Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Slavery was legal, too. Just because it is a law does not make it right or moral.
Oh for gods sake. Seriously? Yes, slavery was legal & it was banned because it is harmful behavior towards others. Homosexuality is not a harmful behavior towards others so there is no need for laws to be based on it. How can you not even understand something so implicitly basic?
Generally applicable laws for BUSINESSES apply to all BUSINESSES.
CHURCHES are not BUSINESSES.
CHURCHES are not bound by anti-discrimination laws.
If Christians can not follow the laws of operating a BUSINESS, then they should not open a BUSINESS.
I can claim that sacrificing a virgin is my religious belief, but I would be in violation of laws against murder if I do.
Businesses may be regulated by certain laws, but individuals are protected from those laws when they interfere with their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion.
You can claim anything you want, but we both know that you are grasping at straws with such a stupid argument.
Hey, you seem to think that anything that comes from religion is invalid. Guess what, "Thou shall not murder" is one of the top ten. I guess you think that you have had the law prohibiting murder shoved down your throat by killaphobe fundies, eh?
Yes, that is true, homosexuality was practiced in those cultures, but let's tell the whole story.
The main form of homosexual interaction in Greece was pederasty, a custom practiced mostly among the upperclasses, in which an older man would make a young freeboy his sex partner, and become his mentor. This was regulated by the State as an institution. The practice of pederasty is mentioned in Homer's Illiad, and is evidenced to have existed at least 4500 yearsago in ancient Egypt.
In China, open sexual expression was expanded under the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 A.D.), but increasing moral disorder, and invasion by warriors who captured Peking in 1644, establishing the Qing Dynasty, worked to somewhat morally awaken China, and resulted in laws for moral reform.
In 1679 extensive legislation was written and confirmed in the Qing code of 1740, which made the abduction and rape of boys under twelve a capital crime. (How regressive /sarc)
Despite these reforms, later some Qing rulers are said to have engaged in homosexual relationships, and China saw a resurgence of homosexuality. Even during the reign of Kang Xi a contemporary writer wrote that "it is considered bad taste not to have singing boys around when inviting guests for dinner."Art began to abandon its discrete nature in relation to sexual expression,and began to make the sexual act explicit.
Among the Aztecs, “Sodomy was virtually universal, involving even children as young as six. Cortez also found sodomy to be widespread among the Aztecs, and admonished them to give it up – along with human sacrifice and cannibalism.
Should we now embrace pederasty because there is historical evidence that it was practices in many other cultures historically?
Pedastry was common, but not the exclusive form in ancient Greece, and in any case that is one out of many examples of European same-sex couples. I am not in support of that because of consent issues, obviously. You're the one making history such a big issue btw, since it was you who cited historical precedence as a justification for banning same-sex marriage. I am merely offering multiple views of history to show that that was not historically accurate; not as a basis for how we should operate in modern society. It's just that you're saying 'this is how it was and how it should stay lol', except now you want to conveniently say the opposite for something you don't agree with. Aztecs=/=the majority of indigenous groups that tolerated homosexuality btw.
As for the other examples you used, the rape of children is not exclusive to homosexuals, and is common by heterosexuals historically and in today's world (how about those Vatican priests, eh?). I don't know what point you're trying to make there. Though I have heard many people try to equate legalising homosexuality to legalising rape using completely illogical 'evidence'. Please do not go there if that is your next move because that is so painfully stupid.
Conservapedia is a huge joke btw. Ever since I saw that Hawaiian history page on that site (blatantly lying) I wanted to rage unless it's satire.
Even that page is lying. Cortez did not 'inspire them to quit' or w/e. Same-sex couples during the conquest were executed for no other reason than a bunch of foreign pricks decided to eradicate anything different from them. I am in no way supportive of human sacrifices or any of those other atrocities committed by the Aztecs of that era but let's not equate the conquest to some moral crusade to free children from sodomy.
Who gives a rodent's rectum about what a bunch of big-beard misogynist nitwits wrote 3,000 years ago? I don't want to live in a society that bases its laws on a 3,000 year old book of mythology. Theocracy is the worst form of government. I'd prefer dictatorship to theocracy.
Because that's who really wants the "special rights." People with bankrupt ideas about reality. For example, I don't really care what the Amish do in their communities. Just so long as they don't insist that everyone live the exact same lifestyle that they do.
I agree, a theocracy is a terrible form of government.
Why are your knickers so twisted? I responded to a question from someone about whether there was any explicit definition of homosexuality in the bible. You need to step back. No one has every forced you to live any "lifestyle" (your words). You sound hysterical. You make it sound like you are living in Saudi Arabia just because you want everyone to cater to your need to say you are married to your same sex lover.
And guess what? The percentage of people who give a rat's rectum is substantially more than those seeking special treatment under the law. Maybe that's what has you so apoplectic?
Those issues in Islam do not come from the Quran, they are laws from the Imams. You realize that in the Middle East, Islam is a system of government separate from the Muslim faith. I don't know what birth control within the Catholic faith has to do with denying services to women, but I am pretty sure the Catholicism has never held a foundational belief about sacrificing virgins.
They are religious beliefs for some people. Who are you to say which religious beliefs should be ok and which shouldn't?
How can you not even understand something so implicitly basic?
Because someone claims that someone claims to have heard God saying so, and wrote that down on a scroll, 3,000 years ago. That's all this boils down to.
I think a more lively discussion topic would be to discuss WHY people like this run to the familiar, ignorant comfort of guns and religion. It's got to be something in their basic neural wiring. There are the studies that they respond to fear differently than rational people, after all.
Businesses may be regulated by certain laws, but individuals are protected from those laws when they interfere with their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion.
You can claim anything you want, but we both know that you are grasping at straws with such a stupid argument.
Hey, you seem to think that anything that comes from religion is invalid. Guess what, "Thou shall not murder" is one of the top ten. I guess you think that you have had the law prohibiting murder shoved down your throat by killaphobe fundies, eh?
Then the individual running the business have to follow the laws while acting as representatives of the business. I can not open a restaurant and claim that health codes do not apply because I believe that germs are holy. I am free as a person not operating a business to eat off of the floor if I want, but I can not feed other people food off of the floor in a restaurant.
I can believe that blacks are marked by god because they are evil, but I can not refuse to serve them in a grocery store I own.
I can believe that gays are abominations, but I can not refuse to bake them a cake in my bakery.
This is not a difficult concept for most adults with an average IQ.
Pedastry was common, but not the exclusive form in ancient Greece, and in any case that is one out of many examples of European same-sex couples. I am not in support of that because of consent issues, obviously. You're the one making history such a big issue btw, since it was you who cited historical precedence as a justification for banning same-sex marriage. I am merely offering multiple views of history to show that that was not historically accurate; not as a basis for how we should operate in modern society. It's just that you're saying 'this is how it was and how it should stay lol', except now you want to conveniently say the opposite for something you don't agree with. Aztecs=/=the majority of indigenous groups that tolerated homosexuality btw.
As for the other examples you used, the rape of children is not exclusive to homosexuals, and is common by heterosexuals historically and in today's world (how about those Vatican priests, eh?). I don't know what point you're trying to make there. Though I have heard many people try to equate legalising homosexuality to legalising rape using completely illogical 'evidence'. Please do not go there if that is your next move because that is so painfully stupid.
Conservapedia is a huge joke btw. Ever since I saw that Hawaiian history page on that site (blatantly lying) I wanted to rage unless it's satire.
I never cited "history" as the justification for "banning same-sex marriage." I was responding to a post where someone was citing the historical prevalence of homosexual marriage in various cultures as justification for same-sex marriage. My point was, despite your dislike of the source, is that homosexuality in history was predominately a component of pederasty, and that those same cultures engaged in other debauchery (like rape of children and women) which was sanctioned by the state.
Cherry picking history to support your argument is one thing, but the reality is, there was a lot of debauchery during those historical periods. Should NAMBLA use the same argument to claim that laws that criminalize pedophilia are discriminatory and if you look at history, this has been a practice for generations?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
