes me wise, mature.

How so?

I am not having any difficulty.

I don't think you are having difficulty in espousing it, but in actually understanding what is to be sacrificed, and what it actually means to cease being sinful. If you see this as foremost true for own self, that you understand exactly what is to be sacrificed, and that you do understand own path toward sinning no more, then I could better understand your expressed belief of having ease in such a proclamation. To me, it would mean that you'd gratefully accept the idea of civil unions for heterosexual unions and allow traditional marriages for homosexual unions, and realize nothing real is being sacrificed. If there is need to debate this first, then I would take that as sign that you aren't actually ready to sacrifice the unreal in order to gain greater insight of what is real, and what will bring atonement to the world you perceive.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

@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.

"The massive cost of homosexual behavior is not justified by any benefit of the behavior."

I am sorry but you can't use those statistics to suggest causation, as that is an observational study, There is no, what we call, random assignment, which is what they do in designed experiments, and without it we can't draw valid causal inferences.

You can't statistically say that homosexual behavior causes the spread of HIV with those statistics. There could be other variables at play here; like perhaps homosexual men are more often single. Therefore they are more likely to have experienced a greater number of sexual partners than your average heterosexual man. Who has an easier time establishing lasting trusting relationships because his relationship is socially accepted. Or it could be due to the prejudice homosexuals face, they are more likely to seek partnership in unsafe areas like the internet. At any rate, you don't have the right type of study or the right type of data to make those causal inferences.

What you are doing is akin to what people use to do to the blacks (and some still do). Suggesting that since there were more blacks in prison than whites, black people were less ethical than white people. However, as it turned out there were a number of other variables that contributed to those statistics, and having black skin had nothing to do with it.

Always remember in statistics: Correlation does not necessitate causation.

 

[columbus]

Always remember in statistics: Correlation does not necessitate causation.

This is the part people like 1robin seem to refuse to understand. Correlation is not causation.
There are, however, causes and it tends to be the psychological damage done to young people by folks like him. He is the problem!
Tom

 

[Jeremiahcp]

This is the part people like 1robin seem to refuse to understand. Correlation is not causation.
There are, however, causes and it tends to be the psychological damage done to young people by folks like him. He is the problem!
Tom

Just as it is with religion, bigots like to abuse science as well. Misrepresenting both to push their hateful views.

I like to share this correlation with people like that:

"If you examine the records of the city of Copenhagen for the ten or twelve years following World War II, you will find a strong positive correlation between (i) the annual number of storks nesting in the city, and (ii) the annual number of human babies born in the city"

http://pignottia.faculty.mjc.edu/math134/classnotes/storks.pdf

Are we suppose to concluded that storks are bringing the human babies?

 

[Prestor John]

So if a couple was denied a wedding cake by every bakery they went to, their freedom would be infringed? How do you guard against this?

I love the impossible “what if” scenarios. The reason I claim that this is an “impossible” scenario is because the market would work itself out.

If there is a demand with no supply, someone will step in to fill the need. That is how economics works.

Either that or after you and I “boycott/protest/bad review on yelp” whichever business we believe is discriminatory, the business will either cave in to our demands, close their doors or stick to their guns – suffering the consequence of potential loss of business.

Either way, someone will take the opportunity to fill the void. That is one of the benefits of having a free market.

If you teach the people the correct principles of economics, they can govern themselves.

No, but you are saying that if every, say, grocery store in an area decided to discriminate, the people being discriminated against should be denied the ability to buy food. It's a fine line, IMO.

Another impossible scenario.

The almighty dollar rules in a free market. Businesses that refuse to supply a demand will fall or at least not climb. Someone will come in to pick up the slack and maybe push the other out of the market.

Let the market sort itself out.

Also, I just wanted to say that trying to compare the “plight” of same-sex couples being unable to buy a wedding cake from a particular baker to the rape, murder and violence forced upon the early Latter-Day Saints is shallow and disgusting.

You should have the option to choose to go somewhere else, of course... but sometimes there is nowhere else.

Another impossible scenario, unless, of course, the Government were to be involved and make the market less than free.

... on any other business people, you mean. If you owned a business, you do think that you should be free to force your personal beliefs on whoever you want... right?

Denying to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding is not forcing anything upon that same-sex couple.

However, compelling a business owner by use of force or financial ruin to violate their religious beliefs is.

Let me ask you a couple “what ifs”:

What if I go to a professional woodcarver who claims to carve anything except any religious symbols, icons or persons?

Should I be able to force him/her to carve me a crucifix? Even though there are other woodcarvers nearby that would carve a crucifix for me no problem?

Would that initial woodcarver be forcing his/her personal belief upon me for not wanting to carve me a crucifix?

What if I went to an artist and wanted to hire him/her to paint a portrait of the prophet Mohammed raping a little girl?

Does the artist have to paint that portrait? Does he/she need to participate in something that he/she feels might be unsettling, offensive or in bad taste?

 

[Prestor John]

That's just it. No one is telling you what to believe, even though businesses cannot discriminate against people over a number of various reasons, regardless of what excuse is given.

Yet people are being told how to practice their religion.

So, people can believe in God, but they can’t pray to Him?

That’s like telling homosexuals, “Sure, you can get married, but only to who we say you can marry.”

If homosexuals have the right to marry whomever they want, then why can’t private business owners have the right to do business with whomever they want?

But, to many varying degrees, both do have responsible infringements on them.

I think I know what’s coming.

Such as, you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater because people may get seriously injured, possibly killed.

I knew it! I knew this example was coming up because everyone who believes that the religious freedoms of others can be violated always get to this sometime.

First, shouting “fire” in a theater is a “call to action”. It’s just not a viable comparison to what we are talking about.

No one is calling for the persecution of homosexuals.

Second, shouting “fire” in a movie theater that is actually on fire is protected speech. Sure, people might get hurt or die in the process of escaping the flames, but the person who shouted “fire” can’t be blamed for that.

This argument operates on the premise that the person is making a false claim of “fire”. Like the boy who cried “wolf”. There is nothing wrong with a person shouting “fire” if the place is actually on fire.

So, more to the point, before you could use this argument with any relevance in our discussion you would first need to claim that the baker’s religious belief was false when you have absolutely no authority to make that claim AND you would need to be able to verify that the belief is false, which you do not have the ability to do.

Falsely shouting “fire” in a movie theater may not be protected speech, but how can you prove that a person’s religious belief is false?

With religion, the Supreme Court has ruled that regardless of reason, one of which frequently was religion, businesses cannot discriminate against things like race and gender.

You’re a broken record.

I have already said I do not agree with what the Supreme Court has ruled, so why do you keep mentioning it?

I have been sharing my opinion and you guys have been commenting on my opinion.

We fought a war to end slavery.

No. Union troops fought a war to end slavery. I’ve never fought on any battlefield.

Slavery was intended to be abolished in the Constitution, but the South wouldn't have it, partly because of their "god given/Biblical right" to own slaves.

“Partly” is the important word here. The main or actual reason was because slave owning and trading was extremely lucrative.

You cannot claim that it was the religious beliefs of a few that implemented or supported slavery in the U.S.

I also find trying to compare slavery to a same-sex couple being denied a wedding cake from a particular bakery to be shallow and disgusting.

If anything, America has always been extremely generous of the extent it allows for religious freedom.

The only stipulation that the people should impose on the freedom of religion is to deny practices that infringe upon the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of others.

Was the same-sex couple’s right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness infringed upon by the baker who refused to bake them a wedding cake?

No, not in any way.

However, the baker’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were infringed in almost every way.

But there does come a time when it does become a legitimate concern, especially when it infringes on the rights of others.

What rights were infringed upon other than the baker’s?

Do people have the right to not be slightly inconvenienced?

But we've already ruled businesses cannot discriminate.

No we haven’t. No one asked for my ruling.

 

[Prestor John]

I never said you are ignorant.

I literally quoted you saying in post #537,

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

Not knowing something is being ignorant of something.

You claimed that I was ignorant of Hinduism.

I know better than to make personal comments.

You made false claims about something I had said. Then you did the exact same thing that you falsely accused me of.

Not only that, but you openly mocked my religious beliefs by claiming they were "made up" and "drivel."

Your comments to me have been both dishonest and hypocritical.

Your behavior toward me has been both dishonest and hypocritical.

And now you are trying to throw up the "Ad hominem!" defense to excuse your behavior even though it is not at all applicable.

But you can continue to make them.

When they are relevant to the discussion I will make them.

 

[Jainarayan]

You claimed that I was ignorant of Hinduism.

Oh stop! Did I write the words "you are ignorant"? No, I didn't. Saying you don't know anything about a subject =/= saying "you are ignorant".

 

[Jainarayan]

When they are relevant to the discussion I will make them.

Read the rules, especially rule 1.

 

[columbus]

No one is calling for the persecution of homosexuals.

Yes, Christians in the USA are calling for the persecution of homosexuals. The Mormons are among the top. Your church has done all kinds of nasty things to homosexuals during my lifetime. You can say,"Well, I didn't do it myself. I can't stop the LDS from spending millions on persecution, I have to tithe and other people decide what to spend it one."
But the fact remains. The LDS is big on persecution. And you are a Mormon.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Does the artist have to paint that portrait? Does he/she need to participate in something that he/she feels might be unsettling, offensive or in bad taste?

If they are commissioned to, then they have a job to do. If they find it unsettling, they shouldn't have taken the job.

Yet people are being told how to practice their religion.

No one is being told how to practice their religion. They aren't telling them they have to host the wedding ceremony in their church and happily accept same-sex marriage.
They are saying you must obey the laws the govern the public social sphere, which includes the many businesses that serve the public.

So, people can believe in God, but they can’t pray to Him?

No one has claimed that or insisted on it.

If homosexuals have the right to marry whomever they want, then why can’t private business owners have the right to do business with whomever they want?

They can do business with whoever they want. But they have no right to refuse people they don't want to do business with on the basis on many various things.

No one is calling for the persecution of homosexuals.

Saying people have a right to discriminate against them is calling for the persecution of them.

This argument operates on the premise that the person is making a false claim of “fire”. Like the boy who cried “wolf”. There is nothing wrong with a person shouting “fire” if the place is actually on fire.

That is still an impediment against having the freedom to say whatever you want. You can't make a threat against government officials either. You can't advocate for the overthrowing of the government.

I have already said I do not agree with what the Supreme Court has ruled, so why do you keep mentioning it?

Because it is the law, and they have consistently ruled in favor of civil rights being extended.

No. Union troops fought a war to end slavery. I’ve never fought on any battlefield.

As should have been apparent, I use "we" very generally. Not you and I specifically "we," but "we" as in a collective society.

“Partly” is the important word here. The main or actual reason was because slave owning and trading was extremely lucrative.

It's actually only lucrative for a few. Everybody else it is a very heavy burden, including the economy.

You cannot claim that it was the religious beliefs of a few that implemented or supported slavery in the U.S.

Yes, I can, because slave owners did very much indeed say it was their Biblical and God-given right to own slaves. The Bible does permit slavery afterall, it doesn't condemn the practice, and agrees that slaves are property.

The only stipulation that the people should impose on the freedom of religion is to deny practices that infringe upon the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of others.

And no one is being denied that, except for those being told "you don't serve your kind here."

However, the baker’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were infringed in almost every way.

No, it wasn't. The baker still has a baker, can still go about their business in every normal way, and their personal religious beliefs are not the focus but rather the policy of their business, a policy that is in violation of the law if it were against, Chinese, Irish, blacks, veterans or non-veterans, disabilities, religion, sex, and many other things. With how the Supreme Court has ruled, tends to rule, and how a number of Federal Circuit Courts have ruled, LBGT discrimination is soon to be banned, because that discrimination does infringe on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of those being denied services for no other reason than just being themselves.

What rights were infringed upon other than the baker’s?

The right to equal protection under the law is infringed upon those who are discriminated against and denied rights and privileges extended freely to others, because they are obviously not equal under the law.

Do people have the right to not be slightly inconvenienced?

It's not about convenience or being inconvenienced, rather, it is about not being allowed to say "we don't serve your kind here."

No we haven’t. No one asked for my ruling.

As should have been apparent, I use "we" very generally. Not you and I specifically "we," but "we" as in a collective society.

 

[Milton Platt]

That is, care if others engage in them?


I know homosexuality has pretty much run its course here on RF, but I can't remember this specific point having been addressed, and just to be clear I'll restate the question.

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?

.

.


.

Yes......since Christians think the whole world must go to hell in a hand basket before their zombie returns, why do they try to keep it from sliding that way, if they think homosexuality leads that way, they should be cheering it on.

 

[1robin]

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?

I have no idea what the first part of your post means. For the second part, I was in the military during two wars and have studied military history for most of my life. Units must have very good cohesion and trust with each other.

Now I am not claimed it is right, just that it is inevitable, that many straight people do not trust or feel comfortable with homosexuals in the military environment. The military's effectiveness must never ever be threatened by any social experimentation. Its purpose is not to be fair, not to be politically correct, and not to be distracted by all the things that accompany homosexuals. Even if evolution determines sexuality (actually especially if it did) then straight people naturally do not feel comfortable around homosexuals. The military has also changed its standards concerning those people that are less capable because Washington has forced the military to accept them. Also you have issues with the fact that soldiers must interact with homosexuals in ways civilians do not. For example they must shower together. I would not want to shower with anyone who might find me attractive and the military should not be required to build more showers.

 

[Jainarayan]

I would not want to shower with anyone who might find me attractive and the military should not be required to build more showers.

Don't flatter yourself. Gay men know who is receptive to advances and who is not. You have no idea how many gay men you have already showered with, and they never gave you a second thought. Some straight men are legends in their own minds.

Already showered with gay men! bwahahahaha