If a single act of homosexuality is abomination in God's eyes then same-sex marriage must be evil to the infinite power (Maine, Oregon)
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.
It's a luxury, but your side would rather see a Christian business burn to the ground and the owners struggle financially so the gay couple can have their way.
Except many of us have not said that so your usual generalizations of the "other side" are simply false as usual.
I, for example, have told you many times I actually AGREE with you in this regard that I think a PRIVATE business should not be compelled to sell to anyone they do not want to. It is their business and the right to trade, or not trade, with another human being should be ENTIRELY their choice.
BUT if such a shop owner refuses trade based on bigotry or hate then while I fight to the death his right to do this.... I also retain my right to glee and mirth if said shop owners bigotry leads him into financial ruin and homelessness because I think such a person got _exactly_ what they deserved and asked for.
So no, I want the "Christian business owner" to have HIS way in this. And I want to see him fail for having it. While another person more deserving of the business gets it, thrives and survives and is happy. Thats the ideal world I want to live in.
Except many of us have not said that so your usual generalizations of the "other side" are simply false as usual.
I, for example, have told you many times I actually AGREE with you in this regard that I think a PRIVATE business should not be compelled to sell to anyone they do not want to. It is their business and the right to trade, or not trade, with another human being should be ENTIRELY their choice.
BUT if such a shop owner refuses trade based on bigotry or hate then while I fight to the death his right to do this.... I also retain my right to glee and mirth if said shop owners bigotry leads him into financial ruin and homelessness because I think such a person got _exactly_ what they deserved and asked for.
So no, I want the "Christian business owner" to have HIS way in this. And I want to see him fail for having it. While another person more deserving of the business gets it, thrives and survives and is happy. Thats the ideal world I want to live in.
I never understand this position. You say you actually side with the business owners, but at the same time, you'll take pleasure in seeing them suffer consequences. There shouldn't be any consequences. That's like saying you support banning smoking, but you will take glee and joy in seeing a non-smoker get lung cancer.
You have no Good News for homosexuals. And the problem with that is the Good News is for everybody. You have no Good News, because you haven't discovered the Good News.
What are you talking about? I have said repeatedly that we are all sinners and by the grace of God we can all be redeemed through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. That is the best, most gloriously good news that anyone can hear and this is the message that Christ was preaching.
Once again, there is no doubt that Jesus believed prostitution, adultery and tax collection were sin and yet you have no problem with the way He treated them. I do not hate, malign, ridicule, look down upon or even dislike any sinner, because I myself am a sinner. However, I, like Jesus, believe God and His morality and I believe, as Jesus did, that His morality applies evenly to all people for all time.
I believe as Jesus did and always try to act as Jesus did toward all men, with love, kindness and gentleness. I still don't know why you have a problem with that.
Then we're back to the original question... Explain how being attracted to, or loving, someone of the same gender is unloving? What's evil about it when it harms no one? How is it "of satan"? How does it conflict with the fruit of the spirit?
Homosexuality is considered an abomination by God so bad that in the OT, the Bible says it destroyed nations and defiled the land.
No it doesn't. You continue to lie and distort the Torah. Abomination doesn't exist in Hebrew. God never calls it that. The word is "To'evah" which in Hebrew means a ritual prohibition. Leviticus was written to the Levite Priesthood on the proper ritual conduct. The ritual aspect is quite clear since the very preceding verse of the "anti-gay" verse is discussing pagan worship and giving children over to Molech. Deuteronomy further mentions that no Israelite is to become a shrine prostitute. The KJV translates shrine prostitute as sodomite.
You're butchering the Bible to justify your bigotry. Numerous "abominations" exist in the Bible that you ignore. Breaking bread with Egyptians, eating shellfish, having sexual relations with a woman during her period, etc. None of which anybody thinks are relevant today.
Quote:
It is a great offense because it's pretty much the most extreme way you can take something that God designed, and turn it completely opposite.
And yet, biology shows us that God designed homosexuality too, which is why it's found in nearly every species on Earth.
Quote:
With that said, the main reason I am vocal about it and perhaps other "fundies" is because the gay agenda has constantly pushed and pushed trying to force every facet of society to accept it or else. And a line was crossed once religious organizations and businesses were forced to give into the demands of homosexuals. If people were promoting some other sin at that same level, I would be rallying against it as well.
People do promote other sins. Obesity is at an all time high. Gluttony is pretty embraced these days. Greed is out of control. We are dominated by materialism and wealth, yet no one bats at eye. Promiscuity and sexual immorality among heterosexuals is off the charts and most people don't care. Divorce is at 50%, which is a sin even Jesus condemned.
The fact is, you single out gays, because it's an easy target and you don't like them no matter how much you claim you're just hating the sin, not the sinner.
Your are oblivious to how your beliefs hurt gay people and you don't even care. Big deal if a 12 year realizing he's gay and kills himself, because kids at school call him a disgusting abomination. God agrees with them in your view.
I really didn't see a need to answer the question because the thread title alone explains why. Homosexuality is considered an abomination by God so bad that in the OT, the Bible says it destroyed nations and defiled the land. It is a great offense because it's pretty much the most extreme way you can take something that God designed, and turn it completely opposite. Yes, gluttony is a sin too, but at least gluttony doesn't go completely against God's design of human sexuality which is one of his greatest most pure gifts to humanity.
With that said, the main reason I am vocal about it and perhaps other "fundies" is because the gay agenda has constantly pushed and pushed trying to force every facet of society to accept it or else. And a line was crossed once religious organizations and businesses were forced to give into the demands of homosexuals. If people were promoting some other sin at that same level, I would be rallying against it as well.
If your god didn't design homosexuals, who did? The so called "gay agenda" is only asking for people to be treated equally. Homosexuals should not be denied the same constitutional rights that heterosexuals have been granted. If you want to play the god VS government game, your god (as you understand him) will lose in the USA, because we are not a theocracy. Our country will not treat LGBT people as second class citizens.
The history of Supreme Court decisions regarding homosexual civil rights:
One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958)
The U.S. Post Office and the FBI deemed One: The Homosexual Magazine, a lesbian, gay, and bisexual publication, obscene, and as such could not be delivered via U.S. mail. The publishers of the magazine sued, and lost both the first case and the appeal. The Supreme Court accepted the case and reversed it, marking the first time the Supreme Court ruled in favor of homosexuals. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to engage in homosexual acts in private, upholding a Georgia law. The majority said the "right of privacy" under the Due Process Clause does not give homosexuals the right to engage in sodomy. The "right to privacy" protects intimate marital and familial relations, but the Court said it does not cover gay sodomy because "no connection between family, marriage, or procreation on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other has been demonstrated." This decision, considered a serious blow to the gay-rights movement, was overturned in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas decision. Romer v. Evans (1996)
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Colorado's Amendment 2, which denied gays and lesbians protections against discrimination, calling them "special rights." According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, "We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These protections . . . constitute ordinary civil life in a free society." Boy Scouts of America v Dale (2000)
In another setback to the gay-rights movement, the Court ruled 5–4, that the Boy Scouts of America have a constitutional right to ban gays because the organization's opposition to homosexuality as part of its "expressive message." Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
The Supreme Court, 6–3, overruled a Texas sodomy law and voted 5–4 to overturn 1986's Bowers v. Hardwick decision. "The state cannot demean their [gays'] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," wrote Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion. In his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Scalia said the court has "largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." United States v. Windsor (2013)
The Supreme Court ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. In a 5 to 4 vote, the court ruled that DOMA violated the rights of gays and lesbians. The court also ruled that the law interferes with the states' rights to define marriage. It was the first case ever on the issue of gay marriage for the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. voted against striking it down as did Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. However, conservative-leaning Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with his liberal colleagues to overturn DOMA. Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013)
The Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage opponents in California did not have standing to appeal the lower court ruling that overturned the state's ban, known as Proposition 8. The ruling will remove legal battles for same-sex couples wishing to marry in California. However, the ruling did not directly affect other states. Important Supreme Court Decisions in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender History | Infoplease.com
And now the latest:
Quote:
Without explanation, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected appeals from Wisconsin and four other states seeking to preserve their same-sex marriage bans, setting up an immediate and historic return for those unions here but leaving unanswered the broader question of the practice at the national level.
In the order, the high court provided no breakdown of how the nine justices had voted and no reason for rejecting the appeals from Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and officials in the states of Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia. The action surprised legal observers by signaling that the nation's highest court favors the side of same-sex marriage advocates but without actually stating that or establishing a precedent for the rest of the nation.
The court's order allowsgay marriage in Wisconsin and these other states, said Van Hollen and Gov. Scott Walker, the top state Republican officials who had sought to preserve the ban. Walker, a defendant in Wisconsin's case, said he would work to implement the decision and Van Hollen encouraged others to respect it, as well.
"For us, it's over in Wisconsin," Walker said of the fight over same-sex unions. "Others will have to talk about the federal level."
The lawsuit against the ban was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin on behalf of eight couples.
"It is wonderful that marriage is now law in Wisconsin," said Judi Trampf, one of the 16 plaintiffs. "After 25 years together we have watched straight friends marry the person they love and we see how important this is to family, friends and the community."
And what is really interesting is that since 2006 and the appointment of Samuel Alito (George Bush) the Supreme Court has had a right-wing bent. In spite of the fact that in the last year or so the Court has voted 13-3 in decisions favoring business over individuals:
Quote:
A sharply divided Supreme Court sided with corporations against individuals in three cases Monday, including two involving workplace discrimination that prompted Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to call on Congress to intervene.
Taken together, the three cases — including one that reversed a $21 million state court award to a woman horribly disfigured by the effects of a generic drug — amplified the pro-business tilt of the court's conservative majority.
has actually voted to dismantle laws protecting racial discrimination:
Quote:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The July 28th U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down voluntary school integration plans in Louisville, Kentucky, and Seattle, Washington, will erode gains in racial equality won through landmark court cases and the struggle by Americans of all races in the Civil Rights Movement. The action by the
conservative five justice majority assaults both the spirit and intent of the Warren Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education desegregation ruling, which had a domino effect of undoing legally sanctioned racial apartheid in all aspects of American life.
BUT HAS STOOD AGAINST DISCRIMINATION BY INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS.
So please don't say a "liberal" court has done these terrible things. It was a right-wing pro-business, racially bigoted court that has protected the rights of the LGBT community. And if you are unhappy with that---leave the country.
No it doesn't. You continue to lie and distort the Torah. Abomination doesn't exist in Hebrew. God never calls it that. The word is "To'evah" which in Hebrew means a ritual prohibition. Leviticus was written to the Levite Priesthood on the proper ritual conduct. The ritual aspect is quite clear since the very preceding verse of the "anti-gay" verse is discussing pagan worship and giving children over to Molech. Deuteronomy further mentions that no Israelite is to become a shrine prostitute. The KJV translates shrine prostitute as sodomite.
<snip>
The truth of your statement is easily seen by reading the first have of Leviticus. It's all about the "right" ways to conduct a sacrifice in the temple. Your know, stuff like which side of the altar to pour out the blood, what to do with the entrails, etc.
No it doesn't. You continue to lie and distort the Torah. Abomination doesn't exist in Hebrew. God never calls it that. The word is "To'evah" which in Hebrew means a ritual prohibition. Leviticus was written to the Levite Priesthood on the proper ritual conduct. The ritual aspect is quite clear since the very preceding verse of the "anti-gay" verse is discussing pagan worship and giving children over to Molech. Deuteronomy further mentions that no Israelite is to become a shrine prostitute. The KJV translates shrine prostitute as sodomite.
That's not what my research is showing. To'evah has multiple meanings and can refer to something detestable, loathsome, or morally disgusting. Your definition of Toevah certainly doesn't fit with Proverbs 3:32.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
You're butchering the Bible to justify your bigotry. Numerous "abominations" exist in the Bible that you ignore. Breaking bread with Egyptians, eating shellfish, having sexual relations with a woman during her period, etc. None of which anybody thinks are relevant today.
And you can't find any verses in the NT that tell me eating shellfish is a sin. But the NT clearly tells me that it is unnatural for a man to lie with another man. Oh sure, your side will do gymastics and tell me such verses only mean male prostitution, but that interpretation just doesn't fit in the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
And yet, biology shows us that God designed homosexuality too, which is why it's found in nearly every species on Earth.
Well if you are going to adopt that position then you are saying human beings are the same as animals. That degrades our humanity. Animals function mostly by instinct. I seriously doubt same sex attraction and intimacy is a major factor in all these species. Many of them engage in homosexual sex for dominance territorial roles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
People do promote other sins. Obesity is at an all time high. Gluttony is pretty embraced these days. Greed is out of control. We are dominated by materialism and wealth, yet no one bats at eye. Promiscuity and sexual immorality among heterosexuals is off the charts and most people don't care. Divorce is at 50%, which is a sin even Jesus condemned.
The fact is, you single out gays, because it's an easy target and you don't like them no matter how much you claim you're just hating the sin, not the sinner.
Your are oblivious to how your beliefs hurt gay people and you don't even care. Big deal if a 12 year realizing he's gay and kills himself, because kids at school call him a disgusting abomination. God agrees with them in your view.
We still live in a country where prostitution is illegal. I don't see the government pushing for laws to encourage adultery and obesity either.
It is wrong to say I don't care about gay people. My heart goes out to anyone who is bullied and driven to suicide as I was a target of bullying myself. Anyone who puts down a gay person like that is not acting in a Christ like manner. With that said, I shouldn't have to compromise my moral beliefs to protect gay people from hearing something they find offensive.
I'm only going by what the Bible says. A book that you seem to disregard. You know, Jesus never say a word against gluttony. Going by your logic, that means He approves of gluttony and it's not a sin, right? Same argument you use for homosexuality.
Well here ya go:
Let's look at what the PRIVATE Bowdoin College did:
Quote:
Bowdoin College officials have banned a local lawyer and his wife from leading campus Bible studies with students after the couple refused to sign a non-discrimination agreement they say violates their Christian faith.
Would this not be the same as the Southern Baptist Convention refusing to let my good friend and missionary to Africa (under the SBC) return to his position because he refused to sign a statement that he believes the Bible to be inerrant and infallible (even though he DOES believe that)?
Hypocrisy
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
No, labeling and grouping people is evil, and that's exactly what you do to Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe in the individuality and value of people as human beings.
What I do is label those who spend all their time publicly attacking homosexuals as a group and NOT treating them as individuals. You know--people who are constantly grouping homosexuals as those with a "gay agenda." Those that keep to themselves, like you want to keep homosexuals isolated, I have no problem with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Lots of baseless assertions here, but I understand your need to villianize us to appear superior. Let me shatter your portrait. I personally believe gay people should have access to all the services, rights, and legal benefits that other people have. But I don't believe they have the right to have access to every single thing or organization. Having a wedding cake made is not a civil right. It's a luxury, but your side would rather see a Christian business burn to the ground and the owners struggle financially so the gay couple can have their way.
The Supreme Court, a conservative Supreme Court, disagrees with your view--IT IS A CIVIL RIGHT--one you may disagree with, but it is a right according to the law of the land.
And isn't it interesting to note that when the couple in Oregon refused to provide that wedding cake to homosexuals and were fined $150,000 it was a homosexual who has come forward to raise money to keep their business afloat?
Quote:
But Matt Stolhandske, a board member of Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, a coalition of Christians who support same-sex marriage, recently launched an online campaign to raise money in hopes of covering the fine, even though he disagrees with their views--.
“I know this is a lot to ask of Christians like Klein; to shower love on people like me who represent something she abhors," wrote Stolhandske. "So I’m trying to live that challenge myself.”
Imagine--a gay person acting like how Christians should be acting--except Christians are NOT trying to help that couple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
More judging from someone who claims judging is wrong.
Just as Jesus did with others who pick and choose which of the Laws they wish to follow and forget the rest. One who likes to classify some sin as worse than others.
I've spent plenty of time sharing my sins and shortcomings--and not just about obesity-- I mean my deepest, darkest sins--and I do so because Christ is able to forgive ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. You keep your sin within the depths of your heart because of a need to appear "righteous." And you are as guilty as any homosexual of breaking every Law in the Bible. Read Romans one about the awful homosexuals, then read Romans 2:1 to see who you are.
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.
