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.
What is it about disapproving of someone's behavior that qualifies as hate?
Being gay is a behavior? Interesting....
You disapprove of someone stealing, or you disapprove of your child talking back...to disapprove of someone who is born the way they are is predjudice.
What exactly do you disapprove of?
Some people get the idea that gays are these extremely horney beings that must have wild, public sex everywhere they go.
And OMG if they should adopt....they would surely involve the children too!
Your use of the term "religious belief" as if such ideas are automatically wrong. Everyone has beliefs and presuppositions to their reasoning. I prefer to not have mine automatically discredited because they are "religious."
Bs ainulinale, there may just as well be a homophobic god floating up there in the clouds but the government is not meant to make laws simply because of a religious belief. Thats why I asked you to find another reason because as even some hard-core christians acknowledge "politics and religion don't mix"
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainulinale
Really? Where does it say in the United States Constitution that no law based on Christian ethics is permitted to be passed? The very fact that the Constitution expresses belief about the nature of morality and rights makes this argument irrelevant.
christian, Islamic, Jewish, Satanic, Wiccan, Buddhist, even the unwritten ones belonging to militant atheism
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainulinale
Separation of church and state means that there will be no official state church, not that religious ideals can't be incorporated into law.
but not that laws are ever to be based simply on religious beliefs.
Consider the following laws:
Quote:
Say before entering the toilet: In the name of Allah, O Allah! I seek refuge with You from all offensive and wicked things (Al-Bukhaaree)
One should enter the toilet with the left foot and leave with the right foot.
It is not permissible to enter the toilet whilst carrying or wearing anything bearing the name of Allah, such as the Quran, or any book with the name of Allah in it, or jewelry such as bracelets or necklaces engraved with the name of Allah.
One should remain silent whilst on the toilet. Talking, answering greetings or greeting others is forbidden.[2]
One should not face nor turn your back on Al-Qiblah whilst relieving yourself.[3]
One should be out of sight of people when going to the toilet
It is considered forbidden to relieve oneself whilst standing up, lying down or if you are completely nude.[citation needed]
One should avoid going to the toilet anywhere where people may take rest or gather for any purpose.
Do not raise clothes until you get close to the ground and do not uncover the body any more than is needed.
One should sit on the feet (e.g. squat) keeping thighs wide apart with the stress on the left foot.
Do not look to the private parts of the body nor the waste matter passed from the body.
Do not sit more than needed.
Do not spit, blow nose, look hither and thither, touch the body unnecessarily nor look towards the sky but relieve oneself with the eyes downcast in modesty
Are you telling me that the government has the right to make any of them laws simply because they are based on Islam? If any it would be the ones that prevent health or hygienic issues. <--see? thats what i mean. The anti-gay group have understood this and now some use the "being gay destroys families" approach
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainulinale
That the Constitution expresses belief of morality and rights is "religious" in itself--what gives secular beliefs precedence over religious beliefs?
Are you seriously asking me why putting any particular religion(or group of) above others is a bad idea?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainulinale
BTW, ever take a look at some of the early state constitutions? Try Massachusetts to see their proclamation that Jesus is Lord.
Yes, its a testament of how religion(specifically Christianity) meddles in government issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainulinale
You asked how an atheist would feel in this matter...I said their feelings are irrelevant.
Ok fine, if you don't want to make an attempt at understanding the position of others then I'm not gonna force you no matter how closed minded I find such a position
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainulinale
I've witnessed people testify...
In other words hearsay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainulinale
....to the arrests by pastors who certainly don't teach hatred of anyone.
Well you are going to have to pardon me for thinking this is not true but I guess its because of the subjectivity of it. What I may find a man being intolerant and spouting bigotry with the implication that we should strive to eliminate homosexuals from the face of the earth, you may find is just a man politely expressing his opinions
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainulinale
My only point in expressing what I did, was that it is not too far-fetched that the government could be imposing laws on churches and pastors prohibiting them from speaking against homosexuality, or forcing pastors to marry homosexuals.
I seriously doubt pastors will be forced to marry homosexuals. The alternative is there and its called civil union making such a thing simply [female dog]-ing for nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainulinale
It was either New Mexico or Colorado that the government recently forced a mom and pop photography studio to take pictures of a lesbian wedding. The mom and pop declined the request of the lesbians to photograph their wedding on religious grounds, but government declared that hateful.
Which is a different issue altogether. The laws of equal treatment that force shop owners to provide their services or sell their goods to all law abiding citizens were made to protect minorities or ethnic groups.
They stop the neo-nazi from refusing to sell to the jew, they stop the KKK shop owner from refusing to hire black people and they force the misogynist to pay the woman equally. That they force the religious couple to take pictures for the homosexual wedding is simply because those laws are supposed to protect everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainulinale
You seemed to portray your knowledge as if it was complete on the matter. Just because you haven't seen a case where pastors have been arrested for simply speaking out against homosexuality doesn't mean they don't exist...
Which means you must have completely ignored what I posted and made up some imaginary statements.
My statement was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
Yeah, the few cases ive seen where a person has been arrested for anti-gay views was when they did pretty extreme things like use the radio or preach to the church messages that are just short on asking the congregation to shoot the next gay person they see.
I've bolded and underlined the bit I believe you missed
You disapprove of someone stealing, or you disapprove of your child talking back...to disapprove of someone who is born the way they are is predjudice.
What exactly do you disapprove of?
Some people get the idea that gays are these extremely horney beings that must have wild, public sex everywhere they go.
And OMG if they should adopt....they would surely involve the children too!
Please.
Yes, I disagree with gay behavior. Having sex with a member of the same sex. I never said I hate gays, just same sex intercourse. Even if gays are born with attraction to members of the same sex, that doesn't automatically make having such sex okay--by this simple reasoning, wouldn't we conclude that pedophilia is okay too? Pedophiles sometimes say that they've always been attracted to children.
Yes, I disagree with gay behavior. Having sex with a member of the same sex. I never said I hate gays, just same sex intercourse. Even if gays are born with attraction to members of the same sex, that doesn't automatically make having such sex okay--by this simple reasoning, wouldn't we conclude that pedophilia is okay too? Pedophiles sometimes say that they've always been attracted to children.
The difference is children aren't consenting adults.
Bs ainulinale, there may just as well be a homophobic god floating up there in the clouds but the government is not meant to make laws simply because of a religious belief. Thats why I asked you to find another reason because as even some hard-core christians acknowledge "politics and religion don't mix"
That's your belief. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that elements of my system of ethics cannot be incorporated into the government. It is hypocritical to say that secular beliefs are okay to incorporate into government, but not "religious."
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
christian, Islamic, Jewish, Satanic, Wiccan, Buddhist, even the unwritten ones belonging to militant atheism
Not sure what the point of this is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
but not that laws are ever to be based simply on religious beliefs.
Are you telling me that the government has the right to make any of them laws simply because they are based on Islam? If any it would be the ones that prevent health or hygienic issues. <--see? thats what i mean. The anti-gay group have understood this and now some use the "being gay destroys families" approach
If I have a particular belief in morality, then I have the right to stand up for that belief regardless of what that belief is based on. The belief that all are created equal, have rights, etc. are beliefs, it is arbitrary and discriminatory to differentiate between the sources of various beliefs and say one belief has the right to be incorporated into law and another does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
Are you seriously asking me why putting any particular religion(or group of) above others is a bad idea?
Again, what does this mean? It is not difficult to understand that we have a system of law in the U.S. that is based off of ethical presuppositions. Why should we exclude Christians from incorporating their ethical presuppositions into law, but not yours? I'm not saying that we should have the Christian church as the head of government. BTW, separation of church and state has its roots in the Reformation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
Ok fine, if you don't want to make an attempt at understanding the position of others then I'm not gonna force you no matter how closed minded I find such a position
When did I say that I don't want understand the positions of others? Just because someone else's personal feelings conflict with my system of ethics doesn't mean that I'm going to change my views on such principles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
In other words hearsay.
You're totally right; personal experience means nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
Well you are going to have to pardon me for thinking this is not true but I guess its because of the subjectivity of it. What I may find a man being intolerant and spouting bigotry with the implication that we should strive to eliminate homosexuals from the face of the earth, you may find is just a man politely expressing his opinions
One of the links I posted referenced a pastor in Sweden going to jail for saying homosexuality is: abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society. This was classified as hate speech...I disagree. Disapproving of someone's behavior is not the same as hating them. BTW, I agree with his conclusion that homosexual behavior is wrong, but not with everything he said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
I seriously doubt pastors will be forced to marry homosexuals. The alternative is there and its called civil union making such a thing simply [female dog]-ing for nothing.
This is just one big waste of time....you see it as not likely, I see it as a possibility, and I simply expressed my view that it is wrong for the government to interfere with the free speech of the church. You can continue arguing with me about ridiculous things if you want but I'm done with this stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
Which is a different issue altogether. The laws of equal treatment that force shop owners to provide their services or sell their goods to all law abiding citizens were made to protect minorities or ethnic groups.
They stop the neo-nazi from refusing to sell to the jew, they stop the KKK shop owner from refusing to hire black people and they force the misogynist to pay the woman equally. That they force the religious couple to take pictures for the homosexual wedding is simply because those laws are supposed to protect everyone.
Then you'll have to forgive me, because I find it wrong that the government should force a person to be participant in a ceremony they find morally wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
Which means you must have completely ignored what I posted and made up some imaginary statements.
My statement was:
I've bolded and underlined the bit I believe you missed
I read your statement, and the part you emphasized is precisely the part that led me to making the statement that I did. Look at it again and see how your words can be interpreted in another way, and you will see that this was simply a misunderstanding.
BTW, this is a meaningless argument. We agree on more parts then you might think...
The difference is children aren't consenting adults.
Clearly, but the point is: having a natural sexual desire for something doesn't automatically justify acting on that desire. Yet, that is the argument you gave me. I oppose such behavior and am not bigoted because of it.
Clearly, but the point is: having a natural sexual desire for something doesn't automatically justify acting on that desire. Yet, that is the argument you gave me. I oppose such behavior and am not bigoted because of it.
I've heard the arguement that the Bible states that sex should be between man and woman in a marriage...to procreate. Then is sex between man and woman who are infertile a sin?
I've heard the arguement that the Bible states that sex should be between man and woman in a marriage...to procreate. Then is sex between man and woman who are infertile a sin?
No where does the Bible say that sex is simply for procreation.
No where does the Bible say that sex is simply for procreation.
Mmmm. Maybe it doesn't?
I have heard that arguement against same sex marriages many times.....
I won't say I've read the Bible...way to long and boring for me, I've never had any interest. I know many Atheists do study it...but I'm not one of them.
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.
Interesting....
Maybe it doesn't? 
