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.
Let's flip this around. Let's say the law was that you could ONLY marry someone of the same sex. Wouldn't you be fighting to have this changed so that you could marry who you wanted? Wouldn't you want this law changed? Could we then say the same thing about you? You prefer different genitalia and you are demanding special privileges due to unequal treatment.
If the facts are as you have stated, and the natural understanding of marriage was between two people of the same sex, then those people with an attraction to the opposite sex, who were free to marry (equally under the laws of marriage) a person of the same sex, would be seeking a special privilege, to be have the unequal privilege to marry based solely on their sexual attraction for the opposite sex.
If the facts are as you have stated, and the natural understanding of marriage was between two people of the same sex, then those people with an attraction to the opposite sex, who were free to marry (equally under the laws of marriage) a person of the same sex, would be seeking a special privilege, to be have the unequal privilege to marry based solely on their sexual attraction for the opposite sex.
And knowing you were one of those people asking for this "special privilege", you would be ok with the law the way it stood and not seek this "special privilege"?
No they aren't. Homosexuals want special rights granted to them based solely on their sexual preference. Homosexuals are currently equally free to marry under the same laws as heterosexuals. But, because homosexuals prefer matching genitalia, they demand special privileges and unequal treatment by society catering to their sexual proclivities by force of the State.
You have the right to marry whom you choose. It is not a special privilege for others to have the same right you enjoy.
Before my time but I wonder if businesses which refused to serve blacks alongside whites also made Bible-referenced claims for doing so..
There is a difference between biblical references and clear representations that an activity is an abomination. I am not a Christian, nor a biblical scholar, but I really doubt there is anywhere in the bible that says that serving a black person at a lunch counter is an abomination.
There was a Supreme Court case regarding the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" enacted in Virginia.
A mixed race couple was arrested and charged with violating the law and the ruling from the judge was based on the interpretation of race by a German scientist in which he posited that, "God created [5 different races] and placed them on different continents....therefore, God never intended the races to mix."
The white husband was sentence to a year in prison, and the case was ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court.
There is nothing biblical about the Loving v. Virginia case.
And knowing you were one of those people asking for this "special privilege", you would be ok with the law the way it stood and not seek this "special privilege"?
I can't answer that. What are my religious beliefs? Not every homosexual agrees that marriage should be redefined and that gays are entitled to special privileges under the law. I'm not sure that if your definition of marriage with the law of the land, that I would even exist, since the likelihood of extinction is pretty much 100% if people were only sexually attracted to the same gender.
Before my time but I wonder if businesses which refused to serve blacks alongside whites also made Bible-referenced claims for doing so..
There is a certain brand of Christianity which is adamant that the mark placed on Cain in Genesis was black skin. This certain brand are very bigoted and believe strongly that those with black skin are inferior and not to be treated as equal human beings.
There is a difference between biblical references and clear representations that an activity is an abomination. I am not a Christian, nor a biblical scholar, but I really doubt there is anywhere in the bible that says that serving a black person at a lunch counter is an abomination.
There was a Supreme Court case regarding the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" enacted in Virginia.
A mixed race couple was arrested and charged with violating the law and the ruling from the judge was based on the interpretation of race by a German scientist in which he posited that, "God created [5 different races] and placed them on different continents....therefore, God never intended the races to mix."
The white husband was sentence to a year in prison, and the case was ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court.
There is nothing biblical about the Loving v. Virginia case.
I am quite sure both the OT and NT make no reference to race as a perjorative but wonder if the folks at that time-segregation used Biblical references in their position. Bible awfully twisted by folks sometimes for their own needs. BTW, of course I was not making specific reference to serving blacks lunch. Come on that is insulting. You knew what I referred to.
NB: I just realize there is reference to an Ethiopian in the NT after the initial Acts of the Apostles. Do not recall the narrative....
So basically you just pulled a latin term out of your bag of tricks to avoid answering the question. It's beyond the desire for a distinct group to be treated like princes and princesses, it's setting a dangerous precedent - to freely discriminate under the guise of some religious doctrine or belief.
Sounds familiar.
No, you are setting up a bunch of ridiculous scenarios in an because you think you can trap me by a false argument.
No one is calling homosexuals "princes or princesses" or anything else. They are seeking SPECIAL TREATMENT under the existing laws. It is not discrimination to invoke your Constitutional right to religious freedom, when the action sought directly violates your religious faith.
Are you obtuse? No one discriminated against the gay customer. She served him for over nearly a decade. She declined to proved her services in support of an EVENT that celebrated the ACT of homosexuality.
How do you discriminate against an EVENT or an ACT?
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.
